The tech-pace is too slow

[Thalassicus]

The outright bonuses (faster tech, cheaper units, cheaper upgrades) for the AI were all reduced in BTS. In addition, espionage was added and most AI's seem to devote 10% to that, further slowing their tech rate... just step up a level in difficulty if it seems too easy. I dropped to Monarch to try out all the new wonders and units in the game, and then went back to Emperor.

I'm finding it a little easier, but at the same time more realistic. The AI doesn't hide all it's workers when your army comes within 10 tiles. It prioritizes vulnerable cities with more units and walls/castle than distant ones. It builds stacks of naval forces and actually attacks, rather than defensively scattering 20 ships around each by their lonesome within their cultural borders to be walloped individually by your 1 stack. There's some marginal improvements, but like mentioned the straight cheat-bonuses have been lowered.

 

[Sephlock]

How in the name of all unholy hax are people getting Liberalism at 1400 AD on anything harder than chieftan?

Also, isn't the tech speed actually too FAST? You can barely enjoy any of your units before they become obselete- since when were military units like computers?

 

[mice]

There seems to be quite a lot of variation in the AI tech pace. One game I had Saladin without longbows in 1420 AD ! Another game Sureyvaram got longbows 50 AD.

Does anyone remember when Warlords came out? There was a lot of pain and anxiety because the AI teched a whole level faster. People were saying they had to go down a level. Maybe this redresses it and you can go back to your Vanilla level?

At that time people said the game needed sustained war to compete and that that made the game one dimensional. Now possibly the game has more ways to go. Having said that, Futurehermit's examples do seem worrying.

 

[AriochIV]

I think the pace is too fast. I've hardly begun building units with which to crush my enemies when they're already obsolete. Only in Epic or longer games do I actually have enough time to engage in warfare without falling hopelessly behind technologically.

 

[Horace]

I think they tech a bit slow too and I think no tech brokering makes the problem worse

 

[DrJambo]

No tech brokering is a bit of a double-edged sword.

I like it because it feels like I'm less likely to be screwed by the happy-go-lucky tech trading AIs like Mansa and Hyuana and my through my vassals trading with my worst enemies.

However, on the other hand, it does appear to exacerbate tech disparity among AI civs. This only seems to get worse as one progresses into the industrial and modern eras.

In the end I think 'no tech brokering' might make the game a little easier for the human, particularly when tech becomes more expensive and harder to trade in the mid-late game.

 

[MrCynical]

I ran my first game of BtS at Monarch, and while I usually play a couple of levels higher, I was astounded by the slow tech pace. I must have researched virtually every tech beyond the ancient age myself, and that with enough time to pick up all the low importance side branches.

There's something very strange going on with the AI in some places, which I suspect is damaging the economy. Why am I seeing civs researching metal casting and later techs when they haven't got agriculture? Is this connected to it cottaging over it's food resources, which is equally moronic. They also don't seem to be trading much between themselves, which is doing them no favours.

There are a few (especially Mansa Musa) which are still teching well, but there are a number which just seem to take very strange paths that miss out vital techs, and then seize up when their economy fails.

 

[LDiCesare]

Furthermore, I have had numerous games where it would be 1950AD and no AI had yet built the apollo program

IRL Appollo wasn't built in 1950, so that's rather good. I hated it on monarch to see a space race starting in the early 1900's. So it is way better now imo.

 

[Quagga]

This is an interesting thread. After Warlords 2.08, there were many postings about the AIs teching too fast, resulting in date/technology disparity. I guess some people got used to it.

Personally, I thought 2.08 was broken and that BTS has moved back toward the right direction.

 

[mice]

This is an interesting thread. After Warlords 2.08, there were many postings about the AIs teching too fast, resulting in date/technology disparity. I guess some people got used to it.

Personally, I thought 2.08 was broken and that BTS has moved back toward the right direction.

Yes, me too.

Why would Warlords be the standard? There actually is no standard. Players just need to go up a level 'till Longbows/Liberalism whatever are founded at the right time as they see it.

