New Version - November 5th (11/5)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
PurpleMentat
Videographer
In my current game, an out-settled and out-teched Napoleon is the one person throwing a tantrum on my continent. Pacal, Isabella, and Haile Selassie are all buddy-buddy with me (Babylon). They do all regularly ask me to go to war with them against one of the others, but none of them will attack each other or me first. Napoleon? DoW's people left and right, loses cities, and tries to trade 4 pop outposts in the Rennaissance for a metropolis full of wonders. I swear he rolled a psychotic personality this game.
I have noticed the AI being remarkably reluctant to trade luxury for luxury. Just met someone, swapped Embassys, offered one of my 3 salt for one of his 6 olives and I'm turned down.
I have noticed the AI being remarkably reluctant to trade luxury for luxury. Just met someone, swapped Embassys, offered one of my 3 salt for one of his 6 olives and I'm turned down.
Atlas627
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,124
Now that you mention it, yes they were all Authority in the warlike game and all Tradition with a little bit of Progress in the peaceful game...
I also saw an AI fill both Progress and Authority, and I am very happy that it happens sometimes. They also had enough science to get to Renaissance by the time they finished both trees, so its not like it was automatically a stupid decision.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,834
I don't know if this is the right place to report, but I tried playing with the new 11-5 version after playing with the 7-15 version for ages (that version was for me very stable and reliable). Anyway, things did run very smoothly for the first 100 turns with 11-5 and some bugs from 7-15 was fixed, but I did also experience some very strange AI behaviour. Not only was AI very agressive with DoW towards each other and trying to bribe me to DoW others AI's all over the place (which is not a bad thing in itself, although this seemed a bit excessive), but here's the real problem:
There seems to be some sort of city-trading algorithm that's malfunctioning. AI would start trading their cities to each other randomly - for instance Austria sold their own city of Graz to Siam (probably in exchange for one of their own, hence she can offer me Muang Salvong - Austria and Siam and me all have DoF at this point with no prior wars). Siam then approached me to sell Graz to me in return for one of my cities, and then a few turns later sold it off to Rome. I've attached a couple of screenshots I did of the AI coming with city swap offers to me.
There seems to be some sort of city-trading algorithm that's malfunctioning. AI would start trading their cities to each other randomly - for instance Austria sold their own city of Graz to Siam (probably in exchange for one of their own, hence she can offer me Muang Salvong - Austria and Siam and me all have DoF at this point with no prior wars). Siam then approached me to sell Graz to me in return for one of my cities, and then a few turns later sold it off to Rome. I've attached a couple of screenshots I did of the AI coming with city swap offers to me.
Spoiler :
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,834
Well, in that case, can it be made optional? To have AIs randomly trading their cities back and forth between each other on the map doesn't make any sense at all, and it'll probably not help AI to perform better that it has random cities scattered between other civs' cities either.
Deadstarre
Expert
I havn't noticed this wanton swapping personally but i would agree it should be optional. I have been repeaedly offered plenty of bogus city exchanges by the AI that are just wasting time and i know there is zero way to program them into fully understanding what a city is truly worth, or if they should be trading at all - its too complex an issue. For their own sake and the cause of improving AI game performance, it's probably better they have their own cities from ground up and keep them as such
albie_123
Modding In Secret
Yeah, I just had a similar trade offer made in my game. Weird, didn't seem to happen in the last game I played with the most recent patch, though that's probably due to me being aggressive.
Either way, I really dislike it.
It doesn't make sense at all from a historical perspective (selling / buying land ala the Louisiana Purchase, sure, but trading cities within states proper?) and from a game-play perspective I don't see the benefit, especially since the AI doesn't really seem to know how much even a bad city can be worth.
Either way, I really dislike it.
It doesn't make sense at all from a historical perspective (selling / buying land ala the Louisiana Purchase, sure, but trading cities within states proper?) and from a game-play perspective I don't see the benefit, especially since the AI doesn't really seem to know how much even a bad city can be worth.
PurpleMentat
Videographer
I don't think I like the city state diplomatic unit changes. I'm playing a game right now where I'm the top dog. Everyone is at peace with me, no one dares attack. The rest of the world is a chaos of constant warfare. If an AI sends a diplomat to one of my city states, they can take it from me. That city state then becomes part of the three wars that AI is fighting, and I can't win it back.
To keep the mechanic of 'no diplomatic missions to a city-state involved in war' without screwing the peaceful players, I think you'd need to make it so a player can't send diplomatic units to a city-state who has an ally while that player is at war. This basically cuts the diplomacy game off from warmongers, or from those who are targeted by warmongers. I'm not happy with it but can't think of anything else.
In concept, the change was interesting and thematic. In practice, I'm finding I can only send diplomatic missions to a couple city states on an entire Large map, besides the four that I have allied with over 200 influence. I don't like an AI 'friend' snatching a 150 influence city-state, and there is nothing I can do to respond because they don't have a quest for me.
