Poll: Trade ethics and endless guilt...

ignacz · Apr 9, 2009

Willem said:
I don't see it that way. If they're already researching the tech they're going to get it anyway, so I may as well make a bit of gold out of it and improve my diplomacy while I'm at it. If however they pose any sort of military threat or rivalry, or the tech allows them to build a Wonder I'm currently working on, then I'll make them wait those extra turns.

This is pretty much how I play it. If I'm considerably more advanced, I will especially milk my weaker friendly civs. If they are civs that are closely linked with my principle threats. . .no way.

The game I'm currently playing has been considerably different compared to others I've played--I destroyed Rome as a nearby civ on like the 10th overall turn (no defenders in Rome, just Nero fiddling :lol:

), and later discovered absolute isolation. So I overexpanded early to protect my turf, but as a result my cities and thin defense were draining my finances to the point I was woefully behind tech-wise.

Come to find out the nearest civ's continent was a couple tiles away but they weren't very advanced, either. It took til about 1100 AD until I had contact with 5 other civs.
Surprisingly my score was 3rd when I had a number of competing civs revealed, and I'm on the verge taking over the top spot in points, but I still have a lot of catching up to do, and I'm just now becoming financially solvent at about 1700 AD.

It was quite interesting seeing the tech-trade aspect from the aspect of trying to catch up.

(which will hopefully serve me better for trying more advanced levels of play).

CHEESE! · Apr 9, 2009

I clicked the first option just because it is so ridiculously over-the-top (the AI's worth as a person :lol:

) but I do not think it is bad or an exploit, really. It gets me by.

Gratz on 600 posts!

Continental Op · Apr 9, 2009

I think the starter of this thread is kidding, but still: nothing that you can do with the normal game is cheating unless the game is broken. This is also true in the real life international politics. Now what did Bismarck say about that?

r_rolo1 · Apr 9, 2009

So, can someone explain to me why trading a tech that the AI is researching for money is unethical, exploit or something like that? My opinion is that it is not ,but ,as there is no option for that, I need to be elucidated to be able to chose one

ignacz · Apr 9, 2009

r_rolo1 said:
So, can someone explain to me why trading a tech that the AI is researching for money is unethical, exploit or something like that? My opinion is that it is not ,but ,as there is no option for that, I need to be elucidated to be able to chose one

Think of it as selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese or Iranians if you are the US of A.

r_rolo1 · Apr 9, 2009

And?.....

It would be a exploit or unethical if:
- only one side could do it. That , as you know, it is not true, as any person that bypassed archery until the space age knows ( "oh, my friend human, want to trade a space ship part technology , that we would NEVER sell to you, by the secret of making a bow plus 10 gold ? No? Why not? It is perfectly fair.... " )
-the AI gave more money that it would give for a tech with the beaker value that is missing, a thing that simply doesn'ty happen

Failing this conditions, it is a deal so fair as any tech trade in game ( that is saying that the Human is always ripped off, and not the AI ). If you consider trading a tech for gold in this conditions unethical, you need to consider ALL tech trades as unethical....

bestbrian · Apr 9, 2009

Lemon Merchant said:
I know what you mean, and I do the same. It just feels a little cheesy sometimes. You know, like the high maintenance girl out on a date, taking her companion for a big expensive dinner and anything else she can get, then making the poor guy/girl settle for a handshake at the door. Now, THAT'S an exploit.

What? You can say no? Silly me, I just always put out.

Yeah, I'm with pretty much everyone else - it's not an exploit, and it's a useful return on my investment in Espionage.

And since when did you become all "nicey-nice" and worry about taking advantage of the AI? You've gotten soft.

PieceOfMind · Apr 9, 2009

Lemon Merchant said:
I actually think it's kind of hilarious that your enemy will help to finance his/her own destruction through stupidity. I like the idea that I can take Monty's money and his pants with the infantry he helped to finance.

It's called the Full Monty. :eek:

TheMeInTeam · Apr 10, 2009

PieceOfMind said:
It's called the Full Monty.

No, that term was taken long ago, and it means a player who is sorely backward has managed to spam so many troops it doesn't matter

.

Camikaze · Apr 10, 2009

Ethics has no place in the game. I mean, really, IT IS ALL ABOUT WINNING! :twitch:

On a similar note, my sister once got angry at me when she saw me harpooning whales. In the game, that is.

Stoney the I · Apr 10, 2009

I always leave my sisters at home when I go whaling. no fuss.

Full Monty.

No, that term was taken long ago, and it means a player who is sorely backward has managed to spam so many troops it doesn't matter

Lol thats awesome stuff.

and OT: There is/was an exploit that involved giving money/turn to an AI and then trading back for it, cancelling the money deals later (or something). Im not sure if it is patched out by now, or how it worked exactly... maybe somebody here can elaborate.

Iranon · Apr 10, 2009

I see something wrong with the way the AI values money and beakers equally in trades.

