Trading Mana with AIs?

[Thunder_Gr]

Yeah, the AI is clueless about the actual value of mana. And, since they do not know how to use it, they should never trade for mana. At least until the AI can actually use mana well.

However, the AI has never offer me more than 1 useless resource for asking mana. When you offer the mana, though, they seem to give more, but, still, not enough...Only mana should be given in exchange of mana, IMO.

 

[ICanHasName?]

Trading a Mana for piles of resources is cheesing the AI pretty hard. Mana (other then ones like enchantment and law) are worthless until at least adepts, and quite often until mages, and besides you can always just promote your mages then trade the mana away until you break your first batch and need to train more. At the same time, its pretty hard to get them to trade their manas away, even for one of yours. I think they should be pretty open about (temporarily) trading manas with their friends, allowing both sides access to spells they wouldn't normally have.

Would it be possible to make the AI place a very low value on mana before they have magic, and a very high value on it once they start to get mages and stuff?

 

[sable_twilight]

Actually, is there any way for the AI to place a high value on mana in general so they wont waste my time with their 1 corn for 1 fire mana trades?
(whenever I see that, I end up thinking, what am I supposed to do with this, make popcorn?)

 

[Emptiness]

The AI does place a high value on mana. When they offer Corn for Fire they are trying to cheat you. Try to get the AI to give you a mana resource while only offering the AI non-mana resources in return and you'll get an idea of how much the AI values mana...

 

[JonathanStrange]

(late night: Stonewood forest, near the river Lenthe)

When the AI offers me Corn for Fire mana, I know they think just because I'm a simple forest dweller that I don't know what's what. The AI's smart enough to start the bidding low, although they're still kind of unsure about the whole "raising the ante" concept.

Anyhow, I don't mind the low bid myself. It's all part of the process. And Sucellus didn't raise no fools: we never take the first offer.

Still...Corn is pretty tasty ... and with Fire mana, we could have popcorn on those dark, lonely nightwatches where you wonder if that shadow over there really is moving or if it's just a trick of the moonlight as the wind rustles through the forest 'causing the trees to sway a bit.

Shhhh ... did you hear that? .... sounded like a cough ... was that a Svartalfar imitating the owl's call? ...

 

[Kiwi Tyrant]

^^ I encountered a similar situation....

(early morning: Slurgerzine jungle, on the bank's of the Fang river)

Only the slurping, grinding noises of the Clan raiding party could be heard over the perpetual bubbling sound of the cess-pool's. They were gathered closely in the thick morning fog, all warily eyeing each other, while their bestial jaw's ground away like stoned cattle chewing their cud.

The captain had already made up his tiny mind. He would brutally strangle the emissary who had made the stupid trade of Water mana for Wheat when he return's home.

The captain suddenly rose, spitting out the dough in utter disgust.
"Dis hoomie food suk's da frekkin bone boyz. Send da woolf ryda's out ta fetch sum fwesh, bleedin meat, now!!!"

 

[JonathanStrange]

A strange and fiercesome people, the Clan of Embers be.

 

[nefloyd]

The AI does place a high value on mana. When they offer Corn for Fire they are trying to cheat you. Try to get the AI to give you a mana resource while only offering the AI non-mana resources in return and you'll get an idea of how much the AI values mana...

The AI isn't trying to "cheat" you.

Now I don't know the exact mechanics of it as relates to the programming, but I've discerned the situation to seem to be like this:

1. The AI checks to see if you have a resource it would want from you (every turn), that you also have a spare of. Just like you don't see an unallied/vassaled AI's resource when it has only one of it, the AI assumes that any resource you have only one of is something you wouldn't trade. Hence, when you suddenly acquire that 2nd mana of the same type, the check comes back positive.
2. The AI checks to see if it has something to trade in return. Any spare resource, or possibly just gold per turn.
3. This is the key part. The AI first puts ITS resource on a "weighing scale", or you could call it deficit. The AI then puts the first resource it wants from you on that scale, followed by the second, third, etc. UNTIL that scale passes the balance point or eliminates the "deficit" EVEN IF ADDING THAT LAST RESOURCE MASSIVELY TIPS THE TRADE in the AI's favor. It then considers the trade "fair" and pops up to ask you.

