AI-AI gpt for tech trades

[templar_x]

I had some thoughts on this topic and want to discuss this with you guys. starting with a question:

do the same rules regarding reputation apply for AI-AI trades as they do for player-AI trades?

we know that we become unable to trade gpt (or any turn deals) for hard goods (like techs) when we bust our trading reputation.
i know from many discussions in threads that many of us assume the same happens for the AIs who steal themselves out of trades, especially in combination with peace deals. but is this true?

if it is, i see this possible strategy i have yet not seen applied openly in games around here. we could simply deliberately bust THE AIs´ reputation, one after the other. after that they would be able to do tech for tech trades, of course. plus cash for tech trades. but no more gpt for tech trades.
(thinking about it, LordEmsworth sure already does use this and those deals are named after his middle name or something )

this is how one could use it, i think especially on the higher levels:
1. bust everyone´s reputation by making deals they will break or you "invite" them to break, like with a remove or declare demand.
2. always take away their cash so you eliminate the risk of cash for tech deals. (Moonsinger described this strategy, but with the goal to hinder the AIs to do other stupid things with their cash, like buying alliances or upgrading troops.)
3. get your hands on techs you can broker. there should be an abundance of gpt around for you, if you were the only one who would ignore that the AIs shot their rep.

or not?

templar_x

 

[Optional]

I think this is true. Isn't there such a thing as 'alliance reputation' as well? I think I'm seeing in the beginning of the game that AI's happily ally with each other, making early war tricky for the human player.
Then as the game goes on, AI's ally less and less, most of them having broken their reputation, usually by signing peace too soon. It gets a bit quieter on the map.
Later, when MPP's come around, I see an upsurge in war activity again. AI's are signing MPP's all over the place, because you don't need a clean rep for that.
I'm sure most high level players are aware of the advantage of having opponents with broken reps, but I don't know how many there are that specifically develop a strategy to reach that end. I guess I would be too casual in my approach of the game to do this, but I'm sure there would be significant advantages if you did.

 

[Bucephalus]

I see no evidence of AI civs losing rep in my games - quite the opposite.

I'm convinced that the possibility of losing rep is a feature used to keep the human player 'honest'.

 

[undertoad]

I'm interested in this question as well, from another angle. Is it worth signing a resource for GPT or resource for resource deal with my enemy, for the sake of preventing him from declaring on me, at least for 20 turns? Or does the AI

a) not care about rep; or
b) Doesn't have to care, because rep doesn't apply to AI civs?

(as it happens I do want the luxury my enemy is offering - just wondering whether it's worth doing the deal when he's looking very aggressive).

 

[Aabraxan]

I agree with Bucephalus on this one. I guess that the effect of reputation on AI-AI trades might be very hard to detect, but I've never seen anything that leads me to believe that the AI cares about the rep of other AI civs.

 

[Optional]

I don't think anybody has ever done any study of the effects of reputation on AI - AI deals. If they don't care about each other's rep, then it would actually not be that hard to come up with the evidence: keep a saved game where an AI is busting its rep, then keep a close eye on the dealings of that civ, and when you see them making a deal make a deal that they shouldn't be able to make (an alliance or RoP would be easiest to spot), the proof is there.

Is it worth signing a resource for GPT or resource for resource deal with my enemy, for the sake of preventing him from declaring on me, at least for 20 turns?

The AI easily breaks its rep, but it does care about incoming gold per turn. You can be in an alliance with a civ, and have an RoP with them, and they often still declare, but incoming gold per turn is the safest way to prevent them from declaring. It works the other way around as well; if they're paying a big amount of gold per turn to you, they're more likely to start a war on you!
But even when they're already ganging up on you you can often still make them turn around by offering gold per turn.

 

[puwen]

IIRC this have been discussed before and the conclusion back then was that AI-AI reputation doesn't matter. It's still there though (Advisor telling you to watch out for an AI who broke a deal with your "Friend").

 

[The Professor]

If an AI is showing sure signs of being about to attack, I frequently try to buy a tech from them for gpt. Sometimes, this will cause them to back down, but not always. But even if it doesn't, you will have gotten a tech much cheaper than possible, along with War Happiness. But as far as I can tell, the other AI's will still trade with them, and will still Ally with them, regardless.

 

[templar_x]

I don't think anybody has ever done any study of the effects of reputation on AI - AI deals. If they don't care about each other's rep, then it would actually not be that hard to come up with the evidence: keep a saved game where an AI is busting its rep, then keep a close eye on the dealings of that civ, and when you see them making a deal make a deal that they shouldn't be able to make (an alliance or RoP would be easiest to spot), the proof is there.

i think one has to test this in a another way, if i get you right here. the problem with your own deal as a proof is that you can DECIDE do ignore that an AI has busted his rep. so this would not prove if there is any coded behaviour for AI-AI trades (as there is obviously a coded behaviour for AI-player trades).

the other problem is, that even if there is a coded behaviour, one has to distinguish "standalone" trades from such that are linked to a deal (peace treaty), as those are possible even for the player with a busted rep.

templar_x

 

[Bucephalus]

How many times have you witnessed this scenario:

Civ 'A' learns tech; next turn, they have traded it to Civ 'B', despite Civ 'B' being 'a known liar', and having no lump sum gold to offer? Kind of implies a 20-turn trade, IMO.

