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. Marshall Thomas

    Marshall Thomas King

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    700
    In the handicaps XML file, I put "AI unhappiness" at 135 on immortal and I'm pleased with the results. The AI will have 90% to 100% approval in most situations and the player will usually be ranked last in happiness. but the AI can get into happiness trouble if it conquers too much.

    Before making this change, the AI almost always had an 100% approval rating throughout a campaign. The AI needs lots of bonuses (which is why so many of us play on immortal or diety), but the happiness bounses are disproportionately higher than the other bonuses.
     
  2. d4everman

    d4everman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    72
    I said before (in another post in some thread) its not random. The end result is the same. They will hate you. People will say because the AI plays to win. No it doesn't. It exists to keep you from winning. Thats its basic framework.

    Yep....but as it is now, what else can you do? Nothing. The game pushes you into conflict. You can't cexist with the AI even if its nowhere near you. Darius accused me of mustering troops on his border. The nearest unit I had to him was my freaking scout....the rest of my 3000 bc "army" was at least ten hexes away.

    I don't even bother with them. Cooperation? HA! I may have missed it, but can you, the player, cancel one of those pacts? The AI sure 'nuff can. They cancel them for no given reason, presumably because you're the human. Its not like i've ever gotten anything from them either. Pacts of secrecy? IO don't even know what they mean....do you? Is it listed anywhere? I looked in the civilopedia and didn't see it. Maybe I missed it. Still they are useless. I've seen the AI ask for one against Civ A, then turn around a sign a research agreement with them.

    In an earlier game I tried this....I asked for open borders on a civ I wanted to eliminate. Then I marched a lot of troops in his territory and DOW'd him. My troops weren't automatically pushed to the border. In fact I was able to strike instantly on two of his cities. Sure I took a diplo hit, but at that point no AI was cooperating with me anyway. Maybe it was a bug, because I can't believe the game actually LET me do that. Even if it did, thats cool...but let us know what kind of modifier we're getting. If Civ A is on the verge of hating you or something don't I kinda need to know that before agreeing to open borders. Yes, the human player can exploit that....which is why it should not be so....but if it is, then we need at least an odd hint. Personally I'm hoping it was a bug. I might tryit out later in another game to make sure i wasn't mistaken.

    YES! Because no matter what you do, the AI civs will hate you. No.Matter. What. I've liberated civs to see them tturn against me and join the civ that destroyed them in order to kill me. because the AI has been simplified to "stop the human from winning". It makes no sense. Stupid console kids.

    Gawd, yeah. We've never fought and there is plenty of room to expand but i'm your enemy now because we have cities a few hexes away? Plus, pray tell, has there ever been a civ game where the AI places cities smack dab in the middle of your "territory" that hasn't made the playerbase insane? Its like they intentionally tried to piss players off.

    Well, we all know how borked that is right now. The AI has its stupidity on trades dialed up to 11.

    I'm no expert at CiV. I play at the mid level where the AI and the human are supposed to be even....yet I've noticed that the AI civs have way more crap that they should be able to afford while payimng upkeep and more happiness than they should. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. In fact, I know it had to be an AI bonus cheat. theres absolutely no way the AI could afford some of the massive empires it had without cheating...at mid level. Which is what I expected. Instead of trying to make a somewhat capable AI they just threwe some bonuses on some nice graphics and hoped we ouldn't notice. At least win or lose, the SMAC AI xould hold its own w/o too many chets at mid level. So could the AI at Civ IV (YMMV depending on your player skill).


    Make them willingly become vassals after awhile, or lower the costs of their alligiance. It gets stupid...to the point where its cheaper to conquer them. Y;know, because CiV is all about war.


    Rat, you and I seem to agree on this stuff. Ah well, I'm feeling done with this game. My friend was going to buy it and I told him to wait a month or so, or just forget it.
     
  3. cf_nz

    cf_nz Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    414
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Yes and I was able to renew it once before Elizabeth deemed it to be unacceptable.

    In terms of 1:1 trades I have successfully made several post 1.0.0.62. In many ways it's made trading more interesting as I'm having to try different things to get what I want.
     
