 |
| |
|
|
Dominae
|
|
The 3000 gold for 5 gold absurdity (and other variations) comes from the fact that the AI eventually refuses all trades with a civ they have bad relations with. If you've been beating up on the Greeks the whole game, they simply won't accept any trade, no matter how sweet.
Obviously this becomes absurd when you're essentially giving them 2995 gold, which is how the AI views it. What they're saying when they reject this is basically: "We don't want your stinking money, you loathsome pigs!" (or something like that). No human player would do this, but I believe I've explained the logic behind the phenomenon.
An easy fix to this problem is to disable trade proposals in the diplomacy screen if the AI simply doesn't want to trade. There's no use in trying to make a deal when the AI is obviously not cooperating.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
The 3000 gold for 5 gold absurdity (and other variations) comes from the fact that the AI eventually refuses all trades with a civ they have bad relations with. If you've been beating up on the Greeks the whole game, they simply won't accept any trade, no matter how sweet.
Obviously this becomes absurd when you're essentially giving them 2995 gold, which is how the AI views it. What they're saying when they reject this is basically: "We don't want your stinking money, you loathsome pigs!" (or something like that). No human player would do this, but I believe I've explained the logic behind the phenomenon.
An easy fix to this problem is to disable trade proposals in the diplomacy screen if the AI simply doesn't want to trade. There's no use in trying to make a deal when the AI is obviously not cooperating.
Dominae |
I disagree. These absurdities comes from the fact that the AI see the trade as relative rather than absolute. What I mean is that it see what you give it compared to what you have, and see what it gives compared to what it have. So if you're an extremely wealthy civ with hundreds of cities and the ennemy is a tiny backward civ with a handful of small cities, basically 3000 golds are less valuable for you than 5 for it.
Of course, it's completely stupid to evaluate any trading on a relative basis. When I will buy something, the price does not change according to my social situation and my actual wealth.
But well, it's not like a bad design decision is surprising 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
These absurdities comes from the fact that the AI see the trade as relative rather than absolute. |
Akka, your theory could explain things equally well. However, I simply do not see any reasons to favour your theory over mine. In fact, yours seems even less plausible, because (as you said), it is a pretty poor design decision. Furthermore, there are times when I've traded with backwater civs perfectly fairly.
It doesn't seem to me that relative size is the only factor for AI trade behaviour. In my experience, the AI's attitude toward your civ is far more important. If the civ doesn't like you (for whatever reason), don't expect any fair trades (and expect a couple of absurd ones, too!).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Akka, your theory could explain things equally well. However, I simply do not see any reasons to favour your theory over mine. In fact, yours seems even less plausible, because (as you said), it is a pretty poor design decision. Furthermore, there are times when I've traded with backwater civs perfectly fairly.
It doesn't seem to me that relative size is the only factor for AI trade behaviour. In my experience, the AI's attitude toward your civ is far more important. If the civ doesn't like you (for whatever reason), don't expect any fair trades (and expect a couple of absurd ones, too!).
Dominae |
Well, I expressed poorly what I meant. I did not wanted to disregard your opinion, I wanted just to insert it into mine
For what I saw until now, the AI compare the value of trade in a relative value. THEN, it modify the value according to relationship : the better your relations are, the more your offer will be valuable to the AI.
What make me think that my theory is plausible is :
- The civs always trade more or less equally at the right start of the game (one tech for one tech) and the more I progress in power, the more unfair the trades become. Though, I NEVER betray any civ (I just can't lie or break a pact, it's against my nature  ), so the reputation is not the problem.
- Often, a polite civ that is stunned by my culture ("stunned by" is a new level I inserted in my mod where the culture is 1 to 5) still ask for unreasonnable amount of tech/ressources when I'm the first world power, even though I never had a war and we're commercial partner for centuries.
Though, a suspitious civ that is unimpressed by my culture offer nearly fair deal at the start of a game, where everyone is more or less at the same level.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2002 05:52
At this rate, we're gonna need the CTP lawyer unit guy...
|
|