The AI does NOT negotiate!

Robert Plomp · August 5, 2002, 10:57

Negotiation with the AI is no fun.
What it wants is completely decided before negotiation starts. All you have to do is find out what the minimum is, and that's it.

The advisor only needs 3 lines:
- ok
- almost ok
- not ok

The 'I doubt' and 'insulted' lines are a waste.
It would work if now and then the 'I doubt' advises would be accepted though.

It is all too fixed.

ChrisiusMaximus · August 5, 2002, 11:47

I would agree with you the AI is very biased in its dealings with you.There have been other threads on this subject but maybe it needs to be said again,Call to Power 2 had some good diplomatic options.

It would be nice to have more treaty options and more realistic and cooperative trading.One of the things I most looked forward to prior to the games release was the new all improved diplomacy system and Its only fair to say that it is good but Im sure it could be added to and made just that bit deeper.

Sorry Firaxis if this sounds too critical but Cybershy is right it does seem fixed and can be very frustrating at times.Would it be possible to incorporate addittional civilization traits tied to their diplmatic personalities such as Peaceful,Fairminded,Stubborn,Haughty,Deceptive or similar other attributes.
Example the Romans could be Militiaristic and Commercial in their approach to the growth and stability of there empire but Stubborn and Haughty in there trade and diplomacy.They may perhaps try rip off Fairminded and Thrifty Nations but have more respect for
Aggressive and Deceptive nations,who knows?
What does any body else think,is there something in this or have lost the plot.

GhengisFarb™ · August 5, 2002, 12:14

I agree. I had a suggestion on how this could be worked but Apoly's server got overloaded and erased my post, I'll post it later.

Willem · August 5, 2002, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

It would work if now and then the 'I doubt' advises would be accepted though.

It is all too fixed.

I agree. It would be nice, and much more realistic, if sometimes you could get away with taking a chance when your advisor says "I doubt it." As it stands now, there may as well only be two options, they accept or they don't.

Todd Hawks · August 5, 2002, 14:14

Hmmm.... it would be nice if the AI acted like a human, but I don't think it is easily doable.

Either the AI has a fixed exchange value "in mind" and your advisor just doesn't tell you so you don't know 'exactly' whether or not it will accept.
But then a lot of people would still try to get the optimal value and just be frustrated because it is much more difficult to find it.

Or the AI use some kind of random variable to determine the exact value and/or whether it accepts a given deal or not.
Then a lot of people would complain about not getting the same deal under the same circumstances or just negotiate again to see if they have better luck next time.

Theseus · August 5, 2002, 15:00

I'm not sure I understand the problem...

Diplomacy deals with complex, multi-variable trades, with valuation of different 'assets' influenced by indirect issues such as reputation, size, relative power, research status, and even group (e.g. Asian).

Seems to work pretty well to me.

Willem · August 5, 2002, 15:04

I don't see how it would be a problem really. If your adivisor says he "doubts" whether it would be acceptable, there could be a digital equivalent of a coin toss, either yes or no. I don't see how that would be very difficult to program. There's been many real life negotiations that have been resolved along the same lines.

As for negotiating again, that could be preserved the same way the random seed is, so the decision remains fixed, unless the player chooses otherwise. Frankly, I don't think that area will be important enough for people to even want to reload a save game and try again.

Gastric ReFlux · August 5, 2002, 15:06

I haven't tried this yet myself, but I saw a discussion where somebody mentioned that if you get the "We're getting close to a deal here," you can try the "Take this deal or suffer the consequences" option. If you're sufficiently ahead in power, the AI may cave in to your demand.

Willem · August 5, 2002, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm not sure I understand the problem...

Diplomacy deals with complex, multi-variable trades, with valuation of different 'assets' influenced by indirect issues such as reputation, size, relative power, research status, and even group (e.g. Asian).

Seems to work pretty well to me.

The thing is that in every negotiation, there eventually creeps in that "Well... I don't know...." factor. The point where you're almost convinced, but not quite. Giving the AI a similar response would make them seem much more realistic. As it is now, it's all black & white. They either agree, or they don't. When dealing with real humans, there's always a lot of grey in between.

Theseus · August 5, 2002, 15:34

Right, and the grey is created through making it a multi-variable negotiation.

Think stock market versus a corporate merger.

steven8r · August 5, 2002, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
The advisor only needs 3 lines:
- ok
- almost ok
- not ok

You can change this in diplomacy.txt file.

Or get even more creative.

But I think your original complaint is well founded. It does seem too fixed.

