Accounts e-mail HP

Alliance pack:-tech exch, +unit/city trade [CONCL][DECLINED]

Apply the "no tech exhange; yes unit/city exchange" package

Yes
2
50%
No
2
50%
Well, I most certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 4

Alliance pack:-tech exch, +unit/city trade [CONCL][DECLINED]

Postby Corbeau » Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:54 am

So here is the proposal. Those things should go in one package because they influence each other and taking out any of them would have influence on others and would wreck the idea I have about it.

- no friendly tech exchange, period
- allowed exchange of cities and units
- probability of gaining a tech when conquering a city is 50% (or less, if this passes, we can make a separate poll to get the exact number)
- when city is conquered, it loses population, no matter what (I'm not sure if this is the default, I think I saw some cases when this doesn't happen; if possible, maybe have a city lose *two* population when conquered?)
- allied victory is OFF


There are two reasons why this should be implemented: Gameplay and Realism. I understand that a number of people don't see realism as an important criteria, but I believe there is more to this that is immediately apparent. Civilization is a simulation and simulations are best if they mimic reality as much as possible. Even if it doesn't seem so at the first glance, in the long run it usually turns out that going with the more realistic option is always a better deal. However, in this case the gameplay factor goes hand in hand with this. See below.

Realism:
Technological level in a Civ game depends on a very simpe thing: if you have a blueprint for something, you can build it and use it regardless of any other factors of your nation. As has been noted in some other discussions, if your nation is in a Stone Age and someone gives you the needed technology, you can immediately build nuclear missiles. Of course, nothing can be further from reality; in RL, you also need to have the infrastructure, production, implementation and usage experts which all cost serious effort and resources. If your people didn't come by something as a result of their own effort, it is very questionable if they will be able to fully use it.

A counterexample would be giving rifles to a nation that still doesn't have the technology. This is where the rest of the package comes in: it is perfectly reasonable for some Warriors to come to the ally city, receive rifles, some training and then go back to the battlefield; the result is almost as if they had the technology themselves, only, they needed to go to an available city, spend some time and resources there (upgrading), and then go to the battlefield. In-game, this is represented by giving a Warrior unit to an advanced ally, having him upgrade it in his own city and then handing the unit back. Basically, effect is the same, only, in this scenario, the allies need to spend time and effort which makes it less trivial and requires a very good organisation, with possible errors and miscommunication, making the process not-100%-reliable.

Gameplay:
If no-limit tech exchange is allowed, basically, you lose a whole aspect of the game. When playing solo I enjoyed this part of management, choosing which techs to go for, economising with research points, having to balance science and tax, you know the story. However, with alliances and full tech exchange, you don't need to have any idea about what you are doing technology-wise. You can be a fundamentalist barbarian, you'll still have all the science in the world only of you are connected to the right - and to enough - people. This simply kills a part of the game and dictates that the strategy needed to win in simply "get as many allies as you can". The problem with tech exchange is that, when giving technology, you don't lose anything so you can give it up freely as much as you want.

On the other hand, alliance do need some kind of incentive and implementation aspect besides "we won't shoot at each other", and nations may want to help their allies a bit without publicly entering a war. There is also the issue of consolidating territory, shortening of borders and supply lines, where city sharing is a must.

Basically, in theory, the permissive aspects of this package may negate the preventive ones. However, as stated above, good coordination and careful organisation is required which makes possible exchanges non-trivial, prone to errors and, maybe even most important - more interesting. And we're in this for the game, no? So, yes, the unit/city exchange does softens the "no tech trade" part, but doesn't invalidate it completely.

Yes, a weaker nation could coordinate unit give-upgrade-takeback and city give-develop-takeback actions with a more advanced ally, but then there is the issue of who is actually running your civilization? There is always the option of the more advanced fellow getting tired of using his time and dragging the retarded cousin along and decide to simply not give back a city and, then, when in a favourable position, strike. Or simply, at one moment, say "enough".

