Do the AI cheating on Regent?

[Dravin]

True, but when we both have multiple luxuries (3-4 extra) why the hell not? Anyway, I think that there comes a point in the game where the AI bargains not to its advantage, but simply to your disadvantage. (And no, the two are not one and the same, though they can be closely connected.)

If it was a strategic resource I could understand the steep deal, but when you have Furs or Ivory stacked 3-4 high in the warehouse why not trade for some wine? Hell, I’ve seen the AI refuse a 1:3 trade with luxuries!

[Pyrodrew]

Rewind... Play... Rewind... Play...

Originally posted by Dravin


Maybe there is an intimidation factor going on. *shrug*

Of course the AI may just be ****** in the head when it comes to what constitutes a fair trade. Come on, what human player wouldn’t trade luxuries to a friendly empire on a 1:1 basis?

*sigh* A 1:1 trade is NOT fair if 1 civilization has 10 cities & the other has 30 cities. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.

True, but when we both have multiple luxuries (3-4 extra) why the hell not?

Perhaps I don't need that 8th luxury (17th-20th happy face) if my cities are size12 & under, where a 2nd luxury to you is very important.

Perhaps I'm friendly with you now, but I'm planning to go to war with you soon.

Perhaps I have 10 cities & you have 30... a 1:1 trade would only help you FAR more than it would me.

Perhaps if you're leading & winning the game I have no desire to extend your lead even further.

[Pythagoras]

Dont forget the fact that the AI will never fall too far behind you in the tech race. The AI just seems to get techs at random to stay competitive. That bothers me, my tech research is unfounded!

[Akka]

Re: Rewind... Play... Rewind... Play...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


*sigh* A 1:1 trade is NOT fair if 1 civilization has 10 cities & the other has 30 cities. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.



Perhaps I don't need that 8th luxury (17th-20th happy face) if my cities are size12 & under, where a 2nd luxury to you is very important.

Perhaps I'm friendly with you now, but I'm planning to go to war with you soon.

Perhaps I have 10 cities & you have 30... a 1:1 trade would only help you FAR more than it would me.

Perhaps if you're leading & winning the game I have no desire to extend your lead even further.

What do you consider a fair trade ? A trade where you get as much as you give in absolute, or a trade where you get as much as you give in relative ?
To make this more clear and take an example : if I have 100 gold and you have 50, then I say "let's trade !". I propose you 10 gold for 8 gold. It is a fair trade in absolute (I give you more than you give), but it's an unfair trade in relative (I give you 10 % of my gold, you give me 16 % of yours).

A trade has to be in absolute terms, or it lead to ridiculous results, like the one above.
See where is the logical flaw in the "A 1:1 trade is NOT fair if 1 civilization has 10 cities & the other has 30 cities. " ?

[Dev]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
Dont forget the fact that the AI will never fall too far behind you in the tech race. The AI just seems to get techs at random to stay competitive. That bothers me, my tech research is unfounded!

hmm I doubt this is the case, with a decent starting position on regent level I usually outtech the AI between a half and as much as full era and that includes trading every tech the AI discovers to the rest of the AIs.

It's no secret that the AI gets bonuses above regent level so if that's what you're playing then that explains it.


/dev

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
Dont forget the fact that the AI will never fall too far behind you in the tech race. The AI just seems to get techs at random to stay competitive. That bothers me, my tech research is unfounded!

Your also not understanding the research system properly!!

Say no-one has discovered economics yet. Anyone researching it has to pay the full 'research price' to discover it. Now imagine that only one civ has discovered economics. Anyone researching it has to pay a lower 'research price' to also discover it. If every civ except one has discovered economics, that last civ has to pay only 1/16th the full 'research price' (assuming 16 civs), so its harder for a civ to stay behind in the tech race.

That being said, if YOU dont actively trade techs once you reach the middle ages, the other civs will also be reluctant to spread the knowledge, leading the more militaristic civs to fall behind. Ive got mech inf while the Russians havent even discovered magnetism

[David Murray]

Hmm.

I think the grammar you require here is "Does the AI cheat on Regent?".

You're welcome.

[Hadrian]

You be right, my English is not so good. I hope you can forgive me. Thanks for welcome.

[David Murray]

Hmm?

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Your also not understanding the research system properly!!

Say no-one has discovered economics yet. Anyone researching it has to pay the full 'research price' to discover it. Now imagine that only one civ has discovered economics. Anyone researching it has to pay a lower 'research price' to also discover it. If every civ except one has discovered economics, that last civ has to pay only 1/16th the full 'research price' (assuming 16 civs), so its harder for a civ to stay behind in the tech race.

That being said, if YOU dont actively trade techs once you reach the middle ages, the other civs will also be reluctant to spread the knowledge, leading the more militaristic civs to fall behind. Ive got mech inf while the Russians havent even discovered magnetism

Pythagoras your sages have finished researching civ3 tech advances . Its nice to see a little gameplay addition makes AI cheating unnescesary.

[Jaybe]

Re: Re: Rewind... Play... Rewind... Play...

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What do you consider a fair trade ? A trade where you get as much as you give in absolute, or a trade where you get as much as you give in relative ?
To make this more clear and take an example : if I have 100 gold and you have 50, then I say "let's trade !". I propose you 10 gold for 8 gold. It is a fair trade in absolute (I give you more than you give), but it's an unfair trade in relative (I give you 10 % of my gold, you give me 16 % of yours).

A trade has to be in absolute terms, or it lead to ridiculous results, like the one above.
See where is the logical flaw in the "A 1:1 trade is NOT fair if 1 civilization has 10 cities & the other has 30 cities. " ?

I must agree with Pyrodrew. While your argument may be "logical", it has little relationship to reality or the game. Also, account for different personalities and perspectives, such as what you and I are displaying!

[Mr. Socks]

Look, it's not a question of what a civ can afford, it's what the item is worth to that cix. A 1:1 trade with luxuries between civs of different sizes is unfair because luxuries confer a set advantage *per city*. In other words, unlike gold, the value of luxuries isn't fixed but is relative to the size of the civ. In fact, it's probably even more important to the larger civ than that, since it has more peripheral cities, further away from the capital, and its core cities are likely bigger too -- so they need the happy faces more. The AI is right to try to sell its luxuries for what they are worth to you. I have to laugh when I see people calling the trade agreements they consented to unfair. Obviously, you thought the high price was worth it or you wouldn't have paid it, right?
It works to the player's advantage, too. The larger civs are always willing to pay more.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by simwiz2
the AI cheats because on EVERY level, it can see the whole map

of course they trade maps, but rarely evenly (they always want the map AND about 100 gold )

in civ3 the AI cheats just like civ2, only this time firaxis tried really hard to cover it up

because the AI sees the whole map, does it mean that if im on an island, i should give him my map anyways, cuase he knows where i am? if this is so, then this changes the whole strategy of the game where you end up on an island.

[GodSpawn]

The situation with AI being able to see your entire map seems to be a bit more complicated than "it can see everything"...

I did some experimentation. In one game, I observed an AI settler/warrior combo wandering about. At the time, I had occupied one end of a large island, and the AI had the other end. I had a hole in my city coverage which was a pretty nice spot for a city. This hole was furthest away from the AI.

Point is, the AI wasn't heading for it. It was poking around in an empty deserty bit near my borders. However, the turn after we traded territory maps, it headed straight for the gap. Almost as if it couldn't see it until we traded maps.

Now, this could be coincidence, and I'm not saying that this is proof that the AI doesn't cheat in this regard. But it seems to me to indicate that things are a little less clear-cut than some people think.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
Dont forget the fact that the AI will never fall too far behind you in the tech race. The AI just seems to get techs at random to stay competitive. That bothers me, my tech research is unfounded!

I believe I can speak to this one.

Playing my first game playing the Greeks at Regent level (until then I had always played Warlord)... I had good land, but only a couple of resources, and nothing extra to trade. Combine that with an early war against my agressive Roman neighbors (I always have to kick their ass once. After that, we stay friends for most of the rest of the game )-- and I found myself running LAST in the science race.

Suddenly I noticed the game was giving me techs every 4 turns, as long as my science rate was at 20%. At 10%... 6 turns. This lasted through several techs, until I was either no longer last, or close enough to the others that it decided to stop helping me. (couldn't tell which)

So whatever that dynamic is, it can help a human player too.