HUGE diplomacy bug

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 05:50

Here is a HUGE BUG I have noticed with PTW 1.04f (patch 1.14f still not work for me

) in single-player.

In the diplomacy screen, I asked "What do you want for Printing Press ?".
They wanted a 450 gold lump sum.
I wanted to make a counter-proposal and started by adding a WINE resource on the table.
And then my advisor said "They would never accept such a deal" !!!

So, the situation is:
THE AI ACCEPT A DEAL FOR 450 GOLD, BUR REFUSE IT FOR 450 GOLD + 1 RESSOURCE

More generally, the AI sometimes refuses some deals that are better than other deals he accepts.

PS: I am from Belgium, I apologize for my mistakes in English.

Raion · December 1, 2002, 05:55

Ah, I think that's the way it plays.

I like to think of it as, the AI wants this, and only this!

It is like questioning the human player, why it would want to give more?

Maybe reputation or something for the AI Civilization.

Raion · December 1, 2002, 05:57

It may be also trading with someone else, so it can not use the resource. Only the first resource of the same type will keep a Civilization happy. It does not use more than 1 of the resource -- like wine. If you have 4 wines, only the first wine will make your Civilization happy, the others would have to be traded to an AI Civilization that does not have wine.

So if the AI Civ has already one of the wines, yours would be no good to them, and must be an insult to them.

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 06:09

Thank you for your quick response Raion, but the AI had no WINE !!!
In fact, if he had WINE, it would be impossible for me to propose WINE (grayed) to him.

The same BUG also occured with AI refusing an IRON (that he hadn't) in addition to the things he wanted.

Zero-Tau · December 1, 2002, 06:22

Have you broken a deal involving gpt og resources before? If so, the AI civs will never accept you paying resources or gpt, under any circumstances.

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 06:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero-Tau
Have you broken a deal involving gpt og resources before? If so, the AI civs will never accept you paying resources or gpt, under any circumstances.

I don't think so.

In the game I am playing, the AI often prefer a deal to another that is better, but always when a ressource is added to the "best" offer.

I have declared war to the germans (via diplomacy screen) because they refused to give me something I asked. I was having a deal with them (a FUR for a WINE) when war was declared. Is that a reason for such a strange reaction from all the AIs ???

Zero-Tau · December 1, 2002, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by l.galant
I have declared war to the germans (via diplomacy screen) because they refused to give me something I asked. I was having a deal with them (a FUR for a WINE) when war was declared. Is that a reason for such a strange reaction from all the AIs ???

Yes, if less than 20 turns had passed since you made the deal, then that could very well be the reason. The AI no longer trusts that you will keep your deals for the agreed 20 turns.

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero-Tau

Yes, if less than 20 turns had passed since you made the deal, then that could very well be the reason. The AI no longer trusts that you will keep your deals for the agreed 20 turns.

I have tested.

There is now more than 30 turns that war with the Germans is finished.
A war initiated against me by the Zulus (because I refused to gave them IRON for free) is also finished and I have a peace treaty with them for more than 20 turns.

But, India still propose to sell "Republic" for 490 gold + World map, but refuse the deal if I add to this HORSE, WINE, SPICE and IVORY !!!

It seems that resources have a negative impact on the value of a deal for the AI, except in deal "a resource for another one".

Ozborn · December 1, 2002, 11:39

This is definitely a HUGE diplomacy bug. It does appear to be due to breaking previous agreements, but regardless the AI should never complains when you promise to give them more. Admittedly the AI could believe you are going to break the deal, and they would rather try to get the resource from somebody else a few turns later but this isn't what is going on. I've seen this bug countless times and I don't think any effort has been made to fix it. Maybe now that multiplayer actually works they might get to it?

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozborn
This is definitely a HUGE diplomacy bug.
...
I've seen this bug countless times and I don't think any effort has been made to fix it. Maybe now that multiplayer actually works they might get to it?

Have you seen this bug only in PTW or also in Civ3 ?

I have stopped my game, because this bug prevent me from playing my strategy : control and sell the resources, which I was trying for the first time.
(In fact I wasn't in a good situation, even without the bug

. I was trying the Vikings at Emperor level, 7 random AI civs, restless barbarians, standard map, everything else random and I had not a good start).

Zero-Tau · December 1, 2002, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by l.galant
There is now more than 30 turns that war with the Germans is finished.
A war initiated against me by the Zulus (because I refused to gave them IRON for free) is also finished and I have a peace treaty with them for more than 20 turns.

I think you misunderstood me. The time that has passed since the end of your wars is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of turns from you sign the fur-wine deal with the Germans, till you declare war on them. If this is less than 20, then you are considered a deal breaker.

But I do agree that it's silly to refuse a deal after it's gotten better.

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero-Tau
I think you misunderstood me. The time that has passed since the end of your wars is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of turns from you sign the fur-wine deal with the Germans, till you declare war on them. If this is less than 20, then you are considered a deal breaker.

