AI prefers giving lump sums over gold per turn ?

[Magean]

I noticed that very often, I could get a better deal from the AI when I asked them a lump sum. For example, when I have a DoF with somebody, and I try to trade a luxury with him, then I can ask 240 now, as always, and they accept... but they refuse to give me the equivalent 8 gpt.

And when I mix a lump sum and gpt in what I require from them, the total sum they're ready to give away is also lower than when I demand only cash, now.

As it seems, AI value more gpt than cash. That's completely... dull, isn't it ?

If the deal is broken, they lose their luxury but I keep the cash they gave me at the beginning. Giving gold each turn is securer...

 

[dexters]

I noticed that very often, I could get a better deal from the AI when I asked them a lump sum. For example, when I have a DoF with somebody, and I try to trade a luxury with him, then I can ask 240 now, as always, and they accept... but they refuse to give me the equivalent 8 gpt.

And when I mix a lump sum and gpt in what I require from them, the total sum they're ready to give away is also lower than when I demand only cash, now.

As it seems, AI value more gpt than cash. That's completely... dull, isn't it ?

If the deal is broken, they lose their luxury but I keep the cash they gave me at the beginning. Giving gold each turn is securer...

Yep noticed this. You can get MORE lump sum upfront on a lux for gold deal than you can from gpt over the duration

This runs counter to the time value of money And risk the trade may not last the full duration.

AI should offer to pay less upfront and more cumulatively from gpt for them to be rational economic actors.

From that you can even work out a rate of interest. Would allow players to create some nifty financial instruments through several concurrent trades.

I am assuming a coding issue caused it to be reversed. Hope they fix it.

 

[Svest]

I suspect this is because the devs didn't do too well in economics class back in school.

 

[Browd]

The AI has always been more conservative about giving up gpt than giving up gold. Previously, it wouldn't pay 8 gpt for a 240 lux - it would pay anywhere from 7 gpt + 20 gold (230 gold over the course of 30 turns) to 1 gpt + 209 gold (239 gold over 30 turns) -- the less gpt, the more gold.

What has happened in BNW is that the AI has gotten even more conservative about its gpt, which makes sense given how little gold there is on the map. Woe betide the AI (or human player) who commits too much gpt to trades; one pillaged trade route and they are in negative gpt, and in a few turns may be getting hammered with a science penalty or seeing units disbanded.

 

[dexters]

The AI has always been more conservative about giving up gpt than giving up gold. Previously, it wouldn't pay 8 gpt for a 240 lux - it would pay anywhere from 7 gpt + 20 gold (230 gold over the course of 30 turns) to 1 gpt + 209 gold (239 gold over 30 turns) -- the less gpt, the more gold.

What has happened in BNW is that the AI has gotten even more conservative about its gpt, which makes sense given how little gold there is on the map. Woe betide the AI (or human player) who commits too much gpt to trades; one pillaged trade route and they are in negative gpt, and in a few turns may be getting hammered with a science penalty or seeing units disbanded.

Nothing to do with conservatism. They should always offer to pay less lump sum than over 30turn duration of the deal. Or the implication is you have negative interest rate.

 

[ptoss1]

they don't want to give gpt because they are averse to having negative income which i suppose the ai considers to be horrible

 

[Svest]

they don't want to give gpt because they are averse to having negative income which i suppose the ai considers to be horrible

This would make sense if it only applied when the trade would put them into negative gpt. However, it still happens even if the AI is making hundreds of gpt.

 

[adwcta]

they don't want to give gpt because they are averse to having negative income which i suppose the ai considers to be horrible

But then they already had the gold. If they just held onto it no issue.
It's a pure advantage unless there's deflation, which in the civ world, there isn't.

This isn't even econ, this is super super basic middle school awareness of how the world functions.

The devs HAVE to know how they programmed the AI is screwed up. It's far too obvious for it not to have been 100% on purpose.

 

[Magean]

From that you can even work out a rate of interest. Would allow players to create some nifty financial instruments through several concurrent trades.

Or the implication is you have negative interest rate.

Exactly. I first noticed that I could borrow money from AI fairly easily, paying no "interest rate" (e.g, getting 240 gold against 8 gpt)... but I didn't tried to "pay" them negative interest rate (at first I simply didn't imagine they would accept, and I'd consider it as a blatant abuse of economic stupidity, but who knows, in emergency situation...) Then came this luxury trade thing.

What has happened in BNW is that the AI has gotten even more conservative about its gpt, which makes sense given how little gold there is on the map. Woe betide the AI (or human player) who commits too much gpt to trades; one pillaged trade route and they are in negative gpt, and in a few turns may be getting hammered with a science penalty or seeing units disbanded.

But if you have cash you can afford to have an unbalanced budget. The AI is simply taking huge risks (and losing money in case of gold-gold trade).

 

[Barathor]

The AI's value of GPT vs. lump sum has annoyed me for a long time. You can see the code within the source file: CvDealAI.cpp I've brought this up in the past, but it didn't lead to any discussion; just me and my lil' crickets.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=483051
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=491577


Though, I'm happier with things in BNW. The devs made a really great design choice in requiring a DoF to trade with lump sums of gold. I'm very very pleased with that, even though I've never exploited the AI with their lump sum trades anyway.

Also, the value of GPT has been raised in BNW and it's now equal to lump sum gold. In GAK, GPT was only worth 75% of lump sum gold. So, in GAK, to buy a luxury from an AI with GPT, you'd have to pay 11gpt (8 / .75). Now, it's only 8gpt (240 gold total).

Normally, you should always get more gold over time than you would instantly. (Especially with the power of gold in Civ5 and the ability to rush many things, invest in CS, etc.)

But, I think making gpt and lump sum equal is justified now, with the DoF requirement. It makes lump sums more of a nice perk for playing friendly with the AI. If things were still like GAK, with both options available all the time, then GPT would definitely need to have a much lower value (so you get more of it over 30 turns then you would in a lump sum).

- - - - - - - - -

Though, the real (and unfair) problem still exists. In the code, the AI applies an extra 40% value to its outgoing GPT trades. (No, it doesn't do anything to its more important lump sum trades either.) This is why, (at Neutral or higher) instead of receiving the fair amount of 8gpt for a luxury (240g), you instead receive only 6gpt (6 x 1.4 x 30 = 252... it's slightly over, but 5gpt wouldn't cut it and would only have a value of 210).

I want that extra 2gpt!!

 

[Bad Wolf]

Yeah currently you can effectively get negative-interest loans from a friendly AI. I mean I realize we're friends, but I didn't know we were THAT close! And hey, why are you backstabbing me two turns later if you like me so much...? (Maybe their Finance Minister clued to what I just did to them lol.)

This is definitely buggy and exploitative so I try not to take advantage of it.

 

[joncnunn]

The strange thing is that a video prior to release actually showed the AI accepting 8 GPT for a luxury.
It would appear they fixed it at some point and then broke it again.

Yes, this is a current state for the AI in "You fail economics forever"