For the love of good AI...

[Evil_Eric_4]

I always play 16 civs so I always find lots of suckers willing to make me rich

Shop around dude--If the stupid Romans dont want to deal then deal with their enemies(Then crush the little S**ts)

[Venger]

What's the point of trade if it's solely one side always screwing another? It seems trades of mutual advantage are far too rare. If you want to make a Civ dependent on you, make trading to mutual advantage easier.

See my upcoming thread on non-agression treaties coming up...

Venger

[Jaybe]

Poor price offers for techs

The interesting/frustrating thing about trading techs is that you don't know what AI civ's situation is. Perhaps they are almost finished researching the tech you are offering, or perhaps they are just not interested in that one. Of course, maybe they just hate your guts or don't have anything to give for it. If you are playing at a high difficulty level, it's a "well, what did you expect" situation.

While we can "Investigate City" we cannot do an "F1" or "F6" on them (if anyone knows different, please let me know)!

Of course, if they really like you (long-term ally) and they have the resources, they might give you an outrageously great price for a good tech.

[Boracks]

When the AI comes to me, I never take the first offer. I always go for another proposal.

Often they'll offer to trade world maps if I throw in a tech. I counter by asking them what they would give me just for the tech. Sometimes they come back and offer a tech swap plus cash from them and sometimes they just offer their map. If they offer income, I try and increase it.

One game I'm in, its 1600, I'm leading in tech and I have a net income of 200 gold/turn - all from other civs. My own generated gold is going to maintenence and science, mostly science. (Huge map, 16 civs, warlord)

When I go to the AI, I find I have a lot less room to manuver, as it should be. But I still don't take the first offer most of the time.

[Capt Dizle]

Perhaps I did not make myself plain.

The AI gives up way too much at the bargaining table.

Sure, they will ask too much sometimes, but the AI can not recognize when it really has you over a barrel.

I am so disgusted that I got oil so cheaply that I quit the game.

Oh, I did go back and replayed the turn and found I could get oil simply by demanding it.

Thats even more pathetic. I think that Soren needs to work on this one.

Strategic resources should be help much more dear by the AI. The general rule should be that you HAVE to fight to get them.

Civ3 is such a lame, peacenik game. There should be no chance to win without massive warfare.

[Dienstag]

Out of curiosity, I once offered a civ 6 gold in return for 6 gold....they refused as if I was trying to cheat them or something (don't remember the exact response). If I worked for Firaxis, such deals would have a unique and probably humorous response like: "Shouldn't you be looking at the games's nifty unit graphics now?"

...Otherwise, I agree with those who say that the AI has some strange expectations at the bargaining table. Also, I haven't seen them do as much "could I please have some coal?" as I've done. They seem perfectly content to fight against tanks with archers if they don't have the resources...and I haven't noticed any AI invasions that seemed resource-related, although it might happen sometime.

[Dienstag]

jimmytrick, what were the conditions when you got oil so easily? relative power, political relations...that sort of thing. If getting oil is really as easy as you say it is (I've only played a few games and only made it to Refining once or twice without oil in my borders...) then I agree there's a serious problem.

[player1]

One interesting thing happend in may game.

Only AI superpower, wich was supplied by me with iron for 30 gold per turn, offered mr 98 gold per turn plus saltpeter, when I wanted to cancel our agreement.
I suppose it is becaouse no one else had excess Irons, and he badly needed Iron for Railroads.

Talking about generous AI

[splangy]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Civ3 is such a lame, peacenik game. There should be no chance to win without massive warfare.

ya, it worked so well for the Mongols, Germans, Russians, Romans, Japs...

In other words, massive warfare may be fun for you, but what about the other people who play the game? I personally turn off all options but conquest, but I still dont want a wargame vieled as a empire-building game...

[Dienstag]

Concerning the lame, peacenik game accusation: I forget where I read this but it went something like: "all those cultural improvements are only worth the army defending them."

In the 2 games I've tried for a one-city cultural victory, I lost one because of the UN end-game, and another to a tidal wave of enemy units from my culturally inferior neighbor. I haven't played, let alone won (in any way), a game that didn't include massive warfare.

I've also noticed a vicious tendency of AI civs to gang up on weaklings. In my current game, after a losing a few cities to the Greeks, the Romans found literally everyone else except me (a peacenik democracy, yes) looking for piece of them.

I haven't been in any nuclear exchanges yet...anyone know how the AI behaves here?

