Is there a way to stop the AI repeatedly asking for the same thing e.g. help with war

[DrewBledsoe]

Firstly the diplomatic system in Civ IV is broken, has always been broken, doesn't work, ist kaput etc, you get the picture. Ok only my opinion, but then its fact

Seriously though, its strange, cos I always play around Emp or so, and can't remember EVER giving in to a demand (a request from a "friendlish lesser nation" well thats different.) I make absolutely no attempt to form "relationships", generally run the "western" civics (i.e. uni suff, free market etc.), play with agg ais / rand pers/ around 13 civs, and STILL manage to generally keep open borders with at least half of them.

I tend to fight hard and early then with "enough" land, just sit there and let the occasional psycho get his fix on attacking me (and generally ending up a vassal).

My tip, keep a piece of scrap paper handy, and make of list of leaders. They can then accumulate "dickhead" pts with you, for idiotic requests, with the largest eventually getting a spy binge, raze and pillage or total annihilation, depending upon game and mood

Always makes me feel better, and actually makes for a lot more realistic diplomatic model.....

 

[bardolph]

Again, I can't disagree with anything you're saying bardolph. Except, the perspective you're presenting should also be accompanied by a much more rapid forgetting of old negatives. Currently, the AI "remembers" you saying "no" to them thousands of years ago. If truly "every turn represents a new global situation," then they shouldn't have such a big bug up their butt about stuff that happened thousands of years ago.

Wodan

That could be a solution. It would have to be playtested to see how exploitable it would be, and how easily a human player can manipulate themselves into a Diplomatic Victory condition, even after racking up a pile of negative modifiers with various rivals in the early game.

As it is, I don't think anyone in this thread has complained about Diplomatic Victory being too difficult to achieve relative to other victory conditions, or about being unable survive in the endgame due to being weighed down by too many "you refused to help us" modifiers.

It seems that the biggest problem is that players don't like being presented with AI requests that they are likely to refuse. It's hard to know how best to solve this problem, since different players will have different ideas about what is or isn't "reasonable." What it really comes down to is whether or not X request is worth Y diplomacy points, and simply making that decision and accepting the consequences. Remember that currying favor with your rivals is optional. There are plenty of ways to win other than through Diplomacy.

I think that a certain number of unreasonable requests should be made of the player. If all requests were reasonable or mutually beneficial, then what challenge would there be to Diplomacy at all? Just say "Yes" to every request and coast your way to victory!

One solution that I mentioned previously is to allow the human player to "red out" trade items that they are unwilling to trade, and having the AIs silently rack up the negative modifiers without bothering the player about it. This would preserve the current gameplay, but reduce the annoyance factor for those who don't want to be bothered by unreasonable requests.

 

[Merkinball]

No. My argument is that any complaint that diplomacy is flawed because the AI doesn't do what the human player wants it to do is a weak complaint. - bardolph

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not really what the complaints are.

My mention of Diplomatic Victory was a direct rebuttal to any claim that the AI is somehow "anti-human." If the AI was "anti-human," then Diplomatic Victory would be impossible. - bardolph

I'm a few months removed from high school English. What kind of logical fallacy is that? You can win a Diplomatic victory so it's not "anti human?" You're kidding me right?

Most of the arguments I see in this thread amount to "I don't want to get a -1 diplomacy modifier." Why not? The AI should be able to assign modifiers arbitrarily for no reason whatsoever if it wants to. Likewise, any AI should be able to make any demand it wants to, and respond any way it likes to the human player's actions. After all, that's how human players behave. - bardolph

Oh gee, that's funny, I've never had anyone in a multiplayer game over up 80 gold for Industrialism. Or want five resources for that Ivory.

As it stands, the Diplomacy system allows the human player to manipulate the AI far more easily than that same human player can manipulate any human opponent. The complaints I'm seeing in this thread mostly revolve around players who want more control over their AI opponents than they already have.

And to that I ask, "Why?" They're your opponents, after all! - bardolph

No, not really. I think most of the arguments have to do with rationality and equal footing. For instance, if I don't wanna talk with someone, the AI should get a big ole "F-you" too. Why can't I "refuse to talk?" If they stop trading with me, they shouldn't be able to ask for anything like when I stop trading with them if I so desire. I should be able to red out resources and technologies that I'm not willing to trade to prevent them from asking for it. I should be able to tell someone to give this resource or technology "or else!" How is there parity when if you want someone to go to war, you gotta give up at least a tech, no matter how friendly someone is with you, but no AI under any circumstance will bribe you into war. To make matters worse, they give each other plenty of benefits in being bribed into war for just about anything, irregardless of their interpersonal diplo modifiers. That's why the game is geared towards punishing the human player. How come its impossible for me to have too much on my hands right now? You suffer through getting continiously tagged throughout the game by either taking diplo hits, or giving stuff up. The system is broken.

