For Soren: suggestion for AI city trade algorithm

player1 · February 17, 2002, 05:24

In Civ3 city-trading looked more like exploit.
Only human was doing it while AI to AI never did it.

AI should trade its faraway city for some city closer to it (similar sizes no spec res.) so both faraway civ and AI would befefit from lower corruption for both.

Comments?
Soren?

Harovan · February 17, 2002, 05:35

Generally a good idea

, but that would give us another exploit to check in the early game, if a city has (later visible) special resources.

player1 · February 17, 2002, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Generally a good idea

, but that would give us another exploit to check in the early game, if a city has (later visible) special resources.

By my gaming expirience I think that AI already knows were are future resourses when placing cities.

Harovan · February 17, 2002, 06:32

Yes, but what I meant was, if the AI declines to trade for a crappy colony we also know for sure, there must be something valuable.

player1 · February 17, 2002, 07:39

Then some compromise solution must be made.

The way it is now, only way to get AI cities by diplo is if you corner AI in war.

It's not realy a diplomatric option.

player1 · February 17, 2002, 07:41

Remember, it should be at city for city basis.
If you wan't his colony on your continent, you need to give him your city on his continent.

This should also be AI vs AI befavior.
That could actualy improve AI gameplay (more optimal cities).

DaXX · February 17, 2002, 12:40

why don't you also propose a resource/luxury trade algorithm as well, at least one that works compared to what is there now

player1 · February 17, 2002, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by DaXX
why don't you also propose a resource/luxury trade algorithm as well, at least one that works compared to what is there now

Luxuries...

I think I can explain part of current method.

If you have enough luxuries to make your city happy then if someone ofers you additional luxury and you know that he'll befefit a lot (AI knows your situation), then will you do 1vs1.

Probably not.

Only probelm here is that AI know your situation and makes decision by it.

Yes, it happend for me to have almost 1vs1 with some AIs, but not for all time (maybe 50 turns).

Willem · February 17, 2002, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
Then some compromise solution must be made.

The way it is now, only way to get AI cities by diplo is if you corner AI in war.

It's not realy a diplomatric option.

How many times in history has any nation just up and handed over a city to another nation? It's just not done, or it's extremely rare. The only time any leader will freely give up something like that is if they're forced to. If you want to take over one of his cities peacefully, do it through culture, that's what it's in the game for.

player1 · February 17, 2002, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

How many times in history has any nation just up and handed over a city to another nation? It's just not done, or it's extremely rare. The only time any leader will freely give up something like that is if they're forced to. If you want to take over one of his cities peacefully, do it through culture, that's what it's in the game for.

The only thing I want to be made it that AI TRADES CITIES on one for one basic.

If his city is close to me, and my city is close to him and if they are of similar value then they should be traded.
This should specificly be AI vs AI strategy.
I have seen so many times in game when I thought that it would be handy that these two AI swap some of their cities and lower corruption in them.

And,
I wold forbid trading city for just money, to abusive.
but if cities are of similar values +-25%, some extra money should be paid in.

This should also be one WONDERFULL solution for corruption (for both trader players).

player1 · February 17, 2002, 16:41

In some similar way should be allowed to trade units.
I know it would be easy to do in patch.

In fact it was just turned off.
Soren though that it was too abusive.

For ex. UU for UU.
or something similar

Joe R. Golowka · February 17, 2002, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
How many times in history has any nation just up and handed over a city to another nation?

Ever heard of the Louisiana Purchase?

Willem · February 17, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka

Ever heard of the Louisiana Purchase?

Yes, it does happen but not very often, and usually it's done at the point of gun, or whatever. That was one of the very few exceptions, and even then war had a role in it. If France wasn't embroiled in a continental war at the time, they may never have considered it. So it only seems right that trading cities isn't an easy thing to do in the game.

Zanzin · February 18, 2002, 08:00

I haven't tried it yet in the new patch, but will the AI that you've just crushed and left with one city accept all it's old cities back? (If you choose to give them back)

Willem · February 18, 2002, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Zanzin
I haven't tried it yet in the new patch, but will the AI that you've just crushed and left with one city accept all it's old cities back? (If you choose to give them back)

Well certainly, it will always accept a gift of that sort. They're just not inclined to part with any of their own.