Example, making up numbers:
Let's say the AI has spare wheat, corn, gems, and gold. They're worth (made up numbers inc) 5, 5, 20, and 20 gold per turn. You have spare Fire mana valued at 50 gold per turn. The AI checks that you have a spare resource it wants (you do) and that is has a spare resource you could use (it does). It chooses its corn first and puts it on the scale, and now considers you to owe 5 gp/turn for the trade. It selects the first resource it wants from you (the Fire) and now you've met or exceeded the deficit it created, so it says "ok, good trade", even though you actually surpassed it by 45 gp/turn.

Now when you say no way and re-do the terms of the trade, you're doing the process in reverse, which gets you a much better deal. You're offering the Fire mana, which creates a 50 gp/turn deficit. The AI then checks its own resources in order to balance that out. It says 'Ok, I'll add the corn, that's 5, still need more, add the wheat, still need 40 more, add the gems, then the gold, now we met the deficit" and says okay. Now you have a much better trade. The difference is, doing it in reverse, the AI will try NOT to exceed the deficit.

The same behaviour occurs with tech trades. Ever wonder why the AI offers really, really bad tech trades at times, even when a more balanced one might exist?

Example: AI has techs worth 600, 600, and 600 beakers (made up numbers again). You have techs worth 400, 1200, and 1800 beakers. The AI makes the same checks - do you have a tech it wants (yes), does it have a tech you can learn (yes). It puts its 600 beaker tech up for trade. You "owe" it 600 in tech before it will accept. It wants your 400 beaker tech, but that's not enough, so it asks for your 1200 next, which surpasses the deficit, even though it pushes it greatly in the AI's favour. If you decline and say "what would make this deal work?" the AI will slot in another 600 tech but NOT the 3rd, as again, in reverse, it doesn't want to exceed *your* deficit. If you decline again, though, and remove your 400 tech, it will consider the 600 and 600 against 1200 to be fair. If you decline still, and remove all techs then offer your 1800, it'll throw up all 3 of the 600's to match it.

Again, you can see the same thing with just pure gold being offered for tech. The AI might only have 10 gold to trade and will offer that for your "Stirrups" even though that is ridiculous. If the AI actually has a decent supply of gold, it actually will come to you with semi-decent trades, and will offer them in return if you ask "what will you give me for this tech". If you both have a decent set of techs that are near the same beaker level, the trades the AI pops up with are more likely to be fair.

That's just the general guideline I figured out (it was true in BTS and works here. The major difference is just how valued mana is). Obviously, a slough of other factors can modify things, like individual AI valuing of techs it wants for its overall plan, whether a tech is a major combat addition, how much the AI likes you, etc. So the main point? Always double check the costs involved in the trade and be ready to hit refusal followed by "what would make this fair".

 

[Emptiness]

The AI isn't trying to "cheat" you.

If I offer to give you a $1 bill for your $20 bill, I'm trying to cheat you.

The AI knows that mana is worth more than other resources. It will either refuse to trade you mana without getting mana in return or will demand many, many non-mana resources in return for a single mana resource.

If the AI were going to make a fair offer, it would be offering many, many non-mana resources in return for Fire mana, rather than just one Corn - because it knows that Fire is worth more than Corn. When it doesn't offer more, it is trying to cheat you. The mechanics of how it arrives at that situation are irrelevant, unless you want to take issue with my choice of the word "trying" and claim that because the process is done mathematically there must be no intent or malice behind the offer.

2. The AI checks to see if it has something to trade in return. Any spare resource, or possibly just gold per turn.
[...]
The AI checks that you have a spare resource it wants (you do) and that is has a spare resource you could use (it does).

You were right in the first part, not in the second. It doesn't check to see if you can use the resource it offers, it only makes sure that it has a spare one. The AI offers resources you don't need all the time, especially if you are allied or they are your vassal. Which is another way of trying to cheat you, because a fair offer would be something they need for something you need.

It chooses its corn first and puts it on the scale, and now considers you to owe 5 gp/turn for the trade. It selects the first resource it wants from you (the Fire) and now you've met or exceeded the deficit it created, so it says "ok, good trade", even though you actually surpassed it by 45 gp/turn.

If it were going to make a fair offer it would then add 45 gp/turn to its side of the offer. It doesn't, because it hopes you will be gullible enough to accept its uneven offer. Thus, the cheating.

So the main point? Always double check the costs involved in the trade and be ready to hit refusal followed by "what would make this fair".

Yes, buyer beware. Knowing how to get a fair trade from the AI does not make its initial offer fair.

