New Version - March 7th (3-7)

[CrazyG]

This has never happened to me. AI can ask for support, offering nothing, but they can offer support too, asking nothing in return. This is called politics. And sometimes they ask for something, with a threatening army in my borders, that's a different kind of politics.

I don't think people are talking about war demands or gifts of friendship. I'm talking about when the AI asks for 3 iron in exchange for...nothing. I would be very willing to sell him some iron, but despite apparently wanting iron he only gives it a value of 5 each.

It doesn't make sense, the value being assigned just doesn't match his apparent need. While it does make sense for Genghis Khan to value horses quite highly, giving me 50+ gold in the ancient era isn't a good idea. This is meant as constructive feedback, overall the AI's trade logic is quite good

 

[Hashemi 1711]

This has never happened to me. AI can ask for support, offering nothing, but they can offer support too, asking nothing in return. This is called politics. And sometimes they ask for something, with a threatening army in my borders, that's a different kind of politics.

This happened to me a few times too maybe a bout 6-7 times in 600 turns

 

[Barak]

I have noticed something about the placement of resources as it relates to where i have often been offered the opportunity to place my first city over many, many games.

Many times I have been given a spot with the 2 forms of one luxury (dominant in my region) and one supplemental resource (which is spread throughout the map) and then after discovering many requisite technologies come to realize that I was given no other bonus or strategic resources within three hexes. No animals, no foods, no iron no stone. And then I look at some other parts of the map nearby and see what WOULD have been a great starting spot.

So I ask, is there a method to this madness? Shouldn't there be some expectation that I receive some resources? After all, the system chose this spot for some reason.

One other question... how does the limitation of unit supply based on technology work? In a recent game as Assyria, I noticed that my unit supply was reduced by 69 due to tech level. I was the most advanced civ, but not by much and my 34 units (all upgraded) gave me the third largest military.

Thanks for answering!

 

[tu_79]

I have noticed something about the placement of resources as it relates to where i have often been offered the opportunity to place my first city over many, many games.

Many times I have been given a spot with the 2 forms of one luxury (dominant in my region) and one supplemental resource (which is spread throughout the map) and then after discovering many requisite technologies come to realize that I was given no other bonus or strategic resources within three hexes. No animals, no foods, no iron no stone. And then I look at some other parts of the map nearby and see what WOULD have been a great starting spot.

So I ask, is there a method to this madness? Shouldn't there be some expectation that I receive some resources? After all, the system chose this spot for some reason.

One other question... how does the limitation of unit supply based on technology work? In a recent game as Assyria, I noticed that my unit supply was reduced by 69 due to tech level. I was the most advanced civ, but not by much and my 34 units (all upgraded) gave me the third largest military.

Thanks for answering!

Enjoy farm clusters!

Did you wait to see if you have lots of uranium or coal?

 

[Barak]

Enjoy farm clusters!

Did you wait to see if you have lots of uranium or coal?

LOL, usually by the time that coal or uranium are discovered my cities are pretty well established. As to farm clusters, I do like to utilize them when I can!

 

[FoxOfWar]

Denmark just offered to DoW England, if I would DoW the Ottomans!

Yeah, I see this kind of thing every once in a while. It's both slightly amusing, and every now and then useful. Because politics

 

[Workerspam]

Regarding AI "overvaluing" resources I'm curious if the more advanced users know the full circumstances under which the AI made some of these decisions. I thought I'd never pay too much for strategic resources; I plan around what I have. Then I found myself at war and unexpectedly running negative horses and discovered that, why yes, I would pay what I'd consider an exorbitant amount to get out of the red so my horsemen can heal. Then there are the high prices I've paid for luxuries to spark a We Love the King day or complete a CS quest.

I wonder how much of the issue is AI improperly valuing a trade vs. players not being aware of everything that might effect how an AI would value a given trade, on top of some players simply valuing things differently than the AI or other players might.

I've also been getting the "2 iron for nothing" type offers. It doesn't come up too often but removing that would be a nice, minor QoL improvement.

 

[peterw1987]

Some leaders that dont really consider gold are
(Inca,maya,korea,iruqois??,) they will often trade their luxury for 1gpt, but also only be willing to trade as much for yours too. Even if you are friendly or hostile with them. Dont even bother to trade strategic resources with them.

Some civs that are really reckless in spending gold for strategic resource in this term are cartage, greece,rome, indonesia, japan. You can sell 1 for almost 10gpt(in case they are in need of it, but sometimes they are willing to trade more than what they actullay need)

 

[randomnub]

This patch has been by far the funniest Civ5 experience I had. Take this, supply haters! A minor complain is that war weariness could use some explicit newbie friendly GUI improvement, and even some alert should it cause the loss of supplies.


