Bamboozled by "Always Renegotiate"

Catt · October 9, 2002, 16:45

Since pretty much the day 1.29f was released I have played with the "Always Renegotiate After 20 Turns" preference on -- this means that all of my resource trade deals are automatically called up for renewal on turn 20 instead of continuing until I notice my ability to cancel and renegotiate. The automatic pop-up always comes in the form of a diplomacy pop-up featuring the civ leader and the deal parameters, with either an option for me to click "We accept your offer" or "Certainly, I understand" -- in other words, the renogetiation comes in the form of the AI saying it is happy to continue (it proposes the continuance and I can accept) or it declines to continue (I can acknowledge their reluctance with "Certainly, I understand"). In each case, of course, I can click the "counter-proposal" or "I understand - we have a deal to offer" to explore alternative deals.

I have repeatedly found in my current game (more so than in other 1.29f games for some reason) that when the AI is willing to extend the deal ("We accept your offer" option), if I instead choose to see what additional goodies I can get to renew, the "offered deal" becomes unacceptable, sometimes to the point of insult, at the trading table. In order to renew the deal I may have to make several concessions!

Anybody know why this happens? I'm not complaining about the process, just curious. It has definitely modified my trading behavior in that I am more likely to continue a trade deal on previous terms if available (assuming the deal still makes reasonable sense), rather than trying to squeeze a little something extra out of the AI.

Catt

FNBrown · October 9, 2002, 16:48

What's wrong with the AI trying to squeeze a little something extra out of you? ;-)

Raion · October 9, 2002, 16:51

The AI in my game is asking for techs it already has. It wants to see if your willing to get along with it, or it may think that it wants to start a WAR.

Sometimes, the AI justs asks for things it already has, just to see what you are going to do.

Catt · October 9, 2002, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
What's wrong with the AI trying to squeeze a little something extra out of you? ;-)

Nothing at all wrong with it! I'm just curious as to the game mechanics that make a deal the AI is happy to accept if I renew immediately suddenly an offer to cause insult if I dare to click to the negotiating table.

To be clear, let's say I entered a deal whereby I offer Silks and 5 gpt to Bismarck in exchange for Incense. After 20 turns pass, as a function of the "Always Renegotiate" preference, Bismarck pops up with the same deal and I have the option to click "We accept" and thereby renew the deal for 20 more turns. However, if I click "Would you listen to our counter-proposal?" and jump to the full trading screen, the same deal (automatically put on the table) causes my advisor to warn me that Bismarck will be "insulted" by this deal -- a deal he offered me a split-second earlier. Perhaps my refusal to simply accept right away really angered him and he now doesn't want to trade? Was he using the original deal's "deal valuation" for the renegotiate, and now that I take him to the trading table he sees that that same Incense will be far more valuable to me this time around?

Just a curiousity.

Raion: I don't think it is possible to try and trade (or demand) a tech that you already have (or that the AI has if the AI is trading / demanding).

Catt

Theseus · October 9, 2002, 18:08

I don;t know why it happens either, but it has definitely changed my trading behavior as well.

I am more likely to accept the existing trade, unless I have made recent trades that are for *significantly* more (e.g., 20 gpt vs. 5 gpt).

Ethelred · October 9, 2002, 18:09

I don't understand it either. I can't be sure if its a glitch or intentional. It may be that the AI is supposed to get miffed if you have the temerity to renegotiate. I think its a bit of a glitch though.

Most of the time I just accept the continuation because of this. If I don't its because I really don't care about it.

Carver · October 9, 2002, 18:57

It's probably a glitch. Although, if you want to rationalize it; the AI may see extending the current deal as a way of building on your constructive relationship - even if they otherwise have no use for the deal. If you try to renogotiate for more the AI sees that as a slap in the face and as refusing the hand of friendship. Therefore, the AI worsens its trading terms.