 

[nefloyd]

You're right about it not considering whether the resource it offers itself would be of any value, but again, it's not trying to cheat you, it's satisfying its set of rules.
The procedure, again, is :
1. Put available item owned by AI on the table (in this case, the corn)
2. Require an item from the player again and again until the value of the player's offerings outweighs the AI's. In this case, the Fire Mana (or the far costlier beaker tech) SATISFIES the requirement of "meet or exceed", even if it far unbalances it by doing so.
5. If the trade is acceptable gain for the AI, offer trade, otherwise no pop-up.

Your complaint arises because the AI does NOT compute a step THREE or FOUR when popping up with its own trades. This would be:
3. Look at the current balance between offered and requested, and add more AI goods to the trade to attempt to balance the trade for both sides.
4. Look at the rebalanced trade, if unsatisfactory to the AI, attempt to return to step 2 if more player items are available, otherwise refusal.

when you refuse, and ask "what would make this fair" the AI is doing *exactly* that, rebalancing the trade. When you contact an AI, and offer an item, it does that again, attempts to balance what you offered with as much available resources as it has (unless the Civ hates you, of course). Both of them make the AI balance the trade from *your side* of it, making it more fair, if possible. This isn't malicious AI attempting to steal from you, it's not trying to see if you will be "gullible", it's a syntactic problem of how it arrives at the trade agreement. If the AI was *forced*, every time it considers offering a trade to you, to consider "what would make this deal fair" as if you had refused and pushed it, you would see the prevalence of this far less. I certainly don't like constant AI inquiries about whether I want to trade my death mana for gems I have 4 sources of already, either

If the AI were really trying to cheat you, it would accept *trades* where it offers nothing. Try making a map, though, as Khazad, plop a RoK priest and a Great Prophet in your city and add a road between you and whatever AI is closest. Found RoK, make the holy building, now you have 2 earth mana and a trade route open between you and the AI on the 2nd turn. If you offer the 2nd earth mana, the AI will NOT accept, nor will it *ever* pop up asking for that earth mana until it has *something* it can offer first. The only way it will take it is by you specifically *gifting* the mana. If neither of you have gold and it has no techs to trade, it will never ask to *trade* for yours, nor will it accept any *trade* of tech. It can only ask for help (merely asking you to gift it), demand as tribute (forcing you to gift it) or you can gift it without prompting.

 

[Emptiness]

The procedure, again, is :

Yes, I read your description of the process. I understand it and find no fault with your description. You have flawlessly described how the AI arrives at an uneven trade offer.

Your complaint arises because the AI does NOT compute a step THREE or FOUR when popping up with its own trades. This would be:
3. Look at the current balance between offered and requested, and add more AI goods to the trade to attempt to balance the trade for both sides.
4. Look at the rebalanced trade, if unsatisfactory to the AI, attempt to return to step 2 if more player items are available, otherwise refusal.

when you refuse, and ask "what would make this fair" the AI is doing *exactly* that, rebalancing the trade.

Imagine that apples in the market are advertised as $1 for a dozen. You hand the merchant $1 and he hands you a bag with 10 apples. You notice that he offered you less than the advertised value of your $1 and ask him to make a better offer. He responds by adding two apples to your bag, and satisfied with the offer you accept. Now either:

A) The merchant's initial offer of 10 apples was not dishonest because he knew you would refuse and demand the 12 apples advertised, or
B) The merchant's offer of 10 apples was an attempt to cheat you out of two apples, and when you weren't fooled he offered you the 12 apples your $1 was worth.

I have viewpoint B, you appear to have viewpoint A. I respect your right to that viewpoint, but I can't agree with it. I've known too many cheats.

This isn't malicious AI attempting to steal from you, it's not trying to see if you will be "gullible", it's a syntactic problem of how it arrives at the trade agreement. If the AI was *forced*, every time it considers offering a trade to you, to consider "what would make this deal fair" as if you had refused and pushed it, you would see the prevalence of this far less.

The process of arriving at an initial offer was designed by humans. It would have been trivial to have the AI automatically attempt to rebalance any deal it offers. The humans specifically didn't do that, because the AI is trying to stop you from winning. A fair trade is not in the AIs best interest. When it offers a deal it tries to make the deal as unfavorable as possible. Only diligent action on the part of the player will ensure that some level of parity is achieved. Diligent action on your part doesn't somehow make the AIs initial offer fair.

I say initial offer again because you continue to insist that a subsequent offer that is fair removes the possibility that the AI is trying to cheat the player. My original statement was in reference to the initial offer of the AI, and it is that offer which is important, not some subsequent offer made once you reject the initial one. Indeed, if the initial offer was fair then why reject it at all? You only get to a subsequent offer by effectively admitting that the initial offer is not fair.