If you don't agree with their demands, just say "No." What I don't understand is why taking a -1 diplomacy hit is such a big deal. - bardolph

When you average four or five inane requests per turn...yeah, those negative diplo modifiers quickly pile up.

 

[bardolph]

Firstly the diplomatic system in Civ IV is broken, has always been broken, doesn't work, ist kaput etc, you get the picture. Ok only my opinion, but then its fact

Seriously though, its strange, cos I always play around Emp or so, and can't remember EVER giving in to a demand (a request from a "friendlish lesser nation" well thats different.) I make absolutely no attempt to form "relationships", generally run the "western" civics (i.e. uni suff, free market etc.), play with agg ais / rand pers/ around 13 civs, and STILL manage to generally keep open borders with at least half of them.

I tend to fight hard and early then with "enough" land, just sit there and let the occasional psycho get his fix on attacking me (and generally ending up a vassal).

My tip, keep a piece of scrap paper handy, and make of list of leaders. They can then accumulate "dickhead" pts with you, for idiotic requests, with the largest eventually getting a spy binge, raze and pillage or total annihilation, depending upon game and mood

Always makes me feel better, and actually makes for a lot more realistic diplomatic model.....

Sounds like "working as intended" to me!

 

[bardolph]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not really what the complaints are.

The primary complaint goes along the line of "I don't want a -1 diplomacy modifier for refusing an unreasonable request." The problem is that "unreasonable" is a totally subjective term, and basically amounts to "anything that I say no to."

If a nation is in trouble (at war, for example), it is perfectly "reasonable" for that nation to seek help, even if it can't afford what the human player thinks is a "fair" price.

I'm a few months removed from high school English. What kind of logical fallacy is that? You can win a Diplomatic victory so it's not "anti human?" You're kidding me right?

No fallacy at all. When an AI votes for the player in a Diplomatic Victory election, it is acting entirely in the interests of the human player, and not at all in its own self interest. It is the exact opposite of "anti-human" behavior.

Oh gee, that's funny, I've never had anyone in a multiplayer game over up 80 gold for Industrialism. Or want five resources for that Ivory.

I have on many occasions offered "charity" trades to AI civilizations that I wanted to build up, so that they can challenge other rival AI civs.

I have very little multiplayer experience, so I can't refute your claim. However, I don't see why it would be unreasonable for the same kind of "uneven" trade to occur in a multiplayer game ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality).

Those 5-to-1 trades are usually offered when you are offering them resources that they don't need, in exchange for a resource that you do need. I think this is an improvement over the previous version, where such resources were "redded out" and untradeable.

It would be nice to be able to trade for "extra" resources in the same way, but in the other direction. I can only imagine that that is not possible because it would be too exploitable by the human player, who would be able to monopolize or broker certain resources too easily. Hard to say.

However, it is possible to offer one resource in exchange for a "resource plus gold," and then trade that gold for more copies of resources that you already own.

No, not really. I think most of the arguments have to do with rationality and equal footing. For instance, if I don't wanna talk with someone, the AI should get a big ole "F-you" too. Why can't I "refuse to talk?" If they stop trading with me, they shouldn't be able to ask for anything like when I stop trading with them if I so desire.

This is a problem with the UI, rather than a problem with the diplomacy system. As a human player, you can simply refuse all trades. How, really, is that different from setting an "I don't want to talk" flag? The fact that the AI "refuses to talk" is actually a feature, since it saves you the trouble of seeing a trade interface full of red items.

Remember, you always have the option to refuse any trade.

I should be able to red out resources and technologies that I'm not willing to trade to prevent them from asking for it. I should be able to tell someone to give this resource or technology "or else!"

You can. If you want something, and it's redded out, then you can declare war.

How is there parity when if you want someone to go to war, you gotta give up at least a tech, no matter how friendly someone is with you, but no AI under any circumstance will bribe you into war.

I've certainly had rival AI leaderheads offer me "charity" technologies, sometimes without me even asking! I believe I've been able to get "free" war declarations in the past, but I honestly don't remember.

To make matters worse, they give each other plenty of benefits in being bribed into war for just about anything, irregardless of their interpersonal diplo modifiers. That's why the game is geared towards punishing the human player. How come its impossible for me to have too much on my hands right now? You suffer through getting continiously tagged throughout the game by either taking diplo hits, or giving stuff up. The system is broken.

Except for one thing: the human player doesn't have a diplomacy modifier, because the human player always has free will.

