Please fix UNFAIR TRADE [Archive]

Tylerryan79

10-23-2010, 09:53 AM

Ever since the patch I, and many others, are unable to get fair trades from the AI. They will no longer sign research pacts unless I pay them extra gold and give them one way open borders. They also will not trade extra resources for my extra, unless I give them money too, or another resource(2for1).

If I was hated by these civs then ok, this would make sense. However this is happens regardless. I have poc, I get good comments from the civs in the diplo screen. Yet they won't trade fair. This NEVER happened pre patch. Please someone correct this error.

Here are some threads at CFC about this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393862

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393711

Shamunti

10-23-2010, 10:21 AM

clhannah

10-23-2010, 10:27 AM

aliengenius

10-23-2010, 10:29 AM

It was funny. After the patch I was Japan in war with Germany (who was bottled in on a peninsula and wanted out to build a city) I took his city he built after going through Kyoto's borders then expanded through 3 of his reminign 6 cities. He wanted peace AND he had the nerve to demand money, open borders and peace with me even though i was crushing him. Then hed send troops at me when Id just pick him off at will from the hills. I dont get this AI's strategy and its trades at all.

I think this is an aspect of Oda's (and other AI's) personality. His attitude never changed from the moment he had twice the cities and army I did to the moments before his last city fell. Stubborn I guess ;-)

Tylerryan79

10-23-2010, 10:51 AM

it is not unfair. the AI does not weight happiness as highly post patch is all. Occasionally you can get 1 for 1 trades which means the system is not specifically unfair, just not what you are used to.

I haven't seen a 1for1 yet myself, and is there anything like this mentioned in the patch notes? I missed it if it is. However happiness aside, research agreements are getting this treatment also. The second everyone was able to trade for these I was asked by every civ to have a research pact, but I had to pay them money and give them a one way open borders.

Saurus the Second

10-23-2010, 11:20 AM

it is not unfair. the AI does not weight happiness as highly post patch is all. Occasionally you can get 1 for 1 trades which means the system is not specifically unfair, just not what you are used to.

+1

I agree compleatly. Before the patch the A.I was basicaly a moron which agreed to any trade, regardless if it needed the traded resource or not.

Now the A.I actually seems to evaluate it's position and calculate trades accordingly. As it should.

QuantumTarantino

10-23-2010, 11:38 AM

+1

I agree compleatly. Before the patch the A.I was basicaly a moron which agreed to any trade, regardless if it needed the traded resource or not.

Now the A.I actually seems to evaluate it's position and calculate trades accordingly. As it should.

+1

Why should a Leader, with +35 Happiness, want, or need my Gems?

Tylerryan79

10-23-2010, 12:03 PM

+1

Why should a Leader, with +35 Happiness, want, or need my Gems?

Ummm for the same reason I would, to get a golden age faster, and "we love the king days".

Look, I understand an AI saying no to me offering my gems to them for 300 gold, but when they have an extra resource, and I do too, it benefits both players equally. When I have extras I trade, regardless if I have +35, because I want quicker golden ages, and a lot of the times a city will want that a resource.

When the trade is equal for both parties the AI should try to rip you off?

ospen

10-23-2010, 12:11 PM

Ummm for the same reason I would, to get a golden age faster, and "we love the king days".

Agreed. And it's not only the leader who isn't doing fair trades. No AI civ is making fair trades whether they are ahead or behind you in score. The problem with this is that the whole trade system ends up being for show only because no one ends up trading at all.

When both the AI and I are at positive happiness, it's mutually beneficial. And the strategic value is that two civs (say #2 and #3) working together can catch up to the leader by trading multiple resources and getting an advantage.

Eshme

10-23-2010, 12:13 PM

+1

Why should a Leader, with +35 Happiness, want, or need my Gems?

Haha idiots, you want the Gems, but they are not trading. Can we leave smartass comments at home now?

ospen

10-23-2010, 12:14 PM

Now the A.I actually seems to evaluate it's position and calculate trades accordingly. As it should.

No. It simply always offers an unfair trade now. The variation of trade aggressiveness or fairness was more diverse before the patch.

Dreamer

10-23-2010, 12:24 PM

Has anyone checked whether or not there's any relation between points / power and willingness to trade now?
If there was a human player who I know is stronger than me, I wouldn't trade 1:1 with him either, while trading with a "soon to be crushed" opponent shouldn't be a problem at all.