If the AI were really trying to cheat you, it would accept *trades* where it offers nothing. [...] If you offer the 2nd earth mana, the AI will NOT accept [...] The only way it will take it is by you specifically *gifting* the mana. If neither of you have gold and it has no techs to trade, it will never ask to *trade* for yours, nor will it accept any *trade* of tech. It can only ask for help (merely asking you to gift it), demand as tribute (forcing you to gift it) or you can gift it without prompting.

Now you are playing word games. Gifting is just a special case of trade. Gifted resources, for example, are listed as exports in the Foreign Trade window. They require a trade route, just like "normal" trades, and if the trade route is broken it will be automatically canceled just like "normal" trades. You offer them through the "We would like to make a trade proposal." option in the diplomacy window, just like "normal" trades. You cancel gifting a resource just like you cancel a "normal" trade. The only difference between gifting and "normal" trading is that you click the "Please accept this gift." option to complete the transaction.

If you're still not convinced, remember that when you gift something to the AI (or accept its demand that you gift it something) there is an enforced peace for 10 turns. Even gifting is a trade of something (resource, tech, whatever) for something (10 turns of peace).

 

[nefloyd]

I don't find the comparison of apples apt, you have the process, as I reasoned it out, to be reversed. Imagine this situation instead : the customer (player) is out enjoying a brisk stroll through the market, enjoying the fresh air, when the merchant (AI) steps in front of him. "See here!" he exclaims. "Look at these fresh apples! I can tell that a young fellow like you, strolling outside on this fine day, would like nothing better than to bite down on a crisp, juicy apple!" Thinking for a moment, the customer decides that an apple would not be unwelcome, and opens his wallet in view of the merchant. However, the customer has only $20 bills! Now *HE* knows that wouldn't be a fair trade, but the AI does not, because it lacks steps 3 and 4 normally - the in-game AI, in this case, would come up with a trade window that had ~Bag of 12 Apples~ on the AI side and ~$20~ on the other. The savvy customer rejects the trade and either selects more items to purchase (Ooh, some oranges and bananas!) or asks for change.

The humans specifically didn't do that

This is the source of our true disagreement. You are implying that the AI is intentionally (on the part of the developers) lacking in step 3 and 4 in order to create unfair trades. I find this unlikely, as it would be a very poorly done "trap" that would snare only newbies who have utterly no idea the value of the items involved. Why would a strategic game intend to include a method of trickery like this? I can think of no other situation to the same effect. In fact, the large part of the discussion here is how making such a trade is actually TO your advantage, because it results in such a large + relations modifier due to the AI "getting a great deal".

When it offers a deal it tries to make the deal as unfavorable as possible.

This also isn't true. Unfavorable as possible would be offering nothing at all, and this does not occur, as explained in the section after this one. An AI of similar tech parity will more often offer trades that are closer to favorable because the beaker costs are similar (parity meaning neither of you lack or own a significantly low or high cost tech). An AI with only 50 gold to trade can only offer 50 gold whether it wants Fishing or Feral Bond. An AI with 5000 gold is going to approach you with a gold value *much* closer to something "fair". The syntactic problem is simply that the AI determines an order to what it wants from your side of the table before considering the value of what those items are, and failing to evaluate them afterward. If you have Bronze Working (400), Drama (600) and Sorcery (2000), and the AI has Currency (900), and Mathematics (950) the AI might decide that the order of your techs it wants goes BW -> Sorc -> Drama. It offers Currency at first (step 1). Since it wants BW first, it adds that, but it still wants to work off that 500 deficit. It wants Sorcery next, so it adds that (step 2). Having met the terms, it offers. You agreed that is how it works. However, if the AI had determined it actually wanted BW -> Drama -> Sorcery, it is NOT going to try to make a malicious, unfair trade by asking for the unbalanced, high cost of Sorcery as well. It's going to offer Currency, ask for BW, ask for Drama, see that your total of 900 in tech matches or exceeds its offer of 900 in tech, then stop and offer the trade.

If you're still not convinced, remember that when you gift something to the AI (or accept its demand that you gift it something) there is an enforced peace for 10 turns. Even gifting is a trade of something (resource, tech, whatever) for something (10 turns of peace).

Incorrect. Gifting of your own volition invokes no peace agreement, and is thus not a trade of any sort. You are entirely free to give away a tech, resource, or gold and then immediately declare war, cancelling any gp/turn or resource agreement you just gifted away. The AI requesting aid or demanding tribute does invoke a 10 turn peace treaty, that treaty is the AI's "term", and thus is a trade. So my statement stands - the unvassaled AI will not accept a Trade in which it has zero terms of its own to offer, it will only accept a pure "Gift" which results in no further binding agreement.

