TSG8 After Action Report
- Thread starter leif erikson
- Start date
nthexwn
Chieftain
Ouch VGT! 
absolutly nothing has changed with previous patch
no matter which "strategy" you choose - only important thing is to abuse ai diplo dumbness.
Doing 6 times after another the "give me all you got" and declare war after still works same good.
Untill this is fixed its all about getting contacts fast and check trade windows every turn or 2 with all civs need to be done - absolute bs.
No matter if I ICS or single cap I ll be 100 turns faster to end game once I cheat the diplo.
In end its more important that ais are doing good to generate money for u thenhow u do yourself. No chance to do real "good" if ai suckz and is broken all time.
2nd bs is war - conquered all persia in this game with 2 Longswords when persia did have like 15 pikes + other and help from a cs.
They just got no plan how to use units no matter which difficulty.
no matter which "strategy" you choose - only important thing is to abuse ai diplo dumbness.
Doing 6 times after another the "give me all you got" and declare war after still works same good.
Untill this is fixed its all about getting contacts fast and check trade windows every turn or 2 with all civs need to be done - absolute bs.
No matter if I ICS or single cap I ll be 100 turns faster to end game once I cheat the diplo.
In end its more important that ais are doing good to generate money for u thenhow u do yourself. No chance to do real "good" if ai suckz and is broken all time.
2nd bs is war - conquered all persia in this game with 2 Longswords when persia did have like 15 pikes + other and help from a cs.
They just got no plan how to use units no matter which difficulty.
Caesar of Rome
Chieftain
I have submitted my game out of time rather late. I built my spaceship and was off on turn 370.
I like to trade resources. This got me into trouble in the middle part of the game when I traded one of my two dyes and one of my two spices and I lost both from the available list. I did this more than once and was left with unhappiness issues. When at war and suddenly down two resources, production ground almost to a halt. Not sure if I have done something wrong or whether this is a bug. This didn't appear to happen with other resources.
Not knowing just what the effect is of some of the Policies, (the explanations aren't that good) I know that I made some bad choices.
Russia was huge. I have no idea how she was intending to win. Probably too distracted by her frequent wars.
Enjoyable, but took too long to get into space. I had the money to bribe my way to a diplo victory much earlier.
I like to trade resources. This got me into trouble in the middle part of the game when I traded one of my two dyes and one of my two spices and I lost both from the available list. I did this more than once and was left with unhappiness issues. When at war and suddenly down two resources, production ground almost to a halt. Not sure if I have done something wrong or whether this is a bug. This didn't appear to happen with other resources.
Not knowing just what the effect is of some of the Policies, (the explanations aren't that good) I know that I made some bad choices.
Russia was huge. I have no idea how she was intending to win. Probably too distracted by her frequent wars.
Enjoyable, but took too long to get into space. I had the money to bribe my way to a diplo victory much earlier.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
It's a bug, I have encountered it also and it killed my game. You sell one of a resource but lose all copies instead. I noticed later that when this happens, the AI is prepared to pay way more than the normal price for your resource (of course usually the AI is too poor for you to notice this).
The game is still full of bugs. Some of them have been reported for the original version and still remain unsolved, like a City State not recognizing that you have removed the barbarian threat. But each patch also introduces new ones. In a new try at this game, my empire's happiness suddenly dropped from +4 to -16 after conquering a size-1 city.
While testing, I have also noticed that the RNG has similar hickups as in some previous editions of Civilization. The same moves, if replayed, will normally produce the same result, but sometimes they don't. If you need to replay a turn after a crash (yes, crashes still happen, too), make sure you reload twice rather than just once or the results of your replayed actions may be altogether different.
The game is still full of bugs. Some of them have been reported for the original version and still remain unsolved, like a City State not recognizing that you have removed the barbarian threat. But each patch also introduces new ones. In a new try at this game, my empire's happiness suddenly dropped from +4 to -16 after conquering a size-1 city.
While testing, I have also noticed that the RNG has similar hickups as in some previous editions of Civilization. The same moves, if replayed, will normally produce the same result, but sometimes they don't. If you need to replay a turn after a crash (yes, crashes still happen, too), make sure you reload twice rather than just once or the results of your replayed actions may be altogether different.