Note: Changing of the vote enabled because I like it that way

Note 2: If this package passes, we could call the game "Every man (or woman) for himself (or herself)"

Note 3: Seriously, are there any women in here at all?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby morphles » Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:17 pm

Realism is of little secondary concern.

Your blueprint ponts are nice, but this does not incorporate in current state of freeciv and rulesets in any normal way. When 2.6 I'll make ruleset with (almost) no tech levels, then it will be way more realistic.

Regarding tech, the more I play the more I call bulshint on anything tech related, current state of freeciv is such that spending on tech after getting out of despotims seems like loosing proposition unless playing against AI's. With conquest tech steal, revolt tech steal and plain tech steal you must be slightly stupid to research shit, at least imo. I see very rare cases where you can reasonably pull ahead in tech for long enough to matter, and that is probably only for island maps. Thus I do not accept most of your premises. Scond to my knowledge there is no way to differentiante between conquest/stea/diplomatic trade of techs, they are ether all there or non of them are there.

Sadly there is currently no unit trading (nor is currently planned even up to 2.6), so forget that. City trading is huge ass can of worms, I would not condone it, unless wonders are disabled.

Cities loose population on conquest always, they even loose population on incite revolt. As for allied victory it most likely will be disabled.

All this piling on tech trading makes me think that alot of people (in this comunity) can not live with roles, but there is nothing wrong with that, it even makes game richer. You play to win, if that means you must share roles you do that. Again in spring rts games some players defend frontline other techup in security and there is nothing wrong with that, realisticly it is unlikely your team will win without such specialization all else being equal, at least in traditional top vs bottom game. Of course civ games have action going all around so such specelization are more dangerious, but I do not see that as problematic. Also without allied vicotry the one specializing in research can be easily backstabed by military one. Though I get the feeling that people are averse to such things. I intend "to play to win" and if allie victory is off, I'll most likely do what improves my chances to win.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby Corbeau » Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:40 pm

Hm, I'm sure that I played some multiplayer version of Civ somewhere where it was possible to give units. And it wasn't an official Civ. Ok, I mixed something up.

Regarding your post, I must admit that I don't understand it. I mean, I understand where you stand, but don't understand what it has to do with this particular package. The whole point of this is:
- no alliance victory
- no exchanging tech
Other details are only patches used to smooth things up a bit.

The reason for this is that, as it is, the chance to win depends solely on the size of the alliance you're in (because of the science potential). So it's a matter of luck who people choose to join with.

If, as you claim, science development's main drive is decided by tech stealing, then... well, what exactly is the problem with this proposition? I see no downside from your point of view, and the upside is what I already explained: reducing the effect of not being lucky enough to end up in an alliance large enough.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby ifaesfu » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:25 pm

Oh! :shock: I'd forget about city trading. There are lots of "tricks" that can be done with this setting enabled and they are specially annonying.
City trading allows to trade units, as the units inside the city that is being traded are transfered too.
There is no way to significantly limit the tech trading in this game unless you use techloss. You can make it a little harder by disabling trade or other settings, but they aren't effective.
Again, I think alliances are good enough if you know your partners won't attack you and will help you if you are attacked. That's enough. Adding the power of tech trading often spoils the games. There is no need.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby Corbeau » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:42 am

ifaesfu wrote:Oh! :shock: I'd forget about city trading. There are lots of "tricks" that can be done with this setting enabled and they are specially annonying.

What kind of tricks?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby monamipierrot » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:08 pm

morphles wrote:Sadly there is currently no unit trading (nor is currently planned even up to 2.6), so forget that. City trading is huge ass can of worms, I would not condone it, unless wonders are disabled.

No kidding, wonders are here to stay. Is there any way to flag wonders' cities as "untradable" as capital city (city with palace) is?
Would make city trading good again, and would also add to realism.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby monamipierrot » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:33 am

Will never repeat enough time I'm a for this:

- NO TECH exchange/stealing/conquering (ALL tech have to be researched)
To disallow Tech exchange without disallowing stealing and conquering altogether is not only useless, it is also BAD cause it forces everybody to find their way to share tech by allowing allies to steal or conquer.