[GePap]

Trading should be better

Don't get me wrong, the A.I. in this game is far better than that in Civ2 or SMAc in many things, but sometimes in can be VERY STUPID. How do we, human gamers, decide what our interests are? Lets say you are small and have a realtively weak army but think that in the future things will improve-now your superpower neighbor, who can squash you aside like an insect comes demanding certain things. Do you say no, or yes? I know some will let their pride rule and be crushed in the process,but those that care for realpolitik will say yes for the moment and bide their time. The A.I. seems to me to be poor at both judging relative power vs. gamer and biding its time for later strikes (which is why the Vassal state strategy works so well). It acts too proud in present and ignorant of possible future disadvantages it might get into. These may be difficult things to encode into an A.I., i don't know, but I can still dream...

[Akka]

"The AI gives up way too much at the bargaining table. "

We probably don't have the same game. Or you're even more probably just trolling.

"Strategic resources should be help much more dear by the AI. The general rule should be that you HAVE to fight to get them."
"Civ3 is such a lame, peacenik game. There should be no chance to win without massive warfare."

Perhaps a joke but... Nah, I doubt it is.
Listen, dude : increase your medication, spend one hour a day hitting a punching-ball, and go back play Warcraft. You won't be disturbed by too much peaceniks.

you call your civ a 'superpower'?

I suppose here that it's just some humour
Just in case, I had not that much gold because I actually SPEND it when I have. don't see the point accumulating it except to have the Wall Street money.


HugoHillbilly, have you really see WHAT he asked me to trade ?
2 techs, my maps, 122 golds a turn, 587 gold and two luxuries for a pact that is MORE profitable for him than for me. The little powers are usually more looking for alliance than the big ones.

Well, and if you want another example...
Few times later, a world war started (me and the German against the rest of the world). I punched through Romans easily (tanks vs musketmen), took two of their cities, and, just for fun, want to see what they would give me if I would allow them a peace treaty.
In fact, Caesar, who has my troops right at the door of his capitol (not a picture, I was actually bombing it), and had already lost two cities, asked ME to give him TWELVE workers so he would grant me peace.
But I suppose someone will again give me a "logical" answer as why he would do that. Of course.

[Pyrodrew]

SuperPowers Should Pay More

The AI civs aren't there for your benefit, they are competing just like you, maybe they don't want to trade with you. You don't have to trade with them either.

Agreed! The AI Civs are not playing to simply "survive", they are playing to win.

When the AI offers you 1 gold for a tech it is probably because it is just about to make the breakthrough on the following turn.

Exactly!

I propose them Mutual protection pact and right of passage. They should be begging for it. Or at least be pleased. Or at least fear to make me mad.
Instead

Unless you've become the leading superpower by culture/peace (rare) & not war in the past... it would be SUICIDE for the Romans to agree to a MPP with you. That would essentially make them your temporary buffer/shield if/when you declare war on the other Superpowers. You need to think about how MPP is possible to work rather than just the word "protection".

MPPs arent for friendship, they are military pacts.

Exactly!

But stop the madness, if anyone give me 1 luxury, 1 tech and 150 gold and ask for 1 luxury in exchange, I would be completely dumb to refuse it. Even 1 luxury vs 1 luxury would be a good deal - I loose nothing, I gain something, considering that I have 1 luxury in excess.

As I've explained in another thread a 1-1 luxury trade to a small weaker Civ IS an insult when offered from a large superpower...

1st, a civ with 10 cities benefits FAR less from a 1-1 luxury trade than a civ with 40 cities does. Thus the smaller civ is right to ask for a better deal than a 1-1 luxury trade.

2nd, if a civ is technologically further behind than you are a 1-1 luxury trade will again help you out more than them. 1 more extra happy citizen often leads to better production... this allows you to build 1 more tank... but him only 1 more rifleman.

3rd, additional luxuries are not as important to small cities as they are to large cities. Superpowers typically have the multiple large cities. The weak Civs are the ones with still size12 towns! Thus, again luxuries help the superpowers out FAR MORE than the weak Civs.

4th, the weaker Civs are smart to ask for more from the larger Civs... the last thing they should want to do is make the Superpowers even more powerful. Again they should be playing to win, not simply "survive".

How the heck does the other guy KNOW what your map is worth before they've seen it ???

i still havent explored much, but i know rome has, because i can see ceaser's ships sailing about all over the place. so i know theyre gonna want a hefty price for it - the more of the world they see, the more ive got to pay for their charts. at the same time, my map gets cheaper or impossible to sell, because rome already knows what i know.

In addition, the histograph shows which Civs are the most powerful. Land ownership is a HUGE factor in determining power. Even tho I did not know how much exploring or land ownership the Aztecs had in my 1st game, I knew it was one of the best since they were at the top in score.

