AI sometimes has a "this offer is only good now" approach

[Yzman]

Has anyone else noticed that sometimes when the AI offers peace if you try to add another city and they say no, when you have the original offer they refuse that now too? Is this intentional or glitch?

 

[AriochIV]

Yes. Frequently when the AI offers a deal, any alteration you make to the deal will result in the offer being rejected, even if you return it to what was originally offered. (Tip: when this happens you can load an autosave and be re-offered the deal.)

I don't know whether this is intentional, but I very much doubt it.

 

[shaglio]

What infuriates me about the AI adding cities to peace deals is that you have no way of inspecting the proposed city. If you try to X out of the window, it warns you that doing so will cancel the peace offer. So, unless you have every city on the map memorized, you might get stuck with a crappy city you don’t want and can’t raze.

 

[Chefofrats]

Also, why are cities the only currency when making peace deals? Why not gold or resources? Techs or civics, maybe? It makes so little sense when an AI declares war one me, doesn't even attack me, and then offers me some mysterious city who-knows-where...

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Also, why are cities the only currency when making peace deals? Why not gold or resources? Techs or civics, maybe? It makes so little sense when an AI declares war one me, doesn't even attack me, and then offers me some mysterious city who-knows-where...

The deals the AI offers - and the whole diplomatic system - were simplified from Civ 6 to make them less exploitable. I think cities only are ok because that's what you need for the military legacy.

 

[Yzman]

What infuriates me about the AI adding cities to peace deals is that you have no way of inspecting the proposed city. If you try to X out of the window, it warns you that doing so will cancel the peace offer. So, unless you have every city on the map memorized, you might get stuck with a crappy city you don’t want and can’t raze.

Yes I often end up canceling, finding the city, and then reloading.

 

[AriochIV]

The deals the AI offers - and the whole diplomatic system - were simplified from Civ 6 to make them less exploitable. I think cities only are ok because that's what you need for the military legacy.

...as if getting enemy cities for free is not exploitable...

 

[reddishrecue]

...as if getting enemy cities for free is not exploitable...

That depends on many factors.. tech, uu, civs, skills, etc. To decide.

 

[Disgustipated]

yeah they really need to go back to gold. After all, many civilizations throughout history have paid money to avoid invading armies from overrunning them. Money makes more sense than cities.

 

[user746383]

The reason they removed them I assume is because on hard levels their yields are so high, if the player can get access to them then it makes the game trivial. Maybe there was some other solution, but that's why.

 

[Siptah]

Exactly. On higher levels, the AI players in V and VI were basically a bank and a construction office. In 7, they can still be a construction office, but at least they are no longer the player's bank. It might be historical to get a rich but weak punching bag to recapitalize and build up, but when it gets close to abusing an AI, it feels very lame.

 

[eazyseeker]

Would a solution work that allows players to trade gold, but only have access to a portion of the AI's gold stockpile/gold per turn?
E.g. scaling from 100% to 40% depending on difficulty level to offset for AI yield bonuses.

 

[Krikkit1]

yeah they really need to go back to gold. After all, many civilizations throughout history have paid money to avoid invading armies from overrunning them. Money makes more sense than cities.

That would only make sense if war was MUCH more expensive. Say a modern unit in enemy territory at war should cost 50-100 gold maintenance. Then it might be balanced to have gold as a reward for war. As is, they can pay you gold to beef up the relationship.