Of course, no one's *forcing you* to 'cheat the diplo'. Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to if you're complaining about it.
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
By the way, in a new go at this game I was the first to find El Dorado. 
godotnut
Inverted Unicycle
I was talking about tech blocking to make sure that you get whatever tech you want from the AI for a Research Agreement. I feel this is abusive of flaws in the game, if not an exploit. If we were meant to be able to choose what tech we get from a RA, they would have designed the game that way.
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
I guess the question is whether tech blocking is a flaw in the game (something the designers overlooked when they programmed), or if it is an intended reward for understanding and managing game mechanics.
Things like building wonders multiple times seem to clearly be bugs/flaws. But tech blocking is possible because someone programed an equation for the probability of getting a tech from an RA based on beakers already invested. Did they really NOT see tech blocking coming? They could have programmed it to give you any available tech that is not the one you are currently researching. Or they could have programmed it to give you any available tech including the one you are researching (that would change research planning, wouldn't it?). Neither one of those would have given us the equation that we currently have, would it? So maybe tech blocking is EXACTLY what the programmers intended? Maybe we should ask them.
Maybe the test of whether its an exploit or flaw is whether the AI is programmed to use it. If the AI does not take advantage of this, then maybe we shouldn't? But then isn't that also true of every technique we use to make up for the high level advantages that the AI gets? By that standard, combat in Civ V would be an exploit.
In Civ IV, is binary research an exploit? Is producing settlers by chops only an exploit? Or are these the way skillful players play?
It is true that the RA could have been designed to give you your choice of available tech. It was not. It could have been designed to give you any available tech, or any available tech save the one currently being researched. It was not designed those ways either (but maybe that was the intent?). The current design, intended or not, gives you a chance to influence what tech the RA gives if you understand the mechanic and if you apply some careful planning and timing of execution. Isn't that exactly what makes gaming fun? I think trying to manage the outcomes of research agreements gives that aspect of the game more depth and enjoyment. I am actually involved in it, not just a bystander (watching rather than playing has been a criticism of Civ V compared to Civ IV in Civ V's earlier incarnations).
I can see the point of view that tech blocking seems exploitative, but I wanted to propose an alternative view as to why maybe its not, or at least why maybe we should keep it anyway.
dV
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
The problem is not the formula. Any formula will either be open to abuse, or induce a comparison-spoiling factor of randomness.
The real problem is that a small amount of gold will give you a big jump in technology.
The real problem is that a small amount of gold will give you a big jump in technology.
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
So are you saying the entire concept of research agreements is abusive and an exploit?
dV
Farrapo
Warlord
I never liked research trading in Civ4 (and prior versions) and I don't like RAs in Civ5. I especially don't like the "RA blocking scheme" where players sign a bunch of RAs, the research things they do not want picked just to 25% so they are not picked when RAs expire. RA's should be eliminated, but definitely RA blocking should be disabled as an exploit. If you look at what goes on in the Game of the Month competition, all the winning results revolve heavily on RAs and blocking pretty much no matter what the civilization, map type, or indicated victory method.
Civ5 GOTM is not a competition. It's a training process, as much for the staff as for the players, and it will help us to find out whether Civ5 is capable of being used in a real competition. It is also useful to tease out exactly this sort of issue.
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
One could say that in Civ IV XOTM, all winning results revolve heavily on optimizing perfomance given a particular set of game rules and mechanics. And it is a human's ability to do that better than the AI that allows the human to win on levels where the AI gets bonuses. Skilled humans will always "exploit" the rules and mechanics better than the AI ...
So the question is at what point is an exploit of the rules and mechanics so undesirable as to be banned?
The "unintended loophole case" seems obvious. If the programming allows behavior that seems clearly contrary to the game concept (building multiple copies of wonders, or getting infinite techs from oracle in Civ IV for example), easy to make the case for banning it.
I guess the other category that might get banned are some of the "taking candy from a baby" exploits. Examples of this would be trading tech for gold, then pillaging the tech to kill the deal, rebuild and repeat. Using OB to walk up to a city and then declare war was another one in the old day, but now the magic of teleportation in the rules eliminated that.
