I discovered a huge AI problem when it comes to trade

[hardcore_gamer]

So me and my friend were playing a LAN game on a standard map with 6 other AI's.

I am almost at the end of the middle ages and I have 4 trade routes. All of my trade routes go to Austria except for 1. Many of Austria's trade routes also go to me. This means that Austria is by far my biggest trading partner and both me and Austria made fortunes on trade with each other.

However, me and my friend had a distpute because of his religion spreading into my city, and this ended in war.

At first he had little success because my army and economy was stronger then his, but then he did something that completely trashed my economy, something stupid that should simply not be possible.

...he bribed Austria into declaring war on me.

Austria accepted, and as a result all of the trade routes between me and Austria were destroyed at once causing massive damage to my economy and probably Austria's economy also. Suddenly, my economy is now falling a part (my friend had to leave about a turn after this happened so the game isn't resolved yet) instead of being super powerful.

I am sorry, but this is complete and total nonsense that should not be able to happen. Why should an AI civ agree to declare war on another civ in exchange for money or resources when doing so would mean causing huge damange to that civ's own economy? Why would you agree to go to war in return for money when the first thing that would happen is you losing lots of money and continuing to lose lots of money in the future? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and I feel that my friend may very well have discovered a very serious AI exploit/problem.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I don't think the people claiming that the AI is just being clever by destroying your trade with them actually understand how the trade in this game works.

If you send a trade unit from your city to another Civ's city, then that trade unit doesn't only bring money and benefits to yourself. It also brings money and benefits to the AI civ/other player that the trade unit gets sent to.

This means that when the AI destroyes a trade unit that was coming from your city to it's city, its not only damaging your economy but ALSO IT'S OWN!!!

I have the feeling that a lot of the people posting on this thread think trade units only give stuff to the person sending them, while in reality they also provide stuff to the person that the trade units gets sent to. This means that its actually really good when other civs sent their own trade units to you because it means more stuff for you.

This is why the AI destroying all of the trade units that another civ sends to it in return for a bribe makes no sense.

To make things clear:

1. Lets say the Civ A makes 30$ a turn from the trade units that Civ B sends to Civ A.

2. Then lets say that Civ C offers Civ A 200$ for attacking Civ B.

3. Civ A accepts and goes to war with Civ B.

4. Because all of Civ B's trade units are destroyed by Civ A Civ A now makes 30$ less then before.

5. Because of the lost profit from trade with Civ B, it only takes 7 turns for the amount of lost trade with Civ B to exceed the amount of money the bribe offered. Then afterwards the AI just makes less money then it would have otherwise had it not declared war and destroyed the trade units.

See why this doesn't make sense? The AI is basically going to war in return for money that it will just lose anyways in a very short amount of time, and then afterward it will lose even more money thus harming itself even more in the long term.

 

[Tyrvos]

That's not really an exploit, I've bribed AI to go to war with another and all that. It usually costs a lot, unless they want to fight you and just need a slight push. I say just do the same to him.

 

[Spiri2al]

So me and my friend were playing a LAN game on a standard map with 6 other AI's.

I am almost at the end of the middle ages and I have 4 trade routes. All of my trade routes go to Austria except for 1. Many of Austria's trade routes also go to me. This means that Austria is by far my biggest trading partner and both me and Austria made fortunes on trade with each other.

However, me and my friend had a distpute because of his religion spreading into my city, and this ended in war.

At first he had little success because my army and economy was stronger then his, but then he did something that completely trashed my economy, something stupid that should simply not be possible.

...he bribed Austria into declaring war on me.

Austria accepted, and as a result all of the trade routes between me and Austria were destroyed at once causing massive damage to my economy and probably Austria's economy also. Suddenly, my economy is now falling a part (my friend had to leave about a turn after this happened so the game isn't resolved yet) instead of being super powerful.

I am sorry, but this is complete and total nonsense that should not be able to happen. Why should an AI civ agree to declare war on another civ in exchange for money or resources when doing so would mean causing huge damange to that civ's own economy? Why would you agree to go to war in return for money when the first thing that would happen is you losing lots of money and continuing to lose lots of money in the future? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and I feel that my friend may very well have discovered a very serious AI exploit/problem.

Thoughts?

maybe. what did he bribe her with?

 

[Arrowstorm]

That's genius, and no exploit at all. You gotta be careful who you trade with. Seeing as your economy was built around a trade partner that could be bribed into declaring war on you, I'd say you had a weakness he used very smartly and successfully. Playing as Venice, I lost some of my strongest trade routes because two AI civs declared war on me, and in retrospect I should have chosen other partners, because I wasn't all that comfortable with them around.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I actually love your friend, this is genius XD

The AI doesn't go to war without good reason, especially not post BNW. Clearly the bribe, and the potential gains from the war that Austria saw outweighed the trade she was getting from you.

It could be that their production is also high to quickly build trade units again. Could also be that she realised she could cripple you (the potential runaway) by DOWing you.

At the end of the day, you were playing very poorly in terms of covering your bases. What is it people say about eggs and baskets?

 

[Teagen]

This is a real world problem in real life too. Someone relies on 1 trade partner for almost all of their economy...that 1 trade partner shuts down trade for some reason, that country is screwed.

It happened to Japan when the US stopped selling them oil during ww2, or to North Korea and Cuba after the Soviet Union fell apart. Some european countries got shut down economically when Napoleon enforced his continental system and blocked their trade with Britain.

This is also why the US has a diversified trade market with crude oil suppliers, we don't want to have to rely on 1 or 2 trade partners to supply all our foreign oil needs.

Having a diverse trade market is a strength.

 

[Civsassin]

I agree with the oters: no exploit. I have done that many times before, and there were some instances where I absolutely could not get another civ to declare war. You must have had some negatives with Austria that tipped the balance.

