A small trick to keep AI happy

[eventhorizon]

i define a human exploit as something, we can use as advantage and the AI doesn't.

the AI galley (or now also curragh) will NEVER end a turn on a tile which it has a slight chance of sinking. so if the coastal square of the other continent is just 5 tiles away, the AI can and will not go there... which leads to an advantage for the human player dominating the communications. i think it was just too complicated to add a "this is a tolerable risk just to reach the other side"-algorithm in the game

as for the research... that's not that bad and it's "modable". but seeing the AI research alphabet at approx. 60% and getting it in 39 turns and the human putting research down to 10% and getting the cash is another advantage. however, this has been improved in C3C by increasing maximal research time to 50%. so in a way they've admitted, that it was an exploit


but anyway: this thread's topic is a clear exploit... giving money and taking it back and like that profiting 10 sympathy points (where alliances just give you 5) for free...

 

[EMan]

.......A Debatable one maybe!

Seriously, I think ONLY action considered to be a Firaxis programming BUG is an exploit.

For example, it would have been easy enough to program the AI to NOT receive gifts of money.

If we play by "Firaxis Rules", the Playing Field for ALL players is level..........why tilt it?

 

[barbslinger]

How can it be an exploit? The civ is getting the tech at much reduced cost than he should of been paying. The Civ starts out annoyed and you give him money to get to polite. That's not an exploit, is it? Gifting is allowed. Now he has cash to buy your tech at fair market price. Selling a tech at market value is not an exploit.
If anything this method of diplomacy fixes the programming that does not make the Civ polite when you settle for giving him a great deal. I know I would be gracious to a Civ if they ever gave me a deal on the same terms the Civs give to one another.

 

[eventhorizon]

ok, i see i won't be able to convince anyone

but i'll try one last time.

just picture this example:
A (you) and B (the AI). you have a tech lead, B has 100 gold. that tech you want to sell would be worth 300 gold.

scenario 1: you give him the tech for all he has (100 gold)
scenario 2: you give him 100 gold and sell the tech for all he has now (200 gold)

the NET result from financial and commercial point of view is EXACTLY the same. B ends up with the tech, you have 100 gold more.
but in scenario 2, he'll be 10 gratutude-points more in favour of you.

now, exploit or not... there IS something wrong in this... or not?



to take a real life example (but i don't want to let the thread go off topic): iraq will need rebuilding after the war. they're get some serious funding from other nations, especially from the US. but most big contracts have been done with US companies (halliburton and similar). imagine these companies were 100% US-governement controlled (so all the money would go back to the US and not some enterprises): can you see the iraquies (sp?) suddenly loving the americans just because they got money to spend on them again?

 

[EMan]

Originally posted by eventhorizon
ok, i see i won't be able to convince anyone

........OR, we will not convince you!?

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by eventhorizon
just picture this example:
A (you) and B (the AI). you have a tech lead, B has 100 gold. that tech you want to sell would be worth 300 gold.

scenario 1: you give him the tech for all he has (100 gold)
scenario 2: you give him 100 gold and sell the tech for all he has now (200 gold)

the NET result from financial and commercial point of view is EXACTLY the same. B ends up with the tech, you have 100 gold more.
but in scenario 2, he'll be 10 gratutude-points more in favour of you.

now, exploit or not... there IS something wrong in this... or not?

Think of it this way. If someone sell you a tech which is worth at least 500 gold to you for only just 100 gold, wouldn't you in favor this person more than before?

 

[eventhorizon]

ofcourse. but not more than if he gives me 200 so i can buy it for 300... it's the net that counts, not the absolutes...

 

[Wellington]

eventhorizon,

I think what you're missing is that in the real world, diplomacy is precisely about these kinds of tricks: if leaders simply followed the most direct approach to what they wanted, we never would have had such famous cases as Neville Chamberlain declaring "peace in our time" as he handed Czech over to a dictator. The greatest diplomats are the ones who can steal your land and leave you thinking they're generous, friendly people whereas lesser diplomats might make you aware that your land is being taken.

I don't see this as an exploit - it's just an approach that allows you to be a smoother diplomat.

In other terms, let me give you an example.

Scenario 1: Turn 1: You want to improve your relation with cautious neighbor x. You give him a gift of 200 and he's now polite. Turn 4: You discover Gunpowder and want to make some money. You discover that neighbor x has 600 gold and sell him gunpowder for 600. He is still polite.

Scenario 2: Turn 1: You decide that you don't care about neighbor x. You keep your money and he's still cautious. Turn 4: You discover Gunpowder and want to make some money. You see that you could also improve relations with neighbor x. You give him a gift of 200 and he's now polite. You then sell him gunpowder for 600. He is still polite.

Scenario 3: Turn 1: You decide that you don't care about neighbor x. You keep your money and he's still cautious. Turn 4: You discover Gunpowder and want to make some money. You sell neighbor x gunpowder for 400 and he remains cautious.

You're trying to tell me that Scenario 3 is somehow more "legitimate" than scenario 1 or 2? It seems that you're worried about people's intent to "trick" their enemies. Diplomacy isn't pretty, and the only difference between 1 and 2 is intent. Of course this isn't an exploit; it's just a cynical intent inserted into a legitimate scenario, and no programmers can (or should) force intent, especially in a game about war, peace, diplomacy and domination.

 

[binyo66]

Originally posted by eventhorizon
ok, i see i won't be able to convince anyone

I am on your side. Event in reality, there is no such a free money to other governments, US didnt give tanks to UK during WWII for free (UK had to pay for some amount), and US didnt give money to Pakistan for free either. Pakistan has to return the money someday (with interest??)

