Changing tile improvements exploit

[Randall Turner]

Oh, it's not that bad, is it? I still haven't won the America standard/continents/deity game, if this is enough to put me over the top, I'll take it. (I've come pretty close.)

Are you saying this is such a major deal? doing a little math here...

hmm... better fire up the game and check real quick.

Edit: waitaminnit here - how does this even work? I don't have an option to replace improvements with anything. (Fired up a game, built a plantation on both silk and cotton, no other options available.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well the only reason you would Give a lump sum (instead of per turn) is if you don't have enough per turn income.
[There a game change would be needed, allow deficit diplomacy, as long as your treasury is still >0.. if you trade yourself into default, its your problem]

The reason to Get a lump sum is for
1. buying units/buildings
2. upgrading
3. CS
4. RAs

all of those could be handled by... Plan ahead.

I agree it would be better to change the AI than changing the game engine (humans can evaluate their own risks). and just making the AI not do "lump sum" deals (except in peace) and letting the AI deficit spend if it still has gold in its treasury. (let the human player do it too... if they want to stop science for 30 turns and lose all their units go ahead)

???

You wouldn't loan the AI money to sign RA?

 

[Rex_Mundi]

Oh, it's not that bad, is it? I still haven't won the America standard/continents/deity game, if this is enough to put me over the top, I'll take it. (I've come pretty close.)

Are you saying this is such a major deal? doing a little math here...

hmm... better fire up the game and check real quick.

Edit: waitaminnit here - how does this even work? I don't have an option to replace improvements with anything. (Fired up a game, built a plantation on both silk and cotton, no other options available.)

I't been a while since I checked, but I think you can build a fort.

If you really want to use it, then here is an advice. If you sell all your valuables in one deal and then remove a unique resource then the whole deal is canceled.

 

[vexing]

let's say you've got 10 gpt and 3 luxuries to start.

set up workers on luxuries.
sell civ1 luxury A, B, C and 10 gpt for 930 gold.
sell civ1 913 gold for 29 gpt - this deal will persist
start building a fort on luxury A. your deal is canceled and you regain access to luxury B, C and your gpt, so you're now at 39 gpt.
sell luxury B, C and 39gpt to civ2 for 1300 gold
sell civ2 1292 gold for 41 gpt
start building fort on luxury B. you're now at 80 gpt.
80gpt + luxury 3 will get you 1920 gold.

so you've turned your original 3 luxuries and 10 gpt into near 2k gold and 80 gpt, and you can repeat this every few turns. it's not hard to make it so every single gold an AI earns ends up in your coffers instead.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Ah, I gotcha. Well, one can figure there's a reason that AIs aren't used for these evaluations routinely on the professional scene...

By 2003 every loan approval I gave had to get run through the computer (and the expectation was that I wouldn't overrule it when it approved something). I doubt that things are different today.

If we want to be uncharitable, the rigid series of steps that most underwriters are expected to go through to approve a large deal causes the underwriter to function exactly like an AI.

The scheme vexing is presenting is the maximizing way to do things, but you don't need all that to see the power of the exploit. Every time you kill a luxury deal, you open up the possibility of getting 240 again from an AI for the low, low price of a few Worker turns. It should be possible to see that you're looking at the potential for 240 per turn and up very early in the game, and that's otherwise unattainable at that stage.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

???

You wouldn't loan the AI money to sign RA?

Well would the AI accept gpt for an RA? (since an RA is like a per turn benefit anyways.. ie cancel the deal = no benefit)

For a AI behavior change, I'd make the AI never give up Lump sum Gold, unless it was as part of a peace deal. (they could accept it just fine)

For a game engine change, I'd change RAs to gpt investment, and make lump sum gold only tradable as part of a peace deal (so the only lump sums in diplomacy would be Peace gold or Cities)

 

[Martin Alvito]

Well would the AI accept gpt for an RA? (since an RA is like a per turn benefit anyways.. ie cancel the deal = no benefit)

You can loan an AI for the AI's GPT in order to get its cash supply up far enough to fund an RA. You also can use GPT to balance the scales if the AI wants extra money to sign an RA due to your being an era or more ahead.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ Yes, and because RA are so derpy strong, it's clearly worthwhile to give AI lump sum to sign one unless it's obvious they're going to break it by declaring on you.

 

[dexters]

OP isn't very clear.

So basically if I'm trading my Cotton for some Ivory and I put an improvement over any of my cotton resource it cuts off my trade?

 

[vexing]

OP isn't very clear.