So... anyone tried having little points / number of cities and then asking for a 1:1 trade?
Imo such a situation or when they are in desperate need for happiness should be the only situation when they should agree to 1:1 trades - helping the strong is simply stupid after all.

ospen

10-23-2010, 12:37 PM

So... anyone tried having little points / number of cities and then asking for a 1:1 trade?
Imo such a situation or when they are in desperate need for happiness should be the only situation when they should agree to 1:1 trades - helping the strong is simply stupid after all.

Actually, they should for the same reason they would yield to a demand to just give that luxury resource up. To avoid being crushed.

The problem with this "smarter AI" argument is that there is now no use for trading/diplomacy except to declare war on an AI. There's no reason to interact with the AI since they only offer unfair trades and backstab you.

Eshme

10-23-2010, 12:43 PM

As far i have seen, no. It maybe accounts for their mood against you, but not for what it has. Askya is pretty down in my game and it is the exact same trade as with ghandi who took him over.

Eshme

10-23-2010, 12:52 PM

What if you want one of their resources badly, which they only have 1 off. Pre patch they required you to give 3 + some money in return. I never made such a deal to begin with. But look now. They require 3 of those resources, + all my money + 3 of my cities. And there is no difference between any AI i have met.

Another example. You want 1 of their resource which they only have 1 of. They require alot of course. But if you are giving them 1 of your resources you also only have 1 off, this would be a zero deal basically. Lets take it against civs your are befriend with.
Except that now both have a different resource they previously didnt have, causing happy days in your cities.

However the deal for the AI is always, disregarding any factor of how much happyness they have, if you take one of their last resources you have to give them 3 in return +some gold or so. Prepatch mind you. Now the deal only works if you return cities as well.
The reason having to give away cities is that there is only so much luxury available in the game, that there is simply not more than 3 available to give the AI anymore because they have all the rest and you dont harvest them all anyway.

The argument that some throw in of a smart AI is rather wrong.

Davetopia

10-23-2010, 02:51 PM

It may be smart AI, but it's all the same accross the board. All civs seem to engage diplomacy the same. I am good with this on the battlefield, but not in a negotiations sense. I want the aggressive civs, the ones who never back down, the ones the build trust, and the ones that backstab you.

I know this is what the devs want, or they wouldn't have said so at Pax, E3, etc... They want (and have always wanted) a diverse personality within each civ.

So us announcing it is us doing our duty as civ fans.

However, as long as were understanding that good things come with time, then all is good.

JQueue

10-23-2010, 05:52 PM

+1

Why should a Leader, with +35 Happiness, want, or need my Gems?

You may have exposed a perversion that has been exacerbated by the last patch.

In the case of playing "difficult AIs". I'm not exactly sure what bonuses a King/Emperor/Immortal/Deity computer has, but if it involves bonuses that lead to higher levels of happiness and this happiness now plays a large role in luxury good trading decisions, luxury good trading might as well be considered removed from the game.

Impact on actual difficulty is irrelevant to my point, just stating that the higher difficulty Civ games edit:may have become far less like normal Civ games mechanics wise.

I haven't actually done any testing yet as my Civ V Deluxe edition no longer loads games after last patch.

Simkill

10-23-2010, 06:07 PM

As I have said in a previous thread:

Hmmm, I really don't know what you guys are all complaining about...

You see an opponent you want to beat, you don't want them to be happier than they already are, so you want to make it worth your while if you are going to make them happier.

I mean, what would you do?

Anyway, I just played a standard game with 7 other AI, all acting alot better i nthe trading department than they have previously. Worse off civs are more likely to go for a 1 for 1 trade (which I have had with england and ottomans post patch) and better off civs want 2 for 1, and why wouldn't they?

I think the only time when you will get a 1 for 1 trade now is when they need the happiness, and you need the hapiness. If they see you are happy already they will drive a hard bargain, and if they are unhappy they will be more leanient. If both of these facts are true, you will get 1 for 1.

I'd try to milk the worse off civs if I had the opportunity.

I had pact of co-operation with everyone bar greece, pact of secrecry with everyone against greece, and defence pact with everyone apart from greece (5 AI's I had deals with, not including Greece, bismark was dead by this point, as I ethnicly cleansed him)

I then went on to win a cultural victory with no blood shed since 600bc.

