Trading weirdness -- a little more documentation

from Stardock Forums
At Frogboy's prompting, I did a little more testing on the diplomacy. Here are the parameters of the game:

Tiny map, Habitable planets rare, all AI players set to Intelligent. Gametime is March, 2179 (turn 15)

In particular, I wanted to find the AI as soon as possible and try to eliminate the variable of rush-building colony ships.

I researched Comm Theory and Universal Translator and tried to time it with my first AI encounter. I encountered the Torians and planted my colony ship near their homeworld. They have one planet and I have two. They have apparently stumbled across a Battle Axe.

In addition, they have clearly been accelerating their research (which is good to know) because they already know Defense Theory, Medical Theory, Propulsion Theory and Weapons Theory. So that means they completed research on 4 techs in 15 turns. That's not hard to do, but they only have 307 BC left, so I'm guessing that they also rush-bought Soil Enrichment.

I chose to pursue a conservative strategy so that I would still have plenty a BC to test the trade AI.

The screen shot shows me offering a cash-for-cash deal, with the Torians turning down my offer of 525 BC for their 307 BC. Even though my "incredible ability in diplomacy gives me a great advantage", I am nevertheless unable to convince them to take an easy and free profit of 218 BC. It just doesn't seem like a very good deal for them. LOL

And since the Torians also had four techs I was missing, I tried trading for them. Here are the deals that the AI considered to be even:

Comm Theory = Weapon Theory + 39 BC
Comm Theory = Propulsion Theory + 39 BC
Comm Theory + 31 BC = Medical Theory
Comm Theory + 745 BC = Defense Theory LOL

So obviously when I criticized the trade AI in an earlier post, I mistakenly assumed that the overvaluation of Defense Theory was representative of the other deals. Instead, it seems that I randomly latched onto the worst possible example. The other trades seem to be pretty reasonable.

So, at this point, it seems like there are still two notable problems. One is the obviously exaggerated valuation of Defense Theory.

Secondly is the clear imbalance in favor of the AI on deals where even the variability of tech evaluations is eliminated.

For my 63 influence points, they will only give 4.
For my 100 BC, they will only give 55.
For my 20 BC, they will give 10 influence points.
But for my 63 influence points, they will only give 3 BC.

And keep in mind that these deals are what I would get when my diplomacy supposedly gives me a GREAT ADVANTAGE. :notsure:

Now it could be that the trading weirdness is restricted to BC, influence and Defense Theory. But the point is that it looks very suspicious.

I take Brad at his word when he says that the AI (at Intelligent level) will play by the same rules as the human with a few documented exceptions. And that is really what this is about. If Brad intends for the trading AI to be an uneven playing field against the humans, then that's OK with me. But if his intent is for the AI and player to use the same rules when trading, then this looks like a bug. And that is the purpose of this post: to point out a potential bug. :(

If anyone thinks this is all just different tech valuations, I am confident that I could get about a 4-tech lead over the AI in 15 turns and see if he offers me the same deals that he insists on from me.
903 views 41 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
oops, here is the screenshot:

http://www.astrosdaily.com/temp/cheese.jpg

I also have the saved game if its needed.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I thought about this a while, 'cause it seems if the calls for "balanced" trading were implemented, it would instantly be too easy. For example, most people are focusing on trade with one race (I don't get crap for my tech/item, etc), but always keep in mind there are 5+ races to trade with - if the trades were "fair" and you could repeat it 5 times, then you'd get the cheese wins with trades. Don't get me wrong: I'm not claiming this is Brad's reasoning, and I don't have an easy solution to this (only one I can think of is to make the AI understand the nuances of every variation - not very practical a solution).

Look at it this way: humans are notoriously sly, and the aliens know this. So, they are reluctant to be talked into anything "fair" for fear it will backfire (heh, I don't know about you, but I always make sure it backfires on them).

My last game I was about to blitz an alien who was allied with my neighbor, so I built up enough defenses while I positioned my attack fleet. Then, instead of simply attacking to cause war, I went to my neighbor and had him PAY me 2 ships and some money to declare war on his own ally! Then the second my neighbor had to declare war on me (because of the alliance he had), I used his own ships to mop up the transports in his backfield. That's the kind of stuff that earns us humans a bad rap, so I don't blame the aliens for not trading fairly. ;)

~SDC~
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Are the AIs using the same evaluation when trading with each other? If so, it seems that no two AIs are able to trade anything with each other, because the another AI always offers only trades fair for itself, which the other AIs never accept.