So basically if I'm trading my Cotton for some Ivory and I put an improvement over any of my cotton resource it cuts off my trade?

read my post above for more explicit machinations, but basically you're trading your luxury for a lump sum of gold then cutting the deal off early. you keep all the gold, they don't keep the luxury.

 

[dexters]

read my post above for more explicit machinations, but basically you're trading your luxury for a lump sum of gold then cutting the deal off early. you keep all the gold, they don't keep the luxury.

Ah,which is what I suspected given the talk about adding in a reputation mechanic.

This mechanic was in Civ3, then removed in Civ4 in favour of 1 to 1 trades only, much to my chagrin and disappointment.

Civ5's trade table is the way it should be, including allowing a certain amount of exploitation. You'll note the AI will do the same to you, agreeing to RA's knowing full well he will not honor it, or worse, offering a sweet deal with gpt to stop a war, knowing full well he'll be back attacking you as soon as the peace treaty expires.

I don't see much of a problem here as the best deals is 1-1 lux trades is often the most available given 4 happiness will give you far more gold in supported growth and a lump sum of 250ish gold pieces, which in Civ5 terms, given the amount of gold dumps around, is very little cash.

They should keep this 'exploit' in but add in a reputation modifier where too many disconnected trades will cause the AI to cease offering these trades to you. Think of the 'warmonger' mechanic, but for trading. So 1 or 2 disconnects due to a mistake won't immediately incur a penalty.

 

[Tabarnak]

They should keep this 'exploit' in but add in a reputation modifier where too many disconnected trades will cause the AI to cease offering these trades to you. Think of the 'warmonger' mechanic, but for trading. So 1 or 2 disconnects due to a mistake won't immediately incur a penalty.

I don't bother if we can build forts on luxuries. A trade deal can be broken, no problem with that. But why a deal doesn't last 30 turns whatever what will happen? You break the deal, but can't sell this lux for X turns until 30 turns. That's pretty simple for me and fair for everyone.

I like the diplo hit also. Why not both? For sure i would be angry if someone doesn't respect me...That said, players would be forced to protect them from barbs, raising difficulty a bit. Presently, i don't want to be in the same seat of HoF and GOTM staff. Also, i don't see how i can raise a 100$ challenge with this huge bug

 

[LaminarFlow]

I can see a few options:

1) A destroyed lux/resource does not break the deal. The resource receiving player can either still receive the benefits or not. Regardless, if the resource is repaired the selling player doesn't get the resource to resell because the deal is still in progress. Or even, this could be used to extend the trade duration. Resource was out for 5 turns, the trade duration is continued for 5 turns so both parties receive 30 full turns of the resource benefits (in the case of gpt deals).

2) The selling player has to payback the gold at a prorated rate. Resource is destroyed after turn 15, the selling player automatically pays back 120 gold or half of the selling rate. Makes sense since the selling player made a deal for 30 turns and wasn't able to fulfill his/her end of the deal.

Of course these work for the cases when the resource is destroyed. For a DOW canceled deal the only real answer is worldwide diplo effects. You can't get rid of lump sum trades just because of DOW canceled deals. I mean it does make sense. I'm sure sometime in history a civ took out a loan they did not intend to payback to fund a war against the civ they borrowed from.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I can see a few options:

1) A destroyed lux/resource does not break the deal. The resource receiving player can either still receive the benefits or not. Regardless, if the resource is repaired the selling player doesn't get the resource to resell because the deal is still in progress. Or even, this could be used to extend the trade duration. Resource was out for 5 turns, the trade duration is continued for 5 turns so both parties receive 30 full turns of the resource benefits (in the case of gpt deals).

2) The selling player has to payback the gold at a prorated rate. Resource is destroyed after turn 15, the selling player automatically pays back 120 gold or half of the selling rate. Makes sense since the selling player made a deal for 30 turns and wasn't able to fulfill his/her end of the deal.

Of course these work for the cases when the resource is destroyed. For a DOW canceled deal the only real answer is worldwide diplo effects. You can't get rid of lump sum trades just because of DOW canceled deals. I mean it does make sense. I'm sure sometime in history a civ took out a loan they did not intend to payback to fund a war against the civ they borrowed from.

The issue is
1. The AI does not realize that 30 gold now is better than 1 gpt for 30 turns (because of early investment>later investment)

2. The AI doesn't realize trades can be broken

The simplest way to make the AI "realize" that is to make it Never give a human player lump sum gold (except maybe in a capitulation peace).

The human player could still give the AI gold to help the AI make a Research agreement, and the human player could still milk the AI for gold by selling luxuries for gpt. (the human player might have to plan ahead if they suddenly need gold to buy units/buildings/CS or upgrade... but then they plan ahead.)