So, assuming we even truly discerned the method by which the AI follows, we can really only agree to disagree - was it intentional, or oversight? Who knows; we just know to avoid, correct, or take advantage of it.

 

[dyx]

Actually, the AI doesn't weigh the beakers 1:1. If both have techs worth like 1000, they will never agree.

 

[Emptiness]

If you're still not convinced, remember that when you gift something to the AI (or accept its demand that you gift it something) there is an enforced peace for 10 turns. Even gifting is a trade of something (resource, tech, whatever) for something (10 turns of peace).

Incorrect. Gifting of your own volition invokes no peace agreement, and is thus not a trade of any sort. You are entirely free to give away a tech, resource, or gold and then immediately declare war, cancelling any gp/turn or resource agreement you just gifted away. The AI requesting aid or demanding tribute does invoke a 10 turn peace treaty, that treaty is the AI's "term", and thus is a trade.

I checked and I was wrong. I had recently asked an AI civ for something via the "Could you spare this for a good friend?" option and was thinking that this was equivalent to them gifting it to me. I see now that this actually a demand from me, but one which does not carry a diplomacy penalty. If I gift something to the AI, or the AI approaches me with a gift (a rare occurrence), then there is no enforced peace - so it is a trade of something for nothing. I still insist that gifting is just a special form of trade, as I explained in the paragraph before the one you quoted:

Now you are playing word games. Gifting is just a special case of trade. Gifted resources, for example, are listed as exports in the Foreign Trade window. They require a trade route, just like "normal" trades, and if the trade route is broken it will be automatically canceled just like "normal" trades. You offer them through the "We would like to make a trade proposal." option in the diplomacy window, just like "normal" trades. You cancel gifting a resource just like you cancel a "normal" trade. The only difference between gifting and "normal" trading is that you click the "Please accept this gift." option to complete the transaction.

-------------

I don't find the comparison of apples apt, you have the process, as I reasoned it out, to be reversed. Imagine this situation instead : [...] the in-game AI, in this case, would come up with a trade window that had ~Bag of 12 Apples~ on the AI side and ~$20~ on the other. The savvy customer rejects the trade and either selects more items to purchase (Ooh, some oranges and bananas!) or asks for change.

If you don't like my market story then we can use yours. I'll reapeat what I said before, as it applies to these apples as well (adding bold to emphasize the most critical part):

I say initial offer again because you continue to insist that a subsequent offer that is fair removes the possibility that the AI is trying to cheat the player. My original statement was in reference to the initial offer of the AI, and it is that offer which is important, not some subsequent offer made once you reject the initial one. Indeed, if the initial offer was fair then why reject it at all? You only get to a subsequent offer by effectively admitting that the initial offer is not fair.

-------------

The humans specifically didn't do that

This is the source of our true disagreement. You are implying that the AI is intentionally (on the part of the developers) lacking in step 3 and 4 in order to create unfair trades. I find this unlikely, as it would be a very poorly done "trap" that would snare only newbies who have utterly no idea the value of the items involved. Why would a strategic game intend to include a method of trickery like this? I can think of no other situation to the same effect.

You may find it unlikely, but that does not prevent it from being true. When the AI offers an unfair deal it is using a common negotiation tactic, as implemented by its programmers. First you offer a trade that is very much in your favor, but not so unbalanced that you believe the other party will walk away from negotiations. They make a counteroffer, usually very much in their favor. Each side takes turns making the smallest concession that they believe will keep the negotiation going, until eventually (unless negotiations collapse) they arrive at a deal where each party feels it has given up as little as possible for as much as they could get. The end-point of these negotiations is generally considered to be a "fair" trade, but every step of the way is an attempt to offer the other party the opportunity to accidentally give up more than necessary. In truth, the "fairness" of the end point is only guaranteed if both parties are flawless negotiators with infinite knowledge. And the process itself is not the product of good-will or a desire for equity - it is a series of attempts to allow the other party to permit you to cheat them. Only their diligence serves to protect them, as yours must you.
-------------

In fact, the large part of the discussion here is how making such a trade is actually TO your advantage, because it results in such a large + relations modifier due to the AI "getting a great deal".