Jaybe · October 9, 2002, 19:02

Of course, an option (for your next game) would be to toggle the option and see what happens. Perhaps it is a bug involved with the preference implementation.

Personally, I have not yet enabled the "Always Renegotiate" preference.

alexman · October 9, 2002, 19:18

Although this behavior doesn't seem logical, I think I understand why it happens.

Before 1.29f, when the 20 turns were up, the AI used to try and renegotiate deals sometimes, but not always. There were three possibilities:
a) The deal is good, so let it continue
b) The deal is bad, but let it continue anyway
c) The deal is bad, terminate it.

When the deal was good, the AI would always keep quiet. When the deal was bad, there was probably some random factor that made the AI to decide between possibilities b) and c).

If you wanted to make sure you continued to get a good deal, you would have to check every deal and evaluate it after 20 turns. But even if you checked the deal and renegotiated it after 20 turns, it doesn't mean that you would get a better deal. You would just force the AI to reevaluate the deal. You would get a better deal if it was in category a), but you would beat yourself on the head if it was in category b).

In 1.29f, Firaxis added a switch that forced a pop-up after 20 turns in cases a) and b). The AI still chooses between a), b) and c) above, but we still can't distinguish between a) and b) without asking for a renegotiation. This was the easiest way to preserve the same gameplay as pre-1.29 while reducing micromanagement. (The only thing different is that now you have to wait another 20 turns to reevaluate the deal, whereas before you could do it any time after the 20 turns were up and the AI kept quiet).

Ethelred · October 9, 2002, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

Personally, I have not yet enabled the "Always Renegotiate" preference.

With or without this possible glitch (I like Alexman's theory) I think it is very usefull for the treaties, as opposed to trade. Otherwise you have to keep checking if you can NOW get out of that alliance and end the war before War Weariness ends your government. I like it and will continue to use it.

I noticed that I missed it when I was playing out someone elses save game.

alva · October 9, 2002, 20:31

Isn't the AI just more 'willing' when IT offers YOU a deal?

So if you say no to it's proposal, it becomes more reluctant to go for the same deal.

cracker · October 9, 2002, 21:43

I think it is part of the bigger picture "stinky cheese" problem that has been introduced into the AI trading since V1.29. The cummulative effect of buggering up the total city trade prohibition and no gpt deals plus the altered human tech rate potential has shifted the trade table back towrard the V1.17 nonsense.

I have monopolies on all the luxuries but two and those two are exclusively held by two civs that are 1/2 an age back in techs. I ought to be able to trade 3 or 4 luxuries for 1 and shouldn't get an insulted or doubtful response to 5 or 6 luxuries.

With the auto renegotiate preference, I definitely turn it on and off at strategic locations in the game. Sometimes I need a 23 turn ROP an if the preference is off things will slide along just swimmingly.

(editted to fix fat finger failures)

metalhead · October 9, 2002, 22:00

Has this just been luxury trades that have brought this about? I, too, have seen this happen, and I was thinking - having a current per-turn deal with an AI Civ involving luxuries (well, actually, military deals as well) improves their attitude toward you significantly in most cases. Perhaps the mechanic for the auto-renew feature is that, while the deal is brought up for renewal, it is still considered active. However, entering into a re-negotiation immediately terminates the deal, and hence sours the AI civ's attitude toward you. This causes the AI civ to give you a less favorable deal than it would be inclined to do under the more amicable circumstances that exist while the deal was still active. A good way to see if it happens this way would be to check if the mood indicator changes negatively when you go from the renew screen to the standard diplomacy screen. Even if no visible mood change occurs, though, does not mean that the AI is holding you in the same regard. This is what I always figured was going on, but I may be wrong.

Catt · October 10, 2002, 00:50

I'm inclined to lean toward alexman's theory. I also think it could be a glitch, but am not so sure. I haven't seen any indication that AI attitude plays a significant role in pricing resource deals (though I think I have seen a stronger attitude-bias in mililtary / diplo deals).