I'd say they are pretty friendly. It's just up to you to play properly.

JQueue

10-23-2010, 06:16 PM

Simkill

10-23-2010, 06:21 PM

I don't really pay attention to this all the time, but whenever I check an AI opponent on Immortal/Emperor difficulty it has a HUGE empire and something like +60 happiness.

How would you play properly against something like that if that +60 happiness is indeed factored into the AIs decisions to trade with you. You would need to take the resources by force, which means diplomacy isn't important anymore either.

Agreed, due to the AI's inherent cheating on anything past prince, trading is non existent and Civ becomes a war game.

This is down to the inability of Firaxis making a balanced game at higher difficulty by having to impliment cheating rather than better AI decision making.

hosh

10-23-2010, 06:30 PM

This stinks. It makes you think the AI is playing you (the player) specifically instead of minding it's own business which is simply stupid.

This is added to my hate list along with the auto heal promotion (should be renamed the "Merlin" or "Magic Wand" Promotion) and moronic science production that cannot be diverted to money. It not only eats into science but disbands units as well??? What an exercise in futility that is. Are the devs deliberately trying to annoy us? What is this simulating exactly. Do real empires continue to drive scientific research when being invaded and disband the military to keep the research going?

This game is becoming very stupid the more I play it. I think it's days on this HD are numbered. Civ 5 is a pitiful waste of this franchise. It reminds me of sequels in movies that are not nearly to the standard of originals.

This game is superior in graphics and that's it. Every other aspect is a step backwards.

I'm sorry, buy Civ 5 is Pathetic!

RobC04

10-23-2010, 07:31 PM

I have gotten 1 for 1 trades and research agreements that were even. Not every time mind you, but frequently enough. I did have pacts of cooperation and pacts of secrecy with several civs, so my releationship may have been pretty good.

Sombrus

10-23-2010, 07:48 PM

A great deal of it is relationship based now. If the Civ likes you better and considers you an ally it's more likely to give you a better trade. Know all those times when Washington was like "Hey, let's go kick the ☺☺☺☺ out of Bismark and take his lunch money" and you were like "Uh, I dunno man, my wife's actin' kinda funny. Know what I'm sayin', so uh, I gotta say no." and then Washington went home and cried into his pillow? Well, Washington doesn't forget. He always remembers.

dip22

10-23-2010, 07:50 PM

I feel its retarded the AI would want you to pay extra for a research agreement that THEY offer you. You should be able to charge THEM extra, but no, the devs won't allow this :rolleyes:

And you can't rip off a poor AI 2 for 1 either while the AI can. Very fair right? Not.

Otakkun

10-23-2010, 08:30 PM

I just wish trade was more realistic. As the Iroquois, I took Wu Zetian out of the game because she was getting pulverized but still wouldn't offer anything with her request for peace. (And the reason that I chose her to war with was because she was a ☺☺☺☺☺ when it came to trades.)

I get that each leader is going to be different, but something like peace treaties should reflect how the war is going. If you are clearly winning the war, the person on defense should offer cities/gold/luxuries anything, really.

Casta

10-23-2010, 08:41 PM

I have never seen a fair luxury trade post patch no matter the relation to the ai.

They always want 2:1 for luxury no matter how much they like me, I played 2 games on emperor and 1 on immortal and I always had to pay extra. I don't think the devs were creative enough to incorporate a value system to the ai for happiness, but I am not sure, at least it is flawed if it exists. On the high difficulties the ai seem to completely ignore happiness anyway and just spam cities like theres no tomorrow.

Anyway I seem to be making a lot of gold post patch which may be the

"Economy – Increased city wealth setting to 25%"

Imo it is over the top now, making money is too easy and too valuable, but at least you can throw in a little to complete the luxury deals.

RobC04

10-23-2010, 09:49 PM

Anyway I seem to be making a lot of gold post patch which may be the

"Economy – Increased city wealth setting to 25%"

Imo it is over the top now, making money is too easy and too valuable, but at least you can throw in a little to complete the luxury deals.

That only pertains to when you set your city to produce gold.