 

[jpsateles]

Happened something similar to me. I had Arshubanipal as neighbor and most of my trade was with him for geographic/Shaka issues. We were buddies, even with Defense Pact and so. Suddenly he backstabs me and destroys ALL my trade routes in the opening turn of the war. I had to start the fight with 7 gold and -117 per turn. Guess what happened?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Happened something similar to me. I had Arshubanipal as neighbor and most of my trade was with him for geographic/Shaka issues. We were buddies, even with Defense Pact and so. Suddenly he backstabs me and destroys ALL my trade routes in the opening turn of the war. I had to start the fight with 7 gold and -117 per turn. Guess what happened?

That is epic. I'm starting to like the sound of this new AI. I can't wait to get some time to play some more!

 

[Callonia]

I knew such a thing can happen so I keep myself from being dependant. Try to settle frontier cities for trade posts and few ships to go with them.

 

[jpsateles]

That is epic. I'm starting to like the sound of this new AI. I can't wait to get some time to play some more!

Epic for him, lol. I was Brazil going for cultural victory, and I was getting real close to dominate everybody culturally. I wonder if the the AI took that into account into DoWing, because we had HUGE positive modifiers (same religion, Order path, a lot of trade, etc). The worst was the diplomatic screen of the DoW "I don't like the word backstabing, but..." or something along these lines.

 

[Buccaneer]

So instead of applauding a great tactical move, you want the game to prevent anyone from doing this?!?

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

I do this whenever I get the suspicion of an incoming attack against my meager army. My favorite is when I asked 'murica to attack Siam, who was plotting against me. He gobbled Rammy up, which may have been a mistake in the long run since I now had a much larger empire borderin mine, but then I just decided to give 'murica's long-standing enemy Russia the nudge out the door, creating a war on his other front.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I don't think the people claiming that the AI is just being clever by destroying your trade with them actually understand how the trade in this game works.

If you send a trade unit from your city to another Civ's city, then that trade unit doesn't only bring money and benefits to yourself. It also brings money and benefits to the AI civ/other player that the trade unit gets sent to.

This means that when the AI destroyes a trade unit that was coming from your city to it's city, its not only damaging your economy but ALSO IT'S OWN!!!

I have the feeling that a lot of the people posting on this thread think trade units only give stuff to the person sending them, while in reality they also provide stuff to the person that the trade units gets sent to. This means that its actually really good when other civs sent their own trade units to you because it means more stuff for you.

This is why the AI destroying all of the trade units that another civ sends to it in return for a bribe makes no sense.

To make things clear:

1. Lets say the Civ A makes 30$ a turn from the trade units that Civ B sends to Civ A.

2. Then lets say that Civ C offers Civ A 200$ for attacking Civ B.

3. Civ A accepts and goes to war with Civ B.

4. Because all of Civ B's trade units are destroyed by Civ A Civ A now makes 30$ less then before.

5. Because of the lost profit from trade with Civ B, it only takes 7 turns for the amount of lost trade with Civ B to exceed the amount of money the bribe offered. Then afterwards the AI just makes less money then it would have otherwise had it not declared war and destroyed the trade units.

See why this doesn't make sense? The AI is basically going to war in return for money that it will just lose anyways in a very short amount of time, and then afterward it will lose even more money thus harming itself even more in the long term.

I am going to add this post into the OP.

 

[ellgieff]

See why this doesn't make sense? The AI is basically going to war in return for money that it will just lose anyways in a very short amount of time, and then afterward it will lose even more money thus harming itself even more in the long term.

This is your analysis of someone else's motivations. Clearly Austrian AI determined that the cost of accepting this bribe was less than the benefits accrued from going to war with you.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Clearly Austrian AI determined that the cost of accepting this bribe was less than the benefits accrued from going to war with you.

Which just means the AI is bad. Something which I remind you, has been a near constant complaint since the release of the original Civ 5.

 

[Aristos]

I don't have your game so I am not completely clear of the scenario, but there are some holes in the story. For example, did the lost trade cripple the Austria AI as much as it crippled you? Or was it the case that they can sustain the war against you even without those routes while you have trouble with the same situation? It may not be as simple as comparing just the lost trade against the bribe.

You asked what we would do. Well, if I were Austria and your economy is dominating (so you are a danger), and someone comes and offers me something (even the excuse...and the opportunity) to go to war with you, first thing I would do is ask myself: "Can I sustain a war without these trade routes better than this guy can"? If the answer is yes, I would then ask: "Can I gain something from such a war, and what"? If the answer is promising, I would then ask: "What are my chances of beating this guy down, and hopefully slowing him down once and for all, given the present situation and the power of the briber"?

What I observe, with delight I may add, is that this AI is terribly opportunistic. It has no problem waiting for the best moment to jump at their target, and then, if it decides to jump, goes all or nothing. Timing of wars is so much better in this expansion, that I cannot believe some reports of extreme passivity that I am reading in these forums. Am I so lucky? Did I get the extreme Skynet version of BNW?

 

[Morthis]

My experience with BNW AI has been that they have extraordinarily high demands when it comes to bribing someone into a war. Certainly not the 200g you quoted. Also the loss of trade routes is not a permanent GPT loss because new trade routes can be make again, so don't try to portray it as a permanent GPT reduction when it's actually a temporary setback.

I absolutely think the AI should take trade routes into consideration when it comes to war (and it might, we don't know for sure). But it also shouldn't treat established trade routes as an automatic never go to war deal, that'd be completely ridiculous.

What really happened here is you put all your eggs in one basket and are now complaining it blew up in your face. If you don't want this to happen, diversify your trade routes. This is like complaining you lost a wonder 1 turn before it would have finished. You took a gamble and lost, suck it up or don't gamble.