  4. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    pacts of co-operation seems to help alot.

    AI seems to value their luxuries less if you have a happiness buffer. Was able to get 1 lux plus 1 lux and 100gold trade.
     
  5. MadRat

    MadRat Cheese Raider

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Location:
    Under the sink
    I think Dex is onto something. For squeeks and giggles I started up a game and rather than trying to "win" I just made a goal for myself to expand slowly and keep my happiness >0 as much as possible. Currently I am sitting and +16 and the AI, having few luxuries is willing to deal 1 lux for usually 1 lux +3-5 GPT or about 100G. What I am finding curious is that it BUYS my lux at 3-5 GPT. It is almost as if my luxuries have a value of +3-5 in trade (even though the IA wants them) but if teh AI has high happiness or lots of lux then its skyrockets to 3x as much.

    One thing I am noticing is that PROXIMITY (as a threat) is a very high delta value for AI relations.


    Rat
     
  6. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    This simply isn't true. I've managed to maintain excellent relaltions with AI civs even late in the game, though admittedly it's very difficult if they live next door. Still, if you don't want to get attacked, maintain a big army. How to do that without ruining oneself is an interesting task.

    This is not directed at you, but I marvel at how some people slam Civ V for being too easy and too difficult at the same time.
     
  7. Klyden

    Klyden Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,276
    While annoying on the trade front, players will just have to make some adjustments to their play style in what they do.

    One alternative is to pursue more friendly relations with city states with lux items in order to get your lux fix that way. Granted it is a case of trading cash for lux, but this could be countered a bit by draining cash out of other civs by trading your lux items for cash instead of trying to do 2 for 1. This will also have a side effect of slowing them down on science pacts with each other. When you do go to war with a civ and push them hard, you may be able to get a peace with conditions where they send you items for 30 turns.

    Having a good happiness level is beneficial from the standpoint that getting more golden ages is certainly worth while to push your gold and production up.
     
  8. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Small empires are happier. Not sure how this rant makes any sense. If you have 3 cities, you're only going to have somewhere around 51 unhappiness maximum when all three are size 15, with no policy bonuses, 0 lux and no happiness buildings.

    Cultural victory on small empire wasn't too hard to pull off. This will sort of slightly make it harder and slow down GA spams. But certainly not anything big in terms of balance. It seems like tha side of the game needed readjustment anyways.

    Also I've signed about 10 RA with 4 different Civs so far. None have asked for extra money.

    people indicating trade issues need to give a better picture of the state of their trading-- if they've broken deals in past, relative power ranking, and whether a pact of co-operation was/is active.
     
  9. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    It doesn't provide a fair challenge.
     
  10. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    people like their trading exploits and have selective memory. but we never had true 1-1 trading in Civ since the introduction of the trade table. People forget what they want about the past Civs while remembering other parts they lilke.
     
  11. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,269
    Location:
    Venice, California
    I have made one-for-one trades in two games since the patch. That ought to answer the major question. I think it seems rare because the AI has a weighing system to which it sticks, and one-for-one may often not seem quite right to it.

    What I have learned is that how you propose trades (one-for-one or others) has a radical effect on its success. For example, I have wanted to gain a luxury without giving up a certain one of my own. I was turned down three different times before I found the right way to word it. It could be a No on some offer, followed by a No to "how about if I add this?" - followed by "what do you propose (to the adjusted offer)." In other words, it's a difficult negotiation. Succeeding at it makes it all the more satisfying.
     
  12. Ikazuyr

    Ikazuyr Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    It is possible to get equal RAs from the AI, but it definitely weighs something against whether it'll make an even trade or not. I just finished a game where for the first half of the game I was getting equal RAs (both sides paying 250 and nothing extra). After I started to become the dominant civilization (both leading tech and having the highest victory score) I noticed the AI 1 - didn't offer as many RAs (I don't tend to go looking for them, just accept when the AI proposes) 2 - started asking for 100 gold and open borders. My theory is that it's looking at your score when determining whether a trade / RA is fair and whether it wants more from you or not.
     