How is there parity when an AI leaderhead has to keep track of diplomacy modifiers and vote for the human player in a Diplomatic Victory election if the human player has racked up a certain amount of bonuses? Under what circumstances can the computer AI "force" the human player to vote for them? How is that "fair"?

When you average four or five inane requests per turn...yeah, those negative diplo modifiers quickly pile up.

However, if you pick a side and declare war on someone, you can get positive diplomacy modifiers for your trouble, and you won't get bothered by those requests any more.

 

[GoodGame]

Ditto, this is true. Best bet is to figure which civs are your best trading partners, and form a power bloc centered on them. Don't be afraid to say "NO" to these war requests if the civ isn't in your power bloc, and don't be afraid to make a wussy declaration of war on behalf of someone that is in your power bloc . You don't even have to send any troops, just declare it and smile.

It's the game's way of forcing you to get off the fence.

Take a side - or suffer the consequnces.

 

[Yesod]

There's nothing like montezuma raiding you for 500 years and on 501 finding a new target and asking you to join the fight against them. And becoming furious when you refuse. Or the AI that refuses to trade with you his worst enemy still asking you to go to war with your closest ally. The only rhyme or reason to it is the simple fact that the programmers can't or won't come up with better AI algorithims and are forced to throw this junk at you to make the game harder. Don't try to rationalize it to much; it will slowly push you to the brink of insanity.

 

[Yesod]

Of course maybe enough complaints will make them give it a second thought...

 

[Merkinball]

The primary complaint goes along the line of "I don't want a -1 diplomacy modifier for refusing an unreasonable request." The problem is that "unreasonable" is a totally subjective term, and basically amounts to "anything that I say no to." - bardolph

The primary complaint isn't simply the -1 diplo modifier, it's the fact that it's unreasonable. You say, well that's subjective. Fair enough. How about if the AI is geared to be more subjective like a human being? If you and me are getting along fine in the game, and there's no way you'll go to war with me, would you say, "Hey Merky, I'll give you five gold for combustion, or else I'll get pissy at you." No, no you wouldn't. If we had fair trade relations throughout the game and had built a repore with me, you'd offer me something fair. You wouldn't alienate relations between us by offering up asanine trades that you subjectively see as reasonable, but that are clearly anything but.

To me, such retardedly unfair and non-forthright trades should simply be ultimatums. I would much rather have someone tell me "give us this, or else," than the AI consistently think that anything it asks for is a fair trade.

No fallacy at all. When an AI votes for the player in a Diplomatic Victory election, it is acting entirely in the interests of the human player, and not at all in its own self interest. It is the exact opposite of "anti-human" behavior. - Bardolph

Oh, absolutely. This is like saying, "well things are getting better in Iraq, so nothing's going wrong." Or, "George Bush pardoned two turkey's at Thanksgiving, so nothing is wrong with his presidency." Just because the in one instance, the AI does something to support the human, doesn't mean that there is a problem with the diplomacy mechanism in this game, and it doesn't mean that it predominanently doesn't punish the human.

I have on many occasions offered "charity" trades to AI civilizations that I wanted to build up, so that they can challenge other rival AI civs. - bardolph

Okay. So do I. Doesn't mean anything in regards to the AI's disposition to offer asanine trades and think it's fair and get all insulted when you don't go along with its jackassery.

Those 5-to-1 trades are usually offered when you are offering them resources that they don't need, in exchange for a resource that you do need. I think this is an improvement over the previous version, where such resources were "redded out" and untradeable. - bardolph

Hardly.

Ever done this? AI offers you a trade that really isn't in your best interest. You think there is something that could mutually benefit the both of you. You have no problem with giving up fish, but would rather get gems in return instead of banana. So you click, "care to negotiate." Come to find out, the only thing that Izzy has to trade for you is that banana. So you leave the trade as is, as Izzy originally offered. Suddenly "That's not good enough." What! Okay, what do you want for this? "Rice, Fish, Iron, Horse, and Copper."

Come on...gimme a break...

This happens to me all the time, in every game. It's buggy as all get out. And it happens in OTHER scenarios that you describe.

This is a problem with the UI, rather than a problem with the diplomacy system. As a human player, you can simply refuse all trades. How, really, is that different from setting an "I don't want to talk" flag? The fact that the AI "refuses to talk" is actually a feature, since it saves you the trouble of seeing a trade interface full of red items.

Remember, you always have the option to refuse any trade. - Bardolph

The problem, as described in the opening thread, is the persistent, incessant begging when you don't want to talk. If you had the option to "refuse to talk" like the AI feature, then they couldn't beg.