Inverse Icarus · August 5, 2002, 15:56

my favorite gripe is when you're makign a deal that says "we're close to a deal here" so you start changing the gold by 1, and you end up with 15-20 gold more than what was "close"

i've often wanted a "give me the lowest deal" button, but i guess that takes some "fun" out of the game.

DFHNY · August 5, 2002, 16:02

Trading is weak and patch by patch getting weaker.
I play at Monarch level and usually std map. The trading is always pretty lame (I play with other Civ3 gamers and we all agree on this point).

1. Trading was more fun with the earlier versions, perhaps unfair, but more fun. By this I mean: the computer civs usually had different tech to trade now they all have THE SAME tech and tons more than you do.

2. AI CIVS all want the same thing, so it is now like you are playing against 1 person whereas before (and in CIV 2) each CIV had its own personality and that made trading much more fun. Also the civs owned different tech at different time, some were war like and military tech (you get the picture).

3. Now, with the most recent patch, in order to beat the HUMAN mind, Joren who programmed a fine game has told the AI to beat the human no matter what, don't give the human stuff he wants, e.g. the most recent tech and anything to promote happiness.

4. THe AI civs don't want to pay for your luxuries any more. Why is that? Does the AI civ need to be happy too?

5. Noone will pay anything for maps anymore, again, why? And heaven forbid you should sell your map, the AI will teleport to your 1 un-occupied square within 4 turns (on Monarch) guaranteed.

Long and short, I used to like trade, it was fun and varied. Now trade is there just to keep the AI from killing me.

Arrian · August 5, 2002, 16:44

Quote:

3. Now, with the most recent patch, in order to beat the HUMAN mind, Joren who programmed a fine game has told the AI to beat the human no matter what, don't give the human stuff he wants, e.g. the most recent tech and anything to promote happiness.

4. THe AI civs don't want to pay for your luxuries any more. Why is that? Does the AI civ need to be happy too?

#3 - In some ways it depends on what level you play, but there is a pretty complex system in place that determines what the trade deals can be. We got into it in the "AI vs. AI Tech Trading" thread, including non-tech trades like luxury deals (my gripe). Understanding how it works has made me less frustrated by it. Though I still think it's a bit off. The only "beat the human" factor is the AI to AI trading factor, which varies depending on difficulty level. I think it's 1.15 on Regent (was this the 1.21 value, or current? I don't remember), which means the AI will take a deal with another AI for 85% of what it would charge you - if the AI can only afford that. Otherwise I believe it will get full price. One can adjust this in the editor if one feels so inclined.

#4 - Haven't noticed this, unless the AI civ in question is broke... and that does happen fairly often. The best AI civs can and will pay for luxuries, however.

I disagree with your points, Cybershy, for a couple of reasons:

1) You're asking for the AI to behave like a human, which isn't possible at this time. The AI is computer code, and for better or worse, it will act like it.

2) In the case of selling something to the AI, often times the reason you get the negative advisor comments is that the AI simply cannot afford your asking price. Accepting the deal will result in the AI going bankrupt and triggering the "must declare war to get out of financial obligation we cannot pay" thing. I doubt you'd like that very much.

3) I'm not a big fan of randomness in computer games.

-Arrian

ShuShu · August 5, 2002, 16:56

... but I still don't like the suggestion...

I am not playing Civ III to pretend I am a tourist at a Mediteranean Trading Bazaar (sorry Apolyton... ). I would actually prefer it to go the other way. I would rather have the AI tell me what it values everything at so I could fashion a trade in one step rather than haggle back and forth over this tech va. that tech, this resource vs. that resource, etc, etc.

I agree with the point made earlier that I feel oblidged to stress. I don't want to be going back turn after turn in an effort the get the right random number to pop up.

ChrisiusMaximus · August 5, 2002, 17:05

Some very interesting points of view to this thread but I still agree with you Cybershy.Also be nice to insult the AI during trading,Im sick of Abe telling me my deal smells like a barrel of rotting fish when all I can do is say "take this deal or suffer" like some kind of illiterate Darlek or Clingon with a seriously low IQ!

KingJoshi · August 5, 2002, 21:06

It would be nice if when the advisor said, "We're close to a deal" and we risked it, some times it went through. However, that also means sometimes when the advisor says, "The deal is acceptable", he's wrong. And the latter could get on my nerves. Only having the former would give the trade initiator too much of an advantage. Having both types might be fun for some, but annoying for others. In some games, like Romance of the Three Kingdoms, you can get better advisors, but that's out of the scope of this game.

As it is right now, if you don't want to hassle, you can just accept what the AI says. If you want to bargain, you still can (in some sense).