Eshme

10-23-2010, 09:54 PM

How are some able to tell the happyness of enemies, the moment they dont accept their luxuries? Despite that it is always positive, except when someone lost bigtime in war. Where you wont be expecting to make a deal out of them anymore.

Casta

10-23-2010, 10:54 PM

That only pertains to when you set your city to produce gold.

Ah yes of course, and I hardly ever use that.

IceCube

10-24-2010, 01:50 AM

what exactly you want say again pls ? we gonna make this game suit you in short time .our next patch will be ai fixes again :)
so before patch ai is dumb ai is too easy to beat now ai is too smart they demand more for less ? maybe ai dont need your stupid resources for happyiness :)

dip22

10-24-2010, 05:03 AM

You mean it also doesn't want your iron and horse for a war when it has none right? Paying you half the amount it did pre patch. :rolleyes:

Eshme

10-24-2010, 05:09 AM

Well i see there are kids taking that as smartness. But probably thats as smart as they are.

So weak enemies are targets to better trades? I have seen a 2:1 as well.

ManOverGame

10-24-2010, 05:47 AM

Now that you mention it, it does seem that the AI has been offering really unfair trades with me since the patch.
I asked Gandhi for marble and he demanded gold, incense, 300 GP and open borders... WTF???!!! :mad:
And then Darius kept requesting research agreements demanding incense in exchange for 21 gold... seriously?

JQueue

10-24-2010, 08:54 AM

The AI is too smart huh... I won't even dignify that with a response. In fact I'll try not to even think about it lest I break out into a fit of homicidal rage.

The easiest way to tell what your opponnents happiness is by playing until the "People Who like to smile the most" survey comes up.

So I don't know what the computer players EXACT happiness numbers are right now, but here are some numbers none the less.

In the year 350 AD of my game as Persia, I have a population of about 500,000. With a happiness of 2 I am LAST PLACE in approval, which means every other civ has more happiness than I do.

The average population of a civilization is apparrently 2.4 million.

So basically these civs have 5 times my population and more happiness than I do.... Crazy. Im number 6 in literacy though woot. I never like to let my research drop too low...

Eshme

10-24-2010, 09:53 PM

That "smart" AI is supposed to literally throw the luxuries at you right now,since you are in a lack of a better position :o

axebyte

10-24-2010, 10:10 PM

Not sure if its broke or just taking the next step towards playing to win. After all trading one luxury for one luxury while yes its an even swap, it does also give you faster golden years, more happiness to grow larger if your happy is low. So not wanting to trade with you could be just how the Ai is set up to not assist you in getting ahead or any further ahead then you already are.

If diplomacy was more involved and you could get an idea of how the Ai thinks of you and why , then it would be easier to form a close friend or two and maybe get more even deals. But as it is the computer is playing to win, and from what i see always conquest victory. In this case there is no need for friends or trade since you will just take it later.

One of the many draw backs of playing an AI designed to play like a person and win.They dont want to give up any advantage, no matter how small.

While i like the idea of an AI playing to win, it sorta kills almost all the other aspects of the game since its seen as a game to win, and not a game to just have a "civilization last the test of time" and maybe reach one of the goals to end the game early (space,culture,diplomacy, and the rest).But thats just my opinion.

aeligos

10-24-2010, 10:25 PM

In the real world of commerce, economics and trade, there is no such word as "fair".

There will always be one party that benefits at the expense of another.

This is law.

-.-

dip22

10-24-2010, 10:29 PM

Right, except that when the AI offers you ridiculous deals, you just figure you keep all the resources for yourself and win the game without diplomacy at all.

I mean, why give the AI 5 happiness to give it a chance of winning for 150 gold when before it would give you 300.

In fact, in the new system, you are making the game more challenging by trading with the AI. Might as well make it easier for yourself and not trade with them at all.

See where this is going?

Stuie

10-24-2010, 10:31 PM

On equal footing with good relations, you can still get even deals.

Piss them off (refuse deals, grow too powerful, build too many wonders, etc.), and they want more.

What's the problem?

dip22

10-24-2010, 10:34 PM

The problem is that the AI is hampering itself by giving you poor deals.

You the player are under no obligation to trade with the AI. The devs seem to think that the player will still sell all excesses to the AI however poor the price.

But any smart player knows that if the price is not right, just deny them your excess and make it easier for you to win.