I'm sure you're retort is simply that, "well this would be gathered up with a hefty negative diplo modifier because you don't talk to them."

You can. If you want something, and it's redded out, then you can declare war. - Bardolph

You're right, but the AI isn't cognicent of that. And the AI SHOULD be cognicent of that. On top of that, the AI should understand the difference between a genuine threat and a bluff. If I stack up troops along someones border, and demand that oil "or else." The AI should compare the power graph, the proximity and number of troops, and make the according decision. It shouldn't aimlessly red out resources, and then keel over and DIE when it could just...trade the resources and stay alive.

Again, I don't take the diplomacy problems as a number one issue of "it's geared against the human." My biggest complaint as that plenty workable solutions to the diplo problems would MAKE THE GAME FUNNER! Or more fun, or most fun, or whatever the proper grammar is. Imagine how much more entertaining this game would be as I describe it. There's a whole 'nother of interaction between the human and the AI there. The way it is now is just drab.

"Oh he want trade. I declare war! Super fun yay."

I've certainly had rival AI leaderheads offer me "charity" technologies, sometimes without me even asking! I believe I've been able to get "free" war declarations in the past, but I honestly don't remember. - bardoplh

I recall one game in Vanilla where the AI gave me charity techs. I've played dozens of games on Warlords/BtS and never gotten a charity tech, no matter how friendly, no matter how far behind from anybody.

So far as getting a friend to war via "could you do this for a friend?" It was more common in Vanilla. In BtS, it's extremely rare and it's usually reduced to uber friendly guys like Mansa Musa, Asoka, Ghandi...who coincidentally, suck at warfare. My last game, I had Boudica, Catherine, Asoka, Churchill, and Izzy all wicked friendly with me. +20 diplo modifiers with them. Joao declared war on me, he was a mutually hated AI, not ONE of them would go to war for free.

How is there parity when an AI leaderhead has to keep track of diplomacy modifiers and vote for the human player in a Diplomatic Victory election if the human player has racked up a certain amount of bonuses? Under what circumstances can the computer AI "force" the human player to vote for them? How is that "fair"? - Bardolph

You're looking at this through the wrong prism. You see, "why can't the AI force you to vote for them." Things are fair. I see your question as, "oh, well they can't? Maybe they should? Maybe you should get threatened into voting for the AI." Vote for us, or else. You're so close to getting that spaceship lifted off, Joao needs more votes than you, what do you do? Go along with it and perhaps risk losing it? Or go to war, ensure he doesn't get a diplo victory, but risk getting wiped out before your ship reaches Alpha Centuri.

I don't know why you keep falling back on, "The AI votes for you in a diplo victory so it's all okay."

However, if you pick a side and declare war on someone, you can get positive diplomacy modifiers for your trouble, and you won't get bothered by those requests any more. - Bardolph

If only each game was that simple. That clear cut and dry.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Merkinball, I have to agree with much of what you've said. "Diplomacy" in Civ IV (when its actually in insult to the meaning of the word itself), was reduced to the lowest number of parameters possible, purely in order to avoid some players exploiting loopholes that existed in Civ III. The current system, is unfortunately tedious, repetetive, annoying and generally biased against the player.

However broken/insufficient/unfun a premise is, some people will always go out of their way to defend it, often in a seemingly logical manner. Just look at almost any thread on these forums for copious evidence of this. With all the improvements to the ai's various behaviour since vanilla Civ Iv, I find it strange that no real effort has been made to revamp the diplomatic model, which is lacking to say the very least....

Ho hum, there's always Civ V.............

 

[deanej]

Another thing is when an AI is unwilling to trade something and it isn't redded out. Take this example, which I see in every game with Alexander:

I'm at war with Alexander, and more powerful. I offer that we could be a peace if he gives up a border city (which is NOT redded out, so therefore he must be willing to trade it!). How does he respond? "Just how stupid do you think I am, (leader name)?" That makes me far more angry at him then if he just redded out the city in the first place.

 

[bardolph]

The primary complaint isn't simply the -1 diplo modifier, it's the fact that it's unreasonable. You say, well that's subjective. Fair enough. How about if the AI is geared to be more subjective like a human being? If you and me are getting along fine in the game, and there's no way you'll go to war with me, would you say, "Hey Merky, I'll give you five gold for combustion, or else I'll get pissy at you." No, no you wouldn't. If we had fair trade relations throughout the game and had built a repore with me, you'd offer me something fair. You wouldn't alienate relations between us by offering up asanine trades that you subjectively see as reasonable, but that are clearly anything but.

First of all, "pissy" is a subjective value judgment that you've attached to the AI. The AI only sees "-1". You've interpreted that as "pissy."