 

[diz2]

The AI does a pretty poor job of putting a value on loans (it insists on making money on both ends, undervalues early game and doesn't recognize the risk of not getting paid back), but that's fixable if you tweak some scalars and make loans persistent even in a state of war.

I find it particularly annoying that it doesn't get the basic concept of finance right. Borrowers pay interest.

If I'm going to give you 300 now, I need to get more than 300 back in the future.

Why would I ever give you 300 now to get back 6 gpt for 30 years? I give up 300 gold to get 180 spread out over 30 years with credit risk? It seems like I ought to get at least 12 gpt even for good credits.

 

[LaminarFlow]

The issue is
1. The AI does not realize that 30 gold now is better than 1 gpt for 30 turns (because of early investment>later investment)

2. The AI doesn't realize trades can be broken

The simplest way to make the AI "realize" that is to make it Never give a human player lump sum gold (except maybe in a capitulation peace).

The human player could still give the AI gold to help the AI make a Research agreement, and the human player could still milk the AI for gold by selling luxuries for gpt. (the human player might have to plan ahead if they suddenly need gold to buy units/buildings/CS or upgrade... but then they plan ahead.)

I agree with the issues you've listed.

1. Yes, you are correct. The AI does not realize that an earlier investment pays off more than a late investment.

2. Yes, the AI does not factor in the possibility of a trade to be broken.

I disagree with the conclusions you make. These can be fixed without removing lump sum trades.

1. The AI already knows how to weigh options in a trade. If they dislike you they will offer you less gold for resources or open borders. Your issue is they do not factor in a weight feature when doing lump sum gold vs gpt deals. You are correct, it is probably easier to just remove the lump sum option from the game. Though, I don't think Firaxis will need to hire some new, motivated programmers to expand an existing feature in the game (i.e. weighted trades) to cover lump sum vs. gpt deals.

2. The propositions I made as well as some ideas other members posted are to not break trades upon losing a resource. I proposed that if you lose a resource your either (a) pay back what you owe at a prorated rate (you can even add interest too if you feel its necessarily to suffice your "issue 1") or (b) make the selling player fulfill their end of the deal of a 30 turn trade even if it takes 35, 40, etc... actual game turns to do so. If trades aren't broken, this issue goes away. Option (a) is used in real life numerous places. For instance, the company I work for paid for my moving fees, traveling fees and paid to help me look for a new house. I had to work for my company for at least one year or else I had to pay back all moving fees plus interest. Some mortgages work the same way (the loan helps cover some down payment costs on the condition this house is your primary residence for X amount of years).

If you were referring to strictly a DOW cancelled deal well then I'd say sorry, that's life. The first option to fix exploiting this would be a diplo hit for doing so. You already get diplo hits for DOW'ing so it shouldn't be a hard fix. Your first option should not be "remove a feature". Especially when the only person that can capitalize from the exploit, for the most part, is the human player. I don't know how it factors into MP but if you only SP, the literally easiest way to fix the exploit is simply not to use it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree with the issues you've listed.

1. Yes, you are correct. The AI does not realize that an earlier investment pays off more than a late investment.

2. Yes, the AI does not factor in the possibility of a trade to be broken.

I disagree with the conclusions you make. These can be fixed without removing lump sum trades.

1. The AI already knows how to weigh options in a trade. If they dislike you they will offer you less gold for resources or open borders. Your issue is they do not factor in a weight feature when doing lump sum gold vs gpt deals. You are correct, it is probably easier to just remove the lump sum option from the game. Though, I don't think Firaxis will need to hire some new, motivated programmers to expand an existing feature in the game (i.e. weighted trades) to cover lump sum vs. gpt deals.

2. The propositions I made as well as some ideas other members posted are to not break trades upon losing a resource. I proposed that if you lose a resource your either (a) pay back what you owe at a prorated rate (you can even add interest too if you feel its necessarily to suffice your "issue 1") or (b) make the selling player fulfill their end of the deal of a 30 turn trade even if it takes 35, 40, etc... actual game turns to do so. If trades aren't broken, this issue goes away. Option (a) is used in real life numerous places. For instance, the company I work for paid for my moving fees, traveling fees and paid to help me look for a new house. I had to work for my company for at least one year or else I had to pay back all moving fees plus interest. Some mortgages work the same way (the loan helps cover some down payment costs on the condition this house is your primary residence for X amount of years).

