What bothers me in Civ4 single player
- Thread starter Naokaukodem
- Start date
Exactly, that's my whole point!! EVERYTHING should have a price, and the current AI doesn't go that far.
If you (or the AI) really, truly, desperately needed a tech or a resource then it would be good if ridiculous bargains could be struck.
'Redding' things out is the unbelievable part. EVERYTHING should have a price if that price is willing to be paid! The AI currently says 'no' to a tech before you've even offered anything, which is frustrating as you may have 20000 gold and 5 tech you're willing to give for it, but no, the AI has decided "you're getting too advanced". It's silly, and unrealistic.
I guess we just completely disagree. I would never ever offer one of my cities for ANY tech, I would rather research it myself. I can never imagine myself being so badly off that I'd offer a city for a tech - and if *I* wouldn't do it, it'd be ridiculous for the AI to do it - especially when you consider the advantage the AI gets on research at higher levels.
again, I totally disagree. "unrealistic"? *sigh* this isn't a simulation.
as far as "you're getting too advanced", I think that's a *perfectly* reasonable justification for not trading something to you... I've used the same one myself...
Psyringe
Scout
I can understand the notion "everything *should* be tradeable", but the redding-out of trade options doesn't bother me much. The system has two advantages:
a) It's a time saver. If a tech is redded out, I know I don't need to waste my time trying to make offers which are being refused anyways.
b) It limits AI exploits. Evaluating the strategic value of trade options is a very hard task for an AI, especially when long-term effects are concerned. And even more so when you have as many different things to trade as Civ4 has. In many games it's far too easy to win by manipulating the AI into tech trades that no sane human would accept. When I can't have a perfect AI, then I prefer a carefully trading AI to a gullible one.
Agreed, the system does have the disadvantage that I cannot pull off some stunts, like trading half my empire away for a tech that saves my life, and then having a glorious comeback two thousand years later. That would be nice. But I don't miss it very much, because it would be an extremely rare experience anyways. Most of the time when I'm desperate enough to try such a trade, I'm virtually deas already and wouldn't have a chance against an AI that really pushed on.
a) It's a time saver. If a tech is redded out, I know I don't need to waste my time trying to make offers which are being refused anyways.
b) It limits AI exploits. Evaluating the strategic value of trade options is a very hard task for an AI, especially when long-term effects are concerned. And even more so when you have as many different things to trade as Civ4 has. In many games it's far too easy to win by manipulating the AI into tech trades that no sane human would accept. When I can't have a perfect AI, then I prefer a carefully trading AI to a gullible one.
Agreed, the system does have the disadvantage that I cannot pull off some stunts, like trading half my empire away for a tech that saves my life, and then having a glorious comeback two thousand years later. That would be nice. But I don't miss it very much, because it would be an extremely rare experience anyways. Most of the time when I'm desperate enough to try such a trade, I'm virtually deas already and wouldn't have a chance against an AI that really pushed on.
LosBlack
The Man from Utopia
very interesting idea.
i personally enjoy the trading aspect of the game. in fact, i really miss the caravans from the first Civ installment.."Spice caravan arrives from Cairo.." but CiV already has so many ways to customize, so many options to try, why not experiment with different ideas on key game concepts? as long as the player has the ability to select the option (or not), it certainly can't hurt to add some more variation. at the least it could let players have another option for middle ground in jumping up b/n difficulties (raging barbs are just a pain anyways).
i never had trouble out-teching the AI on Prince, especially with a Financial leader. not sure why you couldn't at least stay close enough to remain in the game on Monarch without lots of trading, although i have not played a Financial Monarch game yet.
maybe one with islands..and Spain..
@ the last couple of posts: i could definitely see myself trading a city for a tech in certain crazy, but not impossibly-lost-out-in-left-field situations. if i had founded a couple junk cities in the tundra to try for domination, but later realized my only victory possible was a space race, i could trade a few lousy "cities" for a tech i was lacking.
i personally enjoy the trading aspect of the game. in fact, i really miss the caravans from the first Civ installment.."Spice caravan arrives from Cairo.." but CiV already has so many ways to customize, so many options to try, why not experiment with different ideas on key game concepts? as long as the player has the ability to select the option (or not), it certainly can't hurt to add some more variation. at the least it could let players have another option for middle ground in jumping up b/n difficulties (raging barbs are just a pain anyways).
i never had trouble out-teching the AI on Prince, especially with a Financial leader. not sure why you couldn't at least stay close enough to remain in the game on Monarch without lots of trading, although i have not played a Financial Monarch game yet.
maybe one with islands..and Spain..@ the last couple of posts: i could definitely see myself trading a city for a tech in certain crazy, but not impossibly-lost-out-in-left-field situations. if i had founded a couple junk cities in the tundra to try for domination, but later realized my only victory possible was a space race, i could trade a few lousy "cities" for a tech i was lacking.