So is tech blocking an unintended loophole? Well, it is not there because of what the programmers didn't do ... we have tech blocking because of what they did. They built an equation to esesntially prevent RA from giving you a tech you are already invested in. Maybe they overlooked that this could be used to block off entire branches of the tech tree. That could be "fixed" as much by adding more cross-links to the tech tree as much as by nerfing RA's.
Is tech blocking an aggregious "candy from a baby" issue? My guess is that the AI aren't programmed to do it, so maybe it is? But since the AI are so flush with cash at the high difficulties, and sign lots of RA's, maybe tech blocking is a necesary equalizer for the human trying to play peaceful on those levels?
Be interesting to know what the Frankenstein Group concluded about tech blocking in their testing (assuming that they did test it).
I find that it adds something to actively manage in the game ... which Civ V has been a bit short of compared to Civ IV IMO. In early versions of Civ V I often felt like a spectator in my own game, not a player. The more that the player has meaningful choices to make, and various futures to envision and decide between, the more fun the game is, I think. RA's and tech blocking each add extra layers of management to a game, which for some of us adds extra fun.
Not to mention that banning it will wreak havoc on the Civ V HOF tables (as will any new patch that substantially changes it)
dV
godotnut
Inverted Unicycle
@da Vinci:
I believe your question here overlooks just how much RA blocking improves the gold investment value of RAs. It's not that the entire concept of RAs, whether one likes the game concept or not, is intrinsically abusive. Without RA blocking, the return on your investment is more balanced (though still out of whack, imho). With RA blocking allowed, the return on your investment is insane. If you can pretty routinely spend a couple hundred gold to get whatever tech you want, all other teching strategies become largely irrelevant. Indeed, all other strategies period become pretty irrelevant. It's like being able to buy The Oracle from civ4 every dozen turns or so for spare change.
Are you saying that you find the cost/benefit of RAs with RA blocking allowed to be balanced with other elements of game play? Do you think it "feels right" in relation to the rest of the game? To me, the mechanic, if allowed, is so overwhelmingly powerful that all of your other arguments pale by comparison. I would think you would agree that it's astronomically more powerful than, say, using chops for settlers in Civ4, so I don't think your comparison there was very persuasive.
Personally, I would not be interested in participating in a GOTM that allowed them in their current form. I can still have fun playing the game if I avoid abusing them, but I don't see the point in playing competitively against games that allow RA blocking.
I believe your question here overlooks just how much RA blocking improves the gold investment value of RAs. It's not that the entire concept of RAs, whether one likes the game concept or not, is intrinsically abusive. Without RA blocking, the return on your investment is more balanced (though still out of whack, imho). With RA blocking allowed, the return on your investment is insane. If you can pretty routinely spend a couple hundred gold to get whatever tech you want, all other teching strategies become largely irrelevant. Indeed, all other strategies period become pretty irrelevant. It's like being able to buy The Oracle from civ4 every dozen turns or so for spare change.
Are you saying that you find the cost/benefit of RAs with RA blocking allowed to be balanced with other elements of game play? Do you think it "feels right" in relation to the rest of the game? To me, the mechanic, if allowed, is so overwhelmingly powerful that all of your other arguments pale by comparison. I would think you would agree that it's astronomically more powerful than, say, using chops for settlers in Civ4, so I don't think your comparison there was very persuasive.
Personally, I would not be interested in participating in a GOTM that allowed them in their current form. I can still have fun playing the game if I avoid abusing them, but I don't see the point in playing competitively against games that allow RA blocking.
I dislike the RA blocking. It just isn't fun. Its an added level of micromanagement, for one thing. Its boring. But if its the only way to be competitive, I suppose I'll do it every now and then. But since this isn't a competition (yet), I don't use it. The game is actually pretty balanced the way I play, and is fun. I am only concerned that the most reliable way to improve my game would be to (ab)use RA blocking.
Frankly, the RA should cost something proportional to the beaker worth of the technology you are going after. Getting Fusion for 200 gold seems a little unbalanced.
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
I think your points here are well taken (with one minor adjustment I'll discuss below). I think my point was more on the question of whether RA blocking was an exploit of the RA system in the sense of being inherently counter to the game design. Since the game design includes the RA, and they designed it to be less likely to give you a tech you are invested in, it doesn't strike me as inherently counter to the game design. We might agree that we dislike that aspect of the game design, but maybe that is a different notion than an "exploit"?