I kept getting whacked in the head in my current game before I finally promised myself to just renew the damn thing unless I no longer had need for the trade deal (turning the preference off is probably the better game move but I have quite idiosyncratic preferences as to the degree of micromanagement that's appropriate, and trade deal renegotiation falls below the line for me).

Catt

Barchan · October 10, 2002, 08:33

I doubt it's this complex, but....

Perhaps the AI views not accepting a continuing deal as tantamount to breaking it and it doesn't want to take the negative diplomatic hit for doing so. This would explain why it will agree to continue a deal that it says is insulting if you terminate the deal and immediately re-offer it. In essence, the AI will agree to a losing deal to avoid rocking the diplomatic boat to get out of it. OTOH, if the AI says it's not interesting in continuing the deal, it's willing to accept the negative hit to get out of the deal.

This explanation sounds good, but personally I think it’s too sophisticated.

Arrian · October 10, 2002, 09:05

Catt,

I've seen the exact same thing.

cracker,

I have stopped even trying to make luxury for luxury trades with the AI once I get rolling (once I'm powerful). It's pointless. In the game I just finished, I offered 6 luxuries, horses, and two outdated techs for 1 luxury. I was told my offer was insulting. The reason, of course, was that I owned most of the world. My empire was huge and populous. Therefore, clearly, I could not get a decent deal. So I did what I've been doing for a while: I killed them and took their luxury.

-Arrian

SpencerH · October 10, 2002, 09:37

So is the consensus that in tweaking the trade system from 1.17 to 1.29 that it has become a pain? I know I dont seem to be able to trade 1 for 1 for luxuries with the AI, I'm either too weak or too strong.

Seems to me that this thread would be an excellent choice for a Firaxian to address.

alva · October 10, 2002, 09:39

offcourse the luxury fore you is worth far more then what you are offering him. But yes it feels wrong.

Arrian · October 10, 2002, 10:27

alva848,

No doubt. Luxuries are worth more to me, because I build marketplaces, grow my cities, and aim to get most of my cities in WLTKD.

I understand giving up 2, 3 or even 4 luxuries in exchange for 1 if I'm the top dog.

I tried something else the night before last. I renegotiated my peace treaty with a weak AI civ. I offered, in exchange for peace, all of my luxuries (6), a strategic resource (iron?) in exchange for their 1 luxury. I was laughed at.

I was in effect saying "fork over the luxury or I will kill you." I was THE power in the world. Killing the civ in question was quick and painless (for me). By refusing my deal - a deal that did include compensation - they effectively committed suicide.

Believe it or not, I'm not a warmonger at heart. I have come to relish the power of the dark side, but even now, once I am confident of my position, I will halt my bloodthirsty hordes and play nice... if I could (this assumes, of course, that I have properly safeguarded my reputation by wiping out all who know of my transgressions). But I can't. Once powerful, I cannot get a decent deal. That's really only tenable until the early industrial age. Once hospitals come around, I need those luxuries, folks.

I have come to think of it as a cost benifit analysis. The cost of trading for a luxury: all of my luxuries, some tech, my map, and a large gpt amount - OR - a 5 to 10 war of aggression which I will win easily, perhaps gaining a great leader or two. Gee Gomer, what should I do?

-Arrian

alva · October 10, 2002, 10:45

What you are discribing is probably the last big problem with civ3, at least in SP.

But it gonna be very hard to solve this problem.
There is no point in having an AI that gives away everything for not.

If it would just be a little smarter in defending.
Or knowing when to give in

cracker · October 10, 2002, 10:53

The side effect of having the AI players so handicapped by the software that they cannot trade with you is that the game becomes increasingly monolithic --- everyone else must die.

If there is no value to having a good reputation and good relationships with your neighbors then the only value they have is as potential points on the map to use to generate great leaders.

The Luxury trade imbalance is just the prime indicator that Captain Smith is back at helm of the Titanic.

