(3-NS) AI refuses to buy strategic resources before they have a use for it.

[Legen]

Proposal:

AI civs refuse ("Impossible!") to buy a strategic resource until they have researched a tech that unlocks a unit or building that uses it.

Rule exception: if a city-state quest demands a given strategic resource, the AI will ignore tech progression regarding that strategic resource while that quest is available.

Details:

• Earliest technologies for a generic civ:
  • Horse: Animal Husbandry
  • Iron: Iron Working
  • Coal: Railroad or Steam Power
  • Oil: Combustion or Flight (you can unlock planes before Oil reveal)
  • Aluminum: Ballistics or Alternative Energy
  • Uranium: Nuclear Fission or Alternative Energy
• Special cases:
  • Egypt (horse): Military Strategy or Mathematics
  • The Iroquois (iron): Steel

Rationale:

It is sometimes pointed of a strategic resource being used for trade before it has any use, treating it as a human exploit. This proposal intents to address it at the AI level, rather than at the tech tree, and hopefully end with an overall smarter AI.

Amendment:

• Added rule exception related to city-state quests demanding a strategic resource.

 

[Anarcomu]

I would (if possible) add that the AI would still be interested if they are about to research the tech (ie if they are short of 5-10 turns of researching iron working for iron). In this case they should be willing to buy at a discount, like if the deal last 25 turns, and they buy when they have 10 turns remaining, then they are willing to buy at a 40% discount to the original price.

 

[Stalker0]

If this is easy enough to code seems straightforward to me.

 

[pineappledan]

Couldn’t you just move the tech yield trading back to the first tech that has an application for that resource? That would affect human players too, but it wouldn’t be new code

 

[Legen]

Note: added Egypt as another special case, due to their UU version of the Chariot Archer not requiring horses. Not exactly an amendment, just a correction.

 

[Legen]

Couldn’t you just move the tech yield trading back to the first tech that has an application for that resource? That would affect human players too, but it wouldn’t be new code

How would it work in the cases that have two possible techs for a single resource, like coal?

 

[pineappledan]

Coal unlocks at steam power, and the Seaport is on that tech too, which uses it. So the tech trading and resource reveal would just be the same tech.

 

[cidk2000]

it might be on a previous patch but as soon as ive acquired the resource the AI begs for it and offers a good price per turn i do play on a lower level.

 

[Stalker0]

it might be on a previous patch but as soon as ive acquired the resource the AI begs for it and offers a good price per turn i do play on a lower level.

What do you consider a good price for coal? I laugh in the face of every AI who tries to buy it from me. Their numbers are usually 10x lower than what it needs for me to consider it, that's how important coal is when you first get it.

 

[cidk2000]

What do you consider a good price for coal? I laugh in the face of every AI who tries to buy it from me. Their numbers are usually 10x lower than what it needs for me to consider it, that's how important coal is when you first get it.

Touche - maybe an exaggeration for good price...

 

[Legen]

Coal unlocks at steam power, and the Seaport is on that tech too, which uses it. So the tech trading and resource reveal would just be the same tech.

I mean, coal is also used on Railroads, but anyone can unlock it before Steam Power, which reveals coal. My concern is that a civ that got to Railroad should be able to buy coal from other players right away, not have to wait for Steam Power.

 

[Zuizgond]

For info I proposed something similar last session (https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...c-resource-they-havent-discovered-yet.680671/). It failed due to lack of sponsorship.

 

[Stalker0]

For info I proposed something similar last session (https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...c-resource-they-havent-discovered-yet.680671/). It failed due to lack of sponsorship.

I wouldn't even say similar, this looks pretty much exactly the same. So....unfortunately it should likely get veoted on those grounds. @Recursive

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

I wouldn't even say similar, this looks pretty much exactly the same. So....unfortunately it should likely get veoted on those grounds. @Recursive

I thought that things that things that failed the sponsorship phase could be proposed again next month. That only a failed vote could prevent it from being proposed for a month.

 

[Zuizgond]

My post wasn't meant to make sure this proposal get vetoed. I fully support this.

It was just a FYI about the lack of sponsor last time. Hope you get better results because I think it's inefficient for the AI to ask for a resource they can't use.

 

[Legen]

I wouldn't even say similar, this looks pretty much exactly the same. So....unfortunately it should likely get veoted on those grounds. @Recursive

There's a small difference in that Zuizgond's proposal requires the tech that unlocks the resource, while mine requires the civ to unlock a unit or building instead. For instance, if the AI researches Railroads (unlocks the Train Station), but not Steam Power (unlocks coal reveal and Seaport), it will be able to buy coal with my proposal, but not with Zuizgond's.

 

[Stalker0]

I thought that things that things that failed the sponsorship phase could be proposed again next month. That only a failed vote could prevent it from being proposed for a month.

Its a fair question, hence bringing in Recursive. I feel like the general goal here is we should not just be re-asking for the same proposal each and every month. If the devs didn't want to commit to it the first time, asking them to commit again to it a month later seems "badgering" to me.

 

[Legen]

Proposal amended:

• Added rule exception related to city-state quests demanding a strategic resource.

 

[azum4roll]

Instead of hardcoding the unlock tech for each strategic resource and each civ (bad idea!), we should determine what circumstances should allow trading for a strategic resource.

AI can buy a strategic resource if:

• A unit/building requiring the resource is on its build list
• It already has a non-free building OR healable unit requiring the resource (e.g. Iroquois with a CS-gifted Swordsman counts, the free nuke from Manhattan project and the free Factories from Order don't)

AI can have up to 4 spare strategic resource of each type, and will not wish to buy more. Each excess/spare strategic resource is valued lower (diminishing value).

Optional implementation if possible: automatically lower amount of strategics entered to the highest acceptable number, e.g. if you want to sell 10 iron to an AI that's only willing to buy 4, automatically lower the amount to 4 once you enter 10.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal failed due to lack of sponsorship.

Although I do like the idea and may add some form of it later.