As far as being "subjective like a human being," remember that human beings don't have diplomacy modifiers at all, so the point is rather moot. Remember, it's an AI. There's no such thing as a "rapport" between an AI and a human player. That diplomacy modifier is the only thing it has.

The "unreasonable" trades that the AI offers me generally fall into two categories: (1) threats, and (2) requests for help. Neither category requires a fair trade in return, since category (1) is using force as a bargaining chip, and category (2) has nothing to offer in return except goodwill, which is represented by a diplomacy modifier.

To me, such retardedly unfair and non-forthright trades should simply be ultimatums. I would much rather have someone tell me "give us this, or else," than the AI consistently think that anything it asks for is a fair trade.

The AI isn't thinking at all. To assume that the AI "thinks" that a particular trade is "fair" is to give your computer too much credit.

Oh, absolutely. This is like saying, "well things are getting better in Iraq, so nothing's going wrong." Or, "George Bush pardoned two turkey's at Thanksgiving, so nothing is wrong with his presidency." Just because the in one instance, the AI does something to support the human, doesn't mean that there is a problem with the diplomacy mechanism in this game, and it doesn't mean that it predominanently doesn't punish the human.

If you read through the strategy section of this site, you will find numerous instances where canny players use the Diplomacy system to their advantage, even to achieve non-Diplomatic victory conditions.

Even the trading system can be exploited to the benefit of the human player. This mostly has to do with trading your monopoly techs to everyone at once, to maximize the value of your tech

Okay. So do I. Doesn't mean anything in regards to the AI's disposition to offer asanine trades and think it's fair and get all insulted when you don't go along with its jackassery.

You're personalizing the AI too much. Just because the animated head shows a crinkled brow, doesn't mean that your computer is "insulted." It's all just numbers.

Ever done this? AI offers you a trade that really isn't in your best interest. You think there is something that could mutually benefit the both of you. You have no problem with giving up fish, but would rather get gems in return instead of banana. So you click, "care to negotiate." Come to find out, the only thing that Izzy has to trade for you is that banana. So you leave the trade as is, as Izzy originally offered. Suddenly "That's not good enough." What! Okay, what do you want for this? "Rice, Fish, Iron, Horse, and Copper."

Yes, I've seen this happen. I don't know if this is a bug, or working as intended. Perhaps it's supposed to represent the risk of haggling?

The problem, as described in the opening thread, is the persistent, incessant begging when you don't want to talk. If you had the option to "refuse to talk" like the AI feature, then they couldn't beg.

I'm sure you're retort is simply that, "well this would be gathered up with a hefty negative diplo modifier because you don't talk to them."

Yes, my argument would follow that line. The main point I'm trying to make here is that the fact that the AI even has a visible diplomacy score gives a tremendous advantage to the human player who's willing to use the diplomacy system as it was designed instead of just complaining about it.

You're right, but the AI isn't cognicent of that. And the AI SHOULD be cognicent of that. On top of that, the AI should understand the difference between a genuine threat and a bluff. If I stack up troops along someones border, and demand that oil "or else." The AI should compare the power graph, the proximity and number of troops, and make the according decision. It shouldn't aimlessly red out resources, and then keel over and DIE when it could just...trade the resources and stay alive.

BtS (and Warlords) already has a mechanic for this. It's called "Capitulation."

Again, I don't take the diplomacy problems as a number one issue of "it's geared against the human." My biggest complaint as that plenty workable solutions to the diplo problems would MAKE THE GAME FUNNER! Or more fun, or most fun, or whatever the proper grammar is. Imagine how much more entertaining this game would be as I describe it. There's a whole 'nother of interaction between the human and the AI there. The way it is now is just drab.

I don't always equate "easier" with "more fun." The way it is, every diplomatic decision carries with it benefits and consequences. There are advantages and disadvantages to saying "yes" to an offer, and there advantages and disadvantages to saying "no" as well.

If all AI offers were "reasonable," that would make diplomacy less interesting, because "Yes" would always be the best decision.

I recall one game in Vanilla where the AI gave me charity techs. I've played dozens of games on Warlords/BtS and never gotten a charity tech, no matter how friendly, no matter how far behind from anybody.

I've gotten several charity offers, in only a few games of BtS.

You're looking at this through the wrong prism. You see, "why can't the AI force you to vote for them." Things are fair. I see your question as, "oh, well they can't? Maybe they should? Maybe you should get threatened into voting for the AI." Vote for us, or else. You're so close to getting that spaceship lifted off, Joao needs more votes than you, what do you do? Go along with it and perhaps risk losing it? Or go to war, ensure he doesn't get a diplo victory, but risk getting wiped out before your ship reaches Alpha Centuri.

I'm having trouble following your logic on this one. Voting for another player's Diplomatic Victory would never be an optimal play, no matter how the AI was programmed to behave.

I don't know why you keep falling back on, "The AI votes for you in a diplo victory so it's all okay."

The main reason is because it's perfectly sound strategy to ignore the diplomacy system and win through force, culture, or tech. However, see my earlier comments in this post. The Diplomatic Victory is one way to exploit the diplomacy system to human advantage, but not the only way.

 

[bardolph]

Merkinball, I have to agree with much of what you've said. "Diplomacy" in Civ IV (when its actually in insult to the meaning of the word itself), was reduced to the lowest number of parameters possible, purely in order to avoid some players exploiting loopholes that existed in Civ III. The current system, is unfortunately tedious, repetetive, annoying and generally biased against the player.

However broken/insufficient/unfun a premise is, some people will always go out of their way to defend it, often in a seemingly logical manner. Just look at almost any thread on these forums for copious evidence of this. With all the improvements to the ai's various behaviour since vanilla Civ Iv, I find it strange that no real effort has been made to revamp the diplomatic model, which is lacking to say the very least....

Ho hum, there's always Civ V.............

It's hard to respond to this post, since you haven't made any actual points. What was better about previous diplomacy models, and how could those features be reintroduced without also reintroducing the "loopholes" that you talk about?

 

[keshik22]

I don't always equate "easier" with "more fun." The way it is, every diplomatic decision carries with it benefits and consequences. There are advantages and disadvantages to saying "yes" to an offer, and there advantages and disadvantages to saying "no" as well.

If all AI offers were "reasonable," that would make diplomacy less interesting, because "Yes" would always be the best decision.

Not really. a reasonable offer, or a 'reasonable' threat is an offer or threat where there is a chance that a human player will answer 'Yes'. In case of ridiculous trade offers and help requests 'No' is always the best (and only) decision, by virtue of the request being unreasonable. All those 'Physics for Meditation' type requests do is a) waste player's time b) slowly amass negative diplo modifiers against the player when he/she answers 'No' to them c) piss the player off by their sheer stupidity. If b) is really all that necessary for gameplay mechanics (which I don't think it is) just add a "We want to ask you for help but know you'll refuse" negative modifier and at least don't waste my time. It does not in any way make the game more complex and certainly not more fun.

I've gotten several charity offers, in only a few games of BtS.

Several charity offers ? From Medieval era onwards I can hardly ever get an even trade with AI, never mind charity offers. What difficulty do you play at?

The AI isn't thinking at all. To assume that the AI "thinks" that a particular trade is "fair" is to give your computer too much credit.

I am very tempted to agree with the "AI isn't thinking" part , however when I open trade negotiations with AI it is quite capable of agreeing to trades which benefit it but are still reasonably fair. I am often approached by AIs such as Mansa or Peter with completely reasonable trade requests and I will often agree to them. The problem is that when AI 'knows' that it has nothing to offer in a trade it is programmed to still go ahead and ask.

Also another thing about those negative diplo bonuses like "You refused to help us" is that often they hurt the AI more than they hurt the player. How many times I've seen an AI badly behind in techs that is hostile to all other civs but that still has some techs or resources that it could usefully trade to me, but because of the negative modifiers it refuses to trade anything to me. I would like to get its tech off it but if it's not possible I'll research it myself, however the AI is passing its only chance to get some kind of tech parity.

 

[Bhruic]

All those 'Physics for Meditation' type requests do is a) waste player's time b) slowly amass negative diplo modifiers against the player when he/she answers 'No' to them c) piss the player off by their sheer stupidity.

They may do (a) and (c), but they certainly don't do (b). You never get a negative diplomatic penalty for turning down an offered trade. You only get the penalty when you turn down a demand or request.

Bh

 

[keshik22]

They may do (a) and (c), but they certainly don't do (b). You never get a negative diplomatic penalty for turning down an offered trade. You only get the penalty when you turn down a demand or request.

I tend to see those trade proposals as another kind of help requests, but you're completely right of course, no negative modifiers for turning down a trade, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[bardolph]

They may do (a) and (c), but they certainly don't do (b). You never get a negative diplomatic penalty for turning down an offered trade. You only get the penalty when you turn down a demand or request.

Thanks for the clarification.

Not really. a reasonable offer, or a 'reasonable' threat is an offer or threat where there is a chance that a human player will answer 'Yes'. In case of ridiculous trade offers and help requests 'No' is always the best (and only) decision, by virtue of the request being unreasonable.

Uneven trades aside, any request or demand from another civ can be considered "reasonable," if you care about maintaining a good relationship with them. If you don't, then why worry about the diplomacy hit?

All those 'Physics for Meditation' type requests do is a) waste player's time b) slowly amass negative diplo modifiers against the player when he/she answers 'No' to them c) piss the player off by their sheer stupidity. If b) is really all that necessary for gameplay mechanics (which I don't think it is) just add a "We want to ask you for help but know you'll refuse" negative modifier and at least don't waste my time. It does not in any way make the game more complex and certainly not more fun.

See Bhuric's response above. I've found that, in many cases, these trade offers are so uneven simply because the AI can't afford to make a better offer. Another reason for "uneven" trades is that the AI values a tech at the amount of remaining beakers it has to be researched, instead of its full value. So, a partially researched tech can be worth substantially less than an unresearched one.

Several charity offers ? From Medieval era onwards I can hardly ever get an even trade with AI, never mind charity offers. What difficulty do you play at?

Emperor. I once got Monarchy from Catherine simply by asking, and I believe Ragnar once offered me Theology without my asking. Granted, this only happened when I was at or near the bottom of the power graph.

Also another thing about those negative diplo bonuses like "You refused to help us" is that often they hurt the AI more than they hurt the player. How many times I've seen an AI badly behind in techs that is hostile to all other civs but that still has some techs or resources that it could usefully trade to me, but because of the negative modifiers it refuses to trade anything to me. I would like to get its tech off it but if it's not possible I'll research it myself, however the AI is passing its only chance to get some kind of tech parity.

I would agree that the AI should be more self-interested in this regard. I do think that certain individual AI settings (Tokugawa, in particular) generally result in very poor play from that leaderhead. It would be nice to see these "backward" leaders adopt more successful strategies.

 

[Merkinball]

The "unreasonable" trades that the AI offers me generally fall into two categories: (1) threats, and (2) requests for help. Neither category requires a fair trade in return, since category (1) is using force as a bargaining chip, and category (2) has nothing to offer in return except goodwill, which is represented by a diplomacy modifier. - Bardolph

I would say I get just as many well intentioned erroneous trades as I do threats and requests for help. And again, I don't see how the diplomacy feature is not staggered in the direction of the AI when they will NEVER bribe you into helping them. But you almost always MUST bribe them into war. I have no problem with outright threats. Like I said earlier, I have less qualms with taking a "you refused to give us tribute" hit, from refusing a threat, than I do someone who is pleased with me offering up a trade that it subjectively percieves as fair (5 gold for industrialism) and taking a "you refused to trade with us" hit. And again, in regards to help and the AI persistently dogging you for war...Christ...who doesn't understand something to the effect of "We have too much on our hands right now." There is nothing reasonable about going from friendly to cautious with your closest alley when you are fending off five armies, and he's fending off five different armies. You would think that friends and pleased, and even cautious leaders would understand the concept of, "He'd help us if he could, but he can't because he's in a war of his own."

Again, this is extremely irritating because it leads to perpetual dogpiling.

Or how about this one: What's the deal with me getting a negative diplo hit for declaring war on someone elses friend when THEY declare war on you? That is ******** and staggered against the human player.

The AI isn't thinking at all. To assume that the AI "thinks" that a particular trade is "fair" is to give your computer too much credit. - bardolph

Come on. Argue the points. Stop mincing words. A lot of this could be eleviated if some sense of reasonability was programmed into the AI. Some AI's could even be more reasonable than others. It also shouldn't have been that too hard to differentiate between a threat and a legitimate trade.

Even the trading system can be exploited to the benefit of the human player. This mostly has to do with trading your monopoly techs to everyone at once, to maximize the value of your tech - bardolph

I'm still not big on trading alphabet away for all those paltry early techs...

Anyhow, this all boils down to something that's still staggered towards the AI. You B-line to get a tech that the AI doesn't favor, and then trade for a whole slue of lesser techs. There are very few conditions or AI characters that give even trades for anything.

You're personalizing the AI too much. Just because the animated head shows a crinkled brow, doesn't mean that your computer is "insulted." It's all just numbers. - Bardolph

No Way! I could have sworn that was actually Mansa Musa in there! You mean it's not?!!! Lighten up man. Stop mincing words. I'm obviously not talking in a literal sense.

Yes, I've seen this happen. I don't know if this is a bug, or working as intended. Perhaps it's supposed to represent the risk of haggling? - bardolph

Now wait. You said earlier that the AI is geared to want multiple resources when you NEED something, but it doesn't. Now, why shouldn't that be a two way street? I mean, if Catherine REALLY wants that fish, so far as I'm concerned she should be offering me more than one resource. Not turn around and be insulted because I wanted to haggle.

BtS (and Warlords) already has a mechanic for this. It's called "Capitulation." - Bardoplh

So wait...capitulation was just another short cut to avoid good AI programming or what? Either that, or capitulation has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I don't always equate "easier" with "more fun." The way it is, every diplomatic decision carries with it benefits and consequences. There are advantages and disadvantages to saying "yes" to an offer, and there advantages and disadvantages to saying "no" as well.

If all AI offers were "reasonable," that would make diplomacy less interesting, because "Yes" would always be the best decision. - Bardoplh

Nothing I've suggested inherently makes the game easier. It just makes it more interesting and layered. I said earlier in the game that I would much prefer a better programmed AI to the cheeky short cuts used to create parity via the diplomacy mechanisms. The problem in what you suggest is that there are clear, concise "best" decisions to make. I'm sorry, but more often than not, the decisions are horrible or worse.

I'm having trouble following your logic on this one. Voting for another player's Diplomatic Victory would never be an optimal play, no matter how the AI was programmed to behave. - Bardoplh

Sure it would. If you are building a space ship, and someone is going for a diplo victory that is MUCH more powerful than you, then what I propose would make it beneficial to vote for AI in the diplo victory to avoid getting utterly destroyed so you can launch your spaceship.

Also another thing about those negative diplo bonuses like "You refused to help us" is that often they hurt the AI more than they hurt the player. How many times I've seen an AI badly behind in techs that is hostile to all other civs but that still has some techs or resources that it could usefully trade to me, but because of the negative modifiers it refuses to trade anything to me. I would like to get its tech off it but if it's not possible I'll research it myself, however the AI is passing its only chance to get some kind of tech parity. - Bhruic

This is another good point.

 

[Seven05]

Funny thing here is that BTS is probably the first version of any Civ game to date to have removed the majority of 'anti-human' code.

When it comes to declaring war, every leader has a table of 'no war probability' where it looks at it's current relationship with the potential target and if it decides to declare war it then checks against this no-war probability. Most leaders have very high no-war probability values for pleased and 100% no-war probability for friendly. That, BTW, makes it impossible for them to declare war on you if you're on firendly terms with them. Of course using random personalities will trash this and many other variables.

War declarations in particular can be a bit touchy. Not all war declarations are made with the intention of winning a massive land war, the AI may use war as a way of distracting you or even just to do some pillaging because they're 'bored.'

Trade descisions (including demands) are based on a lot of factors such as the value of the tech to the AI in question, how many other civs have the tech, how close is the civ to discovering it themself, etc. The raw beaker cost is something that is more important to human players than it is to the AI. As far as the AI cares, a tech could be worth 200,000 beakers and help them win the game in 200 turns but they won't value it as much as a tech worth 100 beakers that will provide them with something they need right now.

If you think the same way it'll all make sense, if not it's going to look irrational

 

[keshik22]

See Bhuric's response above. I've found that, in many cases, these trade offers are so uneven simply because the AI can't afford to make a better offer. Another reason for "uneven" trades is that the AI values a tech at the amount of remaining beakers it has to be researched, instead of its full value. So, a partially researched tech can be worth substantially less than an unresearched one.

I think the AI coming up with uneven proposals when it can't afford to give a better one is probably true. Most of the crazy stuff seems to come from AIs who have nothing to trade. However, there is a simple solution to this - don't ask for trade if you have nothing to trade The player will never trade Industrialism for 50 gold, so why bother asking?
Same thing for asking for tech as a favour - just don't do this since the answer will be 'no' anyway. In addition, requests for help do carry a diplo modifier.
As for AI valuing the tech at the cost of remaining beakers, that's simply poor programming. Then AI should be given some kind of appreciation of the total value of the tech in beakers. Why do I care (and how do I know) how many beakers are left for the AI to research the tech?

Uneven trades aside, any request or demand from another civ can be considered "reasonable," if you care about maintaining a good relationship with them. If you don't, then why worry about the diplomacy hit?

No-one, or certainly very few players will value a good relationship with another civ enough to give them the latest tech for free. That is even assuming that there is a good relationship to maintain in the first place. What about civs who are annoyed with the player asking to declare on a civ that is friendly? In what way does that benefit the player?
Unnecessary diplomacy hits are an irritation but I would agree to take them if I could only adopt a "Refuses to talk" attitude towards an AI. It makes a big difference because you at least avoid the irritating tedium of having to click through one stupid proposal after another and answer 'no' to all of them. I believe a whole lot of other folks here would like the same option. It would be even better of course if you didn't have those stupid proposals in the first place. To me this seems quite obvious.