If the AI gets 500 gold while I turn the same amount of commerce into a 500-beaker-tech the deal that would make us even is the tech for 250 gold, since I don't forget how to make cheese if I trade cheesemaking to the AI.
As another bonus, it doesn't count towards wfyabta.

This goes for all tech-for-gold deals though; there is nothing especially wrong with trading away techs the AI has partially researched already. On lower levels, these might be the only times where the AIs actually have enough gold to agree to unfavourable deals (outside of just having lost a narrow wonder race).

binhthuy71 · Apr 10, 2009

Getting 300 gold for a tech you've already researched is good.
Getting paid for being ahead of the AI in tech is priceless.

eris · Apr 10, 2009

Considering all the other mean and nasty things I am planning against the AI with my troops, a little trade exploitation seems mild by comparison. It does not cause me any guilt feelings at all. Considering how often I feel shafted by the AI trade offerings, I feel even less guilt. Considering I roleplay a completely bigoted and xenophobic attitude towards the AI, I feel....

Well, anyway, no, it doesn't bother me in the least.

Willem · Apr 10, 2009

Stoney the I said:
and OT: There is/was an exploit that involved giving money/turn to an AI and then trading back for it, cancelling the money deals later (or something). Im not sure if it is patched out by now, or how it worked exactly... maybe somebody here can elaborate.

You may be thinking of Civ 3. That sort of exploit never existed in Civ as far as I know.

Flying Pig · Apr 10, 2009

I try to make the AI's decisions for it as much as possible so that it doesn't mess up - steering it clear of bad trades is one good example.

binhthuy71 · Apr 10, 2009

You may be thinking of Civ 3. That sort of exploit never existed in Civ as far as I know.

It was a CivIII exploit before the 1.31 patch.

TheMeInTeam · Apr 10, 2009

Iranon said:
I see something wrong with the way the AI values money and beakers equally in trades.

If the AI gets 500 gold while I turn the same amount of commerce into a 500-beaker-tech the deal that would make us even is the tech for 250 gold, since I don't forget how to make cheese if I trade cheesemaking to the AI.
As another bonus, it doesn't count towards wfyabta.

This goes for all tech-for-gold deals though; there is nothing especially wrong with trading away techs the AI has partially researched already. On lower levels, these might be the only times where the AIs actually have enough gold to agree to unfavourable deals (outside of just having lost a narrow wonder race).

It's probably too hard or unfair to code. Gold is worth more to the player than beakers when he has more :science:

multipliers to convert commerce into :science:

. If the AI wanted to "true value" its gold, it would have to weigh how its commerce is applied in its empire to convert it into gold or beakers. However, to truly do it well it would also have to account for expected near-future multipliers. Yeah right...the stupid AI can't even place its national wonders correctly most of the time.

Interestingly, humans and potentially even AIs could use this information to speed up the global tech rate though. If one nation tends toward :science:

and the other :gold:

multipliers and trades across, you essentially have specialization at the empire level, an efficient use of hammers to be sure, especially since the multipliers originate on different paths. (this is part of the reason the liberalism path is so favored, the AI prioritizes the bottom path and gold multipliers more so, which is a strong incentive for the human to grab trade-value in science techs AND to prioritize :science:

multipliers in a typical game).

Lemon Merchant · Apr 10, 2009

Continental Op said:
I think the starter of this thread is kidding, but still: nothing that you can do with the normal game is cheating unless the game is broken. This is also true in the real life international politics. Now what did Bismarck say about that?

I wasn't really kidding. The poll is sort of tongue-in-cheek, but the question wasn't meant to be. I was just thinking that the situation is kind of bending the rules of the game a bit, and I was just wondering if anyone else thought that way.

bestbrian said:
What? You can say no? Silly me, I just always put out.

Of course I can say no. I'm not the kind of person that will soak my companion for an expensive dinner and drinks, etc.

If I get jewelry, however, then a good night kiss is definitely in order.

And since when did you become all "nicey-nice" and worry about taking advantage of the AI? You've gotten soft.

I've mellowed since I got hitched. My partner has a somewhat tranquilizing effect. :lol:

Ow!

Justy · Apr 12, 2009

I don't see how this could possibly be seen as unethical. Its a simple exchange, gold for beakers. It's actually a good deal for whoever is buying. Shave 3 turns off here and 3 turns off there and before you know it that is a lot of beakers and saved turns.

Poll: Trade ethics and endless guilt...

Is trading a tech the AI is researching for money an exploit?

Absolutely! It's completely unethical and diminishes the AI's worth as a person.

Yes, but I sometimes do it, and it diminishes me as a person. I need help.

I'm on the fence, considering a career in politics.

It's an exploit, but I write bad cheques, too.

Exploit, schmexploit! Show me the money!

Chieftain

On a long nostalgia trip

Warlord

King of myself

Chieftain

King of myself

Just this guy, ya know?

Drill IV Defender

If A implies B...

Moderator

Prince

Deity

Emperor

King

Deity

Utrinque Paratus

Emperor

If A implies B...

Not Quite Sonic

Warlord

Similar threads