I always play 16 civs so I always find lots of suckers willing to make me rich. Shop around dude

Agreed! Well said.

What's the point of trade if it's solely one side always screwing another?

As Soren stated once the most *some* AI Civs will ask for is a +10% to what is considered an equal trade. A 1luxury for 1luxury is not an equal trade when 1 Civ is a large high tech superpower & the other is the Flintstones.

When I go to the AI, I find I have a lot less room to manuver, as it should be.

Exactly! Agreed.

The AI gives up way too much at the bargaining table. Sure, they will ask too much sometimes, but the AI can not recognize when it really has you over a barrel. I am so disgusted that I got oil so cheaply that I quit the game. Strategic resources should be help much more dear by the AI.

Not enough information to comment on. It ALL depends on the situation, both your Civ's history, reputations, military strengths, trade history, # of cities, etc. Someone mentioned in another thread they found it impossible to get coal... that clearly shows 2 VERY different situations & circumstances.

Only AI superpower, wich was supplied by me with iron for 30 gold per turn, offered mr 98 gold per turn plus saltpeter, when I wanted to cancel our agreement.
I suppose it is becaouse no one else had excess Irons, and he badly needed Iron for Railroads. Talking about generous AI

Perfect example. Iron was far more crucial to that AI superpower & it could not find/risk going elsewhere. Without iron key buildings & military cannot be built for that AI superpower to retain it's lead & feel secure.

How do we, human gamers, decide what our interests are? Lets say you are small and have a realtively weak army but think that in the future things will improve-now your superpower neighbor, who can squash you aside like an insect comes demanding certain things. Do you say no, or yes?

AI Civs shouldn't be playing to simply survive, but to win. A superpower forcing their demands on weaker civs is no way that weaker civ is going to win. So if we were in a multiplayer game & my midevil knights had oil while your ModernAge society came over & "demanded" my oil... I say no unless you agree to my terms. You might very well kill me... and although you might not do the same, I would rather "die on my feet than live on my knees."

[Akka]

Re: SuperPowers Should Pay More

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Agreed! The AI Civs are not playing to simply "survive", they are playing to win.

I do agree too. Except when they commit suicide to "win". You should think about winning only when you have a chance of surviving. It's pretty hard to win if you're dead, he ?

Unless you've become the leading superpower by culture/peace (rare) & not war in the past... it would be SUICIDE for the Romans to agree to a MPP with you. That would essentially make them your temporary buffer/shield if/when you declare war on the other Superpowers. You need to think about how MPP is possible to work rather than just the word "protection".

I do agree that Roman accepting the MPP would have made them my buffer/shield, as I was about to be at war with their neighbours. Though, they had the choice of be my buffer/shield or be the battleground for my tanks. If I was at their place, I would have chosen to side with the strongest.

As I've explained in another thread a 1-1 luxury trade to a small weaker Civ IS an insult when offered from a large superpower...

1st, a civ with 10 cities benefits FAR less from a 1-1 luxury trade than a civ with 40 cities does. Thus the smaller civ is right to ask for a better deal than a 1-1 luxury trade.

2nd, if a civ is technologically further behind than you are a 1-1 luxury trade will again help you out more than them. 1 more extra happy citizen often leads to better production... this allows you to build 1 more tank... but him only 1 more rifleman.

3rd, additional luxuries are not as important to small cities as they are to large cities. Superpowers typically have the multiple large cities. The weak Civs are the ones with still size12 towns! Thus, again luxuries help the superpowers out FAR MORE than the weak Civs.
A 1luxury for 1luxury is not an equal trade when 1 Civ is a large high tech superpower & the other is the Flintstones.

I do agree with that.
Here it leads to another dilemna : should the barter be based on the relative value or the absolute value ? I mean, if I've 1000 gold, +150 each turn and that I'm trading with a civ that has 200 gold, +25 each turn, and I ask 10 gold in exchange of 10 gold : should the barter be considered fair as I give as much as I take (10 gold for 10 gold) ? Or should the barter be considered unfair as I give proportionnaly less than I ask (1 % of my gold/6,5 % of my income against 5 % of their gold/40 % of their income).
Here is a good thing to think about.

4th, the weaker Civs are smart to ask for more from the larger Civs... the last thing they should want to do is make the Superpowers even more powerful. Again they should be playing to win, not simply "survive".

The best way to have a greater chance to win AND to make the superpower not more powerful is to don't start a war with it and have it swallow your weaker civ.
The stupid thing that always bothered me in all the Civ's diplomacy was that the weaker civ were supposed to be more agressive against the more powerful ones, and that the more powerful were supposed to be generous toward the weaker ones.
In fact it's reality it's exactly the opposite, and the more powerful you are, the more you can afford to bully others (until the balance of power change, but that's another thing).
The weaker I am compared to my neighbour, the more I'll shut up.