Yes, I misunderstood you.

So you mean that :
IF (you have a commercial deal with someone) AND (you declare war against him)
THEN (all the AI civs will always refuse resources and "gold per turn" from you, except against resources of their own).

I didn't realize that while playing civ3 (not PTW), but I am not used to declare war.

Zero-Tau · December 1, 2002, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by l.galant

So you mean that :
IF (you have a commercial deal with someone) AND (you declare war against him)
THEN (all the AI civs will always refuse resources and "gold per turn" from you, except against resources of their own).

Yes.
I'm not sure about the "always" part, though. And remember: this only happens if:
1: the deal requires you to deliver something every turn (resource or gold) and
2: the deal is cancelled before 20 turns has passed. After 20 turns, you can cancel the deal without any reputation hit. (Declaring war may affect your reputation, but not specifically related to "per turn" deals.)

Oh, and my information is from Civ3 without PtW, but I haven't heard anything about a change of this.

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 17:47

Thank you for your responses Zero-Tau.

I think there is a bug, but it seems to be not so huge (it's silly to refuse a deal after it's gotten better as you said).

So, a "control and sell resources" strategy is more difficult to apply than I thought.
You have to control resources before the AIs (which is difficult at levels above regent), or to avoid commercial deals -that requires you to deliver something every turn- when you are not sure to manage to control a wanted ressource without a war.

But, let's see things from the good point of view: you can turn this into an "avoid war" strategy.
If you manage to maintain such a deal -but one that requires THE AI to deliver something every turn to you- than the AI will probably not declare war to you

So, it can be better to control a few types of luxury-ressources than to control many ones. This will allow you to have many deals with AI-luxuries and they will not go in war against you to avoid breaking the deals. But you must have something to propose for the deals, so you must control as many as possible luxuries of only a few types.
(But maybe am I mad

)

De Gaulle · December 1, 2002, 19:50

Galant,

As mentionned by Zero-Tau this is not a bug but a feature of the diplomacy system. And I like it, even if it makes me suffer some times.

But you can try to work your way around it. Basically, while the AI will refuse most (any?) deal where it gives you something NOW for a payment PER TURN, you will be able to do per turn/per turn deals or sell him something now (tech/map) and get paid per turn (luxury/ressource/gold).

Usually you can still get what you want most of the time. The only problem I can see is that the AI will demand that you pay cash when it sells you a tech.

l.galant · December 1, 2002, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by De Gaulle
As mentionned by Zero-Tau this is not a bug but a feature of the diplomacy system.

OK, but accepting a deal and refusing the same deal + something/turn is not logical.
They may be suspicious, but not stupid.
In the worst case, the interest of a deal must be inchanged when something is added.

And what do you think of my idea : "force the AI in per turn promises, so they will not declare war" ?

De Gaulle · December 1, 2002, 21:39

OK, I can see what you mean by saying it's illogical to have the AI accept deal X and refuse deal X + luxury. I agree with you on this.

I am guessing the AI has been coded to behave this way so as not to be fooled again by an opponent. It does seem a bit overboard for me, but the bottom line is that if you have broken treaties/trades you need to suffer consequences of some kind. The hit you take in reputation and the added difficulty in trading are fair consequences I think.

On the issue of trading to avoid war, I think it's commonly acknowledged in this forum that trading brings you friends and enhances your reputation. But more to the point, I often set up deals with AIs looking threatening and always include a gpt component in these trades (even only 1gpt). The purpose for me is to a) dissuade the AI to attack me
b) if it still attacks, it hurts its reputation and creates trading difficulties for my new ennemy.

I am pretty sure to have read this somewhere before, and other people probably use it as well.

Switch · December 1, 2002, 22:49

There are bugs beyond that, though. Apparently 20g traded for 20g would insult the AI

I've heard of some stupider stuff, though

Boracks · December 2, 2002, 10:38

Yup, I've run into this as well. But then if I turn around and ask what they'd offer for ivory (for example), then they usually come back and offer cash per turn.

As for 20gp for 20 gp, I'd feel insulted - it looks like you're insulting my intelligence (assuming you found it

).

I think diplomacy has improved in PTW although still nowhere near SMAC level. And it still suffers from "You're human so we hate you" syndrom.

Zero-Tau · December 2, 2002, 10:39

In case Soren is reading this thread, here is an idea:

Suppose your credibility as a trade has been ruined the way we spoke of. Then you might suggest the following deal to the AI:

AI gives: X
You give: Y + luxury and/or gpt

where X and Y are techs, maps, and/or lump sum of gold.
The AI would then accept this only if it would accept this deal:

AI gives: X
You give: Y

that is, the immediate payments are enough to pay for X.
Furthermore, if you keep the deal all 20 turns, the AI will reevaluate your credibility, and might accept per turn deals with you later.

