The AI cannot value resources well, even at higher levels.

[nzcamel]

I'd expect this on Chiefdom or Warlord, but Immortal!? TBF I do have a decent relationship with Hungary, though I was getting a similar deal even when he wasn't friendly to me, nor did I have an embasy there. Why can't they appreciate that (usually) luxuries are worth one for one? I appreciate that some lux resources are rarer due to the AI not developing them, but that isn't really part of their thinking, and should lead to the reverse valuation when it is a factor. But I don't see that much. Now I appreciate that in some areas they play absolute hardball (strategic resources being the obvious example); though I'd argue that they go too far the opposite direction on that one!

It realistically is too late for Civ 6 to get this sorted; but I really hope that the AI in Civ 7 is given better negotiating skills! I can (and should) play within myself when negotiating with them, but that doesn't feel fun at all.

 

[Ufish]

It's not about difficulty,just a design mistake.
If AI have a category of strategic resources over 40,they'll think it's worthless.So you can buy all of them in a low price.Again,they would consider such strategic resources to be valuable because they have none!And they won't realize they just sold it to you.Thus you can sold it back in a high price.Over and over again,you get all of their money.
Ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[nzcamel]

It should be about difficulty too though, much as I appreciate your point.

 

[Ufish]

It should be about difficulty too though, much as I appreciate your point.

You can test it on Deity.In 40 to 60 turns,a lux could be sold for more than 5 gpt(Depends on their population), and it only took less than 3 gpt to buy the AI's.Later the price difference will be greater.The population is growing, but AI will not build more cities to get more kinds of resources.

 

[Pfeffersack]

The shortcomings, oddities and logic holes in the AIs trading behaviour are legion. I made countless bug reports over time, a few got even adressed - but the system remains pretty broken overall:

Why is the AI limit for the number "useful" units of early strategic ressources 40 even on Epic or Marathon speed (with a single unit costing up to 60 units in the latter speed)?
Why is their considered "useful amount" of coal/iron/aluminium always 22, even if they have no own sources and a pretty high per-turn consumption?
Why does the AI pay the doubled price for all the desired quantity when having none, but only normal price when you first sell them a single unit?
Why do they sell you so much of strategic ressource that they fall well below their "useful maximum", but only if they are above in the moment you start the deal?
Why do they sometimes sell you 20 Diplomatic Favor for 1 Gold?
Why do they give you often everything they have for just allowing them to join a cooperative war?
Why does an AI not liking me joins a war vs. a 3rd civ they actually like for 1 Gold?
...

 

[AntSou]

The whole "direct negotiation" screen or whatever it's called just needs an overhaul. You should be able to agree to setting up trade routes, and then decide which goods you're willing to trade on that network. Then everything else should be integrated into a trading system.

 

[UWHabs]

It's one of the points the quick deals mod really highlighted - if you sell luxuries to a friend, you can often get like 10-12 gpt each. But buying luxuries you can often get for less than 1 gpt. And generally speaking, luxuries are always roughly similarly valued, so that really feels like it should be an easy point to consolidate. Even if it was like "luxuries always sell for 6gpt".

Strategic Resources is a little harder, just because there's more variety there, needs can vary, supply varies, etc... So in some ways I can understand it being a bit looser how much people are willing to pay in each scenario. But I also haven't looked as closely at what the AI offers or accepts. More often than not I'm either in a "sell everything off for as much as I can get" or "buy buy buy"

 

[uhu]

More often than not I'm either in a "sell everything off for as much as I can get" or "buy buy buy"

And in turn (for me) this provokes houserules to overcome the exploits ... (it is just too easy to manipulate and ruin the AIplayers structurally)

The whole "direct negotiation" screen or whatever it's called just needs an overhaul.

Despite Soren Johnson introduced the "bargain table" to the Civ world, he meanwhile changed is mind. He talks about this and other issues of the 4X genre in general here: Reinvigorating the 4X Genre .

 

[ThunderLizard2]

AI sucks in general so no surprise here

Moderator Action: If you feel the need to post, please at least add to the conversation. This does not do so. leif

 

[Pfeffersack]

AI sucks in general so no surprise here

While I agree that Civ6's AI has issues in nearly aspect of playing the game, they differ in their impact on overall AI performance and also in the work amount which would needs to get spend to fix them. To make an example...

Yes, the tactical AI is weak and therefor loses more units when fighting the human player given a same overall strength. Is that annoying, does it weaken the AI considerably? Without a doubt, yes. Could it be fixed? Yes, for sure. Several other modern 4X games have vastly superior tactial AIs. Would it be an "easy" fix? Probably not, as here a pretty sophisticated logic has to be touched, ranging from army composition over getting an idea of the overall strategic big picture of an ongoing war down to the decision what do to with each single unit.
And now take this subotimal tactical AI in a Marathon game and let them have a ressource shortage of say Iron and Horses because of lacking own source. And a friendly neighbour having everything in abundance and willing to sell. Our AI will pay for and purchase 40 units of Iron and Horses. And not more. Despite Sword- and Horseman costing 90 on Marathon. So we pile an issue on the economic/production part to the shortcomings on the battlefield, as this will overall led to less and weaker units being produced before and during a war and in consequence fielded afterwards. Now it can be argued with flaw itself is worse - but two things are sure: Both together are a perfect storm for dooming the AI...and the issue with not purchasing more than 40 units of ressources on Marathon could be fairly easily corrected compared the the field of tactical AI behaviour, as it would just need a slight rework of a restriction in trading behaviour which was once introduced with a past-GS-patch to avoid AIs giving all their gold to the human player for ressources they don't need.

TLDR: The reason why people are so annoyed and irritated about the persisting trading issues of the AI is that those are often pretty far reaching in their impact, while most of them would be pretty easy to fix (either completely or at least to an extend rendering them practically irrelevant). We are talking of low-hanging fruit in terms of improving the AI - and even that isn't harvested properly.