It is just quite more complex to make program that keep tracking where the money come from, and where the money goes... It's much simple to make program something like...

You give me some money, and I'll thank 4 it....
You sell something that I need, and I'll thank 4 it...

So you come up with "I'll thank 8 it"


binyo

 

[Karl_t_great]

I've been under impression that donating (or selling undeprice) tech would give me grat points, so thanks for opening my eyes !

IMHO this is a BUG (not getting grat points for tech donation), and the original article describes a workaround to get the grat points I should have.

I have not seen an article on the AI bidding/valuating mechanism, but to my knowledge the AI never donates technology, if it can't get a deal worth the valuation, it rejects the deal. And this goes for AI-human and AI-AI deals, but AI-AI discount is taken into valuation (AI trade rate - level parameter).
Why should maxing out goodwill of a donation be an exploit, when the AI never donates a thing? If we strictly follow the "we can use as advantage and the AI doesn't" -rule, the whole concept of donating should be banned.

I agree with eventhorizon that the two scenarios shuld give same result, but do not see this as exploit.

ps. if you have both the money and the tech You are playng a level too low....

pps.sometimes I think they make the AI so stupid to give us the kiks....

 

[AlanH]

Originally posted by Karl_t_great
IMHO this is a BUG (not getting grat points for tech donation), and the original article describes a workaround to get the grat points I should have.

....

I agree with eventhorizon that the two scenarios shuld give same result, but do not see this as exploit.

I completely agree.

pps.sometimes I think they make the AI so stupid to give us the kiks....

So true. We should always remember that Firaxis want to sell copies of their games, and so they make them entertaining, and design them to help us to feel superior

 

[eae]

Wonderful idea, must say. Never though of it myself. I sometimes have the problem of not being good enough friends with the rivals. I usually never want to give anything away either. This way it all works out, good job.

 

[Qitai]

Outright donation of tech will get the tech value of grat point. So, if it is an outright donation of tech, you do not need to use this trick. Grat points are lost only when you sell undervalue.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Qitai
I notice many players have problem with keeping AI happy. So, I would like to highlight a small trick that helps slightly to keep AI happy. I had Gracious and Polite AI in GOTM20 even though I keep breaking MAs.

The trick is that whenever you sell something and the AIs couldn't afford it. Instead of just settle for less (i.e. just sell it for whatever they have), why not just give them gold to make up the difference.

As an example, say you can sell Gunpowder at 1400gc or the equivalent of it. But AI can only offer 20gpt. So, instead of just accepting that. First give AI 800 gold then follow by a 20gpt+800gc for gunpowder trade. I can get the AI relation gift bonus (worth 10) virtually to last to infinity by doing this since the AI never have enough gpt to pay me the "true market value" of my techs.

It's just another of a zillion exploits that all spoil the game IMHO.
Not for me, thanks.
It has nothing to do with strategy.

 

[eventhorizon]

sorry, i forgot to check this thread for a long time after missing the email-notifiction.

i guess the main problem now is the gratitude system of civ3. someone here at CFC (i'm usually hanging around in other places ) did an analysis and you can get permanent diplomacy point JUST by donating money. and maximal 100g.

100g gives you the full 10 points.
giving 10000g in exchange for 1g: 0 points
giving away ALL techs, gpt, luxuries, etc. for free: 0 points

now 100g is a lot in the first few rounds. you can buy a tech or two for that price. but in the later game you can have a turnover of well over 1000g per turn...

so i want to reenforce my opinion stated above about the expoit. the problem is how civ3 is programmed. using the weaknesses IS an exploit to me.

the small trick explained in this thread is nothing else than a variation of the exploit.



oh, and yes, qitai, you're right. having more money and tech could mean we're playing on a too low level ... but even at sid level one or the other civ may stay behind (eg starting in the desert or in the tundra)

 

[eae]

Originally posted by Ribannah


It's just another of a zillion exploits that all spoil the game IMHO.
Not for me, thanks.
It has nothing to do with strategy.

You have a point there. Of course, I don't think it's such a bad exploit. I mean if you have some really cool tech that some civ can't afford, if you then proceed to give them the money to afford it, shouldn't you deserve some credit from them?

 

[Ribannah]

No, they should instead become very suspicious of that new tech.

 

[Qitai]

Originally posted by eventhorizon
oh, and yes, qitai, you're right. having more money and tech could mean we're playing on a too low level ... but even at sid level one or the other civ may stay behind (eg starting in the desert or in the tundra)

I think you mean Karl_t_great when you made that comment.

Anyway, you guys seems so work up over this. Just don't use it if you consider it as an exploit. The purpose of this is to help players who always have problems with annoyed AI. I believe you know how to managed AI well without this --> like killing entire civs with an archer.

 

[EMan]

........Maybe it's an exploit and maybe it isn't!.....Some people say yes, some say no..........WHO DECIDES?

If it's a CFC GOTM or HOF game, for example, the CFC game Administrator decides (Ainwood or Aeson).......and unless they decide against the "exploit"......it's NOT an exploit (for their game submissions anyway.)

Seems to me a Good Rule Of Thumb is to PLAY BY FIRAXIS RULES (They did write the darn game after all!).......When they program a bug........they fix it with a patch later.

So this way, we can ALL play by the same rules.........UNLESS you would rather just argue the case INSTEAD of playing the game!

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Qitai
The purpose of this is to help players who always have problems with annoyed AI

The point is that you are not helping them to play a better game.
I don't care what you do in your own games, but please do not present an exploit as a strategy. If you want to teach, teach right.

The reason I'm a bit harsh here, is because I know you to be a good player who really has something to teach, and I expect to see a good many strategy articles by you!