A large part of the discussion? Actually this is the first mention of the idea that agreeing to an unfair trade is a good idea because of the diplomacy bonus you might get in return. I agree that sometimes an "uneven" trade, or outright gifting, in order to achieve a diplomacy bonus is a good strategy. However, in those cases the diplomacy modifier is part of what you are getting out of the deal, and so it is part of the trade even though it isn't in the trade window. If trading Fire for Corn* is just part of your grand design to get on the AIs good side then it might well be a good deal. That's not at all what Thunder_Gr was talking about, however. We are discussing a situation in which the AI approaches the player with an offer unfair to the player, not a strategy the player might employ involving approaching the AI with deals favorable to the AI.
-------------

When it offers a deal it tries to make the deal as unfavorable as possible.

This also isn't true. Unfavorable as possible would be offering nothing at all, and this does not occur, as explained in the section after this one.
[...]
So my statement stands - the unvassaled AI will not accept a Trade in which it has zero terms of its own to offer, it will only accept a pure "Gift" which results in no further binding agreement.

More word games. As unfavorable as possible isn't nothing, it is as little as the AI hopes you will accept. It understands that if you don't accept the deal then it gets nothing. When the AI thinks you will agree to give it nothing in return, it asks for nothing. It comes to you and demands what it wants. When the AI thinks that nothing isn't good enough it will offer you something in return, but as little as it thinks you won't reject outright. You explained the process by which it arrives at this minimal offer. You even mentioned that the AI is usually willing to renegotiate this offer - which implies that the AI understands that this offer not really equal.

You are trying to hide behind the notion that gifting isn't a trade, and that the AI refuses to agree to trades where it offers nothing because that would be unfair. In fact, if gifting/demanding isn't a trade then the truth is that a trade where one party gives nothing is impossible. The option to offer it doesn't even exist. There is no refusal by the AI because of a sense of fairness, or any other reason. When the player puts something on one side of the trade screen, the game offers two options:
A) Ask the AI to suggest a balanced trade, or
B) Gift/demand.
Here is a screenshot of one case of this situation, the case where the human is offering something to the AI in return for nothing:

Spoiler screenshot of a one-sided offer :

There is no option to offer a non-gift trade. There's no way for the AI to refuse a non-gift one-sided trade because the game understands that a gift in this context is defined as "a one-sided trade". Your claims that gifts are not trades and that the AI won't agree to one-sided trades are simply wrong.

This brings us back to the reason we started discussing gifts vs trades. You argue that gifts are not trades in order to protect this statement:

If the AI were really trying to cheat you, it would accept *trades* where it offers nothing.

The AI does accept trades where it offers nothing. In fact anything that you can offer the AI in return for nothing will ALWAYS be accepted by the AI.



-------------
* Thunder_Gr's original example was Cow for Fire...I'm not sure why the example was switched around to Corn, but the point is the same.

 

[nefloyd]

IF YOU SAY "WHAT WILL YOU GIVE ME FOR THIS" WHEN THE AI HAS NO NON-RED RESOURCSE AND NO GP/TURN, IT WILL SAY "WE CANT DO THAT". YOU CAN ONLY "GIFT" IT.

I'm done here, since you can't get past that concept and keep claiming I'm playing word games

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Just don't trade enchantment mana, whatever you do. That is worth what they will offer for it.

 

[Emptiness]

IF YOU SAY "WHAT WILL YOU GIVE ME FOR THIS"

That isn't offering a trade, that's asking the AI to make you an offer involving one or more items you have selected. Never will clicking that option result in a trade being transacted. Always will it result in the AI considering the possibility of making you an offer, which you will then have the option to accept.

WHEN THE AI HAS NO NON-RED RESOURCSE AND NO GP/TURN,

Of course the AI won't offer you something in return if it has nothing it is willing to offer.

IT WILL SAY "WE CANT DO THAT". YOU CAN ONLY "GIFT" IT.

"We can't do that.", meaning it is unwilling (or unable) to offer anything in return. Your only option to proceed with the transaction is to use the normal method of completing a one-sided trade transaction, which is to "gift" it. The fact that there is a different diplomacy option for offering a "gift" does not indicate that it is not a form of trade. The purpose of splitting gifting into a separate diplomacy option is so that a player does not accidentally give something away for free.

 

[sable_twilight]

I just want them to stop pestering me with these worthless deals. It's like diplomacy spam without an opt-out policy.

That and is there any way to makes those conquered vassal states which have been dropped down to one city and less than fifth my score actually valued their continued existence more then their three palace mana want to got back to war to keep? Or perhaps make it when a nation captures a capitol, it captures the former palace and mana along with it.