About these latest replies about trade values, I think the AI could do with a couple of QoL improvements:

- at neutral/friendly status they usually value my embassy 75 'points' while they offer their for 50. This lets the player get some free unnecessary money or reputation, while the values should be the same imho.
- the AIs value their spare luxuries less (good) but value the player's ones always the same, letting you milk them a bit when a 1:1 trade would be fair for everybody. I know I value my spare lux very little and the AI should know that.
- William of the Netherlands should trade more aggressively, taking and offering better deals, factoring its UA. I know I always try to trade everything I have and buy everything at silly prices when I play as him, given how good profit the UA can net.
- same as above, the AI who is running the Goddess of Festival pantheon shouldn't be afraid of offering 2+ gold for some new luxury early on.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

This patch dont feel very balanced.
I like the fact, that weaker AIs are searching for defence pacts with stronger forces they like and protect them. But it looks like defence pacts are not calculated in the AI war declaration.
While I was closly behind the first Civ and had a defence pact with the 5th and 6th civ, the 3rd civ Austria declared war on me 2 times. My allies and me had a related border to austria. Even Austria had a slight technological advance, they lost 2 of their city state allies and peaced out with a lot of gold for me.
I like also the point that technology cost goes up. The first primitive tanks appeared at 1870. But the raised production cost for buildings and units make it nearly impossible to catch up in buldings and unit upgrades even I earn a lot of hammers and gold by order improved special improvement of the netherlands and improved villages. There is no chance to upgrade all my units (33 with 6 cities and 3 puppets), cause the upgrade cost is the same as the purchase cost what is simply silly.

I also agree and see weird or not really understandable trade offers.

 

[Txurce]

There is no chance to upgrade all my units (33 with 6 cities and 3 puppets), cause the upgrade cost is the same as the purchase cost what is simply silly.

The price jolt around Industrial-era unit upgrades also seems excessive to me. Too high, period, but also too sharply climbing a curve.

 

[Gazebo]

The price jolt around Industrial-era unit upgrades also seems excessive to me. Too high, period, but also too sharply climbing a curve.

You're paying for the promotions, in essence.

G

 

[Txurce]

You're paying for the promotions, in essence.

G

After several games, it hasn't been a problem for me with militaries in the 20-30 range. It just takes a while, and I'm also okay with that. I just never like to notice spikes.

 

[Strigvir]

You're paying for the promotions, in essence.

G

Except upgrade cost doesn't factor promotions, or even experience, in.

 

[tu_79]

Except upgrade cost doesn't factor promotions, or even experience, in.

He means that you shouldn't upgrade a unit with little experience. Gift it and produce a new one.

 

[Galbias]

About these latest replies about trade values, I think the AI could do with a couple of QoL improvements:

- at neutral/friendly status they usually value my embassy 75 'points' while they offer their for 50. This lets the player get some free unnecessary money or reputation, while the values should be the same imho.
- the AIs value their spare luxuries less (good) but value the player's ones always the same, letting you milk them a bit when a 1:1 trade would be fair for everybody. I know I value my spare lux very little and the AI should know that.
- William of the Netherlands should trade more aggressively, taking and offering better deals, factoring its UA. I know I always try to trade everything I have and buy everything at silly prices when I play as him, given how good profit the UA can net.
- same as above, the AI who is running the Goddess of Festival pantheon shouldn't be afraid of offering 2+ gold for some new luxury early on.

The first two of those I don't mind, I just view it as an AI desiring friendly relations and you can't even get 1GPT out of it without another deal involved so it's not really exploitable or anything. Also, an AI is much more interested in how it can benefit from a deal rather than the cost to someone else.

It would make sense for William and someone with Goddess of Festivals to value Luxury trades more highly though, if that's not the case already.

 

[Gazebo]

The first two of those I don't mind, I just view it as an AI desiring friendly relations and you can't even get 1GPT out of it without another deal involved so it's not really exploitable or anything. Also, an AI is much more interested in how it can benefit from a deal rather than the cost to someone else.

It would make sense for William and someone with Goddess of Festivals to value Luxury trades more highly though, if that's not the case already.

for the sake of performance AI modeling for trade deal valuation is does not account for much beyond the # of owned resources and their GPT.

G

 

[tu_79]

for the sake of performance AI modeling for trade deal valuation is does not account for much beyond the # of owned resources and their GPT.

G

Speaking of AI performance, this last release feels slower than ever. Is it the new war weariness system?

 

[Gazebo]

Speaking of AI performance, this last release feels slower than ever. Is it the new war weariness system?

Nope, probably just observation bias. At this point the DLL is optimized such that more than 75% of game time slowness is purely the pathfinder for units.

G

 

[joncnunn]

I like the fact, that weaker AIs are searching for defence pacts with stronger forces they like and protect them. But it looks like defence pacts are not calculated in the AI war declaration.
While I was closly behind the first Civ and had a defence pact with the 5th and 6th civ, the 3rd civ Austria declared war on me 2 times. My allies and me had a related border to austria. Even Austria had a slight technological advance, they lost 2 of their city state allies and peaced out with a lot of gold for me.

I can confirm similar experience in that AI doesn't appear to consider existence of defense pacts.
But at least the other AIs wanted me to pay them something for the defensive pact when France was about to DOW me. (I'm wondering though if my "evil plan" might have gone horribly right; I'm worried France will now lose too much territory to the Mayans before peaceing out.)