Unfair trading: What is this madness?

[halfhalfharp]

I offered an extra copy of luxury to my ally, Vicky, and she gladly replies with an offer of 3 gold per turn.

That little sum of gold was soooo unimportant for me thus I rejected.

And then when I ask for one extra copy of her luxuries, she asked for 29 gold per turn.

me: What?!

Then I bargained with her, adding my extra luxury to the offer.

Vicky: 25 gold per turn and a copy of your iron. You are always kind and attentive.

me: N-o no.
Afterwards, Pedro came to ask for the same copy of luxury. He just denounced me and surely we were in no good shape of engaging a trade.

And he offered me 5 gold per turn, a copy of his luxury and open border.....

I am really puzzled about the AI's trading logic. It is neither based on diplomatic relationships, nor the pre-set price of a luxury/resources, like in V. At least I know a luxury worths approximately 8 gold per turn in V. Thats why I normally give up on trading and used those luxuries purely as gifts.

Do any of you have any idea to predict their trends?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I offered an extra copy of luxury to my ally, Vicky, and she gladly replies with an offer of 3 gold per turn.

That little sum of gold was soooo unimportant for me thus I rejected.

And then when I ask for one extra copy of her luxuries, she asked for 29 gold per turn.

me: What?!

Then I bargained with her, adding my extra luxury to the offer.

Vicky: 25 gold per turn and a copy of your iron. You are always kind and attentive.

me: N-o no.
Afterwards, Pedro came to ask for the same copy of luxury. He just denounced me and surely we were in no good shape of engaging a trade.

And he offered me 5 gold per turn, a copy of his luxury and open border.....

I am really puzzled about the AI's trading logic. It is neither based on diplomatic relationships, nor the pre-set price of a luxury/resources, like in V. At least I know a luxury worths approximately 8 gold per turn in V.

Do any of you have any idea to predict their trends?

How much each AI leader values a luxury can very dramatically over the course of a game, and seemingly not directly based on how much they like you (although that does play into it). I have a couple of ideas, but no facts. Perhaps someone who's done more thorough testing, or looked in the code can shed more light:

Idea 1. The display panel shows the Luxuries they produce, but not the ones they currently have access to. If you offer to trade them a Luxury they are already getting through another trade, they put a lowball value on it.

Idea 2. The AI has been programmed to value Luxuries more or less based on the current average Amenity level of their cities.

 

[halfhalfharp]

How much each AI leader values a luxury can very dramatically over the course of a game, and seemingly not directly based on how much they like you (although that does play into it). I have a couple of ideas, but no facts. Perhaps someone who's done more thorough testing, or looked in the code can shed more light:

Idea 1. The display panel shows the Luxuries they produce, but not the ones they currently have access to. If you offer to trade them a Luxury they are already getting through another trade, they put a lowball value on it.

Idea 2. The AI has been programmed to value Luxuries more or less based on the current average Amenity level of their cities.

Agree with the 1st idea. As what I have encountered, they wont offer you anything for a luxury that theu have already tastes (or they will ask for another 1 gold per turn on top of the luxury, for nothing). Therefore, I think its not the explanation for the above scene.

I think amenities will be a more possible changing factor... but we dun have the amenity board to check, like in V. How do we know if their cities are happy or not? Through loyalty lens? And if it is the answer, in that case, how many cities lacking amenities/how much -ve amenities will add up to the trading offer?

 

[aguliondew]

Yea I started to think some items have a hidden value to specific civs. Sometimes I can sell a great works of art to another civ for ALL of their gold other times they only want 25gpt. Still your likeability should effect the value of some items.Unless you have many negative modifiers, an alliance with an civ can count warmongering upto a point.

 

[Turrdy]

somehow gpt trades with AI have gone crazy since R&F... also for peace-deals i was offered tremendous amounts of money

 

[Victoria]

Idea 1. The display panel shows the Luxuries they produce, but not the ones they currently have access to. If you offer to trade them a Luxury they are already getting through another trade, they put a lowball value on it.

Idea 2. The AI has been programmed to value Luxuries more or less based on the current average Amenity level of their cities.