If you were referring to strictly a DOW cancelled deal well then I'd say sorry, that's life. The first option to fix exploiting this would be a diplo hit for doing so. You already get diplo hits for DOW'ing so it shouldn't be a hard fix. Your first option should not be "remove a feature". Especially when the only person that can capitalize from the exploit, for the most part, is the human player. I don't know how it factors into MP but if you only SP, the literally easiest way to fix the exploit is simply not to use it.

It wouldn't be removing a "feature" it would be removing AI stupidity. (giving lump sum gold away to an untrustworthy player)

I agree would be easy to add a "time factor" weighting lump sum v. gpt

It would Not be easy to do that in a way that could not still be exploited easily (an AI planning to DOW me should not give me 'loans'). So the easiest thing to do is make the AI not give up lump sums to the player.

You could still lend lump sum gold To the AI for a research agreement, and you could still get gold from the AI... but you could not use the AI as an emergency treasury. If you needed 250 gold to boost up your CS ally, you should have taken care of that 30 turns ago. (and kept 250 gold in your Own treasury)

 

[LaminarFlow]

It wouldn't be removing a "feature" it would be removing AI stupidity. (giving lump sum gold away to an untrustworthy player)

It depends. If you say "Never give a human player lump sum gold" I consider that removing a "feature". If you say do not give lump sum gold away to an untrustworthy player then I consider that a change in the way the AI handles diplomacy. Some people prefer to play peaceful games where they are trustworthy and can fulfill their end of the agreement. If you have a good track record I don't see why this should be an issue. It is an exploit. Why not fix it rather take away from the game.

I agree would be easy to add a "time factor" weighting lump sum v. gpt

It would Not be easy to do that in a way that could not still be exploited easily (an AI planning to DOW me should not give me 'loans'). So the easiest thing to do is make the AI not give up lump sums to the player.

So now your only problem with this is after performing a lump sum/loan deal in favor of the AI economy, the AI may declare war on you canceling the deal? That's a problem with the AI, not with lump sum trades. Using your methodology we should just remove the AI because it makes stupid decisions all of the time. Whether it is trades, troop movements, build order, etc... This should only be a MP game.

The truth is that there is always going to be some way to exploit the AI. No matter how good or complex Firaxis makes the AI, there will always be one player that figures out how to beat it, posts a message on the Civ forums and the method becomes common knowledge. I agree this is an exploit. However, I would rather Firaxis puts together some coding to make the AI a more formidable opponent rather than programs a fix so the AI knows if it will declare war within 30 turns that prevents an exploit only available if the human player uses it. I would rather the lump sum feature stays in place the way it is and the user chooses if he/she wants use the exploit. Like vexing said earlier, if you really want the extra gold just use FireTurner. Fixing this in-game problem won't stop any user from giving themselves as much gold as they want at any time. This should not be a pressing issue.

I am firmly against taking features away from the game that are potential exploits only if the human player decides to abuse it. The aim should be more towards balance or improve rather than remove.

 

[tommynt]

Let's put it this way:

The AI is indeed too stupid to properly evaluate some lump sum for GPT trades. However, removing them from the game is not a unique solution.

There are three types of lump sum for GPT trades right now:

- Resource (luxury/strategic)
- Open Borders
- Loan (its GPT for , or vice versa)

Nobody complains about Open Borders, as selling it to an AI invites a real risk of inviting a DoW that otherwise would not happen. The AI does a pretty poor job of putting a value on loans (it insists on making money on both ends, undervalues early game and doesn't recognize the risk of not getting paid back), but that's fixable if you tweak some scalars and make loans persistent even in a state of war. The latter may not be very realistic, but it's a necessary sop to the fact that AIs are often ill equipped to evaluate credit risk. I spent nearly five years with a major bank a number of years ago, and evaluating credit risk was part of my job. Trust me, I know.

The big problem is luxuries and strategics. Not because they don't confer something of value (more luxuries -> more and faster GAs, and more strategics -> more Deity unit spam), but because the trades can be terminated by the player free of consequence and warning.

One solution to that problem is to ban the trades. Another is to penalize the player rather than the AI for the deal's cessation. Either will work, but the latter is undeniably a more minimalist solution.

wtf all this blabla
Ai suckz, every clever "action" u do is in fact exploiting in some way, as ai is not able to do same.
It s totaly ridic and pointless to talk about specific things.
A semi clever human will be better as ai in so many game aspects.
Ai makes dumb trades - well so what - it does 100 of other dumb things aswell.

Only solution: stop playing dumb ai and get your ass kicked in multiplayer - you superclever guys

 

[DaveMcW]

Is multiplayer less broken than the AI yet?