Why is the AI so greedy?

[TruePurple]

Ok, I have polite relations with the netherlands. They have 3 extra lux resource of one type and 4 of the other. They want my lux bad. Bad enough to threaten me to get it. So why is it that I can't get a fair shake with them? They won't simply take resource for resource trade, they want two lux resources for one or other unfair terms (like a lux and a tech)

Is it part of the emperor setting that the AI won't make a fair trade with you even if it hurts them not to? Its not a matter of broken trust either.

 

[gmaharriet]

Ok, I have polite relations with the netherlands. They have 3 extra lux resource of one type and 4 of the other. They want my lux bad. Bad enough to threaten me to get it. So why is it that I can't get a fair shake with them? They won't simply take resource for resource trade, they want two lux resources for one or other unfair terms (like a lux and a tech)

Is it part of the emperor setting that the AI won't make a fair trade with you even if it hurts them not to? Its not a matter of broken trust either.

It's a question of which of you will get the most happy faces from additional lux. If your population is about twice the size of theirs, you'll get twice as many happy faces from a single lux as they would. They'd only get as much benefit from 2 luxes to your 1.

 

[TruePurple]

Nay, they have about 80 cities and I have about 60. More of their cities are maxed out to 12 then mine.

Likewise I'll have the AI on the ropes taking its cities, Ill nearly have to wipe it out before it will even consider giving me a tech or a city for peace (and even then the city it sees as least valuable) AI won't be reasonable in trade even when it hurts them (bad)

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

It also depends on how many luxuries you have. 1 and 2 are a lot cheaper to trade for than 7 & 8. Plus they may only have 1 or 2 and you have 5 or 6. This makes the trades look out of balance.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I have learned this the hard way, the AIs are a gang of backstabbing jerks who will bully you at the first opportunity . The only way to keep them at bay is to destroy them.

 

[wilbill]

As gmaharriet says, it's based on the number of happy faces the luxuries will create. Regardless of # of cities or total population, it appears you'll get more benefit from a luxury than Netherlands will. You may have more marketplaces which would increase the effectiveness of the additional luxury.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

The AI is quite greedy. Negotiations never really seem to be realistic to me. I mean why do the Inca refuse to sell me spice for less than 800 gold when I'm their only customer? Things like that should be taken into account.

 

[wilbill]

The AI is quite greedy. Negotiations never really seem to be realistic to me. I mean why do the Inca refuse to sell me spice for less than 800 gold when I'm their only customer? Things like that should be taken into account.

If you think of it as buying "one spice" or trading "one spice" for "one gem" it won't make sense. If you think of it as enough spice to make "x citizens" happy, it's very logical.

If you're trading enough gems to make 5 Inca citizens happy and you receive enough spice to make 30 of your citizens happy, you're getting 6x more benefit out of the deal. You should pay more. One way around this is to trade for lux that don't really help you a lot - several turns before Sanitation, for example, when a lot of your cities are stuck at pop 12. Then you have an existing trade which makes the AI more likely to extend it, even if it wants more after your cities start growing.

Also the AI values lux for trade purposes differently depending on the level you play. It's based on a ratio set in the editor. This is one point at which Regent is not an equal level for human and AI. The Regent level is 130%. meaning that to the AI an offer from another AI is worth 130% of an identical offer from the human player.

 

[namliaM]

There is a way around the Lux greed of the AI

I have had AI demand ridiculous amounts of GPT for luxes. I navigated 3 workers and a Unit to the lux(es) Pillaged some luxes down to where I had no luxes (thus no hapiness)

I had 3 lux ALL with 1 lux connected. Pillaging them made me go down to 0 happy instead of 4. Then got 2 lux to get 2, instead of 5!, happy faces and re-connected the lux on the 3 lux on the same turn. The AI thinking it would give me 2 happies, which in truth it did. But reconnecting my native luxes gave me 7 more happies

Is this an exploit?! I do not know, I dont think it is listed as an exloit.
I do know it saved me a bundle on GPT.

Question: What happenes to any trade deals you might have if you disconnect/connect on the same turn?

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

That's not considered an exploit. If you want to pillage and connect resources every 20 turns, go right ahead. Any trade deals should get broken when you pillage the resource... it's instantaneous.

 

[namliaM]

I have read somewhere that it is not considered "proper" conduct to connect/disconnect resources "at your leasure"

 

[Renata]

Depends on whose definition of proper. And willbill, I believe that trade deals are preserved ahead of your own citizens' happiness. If, for example, you have two ivory resources and are trading away one and using one for yourself, pillaging exactly one of them would take away your own lux happiness, but would not break the trade route. (Of course, pillaging both sources would break the trade route.) But I'm not 100% sure.

Renata

 

[namliaM]

"proper" as in accoording to (S)XoTM and HoF rules

I am still new to XoTM and have not even attempted HoF and have tried reading up on HoF rules. But I have not quite grasped the concept yet...

 

[Renata]

It's allowed currently in the GOTM.

Renata

 

[Invisible Rhino]

If you think of it as buying "one spice" or trading "one spice" for "one gem" it won't make sense. If you think of it as enough spice to make "x citizens" happy, it's very logical.

That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that if the Incans have two options

1) Sell to me at a reasonable price
2) Sell to nobody and not make any money

Why on earth would they continually choose number 2?

 

[island007]

That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that if the Incans have two options

1) Sell to me at a reasonable price
2) Sell to nobody and not make any money

Why on earth would they continually choose number 2?

The Incas have a different definition of a 'reasonable price'.

 

[BasketCase]

One reason to choose #2 is that by trading with you, the Incas would be getting something for their luxury goods--but they would also be improving your position in the game by trading with you. More luxury goods for you means you get more productive citizens without having to pay as much on the luxury slider. Which in turn means you can turn your economy towards other ends.....such as putting troops on the Incas' borders.

I myself have avoided a few luxury trades here and there, for exactly the above reasons. The only trading partner who wanted my excess goods happened to be the largest player in the game, with more citizens than me, and giving them another luxury good didn't seem like a good idea.