When I go to the AI, I find I have a lot less room to manuver, as it should be.

As Soren stated once the most *some* AI Civs will ask for is a +10% to what is considered an equal trade.

That's right. As the requester, I should have to give more than I'll receive.
I agree too it's acceptable that some civ ask for a little more than they'll give.
But +10 % or even +25/50 % is one thing. The INSANE request the AI always ask is another. It's not +10 % that they try to extort, it's often more than three times what it's worth.
And while I accept that they'll ask for more, there is times when they should ask for LESS. And not ONLY when they are reduced to ashes and about to die.


"AI Civs shouldn't be playing to simply survive, but to win. A superpower forcing their demands on weaker civs is no way that weaker civ is going to win."

A superpower crushing the weaker under its foot is an even more unlikely way that the weaker civ is going to win.

"So if we were in a multiplayer game & my midevil knights had oil while your ModernAge society came over & "demanded" my oil... I say no unless you agree to my terms. You might very well kill me... and although you might not do the same, I would rather "die on my feet than live on my knees."

MP is completely different. We'll fight people with actual real brains (unless we got to play againt Bush Jr) that will have reasonnable ways to think. We'll be able to barter, to haggle over, and to explain why or why not, to actually really be able to threaten , to do all kind of things we can't do with the AI.

[Pyrodrew]

Re: Re: SuperPowers Should Pay More

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I do agree too. Except when they commit suicide to "win". You should think about winning only when you have a chance of surviving. It's pretty hard to win if you're dead, he ?

If you've learned oil & I'm still learning Gunpowder I must take bigger risks to try to win which include risking my entire civilization. Either I give you oil for saltpeter (unfair trade for a weaker smaller civ) & you win via spaceship victory, UN, culture, or conquest. Or I withhold my oil & ask for a very steep price for the oil. If you accept my price I might be back in the game. If you decline & attack me... well I lost anyways at that point. Do you really think saltpeter will help a smaller weaker civ win when the Superpowers are discovering oil?

I do agree that Roman accepting the MPP would have made them my buffer/shield, as I was about to be at war with their neighbours. Though, they had the choice of be my buffer/shield or be the battleground for my tanks. If I was at their place, I would have chosen to side with the strongest.

You might prefer to have 2 Superpowers beating you up instead of 1... not me.

The best way to have a greater chance to win AND to make the superpower not more powerful is to don't start a war with it and have it swallow your weaker civ.
The stupid thing that always bothered me in all the Civ's diplomacy was that the weaker civ were supposed to be more agressive against the more powerful ones, and that the more powerful were supposed to be generous toward the weaker ones.
In fact it's reality it's exactly the opposite, and the more powerful you are, the more you can afford to bully others (until the balance of power change, but that's another thing).
The weaker I am compared to my neighbour, the more I'll shut up.

In reality the world is NOT ending in 2050 with God deciding 1 Civilization as the winner & the rest losers. If it was reality would be VERY different. The weaker civilizations are not the ones starting the wars... you are declaring war on them simply because they won't trade with you.

That's right. As the requester, I should have to give more than I'll receive. I agree too it's acceptable that some civ ask for a little more than they'll give.
But +10 % or even +25/50 % is one thing. The INSANE request the AI always ask is another. It's not +10 % that they try to extort, it's often more than three times what it's worth.

Again see my earlier post explaining why what something is worth to you is different compared to what something is worth to a smaller & weaker Civ. 1 luxury for 1 luxury is not a fair trade.

A superpower crushing the weaker under its foot is an even more unlikely way that the weaker civ is going to win.

A weaker Civ giving in to the demands of the superpowers has NO CHANCE of winning... with that logic the superpowers would always get what they want increasing their lead among the others even more. No weaker smaller civ should be playing for 5th place. Thus, asking a high price to significantly help it out is logical. If you're going to lose you might as well lose fighting on your feet rather than lose living on your knees.

MP is completely different. We'll fight people with actual real brains (unless we got to play againt Bush Jr) that will have reasonnable ways to think. We'll be able to barter, to haggle over, and to explain why or why not, to actually really be able to threaten , to do all kind of things we can't do with the AI.

I agree. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that many human players will drop out if they find they are in 11th place mid-game... so most of those threats will still be against the AI. But if I was in 11th place & discovered I was the only one with oil in my territory... I would not give it to the human superpowers for a mere "fair" or +1000 gold price... because I would want to win... or die. The AI should act no different & it doesn't.