As far as I can remember nobody tried this radical feature so far. I think the main reason is that we think that interchanging tech is appealing, could add lot to diplomacy complexity, and helps keeping small allies in pace with other players.

However, there are zillions of reason it would be a great idea.
Let's try to put it clear:

Reasons for KEEPING tech exchange:
- diplomacy much more complex
- smaller allies can keep the pace and send elite troops to the front if needed: they will be part of the action
- realism (if you don't mind the rocketry "issue")
- diplos and spies are more important cause they can steal or prevent stealing
- sometimes to conquer a tech may be a priceless tactical goal, no matter if the enemy will take back the city in the same turn.
- as a result, less advanced and isolated players will be more aggressive, trying to steal what they can't produce on their own, and maybe making things harder for the most developed.
- simple general specialization in alliances: "scientists" will use the brain and will let the other use the muscles (along with the latest gear provided by scientists). I would call it the "Q. vs. 007 relationship".
- smarter tech traders will be very happy (as I have been in GT01)

Reasons for DISABLINGtech exchange:
- diplomacy no longer focus in inmaterial goods: to give is to say goodbye to something.
- no need to rush for contacts (and tech exchanges) at the beginning of the game. Better to concentrate on concrete things.
- bigger aggressive empires will not get that extra gift (new techs) when swallowing other nations (keeps more equal chances).
- much less reasons to keep big alliances, (they can't share techs and save effort in order to fight smaller alliances)
- extreme tech specialization: high/low tech specialization in individuals. One player may want to rely on a few number of the latest gear around while the other one will focus on building a huge army of regular old stuff. As there will be no tech leakage between them even when losing and conquering cities, this kind of specialization is likely to deepen over the time.
- radical tech specialization: deeply different scientifical development choices. Two players with a comparable tech level and science effort may choose to aim to radically different tech branches, e.g. one will go for advanced naval units, while the others will secure the monopoly of the later land gear out there. Again, no leakage, so specialization is going to be wider and wider.
- Tech specialization IN alliances. Both the above specializations are likely to be seen INSIDE alliances. This would be even more interesting INSIDE alliances: e.g. you'll rule the seas, I'll do the dirty job on the land, he'll provide elite troops for surgical tactical ops.
- smarter tech traders will be very sad

TECH_LOSE?
I already wrote many times why tech_lose doens't make sense.
If tech_lose=70% is a good thing, then tech_lose=100% is definitely better.
For me it is like if in a discussion wether a sword is better than a bow, someone comes, breaks both sword and bows in two pieces, hands one half of each one to me and says "the best is half of both". This is not to take a decision.
Seriously, I really can't understand why there are still some players defending it and at the same time NOT defending no-tech-tradin/stealing/conquering.
I may have miss something. What?
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby morphles » Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:03 am

Well there are people pushing for no tech trading of any kind.

But I do not agree with what, diplomacy is big part of civ games. Also with no tech sharing you are limiting peoples option to crawl the tech tree which I think makes game more identical to everyone, still this is a bit moot, and a bit a restatment of what you said.

Most importantly though civ has very little of "tech branches" techs are deeply interconected (even more so in civ2civ4 AFAIK), thus I would call the statment about specialization somethat moot. Besides there are other factors that will limit this. Being left with advanced naval units and no land support seems like a very silly idea and very detremental. Even ally will not save you. If you are thinking of loading allies land units on your ships and staging attacks in such a way, this has many some serious problems to: such things must be coordinated as organizing attack without both players being online seems highly unlikely; second, naval player get 0 bennefit of such attacks as he can not capture cities with ships. Supposedly city trading can alleviate it somethat, but then thats other huge can of worms. And again makes specialization point moot, just set bunch of advanced units home to traded city, and transfer it to ally, he gets all units, specialization is decreased. Of course fact that this stuff is more complicated has some effect but I do not think that its that good, it would seem to me like needles overcomplication of a game for moot benefits.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby Corbeau » Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:57 pm

monamipierrot wrote:Will never repeat enough time I'm a for this:

- NO TECH exchange/stealing/conquering (ALL tech have to be researched)
To disallow Tech exchange without disallowing stealing and conquering altogether is not only useless, it is also BAD cause it forces everybody to find their way to share tech by allowing allies to steal or conquer.

