WFYABTA continued

[MadDogTrebonius]

The game-wide limit is a necessity. It's the only way to provide a game balance that works for both larger and smaller map sizes, larger and smaller numbers of AIs on the board. This is not a subtle or obscure point.

I don't particularly get this. They've done a good job balancing everything else for smaller or larger maps and for more or less AI opponents. I don't particularly see what is hugely more difficult about this.

I really think the per-civ limit would fix the majority of the problems that people have with this system.

Of course, the other problem that I see with this system is that it's not transparent. You don't really know when you're going to hit the wall. All of a sudden you're *there*. So you only have a "vague feeling" type of feedback to guide your early vs. late tech trading strategy. And then there's also a transparency (or opacity) problem in the sense that you can't tell how much the AI trades and with whom, whereas the AI knows how much and with whom *you've* traded. You don't have the opportunity to get angry (and human-red-out trades) if you don't know what the AI has been up to.

[Dreylin]

I think, in an ideal Civ, the AIs would do everything they could to win.

So you don't like having the option of a Diplomatic Victory?

Seriously, if AIs are doing everything they can to win, why would they ever vote for you (or any other AI for that matter) to win a Diplo Victory ... and then you're just left with backdoor Domination from the UN. I'll admit that I'd like to see a bit more self-interest in their voting sometimes (I was recently involved in a very close Space Race w/ several other Civs, but was voted winner because I had nurtured good relations with civs over the length of the game ... including my main competitor for Space) but ultimately if you remove that option you degrade the value of Diplomacy over the course of the game.

[Arathorn]

So you don't like having the option of a Diplomatic Victory?

Nope. At least, not in its present form. I'd be very happy to see it eliminated -- or drastically modified. So, yes, completely eliminating the "Vote for winner" function from the UN would be just fine by me. UN and overall relations might still have a purpose, but not winning a game.

Eliminate the abstain option would be another semi-reasonable modification. Then, the human would sometimes vote for an AI to win. Wouldn't that be funny? It would remove some of the silliness of the victory condition, that's for sure. Then, each player would be FORCED to pick a potential victor -- not doing it out of some odd sense of "noblesse oblige" or something.

Or make it part of the relations game, that would work in multiplayer. Total portion of GNP supplied by outside parties. Or total goods given to other players or .... There's MAYBE a path there that would be good. I would find it an OK research project. Not something to do in a 5-minute reply to a messageboard post, though.

But, the current diplo victory? I don't like it. Yeah, I use it. And it is a challenge. But I don't like it.

If giving up diplo victory were even a significant fraction of the cost of doing away with WFYABTA, I'd be a very happy man. I'd make that trade in a heartbeat.

Arathorn

[pholkhero]

Forgive the noob intrusion and at the risk of beating a dead quadraped ~ i agree that having a set tech-trading limit with ALL AI's seems a bit off and does encourage AI-v-player thinking (perhaps, then the solution i'm/we're searching for is merely that which would allow us to ONLY play SP -- i've YET to ever play a Civ game MP, and only played maybe 1 or 2 sessions of any MP online game)

yet, of course, i was not part of the devo process and so have no other systems with which to test it against (not counting prev. Civs).

However, that being said, what would seem to make more game sense is to have each leader have a certain tech trading limit for the the player only ~ that is, get a bit more specific with the 'leaders that are pimped' and those that aren't ~ people like Genghis and Monty, perhaps, would trade very few techs and possible NEVER trade military techs unless you had SUPER relations with them; people like Gandhi, etc, would trade more or a specific kind of tech. Indeed, the limits could be raised or lowered based on game conditions, e.g., difficulty, relations, whatever....

also, i don't think transperency is needed in regards to tech trading, in fact the lack of a clear idea where the ceiling is encourages strategic choices ~ the very idea that this trade could be your last should make you want to try and make it worthwhile

again, though, i have no idea the mechanics that would be needed nor do i know that this very thing wasn't tried in devo. and discarded as unwieldy (ultimately, only very few of us do and they can't talk)

perhaps this is sycophantic or noob-ic naivete, but i trust the developers that the system we have is the best (for now . . .)

[Sirian]

whereas the AI knows how much and with whom *you've* traded.

The AI doesn't "know" what you've traded. It has no awareness at all. It just obeys the rules required of it.

Trades for the AI are binary affairs: DO IT or DON'T DO IT. There is no thought, no choice. There is only action or inaction.

"All action" has been tried before, with poor results. This is "some action", and it's working much better in the eyes of most players.


- Sirian

[Sirian]

get a bit more specific with the 'leaders that are pimped' and those that aren't ~ people like Genghis and Monty, perhaps, would trade very few techs and possible NEVER trade military techs unless you had SUPER relations with them; people like Gandhi, etc, would trade more or a specific kind of tech.