Bradlius
Warlord
That's exactly what did happen in Civ I. It certainly had its effect on how quickly you would expand your civ. You really really didn't want to overexpand and lose a city if you had a tech lead.
Bradlius
Warlord
I do rather like the initial idea of techs "leaking" to other civs through trade. It's more realistic, if you like, and it also makes you think a bit about who you trade with and who you don't. As it is now, there's really not a big penalty for trading with anybody, except that you may anger somebody else. But if you trade, it's money in for you and money in for them. It's a no-brainer. If, on the other hand, trading meant even the possibility of leaking a tech, you'd have to think twice.
Of course, the default could be "off" and you only turn it "on" in a custom game, if you like.
By the way, is there a way to cut off trade with another civ except by closing the borders? If I have open borders with a civ, does that mean I'm trading with them?
Of course, the default could be "off" and you only turn it "on" in a custom game, if you like.
By the way, is there a way to cut off trade with another civ except by closing the borders? If I have open borders with a civ, does that mean I'm trading with them?
This is exactly my opinion. I think the AI should at least be given the chance to see what i am offering before completely saying no. Like you said, I could offer every city in my empire and they still wont give it to me. if I was an AI, I sure as hell would trade a tech for a few cities. This is where i find that it is a major flaw.
It would be cool, balanced (if done right), and historically realistic and accurate.
ferenginar
Grand Nagus
I find the whole business of trading quite annoying. Redding out those which they do not wish to trade, is fine it may save time, but the problem is that pretty much everything is redded out. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are happily trading with each other, so I'm feeling a bit left out.
In my opinion, the "leaking" of techs is already implemented in the game, although it's done in a different manner. The AI Civs give each other discounts on trading, so they trade tech more freely amongst themselves. So the big penalty for trading a tech to one Civ is that it may very well be traded to all the the other Civs the next turn - which is why you always have to think twice before trading a tech. I often trade the same tech to all Civs on the same turn, at least after some/most/all of the Civs have Alphabet.
gunkulator
Emperor
No you wouldn't. In the real world cutting edge technology, especially military technology, is not for sale at any price. IIRC Vanilla Civ3 used to allow you to trade your cities to the AI but in later patches they ended up disabling this because it was far too easy for the human to exploit the situation. Sure I'll trade you Boston for Navigation. I'll just declare war next turn and use my 15 cavalry that just happen to be sitting outside of Boston to retake the city.
Quite the contray. It would be annoying, unbalanced and historically unrealistic and innaccurate.
It's also implemented in a fashion by making the research rate of a tech going up based upon how many Civs you know that know that Tech.
One could interpret this as the effect of a spy network. The more Civs you are spying on, and the more widespread the technology is amongst those Civs, the more "clues" your spies are picking up and sending home to allow you to discover the tech sooner.
Personally, the only thing I would really like changed is a notification whenever a Civ becomes willing to trade a tech. That would allow me to skip looking at the Trade Advisor every few turns. This has been modded in (I use HOF), but Firaxis should include it directly. It would remove alot of the micro-management that interrupts game play flow, which is one of the OP's complaints.
Speaking of the OP.....
If you're not actively using tech trades as a strategic tool in the game, you should add that to your list of reasons why you think single player is too hard.
If you want to simulate the playing style you have in multiplayer, just turn off tech trading for single player games as well. That way, you will actually research techs that are useful now, instead of what would bring you most trade value.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,302
Yeah, this would be very good as an option.
Why not switch off tech trading? Simple, because the difficulty does not take it into account: AI will research insanely fast even with tech trading off. For those like myself who doesn't like trading, it's a loss for sure. As said somebody above, tech trading off is more a disadvantage than anything else. Plus I suspect AI not to trade that often (no more than the times it contacts you by itself)
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,302
Let's say I have a new tech no AI has. I will have to check EVERY turn if the AI get a new tech I can trade, before they research the one I wanna trade.
Exactly - it doesn't seem like this would be a difficult thing to implement in the trade advisor, and would be very useful.
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
With all respect, I disagree. I found that to be one of the most annoying features back in Civ I.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
I also found this nasty until i read how game handles WFYABTA limit (thanks Blake!). It depends on the number of techs that you have gotten in trade, your own research does not matter. So lets say the limit is 10 techs and after that you get WFYABTA from one particular civ.
It does not matter if one of those techs was future tech 37 or hunting, only the count does. Some civs ignore this this limit (Mansa) or have it set differently (relations pleased/friendly change this too).. so, research those 1/2 turn techs yourself, do not get them as extras -try get more gold or just get the +4 "fair trade" modifiers.