This wouldn't give rise to exploits, because you'd have to spend something extra to convince the AI.

Coracle · December 3, 2002, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Zero-Tau
Have you broken a deal involving gpt og resources before? If so, the AI civs will never accept you paying resources or gpt, under any circumstances.

I had hoped this Diplomatic stupidity with reputation hits had been fixed with PTW - apparently not.

We went over this many times earlier this year. First of all, you often get blamed for something you never did, or something extremely minor. Then, civs you haven't met for a thousand years still hate you for it. Which is absurd.

As a result, they wil not do trade deals with you - no matter how great the deal is for THEM!! It makes no sense whatsoever, like so much of Civ 3.

I would have a nice deal set AND AS A FREE BONUS I would offer the other civ up to six resources. No charge; just a bonus. Be happy and enjoy! THE STUPID BRAINDEAD AI REFUSES THE DEAL AND INSULTS ME!

All this is why I hate the Civ 3 AI, and you've just given me a good reason never to get PTW unless it is packaged free with something else.

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
I would have a nice deal set AND AS A FREE BONUS I would offer the other civ up to six resources. No charge; just a bonus. Be happy and enjoy! THE STUPID BRAINDEAD AI REFUSES THE DEAL AND INSULTS ME!

Well, this has been discussed before, but I'll let you guess. Why does the AI accept instantaneous deals, but reject seemingly better deals when a per turn offer is thrown in?

Got it yet?

C'mon, I'm sure you know this one... it's pretty obvious...

Nakar Gabab · December 3, 2002, 02:48

No really, Coracle does have a point here (Oh God, I can't believe I said it!).

You *do* often get blamed for deals YOU didn't break. Hell, you get broken for deals you had NOTHING to do with. If an opponent defaults on a deal because all the other civs are kicking his ass, guess who gets the reputation hit?

You got it. The human. If you move a stupid galley across a trade route early in the game you might also get tagged for "breaking deals."

And let's not forget the old favorite "We know Leader X has betrayed our friends Civ Y," in the case where Civ Y waged unparalleled and uncalled-for war *against* Civ X. The game does not seem to care who actually STARTS the whole mess.

Cyclotron · December 3, 2002, 02:53

I didn't quote Coracle on the AI blame. I agree that that is a problem. I am talking about his problem with the AI rejecting seemingly good deals that were acceptable before he added a per turn deal.

There is a very good and reasonable explaination for it.

Nakar Gabab · December 3, 2002, 03:43

Well, I'm definitely not going to argue with you there. On the other hand, why NOT accept a deal for FIXED QUANTITY + PER-TURN?

I mean, let's look at this from my perspective as a (hopefully) rational human being. I'm willing to take a deal for FIXED QUANTITY. I'll be perfectly happy with FIXED QUANTITY, whatever that happens to be.

Someone comes along and offers me FIXED QUANTITY, which I'm great with. They also offer me PER-TURN. Now, the AI reacts as follows:

"Per-turn deal? Are you KIDDING me? You're going to backstab me and cancel the payment!"

I would react to it as follows:

"Per-turn deal? You're a dirty backstabbing cheat, but I'll take it anyway and avoid you as long as I can. You turn on me, oh well, I still got FIXED QUANTITY, sucker!"

So again, this is an AI matter. It's rational for them not to accept per-turn deals if they've got reason to think you'll break the deal early, but why can't it be equally rational to take MORE than you want, no matter what it is, and just consider it gravy if you actually get to ride the whole deal out? In fact, such deals should, if successful, restore a good deal of trust in the AI's eyes.

What we've got, basically, is diplomatic shortcutting. The AI looks at a per-turn deal as bad if your reputation's been trashed (whether your doing or not), rather than evaluate each situation somewhat differently. I realize you can't do EVERYTHING, but surely you can code the AI to understand (What I Want) + (Anything Else) = (GREAT Deal).

Cyclotron · December 4, 2002, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Nakar Gabab
Well, I'm definitely not going to argue with you there. On the other hand, why NOT accept a deal for FIXED QUANTITY + PER-TURN?

Elementary, my dear Nakar.

A per turn deal doesn't just mean a per turn deal: really, it's a treaty too. If you break a per-turn treaty, your rep gets a hit. Thus, if the AI signs a per turn deal, it now faces a penalty for breaking it.

Situations change, especially in 20 turns. I have declared peace with a civ jsut to find that 8 turns later, a war with them would be really useful... but I have to wait. In addition, lots of per turn deals means that if I am dragged into a war via MPP or border violation, I'm going to take the rep fall for that incident. Per turn deals take away my room to maneuver.

In my games, the AI tends to be big on MPPs, and even bigger on sudden backstabbing... both of which are quite likely to break per turn deals, and soil reputations. It makes perfect sense that the AI would reject per turn deals in many situations... many times I myself would refuse such a deal. That is, if I cared about my reputation.