These are not so much ideas as probably the case.
Also a civ can favour one luxury over others but to run around offering each luxury to each civ to get the best deal is not my idea of having fun.
The friendliness above denounced does not appear to change based on the cost/worth table which clearly lowers the value of trades for denounced but treats all others as neutral.
Another area people often forget is what the AI thinks of you. I have found a possible connection here also. Even though you are a human player your civ has agendas and if a civ see’s your view of them as being quite negative this does appear to affect a few things.
The one thing that is becoming clear is all those little kudos points for accepting deals and agreements is also an element.

 

[historix69]

When playing expansive and controlling lots of cities and luxuries, AI offers often become very annoying. (Smaller) AI civs often ask for a copy of ALL my luxuries for a single Gold in return, sometimes including strategic resources, relics, ALL my Gold and Income, etc. (You need to scroll down the list to see all items.) It would only make sense as an ultimatum by a superior military power ready for invasion of your lands, but not by a rather small and distant civ. And the offers are meant as deals and not as ultimatum.

In a game like civ, besides the annoyance there is always the chance that the player clicks the wrong button and accidently accepts such nonsense deals. So allowing such nonsense deals to be offered by AI is kind of a bad game design.

There should be an option to auto-ignore nonsense offers by AI.

In general I would favour a free market where you can buy and sell luxuries for a fair price, based on offer and demand.

 

[Turrdy]

There should be an option to auto-ignore nonsense offers by AI.

Or, well, maybe make the AI not offer nonsense trade deals!

In general I would favour a free market where you can buy and sell luxuries for a fair price, based on offer and demand.

Sounds like a good idea. maybe on smaller maps, there are too few participants in a free market system, though...

 

[Victoria]

n general I would favour a free market where you can buy and sell luxuries for a fair price, based on offer and demand.

About the only thing that really affects warmongers is their inability to trade for a decent price. To remove this seems madness to me, warmonger as it is gets away with an awful lot.

 

[MrRadar]

I am really puzzled about the AI's trading logic. It is neither based on diplomatic relationships, nor the pre-set price of a luxury/resources, like in V. At least I know a luxury worths approximately 8 gold per turn in V. Thats why I normally give up on trading and used those luxuries purely as gifts.

I actually like this wild variation in VI more than the set in stone values of V. And quite often the income from my trade deals can make as much as half of my total net gpt income, well, at least when I have a few extra luxuries or strategics for trade.
But I just shop around and try to find the highest bidder. And if all they can give me is 1 gpt plus some small lump sum amount, well, I take it. Next time they might offer more, or maybe there will be someone more desperate for that lux. I've also had cases when they pay ~60 gpt for a lux.

I can't really predict trends, except maybe one - if you pick up noticeable warmongering baggage along the way, you can really forget all about trading.

 

[historix69]

About the only thing that really affects warmongers is their inability to trade for a decent price. To remove this seems madness to me, warmonger as it is gets away with an awful lot.

Wouldn't it be a better design if AI would simply communicate : "We don't trade with Warmongers." instead of making nonsense offers?

 

[Infixo]

Is there any negative consequence for turning down AI’s trade offer? Except some animations and comment?

 

[Karpius]

In general I would favour a free market where you can buy and sell luxuries for a fair price, based on offer and demand.

The "fair" price is whatever someone is willing to pay.
So if Gitarja offers to sell you tobacco for 10 gpt, but you already have a deal with Pedro for 5 gpt, how much will you pay Gitarja?

Or, lets broaden the scope a bit. You have the perfume luxury resource and try to sell it. You're the only supplier so naturally you think you should be able to get a high price, yes? However, if the other civs do not have an amenity problem why should they pay anything for perfume unless it is purely for diplomatic purposes?

It is all very situational and it is difficult to determine how all previous events have affected the algorithm used to determine the AI's value of the current trade deal on the table. Might look odd to you or me, but be perfectly reasonable to the AI.

There should be an option to auto-ignore nonsense offers by AI.

Not sure how you would do this unless you already have a standard that constitutes what a non-sense offer is, that the rest of us should agree with? Also, if the human player 'accidently' clicks the wrong the button, there is always the option of going back to the auto-save.

 

[Abaxial]

It really wastes the player's time having to turn down stupid trade deals proposed by AI civs; if it isn't a serious offer, it shouldn't be made.