 

[DrJambo]

Despite some AI oddities, possibly in part related no tech brokering, the tech pace in BtS is much more enjoyable than it was in Warlords, where games were finishing in ridiculous times. Increasing the difficulty level in Warlords coupled with the essentially free unit upgrades for the AI, didn't lead to a fun game imho. Difficulty should be increased in other ways.

 

[darko82]

I think AI techs just at the right pace. I play Emperor games, and am finally able to keep the pace up to middle times. Then, I am usually outteched anyway so why should it be changed. I do not think so ... it is better than Warolords. It more balanced. It is more fun becasue I can compete with AI in techs, which was impossible on Emperor in Warlords. I imagine that if you play lower leverls it techs too slow, and that is boring - you have to start playing Emperor games ...

 

[IronCrown]

In Vanilla and Warlords the AIs teched faster, because that was about all they were capable of. Now they can do other things like wage war or win by culture.

And in Warlords research was so fast in the late game that I virtually never fought modern wars. The games always felt like a lot of ancient and medieval warring or building, and then just growing my empire, hit Enter again and again and win (or lose). It didn't bother me though because I enjoy the early game the most, I don't like the modern era too much.

 

[futurehermit]

Ok, I'm thinking let's try an experiment:

Play through a couple games on monarch/normal setting (let's all use the same so that we have comparable results). Play to stay alive, but not to win. This should allow you to play through the games very quickly because you can hit return most of the time.

Turn time victory off.

Report back here what date someone wins the game. Does an AI win prior to 2000AD? In my opinion they definitely should otherwise they are providing 0 competition to the human player who--even with a mis-managed empire--can win prior to 2000AD.

If AIs are winning consistently prior to 2000AD then I will concede the tech pace is not too slow and will admit I am playing at too low a skill level and move up to emperor. But if AIs are not consistently winning prior to 2000AD then I think people should concede that the tech pace is too slow.

 

[skallben]

In all honesty, I think slower teching is needed so you can have time to use all the units/buildings you unlock. About AI:s espionage, I really do wonder if they steal techs with spies.

 

[IronCrown]

futurehermit: As I already wrote in some other thread, I played a game exactly like you described. It was Emperor, Agg AI (so the AIs presumably teched even slower than with Normal AI setting), Terra map. Hathepsut won a culture victory in 1939. Darius had his space ship half-built, I guess he would have launched it at about 1960 or earlier.

 

[futurehermit]

futurehermit: As I already wrote in some other thread, I played a game exactly like you described. It was Emperor, Agg AI (so the AIs presumably teched even slower than with Normal AI setting), Terra map. Hathepsut won a culture victory in 1939. Darius had his space ship half-built, I guess he would have launched it at about 1960 or earlier.

Ok, that is good. Hopefully we will get more people reporting so we can see how consistent this is. In a lot of my games so far I have had the experience that no one had built the apollo at 1950 and there is no way they would win before 2000 if they hadn't built the freakin' apollo program yet

 

[cymru_man]

You do all realise that the timescale has changed, right? Ie, the way they measure the years has changed? So any comparisons based on year X AD in warlords vs year X AD in BTS are futile

 

[MisterBarca]

futurehermit: As I already wrote in some other thread, I played a game exactly like you described. It was Emperor, Agg AI (so the AIs presumably teched even slower than with Normal AI setting), Terra map. Hathepsut won a culture victory in 1939. Darius had his space ship half-built, I guess he would have launched it at about 1960 or earlier.

I play at Emperor usually, and my experience is closer to yours then Futurehermit's.

 

[futurehermit]

Well, maybe I will have to move up to emperor, but surely we can still be concerned about the AI on monarch and skill levels below monarch? Below noble I don't care if the AI never wins because newer players themselves have problems winning before 2050AD. But on prince and monarch the AI should routinely still win at the very least by 2000AD or else everyone will have to move up to emperor just to face the *possibility* of losing