Well, setting chance to conquer tech to <50% makes tech sharing not too profitable. Meaning, do you want to lose 2 population in a city for a CHANCE to give someone a tech? In some urgent cases it may be needed, but very rarely.

As far as I can remember nobody tried this radical feature so far. I think the main reason is that we think that interchanging tech is appealing,

This is true. It's candy. But hurts at least as much as it benefits. In the end, it depends on what kind of game you want.

could add lot to diplomacy complexity,

Well, yes and no. The problem is, this kind of complexity isn't necessarily good. Say, player 1 and 3 have tech A, player 2 has tech B. Well, on a 1:1 exchange, whoever is lucky enough to get to the player 2 gets the tech, the other one doesn't get anything. On all:all exchange, no complexity at all, just flat line.

and helps keeping small allies in pace with other players.

Well, this is true, but then motivation for those small allies to pick up their pace is lost, so what's the point then?

Reasons for KEEPING tech exchange:
- realism (if you don't mind the rocketry "issue")

Er... No. Just no. What *may* be realistic is that a more advanced alliance helps a more backward alliance with a number of bulbs per turn. But that number needs to depend on the overall tech level of the receiving alliance. Until this is enabled, "no tech trade" is much closer to reality than "I give you blueprints, you can build immediately".

- diplos and spies are more important cause they can steal or prevent stealing

Actually, tech stealing should remain. Simply, it's "war by other means". You can defend from it in two ways, plus wonders: patrol for incoming diplomats and/or have defensive diplomats in your cities. So, as long as it can be countered, I see it as a balanced feature.

- sometimes to conquer a tech may be a priceless tactical goal, no matter if the enemy will take back the city in the same turn.

Again, chance to get tech by conquering should be =<50%. This should change the game a lot.

- as a result, less advanced and isolated players will be more aggressive, trying to steal what they can't produce on their own, and maybe making things harder for the most developed.

And this is why "conquer tech" should NOT be zero or near zero. Compromise between 100% and 0%, m'kay?

- simple general specialization in alliances: "scientists" will use the brain and will let the other use the muscles (along with the latest gear provided by scientists). I would call it the "Q. vs. 007 relationship".

Remember, we are playing Civilization where we lead an entire ... civilization. Specialization is for individuals (and some would even argue with that; Heinlein said: "Specialization is for bugs").

- smarter tech traders will be very happy (as I have been in GT01)

:P

TECH_LOSE?
I already wrote many times why tech_lose doens't make sense.

And I agree with all of them even without reading :P
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Alliance package: no tech exchange, yes unit/city exchan

Postby ifaesfu » Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:28 am

monamipierrot wrote:Seriously, I really can't understand why there are still some players defending it and at the same time NOT defending no-tech-tradin/stealing/conquering.
I may have miss something. What?


Just because you can't do all that without losing more than winning, IMO. Even more, I think you can't forbid some ways of getting techs.
For example, you can't avoid players get a tech after conquering a city.
Corbeau wrote: setting chance to conquer tech to <50% makes tech sharing not too profitable
That setting doesn't work that way. It's only a percentage that you lose of all the points needed to get a new tech. I have to say that I haven't tested this feature and even I don't really understand it.

Also, I don't like you have to make diplos/spies useless to get no tech trading. I think the only way is to set "diplchance"=0... (oh! it can't be done, it only lets you set 40% as minimum) (just tested).

The only good way to get it is to set 2 wise percentages: one for techlost receiver and another one for techlost donor.

Monami, you played the big island game in LT with techlost. I don't know if you played too much with the diplomats, but they were very important, as there was a techlost percentage different to 100. Though I have to say I found those diplomatic attacks a bit annoying, I have to admit that they add another dimension to the game, as it is much worse to lose a tech you have researched with all your effort than just been stolen while you still keep it.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Next

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron