1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

One-sided trades (after patch)?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Aldor, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. Chibiabos

    Chibiabos Prince

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    424

    Here they go again, making a ludicrous statement that makes no sense. How does the AI shooting itself in the foot by refusing to trade make the AI stronger again?
     
  2. Rohili

    Rohili King

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    They don't get stronger, but they make you weaker. When you don't get luxuries or gold so easily, the game becomes more challenging. It affects your ability to tech up, buy units/buildings and keep your empire happy - and all this will affect your war effort as well.
     
  3. Chibiabos

    Chibiabos Prince

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    424
    That's not the AI playing for its civ. When the AI refuses to trade fairly, there is no point in trading with them. The game is thus dumbed down to a war game, because there's little point in attempting anything else.
     
  4. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    That kind of unfair deal requests were quite common in diplomacy in Civ IV. It's a way for the AI to ensure that it does't help you get ahead too much. Like others, I suspect this will lead to a pact of co-operation becoming more meaningful, whereas previously you could get equitabe deals even with civs that hated you, which really doesn't make any sense.

    Regard the 150 gold for an Open Borders agreement as an investment in the future. And only civs that are suspicious of you make such demands anyway.

    For weeks, people have complained that the game was too easy. Now they complain that it's become more difficult.
     
  5. MeowTau

    MeowTau Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    59
    No Civ IV was not like this. Damn. I was all excited for the new patch hoping diety might be a challenge, but the main difference now seems to be that the trade feature has essentially been removed from the game.

    One sided trades may make the game harder for the player, but the trade biases are now set to a point that no trade will reasonably occur, ever. If the AI's extort each other in a similar manner, they won't be trading with each other either.

    A 1 for 1 trade of excess resources is mutually beneficial for both parties. Greed is fine, but at least it should align with self-interest. This is not in the benefit of the AI, and just makes the game miserable for the player.

    And I thought there was nothing left to do but conquer before. Now if I want those happiness resources I must conquer. I am not optimistic about them fixing this game with changes like this. Did they even play test it once? Who honestly finds this fun? :(
     
  6. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    I do. Now I have to ponder when a trade agreement is worth if for me. Previously, the AI would agree to any one-on-one deal, which actually was moronic of it.
     
  7. Aldor

    Aldor King

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    Germany
    IF (big if!) they follow and make it so that pacts of cooperation actually allow you to trade fairly, I would welcome this change. However, its currently not working that way.

    And this has nothing to do with difficulty, all it does is to remove trading from the game. Now you will only trade if you're truly desperate...that can't be the goal of the devs can it?
     
  8. Aldor

    Aldor King

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    Germany
    Huh? Moronic? An equal, fair deal is moronic? The whole world of trading is built upon that!
     
  9. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    The other civs don't want you to win. They want to win themselves. That means that if you are doing well in a game, the AI civs will prefer to make advantageous deals with less successful civs, thereby helping themselves and someone less dangerous than you are.

    I do think a pact of cooperation should mean more in terms of good business deals, research agreements and so on than it does at present. Still, they have tweaked the game a bit in that direction in the recent patch.

    To make a somewhat unoriginal observation: This game was clearly published before the designers had had the time to really implement many of the things that went into it. I am, for example, convinced that the pacts of co-operation, and of undermining a third player, are intended to have more of an impact than they do now, and to entail negative reactions from those you agree with if you then go ahead to make business deals and research deals with the civ you supposedly promised to try to isolate. Also to make your open or secret allies a bit more helpful than they are now. At present, the impact is pretty light. The agreements' only effect seems to be that the civ you have them with perhaps like you just a teensy weensy bit more than they would have otherwise. Also, entering a secret pact against someone can be construed as a latent willingness to go to war with the civ at the receiving end, but if so, it is rather sloppily executed right now.
     
  10. Medopu

    Medopu Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    151
    as stated before, it might be the case that AI simply knows that you are going to benefit more from +5 happiness than he is. That means even though the deal is fair 1 to 1, the benefit is much greater for you than for AI, the AI knows that and refuses to trade.

    But then again I don't think he would accept the deal, if you put your only resource for his surplus resource, which means you made a moronic trade and he doesn't realise it thus makes the AI diplomacy bad.

    Several other have mentioned that AI likes you more if you make them tributes and open borders (those are important for them), and some reported that when the AI likes you it is much more likely to give you a 1 for 1 deal.
     
  11. MeowTau

    MeowTau Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    59
    One large piece of evidence arguing against this hypothesis, is that the AI's no longer trade resources with anyone. My entire game each of the AI has a stack of excess resources that they are unwilling to trade with either me, or apparently any other AI for any reasonable amount.

    The AI's appear to be hardwired to want ridiculous deals now, and treat each other in a similar manner. The result is now that there is no trading of resources between any civilizations whatsoever. I really don't see how anyone can argue that this is working as intended.
     
  12. Creepy Old Man

    Creepy Old Man Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    295
    So if I give Monty gold and ivory for free, then maybe he'll trade his spare dye for my silk in a fair 1-for-1 deal? Wow, that's great!
     
  13. the streak

    the streak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    56
    If it's just happiness, the AI on harder difficulties has tons of it and doesn't need anymore, hence the lack of need to trade luxuries. Pretty harsh for the player, though.
     
  14. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    I'm almost fine with production/money/resource bonuses for the AI but the happiness is really getting on my nerves - it can conquer a bigger empire, have less stagnation, no need of luxuries and saves $$ by not buying expensive buildings to keep the idiotic populace happy.

    Rat
     
  15. stormerne

    stormerne is just a Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    3,428
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    the United States
    I'm puzzled by the furore here. Before the patch I found 2-1 or 3-1 demanded trades were the norm, and 1-1 was for me definitely the exception. So it's more of the same? Fine. Maybe I quickly got used to the belligerent AIs all hating me weeks ago!
     
  16. d4everman

    d4everman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    This.

    The AI's basic framework is to stop you from winning, not win for itself. I can only speak for myself, but that doesn't make the game fun, no matter how some people try to spin it.

    Diplomacy stinks in this game. The AI civs seem to go off of the same script so there is very little difference in any of their responses....and they don't have many responses anyway.

    Now you can't even make a fair trade deal with them. Not because of some you sided with our enemy/ refused open borders/ offered an unfair deal yourself modifier, but only to pretty much force the human player into having to go to war. And if you can't trade for happiness resources you'll probably have to raze AI cities in order to jkeep afloat.

    So instead of a new version of the Civ franchise CiV is a watered down, hollow shell disguised as a civ game. The chimps that came up with this should be ashamed.
     
  17. Licinia Eudoxia

    Licinia Eudoxia Empress

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    424
    As a side question, has anyone ever formed a Defensive Pact with an AI?

    I have NEVER initiated a pact of secrecy or cooperation successfully, only been able to accept the ones they proposed to me. And I've never seen a defensive pact work either.
     
  18. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    I pretty much ignore all diplomacy except to take advantage of them. Anything that will help in taking less advantage of the AI is a good thing. The AI should not engage in win-win trades with the human player, that's too much of an advantage for us.
     
  19. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    No, but I've never tried.

    I've gotten both of those just fine, however. Especially if there's a clear big threat that both of you have to deal with. The AI is surprisingly pragmatic here.

    Anyway, got a lot of playtime with the new patch (while waiting for my old save to be playable). The AI's refusal to trade 1-1 was annoying. At the same time, I only noticed it because I needed the luxury. No idea if he needed it or not. As a side effect, I think they might be more willing to give extra luxuries for peace.
     
  20. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    The problem with CiV dippy is that it has no context at all. You can hate another state to the core or whisper in their ear sweet nothings of love - be 1000 hexes away or 5, give them great deals or have smashed their cities - they will still behave without taking the world into consideration - it seems random.

    Things we need
    1) More than just HOSTILE adjectives - we need one for all states or relations
    2) an EXPLANATION for what co-op pacts and secrecy pacts do
    3) an EXPLANATION of how open borders affects relationships
    4) a HISTORICAL modifier to relations - helped in a war, did trades, research
    5) Fix AI to stop being so finicky with hostility over borders and units especially when it has fetish for placing cities right next to yours - despite the stupidity o fit
    6) Trades - also modified for historical relations AND current relations - If I am giving you GPT or we trade luxuries and have co-ops and research - I expect a little love
    7) REDUCE AI happiness cheat make trade luxuries valuable to them as well- right now the AI with 3 cities have happiness 30++ in 2500 BC W..T...F!!!
    8) provide a means to woo city states other than bribes and "destroy city state 300 hexes away" BS

    I hate the dippy AI.. post patch it is getting to MOO3 levels now. :mad::mad::mad:


    Rat
     

Share This Page