Hurry up and release 1.18! I can't take the AI's tech trading any more!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by dunk999
I think the problem with the AI trading is the World Map. For some reason, the AI players value this over just about any tech, even when the map they are trading for is identical to their own. To me it's rather silly, but if you buy a World Map for whatever the astronomical price is (your map + 200 gold + 10 gold per turn + engineering + dyes... had that offered to me once, AI wouldn't even accept 1 gold piece less), you have a powerful bargaining chip. I think a solution is to devalue that damn map.

I think you're right. Devaluing the world map would definitely help. The trouble is, sometimes the world map really IS worth a lot. This is the case if you have discovered another continent with a bunch of civs on it. Your world map should be really valueable to the civs on each continent, because that way they know how to find one another. Unfortunately, I don't see a simple way to code the game such that there is a distinction between this situation and simply uncovering a few squares of empty ocean the AI hasn't seen yet. Therefore, I say devalue the map in general.

Luxury trading:

There are a couple of factors here that conspire to make a 1 for 1 luxury deal with the AI very rare.

#1 - The larger you are (# of citizens), the more a luxury benifits you... and the AI knows it. So, if you are 2x the size of the AI with whom you wish to trade, they feel they can charge you double.

#2 - Difficulty level. If you play on levels higher than Regent, you have an unhappiness disadvantage. Therefore, luxuries are worth more to you than to the AI... and it knows it. So take the 2x it feels it can charge in #1 and make it 3x. When the AI trades amongst themselves, there is no unhappiness imbalance. Which, combined with the AI's willingness to bankrupt themselves for luxuries (I often see the AI running 70% taxes just to break even), is why you see the AI's all having 7 or 8 luxuries when you feel lucky to muster up 5 or 6.

It just makes more sense to take the luxury(ies) you want by force.

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Keep in mind that on higher levels, your money is being devalued -- by choice.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Arrian

Luxury trading:

There are a couple of factors here that conspire to make a 1 for 1 luxury deal with the AI very rare.

#1 - The larger you are (# of citizens), the more a luxury benifits you... and the AI knows it. So, if you are 2x the size of the AI with whom you wish to trade, they feel they can charge you double.

#2 - Difficulty level. If you play on levels higher than Regent, you have an unhappiness disadvantage. Therefore, luxuries are worth more to you than to the AI... and it knows it. So take the 2x it feels it can charge in #1 and make it 3x. When the AI trades amongst themselves, there is no unhappiness imbalance. Which, combined with the AI's willingness to bankrupt themselves for luxuries (I often see the AI running 70% taxes just to break even), is why you see the AI's all having 7 or 8 luxuries when you feel lucky to muster up 5 or 6.

It just makes more sense to take the luxury(ies) you want by force.

-Arrian

I was only 2 or 3 cities bigger (number of citizens shouldn't matter as a luxury only gives one happy face per city). Also, I was playing on Warlord difficulty.

[Arrian]

dunk999,

Warlord, huh. So you have a happiness advantage over the AI. Hmm... lemme think about that one.

No, by the way, a luxury does not just give 1 happy face. The first two do that. With marketplaces, the second two give two each, #'s 5 and 6 give three each, and #'s 7 and 8 give four each.

So, the more cities you have, and the larger they are, the more valueable a luxury is.

I also wonder if the AI is coded to be stingier to civs that are leading in score/tech. In your case, that would be you, right?

-Arrian

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Keep in mind that on higher levels, your money is being devalued -- by choice.

Hear, hear! I think that people occasionally forget that Regent is the only level where the AI doesn't cheat. Oh, I know, the Emperors of the Board may scoff at the lowly Regent level and snicker at anyone who can't beat Deity by 500AD. Nevertheless, Regent is where the "fair fight" is, at least in terms of resources, production and research. Anyone taking on a higher level is handicapping himself. It seems from time to time some forget this and complain "the AI gets a huge tech lead," or "corruption is killing all my production," or "all my citizens are unhappy." Unfortunately, by playing the higher levels that's exactly what you're asking for.

Sure, every now and again I take a deep breath and start up a Deity game for the sheer challenge of it. But for an enjoyable game where I don't have to be both perfect and lucky to have a chance at beating cheating opponents, it's Regent all the way.

Still, though, there is AI tech trading even on Regent, but it's not as bad, IMO, as on the higher levels. I've played numerous games where one or two AI Civs had a substantial tech lead (at least 6 techs) over other AI Civs, and it didn't seem like they were sharing one bit. OTOH, it does seem as though if I have an uncontested tech superiority over all the AI Civs, they're pretty good about sharing the tech they have in an attempt to regain some level of parity. Which, again, seems a perfectly reasonable strategy when chasing a runaway leader in a horserace-type game (which, IMHO, tech research certainly is).

[philler]

lots of interesting and originals ideas in this thread!

isn't it somewhat ironic that *we*, the players, who paid for the game (at least some of us ), have to come up with those ideas, so that the people at Firaxis can implement them?

don't they have any designers and testers at Firaxis?? (or not enough of them? or they're not good enough?)
Why should *we* playtest this game and then come up with idea to make it better? (or simply interesting to play).

I like this game, but I think it wouldn't take much effort to make it a lot better, and if you ask me I think the whole design/programming/marketing process is a travesty.

but, ah, they probably wanted it out for the Christmas season...

[philler]

let's take a simple example : stack move.

We had to wait till February to get it, whereas ANY CHIMP who played a game up to the modern ages could have told you it was indispensable!

[Barchan]

Originally posted by philler
isn't it somewhat ironic that *we*, the players, who paid for the game (at least some of us ), have to come up with those ideas, so that the people at Firaxis can implement them?

Not really. No one knows what the consumer really wants quite like the consumer. At least they're listening to consumers and trying to give us what we want, unlike SOME compaines out there....

[Grumbold]

World Map: it shouldn't be impossible to rate the map as 10 gold plust X gold per new city plus Y gold per new civilisation. A flat fee is just useless.

Luxuries: The AI always knows how many luxuries you are getting so if the negotiated one will give you x3 effect for 20 cities it will cost the earth. Once you have got that high, all future renegotiations will assume the luxury in question is the one giving that big bonus effect (of course) and the AI never rates its own luxury effect as higher than 1x even if it is getting several. I don't mind because quite often it IS worth that much to you. If it isn't, don't bargain for it

[WarpStorm]

I find that if the AI comes to you offering a deal it is much better than if go looking for one. I've often had it offering a luxury on a one for one (with a little gold thrown in) basis, when a few turns earlier I had gone to him and needed 2 luxuries and a good tech and the world map for the same luxury. I think it depends on who wants it more. If you go to him, he knows he has you by the short curlies.

[Brutus66]

In the game I am currently playing, I am on an archipeligo map with the full load of civs. I am holding on to the edge in technology and have explored most of the map. Thanks to the lighthouse, some of my galleys have gotten to distant shores and I have found just about everybody now. The other civs still have galleys and can't stray far from shore, so they are constantly after me for my map and wanting contact with other civs.
I have gotten to the point where I refuse to see anyone in diplomacy anymore, and I won't trade tech to anybody except in emergencies- like if I am being threatened by invasion from a strong neighbor and I want to recruit some allies.

If they want the tech, let 'em work for it.

[MikeV]

Originally posted by Grumbold
World Map: it shouldn't be impossible to rate the map as 10 gold plust X gold per new city plus Y gold per new civilisation. A flat fee is just useless.

I agree with your suggestion. But it probably makes more sense to determine value by how much "unknown" territory remains to be seen by that AI player.

That is, as everyone explores and swaps maps, the value of such swapping steadily decreases. By the time every player has full knowledge of the map, it no longer has any value (and therefore, would not come up for trade).

[dunk]

Originally posted by Arrian
dunk999,

Warlord, huh. So you have a happiness advantage over the AI. Hmm... lemme think about that one.

It knows that I have a happiness advantage? Why should that matter anyway? A happy face is a happy face. Whether it makes a happy citizen or a content citizen.

Originally posted by Arrian
No, by the way, a luxury does not just give 1 happy face. The first two do that. With marketplaces, the second two give two each, #'s 5 and 6 give three each, and #'s 7 and 8 give four each.

Ok, I forgot that one. Anyhoo, why should it know what happiness my people have already or if I have martketplaces? I don't know anything about his cities (save his capital when I make the embassy or pay 2/3 of my treasury to investigate a city).

Originally posted by Arrian
I also wonder if the AI is coded to be stingier to civs that are leading in score/tech. In your case, that would be you, right?

-Arrian

This may be a point. An official answer might be helpful. But the computer players always seem to be stingy with me, in the lead or not.

I still think the AI trades techs during my turn. I was the first to get Monarchy (at least I think, it never showed up in anyone's list in the diplomacy screen). I thought, yay, I can sell this for some big bucks to a couple civs. I sold it to the Indians for a chunk of change. Then... a pause in the game. Then, I try to sell to everyone else and it's not listed in my trade list.

[dunk]

Originally posted by MikeV


I agree with your suggestion. But it probably makes more sense to determine value by how much "unknown" territory remains to be seen by that AI player.

I think that is how it works when the AI trades me maps. My map is almost always useless to them, but their map is worth everything in my borders plus everything in my neighbor's borders. I think unless you are the first civ to contact a second civ, your map will be worthless throughout the game (unless of course you buy one... for the above price).

[Loopy]

I know I'm in the minority but I'll chime in anyways.

I don't have any major problem with the current tech trading. I didn't have a major problem with the AI trading on my turn (ala 1.16). I see these changes as just game play challenges and strategy shifts.

At first you could tech whore like mad (pre patch). Then you could tech whore but had to pick the richest buyer first (1.16). Now you can only tech whore if you've got the tech lead, and if the AI has the fundage to be your "tech-biatch".

Map valuation seems about right to me. If I'm not mistaken, your view of the world doesn't update road / rail / land improvements. Trading for a map you traded for last turn could give you additional information. Sure there aren't any new mountains, but knowing that a road has been built through them can be helpful. The AI's rampant map trading means their world map is much more up to date than yours, and should be worth more. But once you get one "current" version of the map though, everyone else's version will become "devalued", until the next turn of course.

I don't see how the tech devaluation / instant catch up is "broken" either. I've bought a couple of techs for 1 gold in my current game and that's what they were "worth" at the time. Everyone else had already researched the tech, and I was 1 turn away from learning it anyways.

Tech research cost is based on the number of other civs that you've contacted that know the tech. So when you find that isolated pair of backwards civs for the first time, their tech research drops slightly through contact with one known civ (you) that has the advanced tech. When they've traded communications to the rest of the world, their tech cost drops tremendously with 13 known civs that have the advanced tech. The lowered cost to "catch-up" is designed to help the human player, and also helps the isolated AI. Playing archipeligo works by keeping the base cost high (fewer civs in contact with one another), and the consequently the trade rate down.

And luxury costs work both ways. If you're much smaller than another civ, you can charge a lot for that 1 luxury that they don't have. In my current emperor game I'm trading my only source of ivory for one of China's 3 gems + 10 gold a turn. Granted, they're more than twice my size and probably need it a lot more than I do. But I fail to see the problem in how the system works.

The only real problem I see is the AI whipping cities to uselessness. Then again, I usually go for a diplomatic victory so I haven't run into that AI bug often. I guess what I'm saying is instead of saying the game's "broken" or a patch totally messed up the game, y'all should try adjusting your playing style. So what if it's not a walk in the park anymore, or if you're getting your butt whupped now 'cause your favourite exploit is gone -- there are still winning strategies out there.