  13. Benzidrine

    Benzidrine Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    39
    Just because previous civs made the same mistake doesn't mean this one had to. People expect sequels to develop rather than stagnate.
     
  14. greggbert

    greggbert Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    176
    IN Civ 4 it was nearly impossible to get 1:1 unless the AI suggested it. I remember that in IV you should always take the deals the AI proposes, because they alway propose better deals than they would accept. Maybe they are bringing some of that logic back.
     
  15. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    They're not. The AI haggle in this version and what they propose is often NOT the best deal.

    civ5 trade AI practise basic negotiations tactics. they assume you'll propose low, so they propose high. The trick is get them to meet in the middle.

    Obviously, there are exceptions. Treatiest are often proposed on a 1-1 basis.
     
  16. TheBlackHole

    TheBlackHole Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Having played a few games now since the patch, I really do have the suspicion that the AI really is weighing the benefit to both sides when evaluating trades. As a human, it seems like we're always getting a bad deal, but it's just because the AI always has such INSANELY HIGH happiness... so adding another +5 means nothing to them compared to adding +5 to my -4 unhappy empire.

    I don't know, a part of me feels this is frustrating, but honestly, it just sounds to me like the AI is a bit smarter about things, so I can't begrudge it too much. Just IMO. I can kinda see both sides of the argument on this one.

    I think the real culprit is the ridiculously high AI happy bonuses (whatever they may be). Removing them, I think would lead to better 1:1 trades (since they're wouldn't be swimming in happiness all the time and really would be open to trading). Also, if AI happiness bonus did not scale with difficulty then runaway AI would be less of a problem, as taking over huge expanse of land would be more difficult (considering how the AI is obsessed with happiness).
     
  17. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    Nope - and I've playtested a few games with an eye towards nothing BUT signing a defensive pact, to no avail.

    I honestly wish I could undo this patch -- at least, the diplomatic portion of it... It made things worse, IMO, not better.

    It's as if they basically decided to "improve" diplomacy by just adding a nonsensical set of human penalties to negotiations.... RAs require gold + open border sweetners, regardless of whether you're lapping the other AIs, the other AIs are lapping you, or any AI civ to human civ individual variant.

    I'm all on board with previous complaints about the AI being too easy to swindle, but that wasn't the primary problem I had with AI diplomacy.... All they seemed to do in this patch is eliminate swindling.

    I don't even bother talking to AI civs now... Might as well bring back the "Leave me alone" diplomatic option because at this point -- peace treaties are the only thing worth talking to other civs about.
     
  18. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    FWIW -

    I don't think this is the case.

    In the diplo test I noted above, I loaded myself up with luxuries --- I was the 'happiest' empire in the game and another AI still wouldn't do one for one.

    I spent a good 5 hours yesterday creating custom maps to try to test certain things....

    There is no 'deep thinking' or relative weights of any sort the AI is applying... all they did in this patch is add some sort of sledgehammer penalty to human-AI diplomacy.
     
  19. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    You may have done it backwards. make AI less happy and see. I don't think the claim was that the AI bases its trade on how happy you are, because that would involve peeking at your happiness, which is a stat that is normally hidden, unless you get the occasional news update on 'people who like to smile the most'.

    The premise is that the AI values luxuries less as they become happier.

    You also need to test things like impact of pacts of co-operation on costs of trade (actualy gold change in trades) -- I've already documented once case where 1 was offered open borders plus 75 gold for their open borders, before the pact, then just straight up 1-1 open borders after.

    Also, you exagerrate way too much. I just started a new game post patch, my first. I've had no problems signing RA with no extra gold penalty (just straight up RA) and I've been selling for gem monopoply for gold, which pays for my other lux trade .

    1 spice + 100 gold for 1 gem (from me). This seems like how it was in other games. and i'm at +20 happiness
     
  20. Drawmeus

    Drawmeus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,213
    After playing it, this is seeming very much like an "Onyxia deep breaths more since the patch" issue. I haven't been able to reproduce it at all; the AI seems like it's doing more or less the same thing, and I'm left to wonder if this isn't purely psychological.
     

Share This Page