I am not sure that the tech blocking is as big a jump in return on investment (ROI) compared to a "normal" RA as the RA system is itself. Any tech for a few hundred gold is already an insane ROI. What tech blocking does is increase speed: you get the tech you really want with fewer RA's. So maybe you get a tech twice as fast with tech blocking. The fact that there are RAs at all is more of an exponential improvement, I think.
That point aside, the RA may be an ill-advised mechanic, tech blocking or no. It is an insane ROI, but then its not the only insane ROI in the game design. How about city states? Cheapest way to build an army may be to ally to a nearby militaristic CS. Similar for cheap culture and cheap food.
Of course, one can play without CS (as long as one is not going diplo ... or can you get a no CS diplo? Never tried it.).
I guess the real question is what make for the best test of skill in a competitive game?
If RAs are in but tech blocking is out, doesn't that introduce another random element? Is that random early telegraph, or random early globalization, going to be decisive for the winning date? Maybe better to have RAs out entirely?
dV
godotnut
Inverted Unicycle
These are good questions. I agree that the random element is a different but also significant problem. In this sense, they are a bit like goody huts. Many people cheered when map makers for GOTMs in Civ4 began to remove them, and the majority of GOTMs are now played without them--decisions which seem to reflect agreement with your concerns. I suspect that, when the decision is left to able mapmakers, most will decide to omit RAs altogether from GOTMs once (if?) they are offered competitively for Civ5.
One of the main reasons I quit playing HOF games long ago is that goody huts are such a powerful determinant of early finishes. Too much like playing the lottery. Not enough like playing Civ.
Farrapo
Warlord
It seems my comments on (disliking) RA blocking have stirred some good debate. I do realize that the current GOTM series is just a training series, but it is one designed to compete against the turn clock. So comments about significant impacts on game time should be welcome.
My point was that RA blocking has a disproportionately big impact in that sense. I also think RAs in general (like technology trading in prior Civ versions) have too much impact. Unlike some commenters above I do like random elements to the game, mainly because they cause me to adjust my style and choices to try different things in different situations.
So here is a suggestion for something that could be tried to disable RA blocking and reduce the overall impact without banning RAs entirely:
Change the algorithm that selects which technology you get from an RA to be the next easiest one to achieve beyond the one you are currently researching. If there is more than one requiring the same number of science points then randomize it across them (or possibly whatever would most enhance the impact of the citizen deployment choice in the capital if not set to default). That way you never get your currently researched tech when you are nearly done and you also don't get a huge jump ahead. It might also be worth looking at the RA cost, but I don't know enough to make a sensible suggestion on that.
My point was that RA blocking has a disproportionately big impact in that sense. I also think RAs in general (like technology trading in prior Civ versions) have too much impact. Unlike some commenters above I do like random elements to the game, mainly because they cause me to adjust my style and choices to try different things in different situations.
So here is a suggestion for something that could be tried to disable RA blocking and reduce the overall impact without banning RAs entirely:
Change the algorithm that selects which technology you get from an RA to be the next easiest one to achieve beyond the one you are currently researching. If there is more than one requiring the same number of science points then randomize it across them (or possibly whatever would most enhance the impact of the citizen deployment choice in the capital if not set to default). That way you never get your currently researched tech when you are nearly done and you also don't get a huge jump ahead. It might also be worth looking at the RA cost, but I don't know enough to make a sensible suggestion on that.
da_Vinci
Gypsy Prince
Or have an algorithm where the RA always gives you the minimum number of free beakers. That would force you to spread out your reasearch in order to get the maximum free beakers out of the RA. A very anti-beelining approach. Is that desireable?
Another approach would be that you can only get from an RA a tech that your partner knows when it comes due. That would nerf one of the perhaps unbalancing features of the RA: that an RA with a tech laggard can net you a tech no one else knows.
There are other variations on the theme ... maybe we want good old tech trading back?
Just remember, if we nerf or remove every game aspect where humans outthink the AI, there won't be much game left ...
dV