To keep the mechanic of 'no diplomatic missions to a city-state involved in war' without screwing the peaceful players, I think you'd need to make it so a player can't send diplomatic units to a city-state who has an ally while that player is at war. This basically cuts the diplomacy game off from warmongers, or from those who are targeted by warmongers. I'm not happy with it but can't think of anything else.
In concept, the change was interesting and thematic. In practice, I'm finding I can only send diplomatic missions to a couple city states on an entire Large map, besides the four that I have allied with over 200 influence. I don't like an AI 'friend' snatching a 150 influence city-state, and there is nothing I can do to respond because they don't have a quest for me.
Deadstarre
Expert
you can still use spies to coup, it's something. Especially if you had a lot of influence before the change, you'll probably succeed
vyyt
Deity
I second this. To be honest it is not just that AIs city trade deals do not make any sense, I do not like the feature itself - does it help the AI in performance in any way?
vyyt
Deity
I haven't played with the latest version yet, but I thought it was just a typo in the changelog. I thought it meant you are not allowed to send diplo units to a city state you are at war with - this would make sense. But if it is that a city state at war cannot change its allegiance by diplo units if at war with just anyone seems strange to me. Is there any reason for this?
PurpleMentat
Videographer
Further update on the city-state situation in my game. Total world war, aside from me, has reigned for over a hundred turns. That 150 influence city-state that Spain took from me near the beginning has not given me a new quest in this entire time. She is regularly sending diplomatic units. By the time my Rank 1 agent was set up for a coup, he had a 5% chance. I am at the point where I will not be friends with them in a couple turns, and have been powerless to stop this situation.
This seems entirely against the point of CSD. I am trying to invest resources into good relationships with city states. The only resources I currently have that mean anything are spies and unit gifts, and neither are going to win me a new ally when the AI can easily send a 60 influence bomb. I feel like I need to join the chaos, start a never-ending war with Sweden on the other side of the world, to protect my city-states.
And, therein lies the player abuse potential. Sweden has 3 cities left. I can easily blockade him permanently with my navy. As a diplomatic, peaceful player, it would be to my extreme advantage to declare perpetual war and never accept surrender. My city-states would be immune to enemy diplomatic units, and if they ever made peace I could pretty much permanently take their allies away one by one.
This seems entirely against the point of CSD. I am trying to invest resources into good relationships with city states. The only resources I currently have that mean anything are spies and unit gifts, and neither are going to win me a new ally when the AI can easily send a 60 influence bomb. I feel like I need to join the chaos, start a never-ending war with Sweden on the other side of the world, to protect my city-states.
And, therein lies the player abuse potential. Sweden has 3 cities left. I can easily blockade him permanently with my navy. As a diplomatic, peaceful player, it would be to my extreme advantage to declare perpetual war and never accept surrender. My city-states would be immune to enemy diplomatic units, and if they ever made peace I could pretty much permanently take their allies away one by one.
Deadstarre
Expert
i saw a stat once that said i was gaining unhappiness from "war weariness" and it kept increasing until i made peace. i think i only saw it once... this may circumvent your plan though? i'm not really sure how it works.
Yep, I'm not happy with the change. Feels arbitrary with more testing going on. It'll be reverted next patch. I'd rather have flip-floppy CSs than arbitrary rules regarding diplomacy.
G
I like the concept of AI trading cities. I've found that they seem to value cities pretty highly, so I wouldn't say they can't offer a reasonable price for a city. I never accept, though, but that's my personal preference. I just seem to emotionally attach to my cities 
AI trading cities with each other chaotically only became an issue in the latest version. They were more or less rational about it previously, so I'm sure it can be adjusted nicely. No need to remove the whole mechanic from the game.
AI trading cities with each other chaotically only became an issue in the latest version. They were more or less rational about it previously, so I'm sure it can be adjusted nicely. No need to remove the whole mechanic from the game.
I like the concept of AI trading cities. I've found that they seem to value cities pretty highly, so I wouldn't say they can't offer a reasonable price for a city. I never accept, though, but that's my personal preference. I just seem to emotionally attach to my cities
AI trading cities with each other chaotically only became an issue in the latest version. They were more or less rational about it previously, so I'm sure it can be adjusted nicely. No need to remove the whole mechanic from the game.
Ilteroi won't be happy to hear that, he rewrote a bunch of my City trading code for this patch.
Ilteroi won't be happy to hear that, he rewrote a bunch of my City trading code for this patch.
I love it, I've actually accepted a city-trade in this version, and the suggested ones seems A LOT more reasonable, city for city instead of my city for 2 horses and 5 gpt.
Traded two garbage-cities that I got from egypt in a peacedeal (garbage in the sense of they were too far away to work properly with Washington for another of Egypt's cities that was closer to my border. Was planning on razing the city and buy the tiles with another nearby city, but turned out it had machu picchu and the great lighthouse
. All in all 'Nice deal, would do again'.- Status
