The Human Factor

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Does anyone else tend to have the nearby civs expand better then
distant ones? The AI is so stubborn in their deal making. Often the
only chance for a deal is to give them a huge bargain. Since at the
higher levels they are receiving an even greater bargain they expected
this gives them a big edge.

The AI seems to evaluate a trade based on the cost of the two items
being traded. They don't seem to care a new tech will also save them
the cost of research or allow them to build better units. Near the
end of the game this becomes almost humorous when they refuse to
accept something like literature for a luxury item. They consider
this a very low value at that point in time because so many have
already researched it. Yet in reality if they should consider it
priceless if it has taken thousands of years to study it.

As the game wears on I tend to cut of trade completely as their
demands become completely outrageous. For instance I might need to
give iron, coal, and horses for one luxury. I would rather increase
my entertainment budget and let them suffer. Or just stomp them to
pieces as their armies become ancient.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:4322196d$0$78282$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk...
>
> P12 wrote:
>> Does anyone else tend to have the nearby civs expand better then
>> distant ones? The AI is so stubborn in their deal making. Often the
>> only chance for a deal is to give them a huge bargain. Since at the
>> higher levels they are receiving an even greater bargain they expected
>> this gives them a big edge. The AI seems to evaluate a trade based on
>> the cost of the two items
>> being traded. They don't seem to care a new tech will also save them
> [...]
>
> It also seems to be very stupid, regarding piece payments.
>
> I've been able to easily sell single techs for 40 or 60 or more gold
> pieces, yet if I demand the payment in installments of as little as 2 gp
> per turn for 20 turns (for a total cost of 40 gp) for a tech, then the AI
> refuses.
>
> Actually I vaguely recall having sold a single tech for an even bigger
> lump sum, like 80 or 90 gp.
>
> But the problem is, the AI very rarely has any monies saved up. And hence
> I can't sell techs for more than like 25 gp or so, which is too little.
>
> This is on easiest difficuly level, Chieftain (I'm finding that my modest
> civ 2 skills/instincts are rather less useful in civ3, so I've had to
> downgrade a couple of difficulty levels).
>
> --

I think this is for two reasons. They might want to got to war with you
before the deal has run out. This will severely affect their reputation with
other civs if they go to war while still supposed to be paying you gold per
turn.

Or... if you are offering to pay *them* gold per turn for something - well,
they may not trust you to keep going for 20 turns.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:26:35 +0200, "Peter Knutsen (usenet)"
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>
>P12 wrote:
>> Does anyone else tend to have the nearby civs expand better then
>> distant ones? The AI is so stubborn in their deal making. Often the
>> only chance for a deal is to give them a huge bargain. Since at the
>> higher levels they are receiving an even greater bargain they expected
>> this gives them a big edge.
>>
>> The AI seems to evaluate a trade based on the cost of the two items
>> being traded. They don't seem to care a new tech will also save them
>[...]
>
>It also seems to be very stupid, regarding piece payments.
>
>I've been able to easily sell single techs for 40 or 60 or more gold
>pieces, yet if I demand the payment in installments of as little as 2 gp
>per turn for 20 turns (for a total cost of 40 gp) for a tech, then the
>AI refuses.

The AI will not enter into any per-turn deal charging more than it's
net cashflow. It has nothing to do with whether it considers it a
good deal.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:39:30 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

> The AI will refuse to trade what it doesn't have. Unless the AI has
>excess gold per turn, which it rarely does due to spending it for
>other gold per turn payments to the other AIs or other spending, it
>can't make a gold per turn payment of anything.
>
> At least, not without adjusting its taxes or luxuries, and it won't
>do that until its turn. So it is stuck, unable to increase revenues
>to make the payments.

The AI should be able to adjust their slider bar like the human player
has to do. At a minimum we should be able to view how much spare gold
they have per turn since they are obviously able to see what we are
spending. If you catch them at just the right time they might offer a
very nice payment. I don't have the patience to go around and ask
every civ on every turn though what they can afford on a per turn
basis.

The broken trade thing seems dumb too. An ally will hold a broken
deal agains't me because our MPP forced me to declare war. Later they
will refuse deals because of how I treated this common enemy. This
will go on for thousands of years. Meanwhile the AI breaks deals all
the time with me and I my advisor doesn't even tell me what happened.
I only get told if I loose a luxury or something. I have traded items
with the AI and had them declare war on the very next turn.