 

[Optional]

Templar_x, of course you would be looking at AI - AI trades. You would really need to be looking at the diplo screen closely, and have an embassy with everyone, because you need to know who's at war with whom. The 'problem' you're mentioning is there, and there's another problem, namely a civ is blind for any wrongdoings against a civ he's currently at war with, so embassies everywhere are needed to rule out those exceptions.

How many times have you witnessed this scenario:

Civ 'A' learns tech; next turn, they have traded it to Civ 'B', despite Civ 'B' being 'a known liar', and having no lump sum gold to offer? Kind of implies a 20-turn trade, IMO.

But we're seeing that already in the AA, when nobody has gold per turn yet.

It might well be that AI - AI rep works differently from rep for the human player, but it would be nice if we had a clear example of it.

 

[Bucephalus]

But we're seeing that already in the AA, when nobody has gold per turn yet..

No gpt to trade with the human player, yes, but maybe that's because they already made the gpt deal on the IBT.

 

[templar_x]

How many times have you witnessed this scenario:

Civ 'A' learns tech; next turn, they have traded it to Civ 'B', despite Civ 'B' being 'a known liar', and having no lump sum gold to offer? Kind of implies a 20-turn trade, IMO.

i see one way to check this - and rule out that they simply gave them 3 gold for a valuable tech for the reason of some weird AI-AI trade bonus:

1. it must be the first known deal like this of an AI with a busted rep to be a clear example. (or at least the first one in 20 turns.)

2. then when this happens, try a tech for gpt deal from this civ for their max gpt available (sure you´d have to have sth to sell). - THEY are giving gpt.

3. make them go to war with that civ he got the tech from and assumingly pays gpt. so you get him out of it and this gpt would become available.

4. try to make your own tech for gpt deal again - if there´s new gpt available, we can assume the AI was able to pay gpt for a hard good although his rep was broken.

thinking about it, i realize that there is another problem that could leave us unclear about how this works forever: any AI usually has more theoretical gpt available than he would ever give, at least to the player. you can check that via the trade screen, if you check for the max gpt avaible, as this would maybe assume the AI would turn all his citizens into taxmen or whatever. but he won´t do this ever but actually pay you less than that for whatever you can bring to the table. there obviously is a trading maximum. maybe this maximum is NOT THE SAME for AI-AI trades, or it is not regarding to the difficulty leven and thus AI-AI trading bonus.

now i am

still i´ll try if i come across the situation described above, and ask you for your insight if you encounter it and may be able to try.

templar_x

 

[Spoonwood]

The AI-AI trade rate goes up as you progress up levels. This implies that the AIs can get techs and goods from each other at a lower cost than the human player can from an AI. Thus ancient age trades happen for small sums. Also, as soon as a tech gets traded away, it becomes cheaper. So, if civ A trades to civ B and civ C couldn't buy it from civ A before the A-B trade, civ C might sucessfully buy the tech from civ B or civ A after the trade. Or maybe tribe C researches the tech and learns it earlier due to the A-B trade. The AIs might also demand techs from each other. A tribe with a broken reputation will still get techs for a demand. I don't see any way to account for that in any sort of test, so I don't see any way to determine the question here without access to the game code.

 

[Optional]

Well, I decided to pay a bit closer attention when I played the game, and I immediately encountered a dubious deal:
I was receiving spices from Scandinavia when they declared on me.
Right the next turn, they ally with the Japanese against me.

That means in one turn they busted their rep by breaking a 20 turn deal, then right the next turn they sign another one, as the Japanese find them good enough for that. Gold per turn deal and alliances are both 20 turn deals, the same rep applies.

Scandanavia had been at peace with Japan before, so it was not an extortion deal, and the Japanese were at peace with me as well before this alliance, so they were familiar with the fact the Vikings had screwed a friendly nation.
I'll probably put up some screenshots later.
Edit: nope, looking at the saves again, I was mistaken; when Scandanavia declared on me it was by signing an alliance with the Maya, but the Japanese later declared independently. No sign of anything dubious; I was just mixing things up.

 

[templar_x]

good point on demands, spoonwood...
maybe we really won´t be able to get the straight dope on this.

 

[Optional]

Those gold per turn deals will be difficult to see, probably even by playing in debug mode, so that's why I would try to look at alliances and RoP's first.
Bucephales suggestion that rep has been put in purely for the human player sounds reasonable, but the game already exists for some 8 years or so; if no-one has ever come up with an example of an AI - AI deal that's dubious under the rules we know, then I prefer to believe rep applies to AI - AI trades as well.

 

[Aabraxan]

I can't provide saves or proof of this, but I'm fairly certain that I've pillaged AI resources that were being traded. Nonetheless, it always appears that the AI (whose resources I pillaged) still traded on a per-turn basis after that. I'm not sure if I have any saves where I can show this, but I'll take a look.

 

[Optional]

It would be difficult to find proof that way, Aabraxan, because you would need to know exactly where the pillaged resource went to. The civ that you pillaged can still trade on a per turn basis, provided it's with civs that are at war with the civ that originally received the resource.

I'm still looking out for an example myself, but the more war there is in a game, the harder it is to find proof. Especially if you're at war yourself all the time.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . I'm still looking out for an example myself, but the more war there is in a game, the harder it is to find proof. Especially if you're at war yourself all the time.

Hmm. This may present a problem for me.

As regards knowing where the pillaged resource went, you're probably right, but any time that I've busted my rep, I find myself virtually unable to trade anything on a per turn basis, to anybody. But I must admit that I quit really paying attention to per-turn AI-AI trades a while back. Seemed like they could trade amongst themselves, regardless of rep, so I quit looking very hard.