Charlie · February 18, 2002, 16:56

My 2 euro cents on the matter. There would be a lot of factors I think of :[list=1][*]number of national citizens of the Civ[*]ratio of the Civ's natives vs. foreign citizens[*]history of Civ "owners" of city[*]great wonders[*]proximity to Capital/FP[*]buildings in city[*]proximity to other cities (effective city radius)[*]strategic location[*]access to resources (through road/harbor/airport)[*]improvements around the city (road/irrigation/mining)[*]resources in city radius (known at the time of trade)[*]maximum possible size/production/commerce[/list=1]
More comments on the numbered items :

1, 2 and 3 are most important. Any Civ is willing to get back its own people, isn't it ?
4 : makes sense if the wonder isn't obsolete
5 : of course !
6 : a city with banks, etc. is more valuable than a city without
7: I don't know much about this one. I certainly wouldn't like to get a city when there are others only 2 squares away.
8: this is a tough one (to code, at least). Think of Gibraltar...
9, 10 : do you want a big city without any road around that's going to revolt and starve because of overpopulation ?
11 : yes, I put "at the time of trade"
12 : who wants a city in the middle of tundra (except for resources) ?

Every criteria I listed above should have a cost value, depending on its importance. This is AFAIK what the Computer Player (CP -- I don't like AI, because of the "I"

) does for other trades, then it "converts" that value to a gold equivalent.

Other ideas ?

player1 · February 18, 2002, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlie
My 2 euro cents on the matter. There would be a lot of factors I think of :[list=1][*]number of national citizens of the Civ[*]ratio of the Civ's natives vs. foreign citizens[*]history of Civ "owners" of city[*]great wonders[*]proximity to Capital/FP[*]buildings in city[*]proximity to other cities (effective city radius)[*]strategic location[*]access to resources (through road/harbor/airport)[*]improvements around the city (road/irrigation/mining)[*]resources in city radius (known at the time of trade)[*]maximum possible size/production/commerce[/list=1]
More comments on the numbered items :

1, 2 and 3 are most important. Any Civ is willing to get back its own people, isn't it ?
4 : makes sense if the wonder isn't obsolete
5 : of course !
6 : a city with banks, etc. is more valuable than a city without
7: I don't know much about this one. I certainly wouldn't like to get a city when there are others only 2 squares away.
8: this is a tough one (to code, at least). Think of Gibraltar...
9, 10 : do you want a big city without any road around that's going to revolt and starve because of overpopulation ?
11 : yes, I put "at the time of trade"
12 : who wants a city in the middle of tundra (except for resources) ?

Every criteria I listed above should have a cost value, depending on its importance. This is AFAIK what the Computer Player (CP -- I don't like AI, because of the "I"

) does for other trades, then it "converts" that value to a gold equivalent.

Other ideas ?

Distance from Palace & Forbiden city should be driving force when doing city trade (it should be even more important then 1,2,3)

Why?

Because it varies form civ to civ.

I had so many games in which AI would be far more better is they tried to "optimize" their cities (swap them to get less corruption).

One more important thing:
It should always be on city for city base (no more then 25% difference in value), plus extra money for differnce.

Why?

So human won't exploit AI by bying or selling cities just for his money.

P.S.
I hope that Soren could get some nioce ideas form this.
There is no point of some option if it is not used by AI.
Right?

Charlie · February 19, 2002, 10:25

I forgot :

total population of city
nearby cities' culture
proximity of warring Civs and enemy military forces
pollution in the city radius

I'm not sure about trading city for city only. Suppose : A and B are allied against C. C capture one of B's cities. A captures it back later. A should be able to sell back the city to B, without giving away one of its own. It could give the city back too, but it seems normal that A gets some payment for the city's liberation.

Exploiting the CP by selling worthless cities wouldn't be possible if worthless cities were, well, worthless

A crappy city (1 pop, in the middle of wasteland, far from the palace/FP) isn't worth much if all parameters I tried to enumerate are taken into account.