Arrian's examples are right on track with mine and what I think is missing in the equation that the AI uses to evaluate the trade is some sort of relative percentage assessment. When I have six luxuries and am trying to trade for luxury number seven in a marketplace world, then I will be adding eight happy faces to go with the 14 happy faces I already have. If the AI only has 2 luxuries they have two happy faces and if I trade them 4 luxuries they will gain 12 new happy faces which is a 600% increase compared to my gain of just over 50%. yes I have more peopel and more cities to benefit fron teh gain, but tough toenails. There is some value in the porcess of being involved in a trade and this seems to have been thrown out the window again with the V1.29 patch.

I even have thsi same stupid problem wher I am the only trading partner the AI can possibley trade with. The other civs are across an ocean that is impassable and untradeable to the AI but I can cross because I am technologically advanced. They stille will not trade for gross mismatches or 5 or 6 to 1.

SpencerH · October 10, 2002, 10:53

I think an improvement would be for republic or democratic civs to have "favored trading status" that would be more likely to result in 1-1 luxury trading. After all, trade is one of the hallmarks of those civs.

planetfall · October 10, 2002, 11:56

Or could increase odds of 1:1 trades by percent of marketplaces in civ. Doesn't it make sense if more cities have marketplaces, luxuries will be traded more?

--PF

Arrian · October 10, 2002, 12:30

There is another problem with this.

I have discovered that, if I neither wish to invade a civ or pay its outrageous demands (typically the case if the AI civ in question is relatively strong), the best policy is to simply sell them my luxuries for as much gpt as possible. This has 2 effects: 1) I gain gold, and can afford a higher luxury rate; and 2) I drain their treasury.

This is the best method of dealing with the top AI civ. Meanwhile, I pick off the weaker ones and take their luxuries... allowing me to sell more and more stuff to the top AI civ. This will bankrupt them and result in a large tech lead for me, so that when the time comes for a showdown, I will most likely have far superior weaponry.

-Arrian

ThaddeusAlexander · October 10, 2002, 13:09

Instead of starting a thread, I just wanted to drop something here because its along the same lines.

I give an AI civ thats cautious with a my World Maps as a token of whatever to make them a little nicer to me ... but what happens? they drop to ANNOYED! WHA????

It happened to me again just this morning ... I gave an opponent who was polite a tech because i want a gracious ally one day, but they dropped from polite to annoyed !! ARGH!!!

I want to know whats happening!

*sigh*

Cheers
~Thadalex

ThaddeusAlexander · October 10, 2002, 13:11

Just to add on ... I know this happens when I used to give a civ a city that i conquered just because it was remote and useless and I know it was useless ... I guess the AI did too ... but how could they find a tech useless?

The best I can fathom is that they think I want them to be friendly with me and they don't like that idea?

Cheers
~Thadalex

Arrian · October 10, 2002, 13:58

Now that does sound odd... the attitude change occurred immediately?

-Arrian

ThaddeusAlexander · October 10, 2002, 14:18

It did happen immediately. I know the AI can glitch or maybe percieve good things as bad because of whatever situation, but is the AI capable of this following train of information "This player declaired war on someone before after he game them a gift at one point. Now he's giving me the gift. Logically, he will now declare war on me" ???

It just doesn't seem right to me.

Cheers
~Thadalex

Arrian · October 10, 2002, 14:43

Did you give them a tech that allowed the knowledge/use of a strategic resource you have and they don't?

That's the only thing I can think of.

-Arrian

Randolph · October 10, 2002, 15:22

Diplomacy in general seems to eroded as the game goes on… sometimes it seems like the whole world gets piss at me for no readily apparent reason. It seems that in the long term the AI can’t be trusted or dealt with peacefully, if you want it you have to take it.
Particularly once you become a superpower everyone seems to just hate you.. well I guess it’s just not much of a world peace game (not unless you want to be the world’s bi*ch).