 

[leandrombraz]

Is there any negative consequence for turning down AI’s trade offer? Except some animations and comment?

There's no consequences.

 

[Karpius]

It really wastes the player's time having to turn down stupid trade deals proposed by AI civs; if it isn't a serious offer, it shouldn't be made.

But what standards do you wish to use to determine if an offer is serious? What if you and I disagree on what a serious offer is? Which standard shall be applied? Or are you suggesting that the AI be confined to making offers that only follow a narrow range no matter what the rest of the game circumstances might be?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Yea I started to think some items have a hidden value to specific civs. Sometimes I can sell a great works of art to another civ for ALL of their gold other times they only want 25gpt.

I'm pretty sure the key variable here is whether the AI is going for a cultural victory. If they are, they will value Great Works very highly.

Wouldn't it be a better design if AI would simply communicate : "We don't trade with Warmongers." instead of making nonsense offers?

It really wastes the player's time having to turn down stupid trade deals proposed by AI civs; if it isn't a serious offer, it shouldn't be made.

They're not nonsense offers. They're a key opportunity to restore relations with an AI that views you as a Warmonger.

I almost always take these trades when they're offered, as it helps restore your standing with the AI. I think the modifier in the relationship panel is called something like "offered them a good trade"? And it stacks with offering them a gift, which is treated as a separate modifier

Is there any negative consequence for turning down AI’s trade offer? Except some animations and comment?

Just the opportunity cost noted above.

 

[Victoria]

Is there any negative consequence for turning down AI’s trade offer? Except some animations and comment?

yes it seems there is likely some.
If I play a game and agree to swap my work of writing for theirs there seems to be a tendency for them to be nicer to me, more importantly I do not seem to get joint warred as much, if at all.
From what I have noticed, as long as we have a deal agreed, even if I change it, the fact we made a deal seems to give some type of hidden kudos.
Looking at joint wars for a while they only seemed to be made with people that had no sort of deal going with you unless there was a more serious underlying issue like being too close.

For those that disagree, I can give you a repeatable example which I find rather interesting.

I have 3 spare luxuries that come available for a deal. Now the standard GPT price for a luxury is 6GPT as a sort of middle judgement point. For pure gold rather than GPT you can drop that down to around 60-70% but GPT seems to keep the AI sweet as an ongoing deal.
I go to a civ and ask what they will give and they come back with around 14 GPT for these (maybe some type of multiple discount) I can try and haggle, come out of the screen and go back in but it will seem fairly fixed around there. But... If I then say how about just this 1 lux? they say 6 GPT... I then say oh, I forgot I have another one, what will you give me for this? and they say 8 GPT.... then Oh wow, it seems I found another banging around in a disused wharehouse.... 10 GPT.

So to me it seems that when there is any type of diplomatic action it will review not just the +/- X diplomatic points but what that consists of.... Have they broken any deals in the past?...if I break a deal woith someone, even if they are friendly ... bang.... 4 GPT not 6.

 

[MaryKB]

I have more problems with the AI players begging me for my Great Works (especially if I find a Relic in an early village) than for luxuries. Especially Relics and Artifacts it seems, I will have multiple AIs spamming me terrible requests for them. If the deal is even remotely something I can afford, I will usually take it as I enjoy that diplomatic modifier Victoria mentioned several times.

Part of this trading could be something built into the game because of how simple it was in the last game. In Civilization 5, if I had an excess luxury I could pretty much guarantee that another civ would give me 7 gold per turn for it, or a luxury they had in excess, or 5 units of a strategic resource. The three things mentioned could pretty much be traded for the same value to anyone (who hadn't denounced you) at any point in the game. If I started with say 3 of the same luxury close by, I could easily get +14 gpt after meeting 2 civilizations, which really helped in the early game! This system is more nuanced and has more factors playing into it, which really does seem to make it much less repetitive.

 

[Infixo]

From what I have noticed, as long as we have a deal agreed, even if I change it, the fact we made a deal seems to give some type of hidden kudos.

They are actually not hidden there’s a positive diplo modifier that says exactly that: „you’ve made a favorable deal with them”.
I haven’t seen any negative diplo modifier for turning down the deal, hence my initial question.