As I started going up in levels (now I play at Monarch), I seem to get farther and farther behind in techs and I always catch up through trading and eventually take the lead. To me, it makes perfect sense for there to be a few AI civs to all have the same techs. Usually, there are different tiers and that's how it should be. Sometimes, the trading is tough, and sometimes it works to your advantage. You just have to know how to play it.

Coracle · August 5, 2002, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
I would agree with you the AI is very biased in its dealings with you.There have been other threads on this subject but maybe it needs to be said again,Call to Power 2 had some good diplomatic options. . .

Sorry Firaxis if this sounds too critical but Cybershy is right it does seem fixed and can be very frustrating at times. . .

Yes, you are totally correct, unfortunately. That old Bean Counting AI.

Tell you something else we need - trade negotiations for a peace treaty. Why are resources OFF the table when making a peace treaty??? Many, many times I refused to stop a war as I wanted a luxury resource or two. So, I ended up taking them ALL by conquest. It is not smart of the AI civ to do that.

Willem · August 5, 2002, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by KingJoshi
You just have to know how to play it.

Well there's the key phrase IMO. I haggle a lot, bouncing around with various sums, and sometimes I find the process very tedious. To me, it would be nice if occasionaly I could just say "To hell with it, I'll take a chance".

But there are no chances, no risks! If your Foreign Advisor is glowing, you know you've scored the deal, but not until then. It might even be interesting, if the other civ doesn't agree, that you can't offer that particular bargain again for 20 turns. It would certainly add an element of suspense towards making a deal, which is totally missing now.

YC4B4U · August 6, 2002, 02:14

Diplomacy is currently just a matter of getting an offer greater than a computed value. The computer doesn't actually get insulted when you offer it an insulting deal (well not that I have noticed). There is no diplomatic history.

Another reason why I can't wait for MP.

A deal will be acceptable to a human because it has defined goals and requirements, not because it meets a certain value!

The Pioneer · August 6, 2002, 04:05

I'd like to see a bit of randomness in AI when it negotiates, especially in the early ages (or earlier forms of gov'ts). Think about it as a Despot I can do whatever the heck I please but under Democracy I gotta think of the upcoming election and behave myself?!

But then of course some people would again complain that the system is unfair and the randomness is nonsense

Harovan · August 6, 2002, 04:10

Resources and luxuries are not off the table, but the AI has to be very desperate to part with them. If you are winning so-so, they probably won't. But if you crush them severely, they are out of units and cannot poprush more, they consider to part even with resources. In the Minitourney 2 (v1.21f) I succeeded to get a city with 3 wines prize from the English.

Robert Plomp · August 6, 2002, 04:24

You could easily programm a few things that will make the AI negotiate more like a human:

- Now and then the AI does accept a 'doubtable' offer
- If you propose too much unacceptable deals the AI will raise it demands
*This increases the fun of negotiation, since you might lower your changes by asking more, but will get it now and then. You might get rewarded for trying to get the best deal, but you might get nothing as well. There's more of the unpredictable in it.

- If you offer a 'pherhaps' deal that't not acceptable for the AI, but it's close though, the AI will come with a DIFFERENT deal than it offered first.
* That way it will be more like:
AI first bid: 10 gpt WM 80gold vs tech
Human bid: 12 gpt WM 90 gold vs tech
AI 2nd bid: 11 gpt WM 85 gold vs tech WM
Human 2nd bid: 11 gpt WM 90 gold vs tech WM
AI last bid: 11 gpt WM 88 gold vs Tech WM
IT's A DEAL.

I'm sure these two things will make it all more fun.
You can try to make a better deal, but spoil the change for it by doing that, but you might get it as well.

ChrisiusMaximus · August 6, 2002, 05:09

Cybershy have you played Colonization,the Native Indians would barter in a similar way to your suggestion but only for few turns before getting angry.

This game is getting on a bit now so I dont see why it would be to difficult to code some variations into trade and diplomacy.Have to admit though I would'nt know where to start

Some good debate here but no change IMO.Firaxis if you see this thread is there any hope of more options etc in PTW.

Robert Plomp · August 6, 2002, 05:37

No, I never played colonization.
I think Soren created a great AI, if it's about warfire.

That's why I'm that suprised about the not that good negotiation options.

I'm not sure if Firaxis dudes still hang around here.
They could improve it in PtW. Ater all I'll pay another load of € for that

ChrisiusMaximus · August 7, 2002, 06:02

Hi Cybershy sent you PM with a link for colonization.

Ive started a thread on the stories page Unfinished Stories if you get chance Id appreciate any thoughts you might have.