Techloss when receiving

[ifaesfu]

Chance of losing a tech when you are receiving it. Default is 0%, what gives a huge advantage to bigger alliances.
High % will surely make big alliances less powerful.
/set techlost_recv

[Corbeau]

I voted 0, but would it be possible to implement that the probability of tech being lost depends on the diference of the level of the particular tech and the general tech level of the player receiving it? So that the civilization in its middle ages can't really accept armour?

As for the feature itself, large alliances are also destimulated by the fact that there is no team victory; it's every man (or women) for himself (or herself) in the end.

[Captain Clown]

How about tech_leakage? This would cause tech cartels to be self-limiting, as sharing a tech with allies makes that tech cheaper for non-allies to research.

[morphles]

As I said in previous thread, these all seem like good ideas, but I'd like to test no allied win in isolation from other changes as remedy to so called "special powers of alliances".

[ifaesfu]

How about tech_leakage? This would cause tech cartels to be self-limiting, as sharing a tech with allies makes that tech cheaper for non-allies to research.

Tech_leakage is enabled by defect in civ2-3 ruleset. What I don't know is the real effect of this setting. I mean how many bulbs are deducted according to the players that already know the tech you are researching. Anyway, I like it.
This setting, together with tech_upkeep is good to balance the matches.

[Captain Clown]

What I don't know is the real effect of this setting. I mean how many bulbs are deducted according to the players that already know the tech you are researching.

from the source code for freeciv-2.4.2, .../common/tech.c, inside a function called base_total_bulbs_required:

Code: Select all

base_cost *= (double)(players - players_with_tech);
base_cost /= (double)players;


So, for example, if 20% of the players have the tech, then your cost is 80% (100%-20%) of the tech's normal cost. E.g., a tech that costs 500 bulbs will cost 400 bulbs instead. If everyone but you has the tech, and the game has twenty-five players, then the tech is nearly free. E.g., 500 bulbs reduces to 20 bulbs! Definitely a negative feedback loop to help players that are behind to catch up.

Though, the civ2civ3 ruleset sets tech_leakage to 1, which means leakage takes into account only players with whom you have an embassy. So you must make an effort to create embassies with other players to benefit from the leakage effect. There are two other tech_leakage settings, each more lenient. (See below.)

Code: Select all

  tech_leakage:
  0 - No reduction of the technology cost.
  1 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of players
      which already know the tech and you have an embassy with.
  2 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of all players
      (human, AI and barbarians) which already know the tech.
  3 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of normal
      players (human and AI) which already know the tech.


[monamipierrot]

As I said in previous thread, these all seem like good ideas, but I'd like to test no allied win in isolation from other changes as remedy to so called "special powers of alliances".

This is the side effect of GT "democratic" community: one goes in a direction and the other in the opposite one... GT "flavours" (which I proposed in General Discussion) are meant to prevent such random chaotical overleap of ideas which could be good if taken in a consistent ruleset environment.

Anyway, I don't like the techloss thing and I can't see how it could be good in any ruleset environment!
And it's not a matter of randomness. It's because if we fiddle with % there can be 2 outcomes:
1- techloss is too "soft": so, a proper - althou tricky - workaround could be arranged in order to trade techs without losing them, expecially with LARGE alliances where lost techs could be still spared in the hands of 3rd allies.
2- techloss is enough "hard": so nobody would exchange techs. OR maybe in some very exceptional cases, because you REALLY need some defending units and your ally can stand the bad odds. But this is a sort of nonsensical hazard game which does not add thrill to the match. Anyway, again, the only ones who could take advantage of such an operation are LARGE alliances or players with LOTS of time. So, why don't disable tech trading at all?

[monamipierrot]

Code: Select all

  tech_leakage:
  0 - No reduction of the technology cost.
  1 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of players
      which already know the tech and you have an embassy with.
  2 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of all players
      (human, AI and barbarians) which already know the tech.
  3 - Technology cost is reduced depending on the number of normal
      players (human and AI) which already know the tech.


Number 1 is, in my opinion, a good solution, along with disabling TECH TRADING/CONQUERING/STEALING.
However, along with this we also should fiddle with embassies too. E.G. we could allow giving embassies to known players, and at the same time embassies shuold have a time limit, e.g. 25 turns (or depending on players mutual relationships), after which they are autmoatically canceled and have to be renewed somehow.

[Captain Clown]

Number 1 is, in my opinion, a good solution, along with disabling TECH TRADING/CONQUERING/STEALING.
However, along with this we also should fiddle with embassies too. E.G. we could allow giving embassies to known players, and at the same time embassies shuold have a time limit, e.g. 25 turns (or depending on players mutual relationships), after which they are autmoatically canceled and have to be renewed somehow.

I'm not sure what these polls mean, but we've got the poll for "Meetings only after you make an embassy": http://civland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=842. That poll, whose vote tally is currently 6-2 in favor, along with tech_leakage, ought to put a lot of pressure on players to produce diplomats and "sneak" them in to other players' cities. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[ifaesfu]

I'm not sure what these polls mean, but we've got the poll for "Meetings only after you make an embassy": http://civland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=842. That poll, whose vote tally is currently 6-2 in favor, along with tech_leakage, ought to put a lot of pressure on players to produce diplomats and "sneak" them in to other players' cities. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

This poll is to set the chance of losing a tech when you are receiving it. When do you receive a tech? Every time you are given a tech in a treaty. Every time you successfully steal a tech from an enemy city. Every time you get a free tech after conquering a city. The intention is to limit the tech sharing that reduces the games to a matter of trade of techs with as many players as you can or die.
Of course, it should be 60-70% or more to be effective. Maybe I should have skipped 50%, 40%...