Pimping the AI means pimping them all. Like it or not, they function as a group. They get the job done, or fail to get it done, as a group.

It's not the exploitation of one or two that is the problem, but the exploitation of them AS a group.

The group is defined by whatever is the collective behavior of the AIs. This must be evaluated at the big picture level to have impact on the big picture results, which are what count here.

Please visit my Civ3 site and read my Civ3 Epic Four report for the clearest example of what is wrong with tech trading in general.

http://sirian.warpcore.org/civ3/epic4.html

There is no solution that approaches the problem from the perspective of a single AI. The problem is either managed through the AIs as a group, or it is not managed at all.


- Sirian

[MadDogTrebonius]

The AI doesn't "know" what you've traded. It has no awareness at all. It just obeys the rules required of it.

Trades for the AI are binary affairs: DO IT or DON'T DO IT. There is no thought, no choice. There is only action or inaction.

Come on. It *reacts*[1] based on how much you've traded and it *reacts* based on who you've traded with.

And I am confused by how "the best game of Civ III [you] have played" illustrates what is wrong with tech trading. That game seemed like a truly euphoric experience for you, and you did it by massive trading.

I have no personal stake in this. I don't know whether I like tech trading or not, but I do have the inkling that it adds a different spice to the game. You can choose to ride behind the tech front and spend more commerce on other things (such as buying techs), or you can ride in front and gather the spoils of being the tech leader. That seems like a strategy choice.


1 - "reacts" to be defined as having 1's and 0's dictating how other 1's and 0's are shuffled about in circuits on a piece of silicon

[Gotag]

I remember that game!!! I think it was one of the last epics I played before burnout got me. Fun game and IIRC I lost when it was decided on the RB forums that using an ROP with an AI civ to then attack that AI civ's ally was verbotten. I tried chewing through both (Egypt and India) and couldn't get to the U.N. city in time. It was a close thing IIRC.

Good memories....

Gotag

[Ziggy]

This post isn't intended to throw my hat into the ring for this discussion but to clarify what we now know so we know what we can and can't do in the game by the current rules. Strategy only works if you know the big picture after all. Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

1) You have a limited amount of total tech trades with the AIs as a group.

2) The number is determined by the number of actual techs traded and not by what they are worth. ie trading for mining & fishing counts just the same as trading for fusion & robotics.

3) A particular AI will trade past this limit by some ammount based on his reaction to you (if you hit the wall with a cautious civ, making them friendly will get you some more trades)

4) The Ai's do not trade techs that they have a monopoly on. (Question: is this just amongst themselves or does this include the player as well?)

5) AI's who dislike each other enough will not trade amongst them selves

Things I would like clarifications for if its possible.

6) What the number of 'default' trades actually is. If I know I can have say 20 tech trades in the game I can plan accordingly.

7) What the number of 'extra' trades is. ie if I can get Asoka up to pleased i get 3 more trades etc.

8 ) Do Techs demanded as tribute and demaded for peace count towards the total? (evidence In a game which has not reached report stage yet suggests yes but I'm not 100% sure)

9) What does "can't trade" as opposed to "Will not trade" mean? Its not only for a monopoly as I have run into I coming from multiple civs at once with the same techs.

Again all I am after here is information on how this all works, in the end I feel that complaining about how it works is about as likely to get it changed as complaining that i think pawns should be able to move backwards in chess

I trust that the developers have weighed all the options and this was the 'best choice' they were able to come up with. But that doesen't really matter, what matters is that its the current choice and if/until that changes these are the choices I have to play with.

Thanks for any info anyone can provide.

edited to remove the smiley 8) that #8 generated...I guess griselda only wanted 7 item lists? Better than 2 i guess

[Sirian]

Things I would like clarifications for if its possible.

6) What the number of 'default' trades actually is.

7) What the number of 'extra' trades is. ie if I can get Asoka up to pleased i get 3 more trades etc.

9) What does "can't trade" as opposed to "Will not trade" mean? Its not only for a monopoly as I have run into I coming from multiple civs at once with the same techs.

6. It's not a fixed number. It slides a bit depending on your game score. If you are leading, you hit the wall a lot sooner. If you are trailing, they will cut you some slack.

7. I'm not sure on the Pleased civs. I think it's an OFF SWITCH that triggers later, allowing you to have a higher relative score before they stop. Friendly Civs will continue to trade with you forever, but not monopoly techs, so usually your opportunities are limited and you have to stay on top of it to take advantage.

9. A tech traded to or from anybody cannot be RETRADED on the same turn, nor can you trade for a tech "past" it. The "can't trade" are items that would violate the "can't trade past a traded tech" rule. That is, a tech whose prerequisite you just learned CANNOT be traded to you until the next turn. By comparison, "Will Not Trade" is something the AI won't trade because it doesn't like you, has a monopoly, is building a wonder from the tech, or has hit the WFYABTA wall with you.


- Sirian