?
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
"- if the trades were "fair" and you could repeat it 5 times, then you'd get the cheese wins with trades"

That is an exploit that should be handled separately. There are certainly ways to address it without giving the AI an automatic trade advantage against the human - if that is indeed what is happening here.

It's kind of like saying that since humans plan better, you should give the AIs a 40% production bonus or let them see the entire map from the beginning.

Plenty of 4X games *have* done things like that, but then again they don't make the same AI claims as GalCiv.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Do they trade differently depending on how happy they are with you? Also does your alignment make a difference? If it's a warmongering race then I could quite understand it wouldn't want to give you the ability to defend against it's attacks. Do all races have the same value system? You have to given enough evidence in the information above. There needs to be a breakdown of what happens if you try to trade the same thing with each race to show that there really is something wrong.

~SDC~
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Sigh i already replied in the other post, so wont in here. I personally would rather Frogboy spent his time adding some of the "Suggestions" to the game, rather that fixing a diplomatic Cheese theory every day, this is making a maountin out of a molehill, Def Theory takes one turn to research your self after you set up a few planets its not game breaking, its even logical as the AI is always loath to part with techs that enable us to get a military force against him.

Whilst i repect your right to report this, i would prefer the Dev's spent their time on game enhancing features.

~SDC~
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
"Whilst i repect your right to report this, i would prefer the Dev's spent their time on game enhancing features. "

But see, it's not just Defense Theory. At any point in every game I've played, I can see an imbalance. The only problem is that later in the game there are so many variables in play that it's easy to dismiss as being caused by something else.

But at turn 15 it's pretty clear that the AI is being given an edge.

Frogboy suggested going back and trying this again. I did that. One of the biggest selling points to this game for me was that the AI plays by the same rules as the person. I find an example where this does not seem to be the case and now I am a troll for reporting it! :notsure:

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
It depends... do you turn to stone when exposed to sunlight? If so you should be concerned.

Look: The AI don't get's a building on turn 20 unlike in other 4X games. If you destroy one of it's bases he it'll hurt him. You can give him money and he'll use it. He won't get colonies by chance, but he has - as you - to build a colony ship, find a planet and then colonize this planet. He can't use human brain, like we all can, he won't settle something lower than 15 unless it's strategically extremely important, etc. therefore he gets an advantage in seeing the yellow stars. (I think this one should be optionable but anyway.)

I can live with this well reportet "flaw", because I know, if I give him 500 this will help him, if I destroy his planet it'll hurt him.

Now regarding tech trading. There are people who say, that it's cheese that you can tech trade wildly and therefore get much money, but then, if the AI knows that communication theory is more important than weapons theory (in the beginning), and therefore want's a bit more of you, others are complaining. I don't know why you are complaining?! If this was multiplayer, do you really believe someone gives you defense theory cheaply, if he doesn't know what you're doing next? I know, that I don't trade theese techs to the AI, so I'm not so surprised, that he won't trade it to you neither.

And about the trolls, it's not trolly to report flaws (if there are any), so that we can discuss, everything well - but it is definately trolly to say thinks like "but then they don't make the same AI claims" and other disrespectful accusations.

Report, wait, if there's an answer think about, if not, live with it - or go back to Moo3. Have fun thereby...
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
How is the AI getting an edge?

You can research the tech in one turn.

The AI values military techs highly.

~SDC~
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Also what other techs??

Try researching Advanced trade, or cultural Trade, the AI is willing to give 3 or 4 techs for it, or large sums of money per turn.

~SDC~
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Thongor,

I for one am interested in the results you are getting. The testing that you are doing will provide insights on how the AI handles trading, and will give players valuable information they can use to their benefit in the game. If you have the time, I would love to see the results you get from different races, and the deals you are offered when you don't have a diplomatic advantage.

I am not trying to cast blame on the developers for the way the AI plays the game. I want to see the most effective way to play against it, and get a feel for where best to place my starting attribute points.

Keep up the good work!

DblDamage
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
DblDamage,
thx for the comment. At least I've made some progress. Yesterday the problem was a non-existent figment of my imagination caused by my lack of playing time. ;) Today it's just not big enough to worry about.

I think the issue is tied to who approaches whom. If the AI approaches you, the deals are a lot more balanced than if you approach the AI.

Even in the late game when you are dominating, there's a difference. I recall a game where I was trashing one of the AIs and decided to make peace and clean him out. However, he refused to give me anything beyond peace-for-peace. But about 2-3 turns later after I destroyed one of his constructors, he approached me and offered peace-for-peace. But that time, I was able to clean him out of all of his techs, money and influence after declining his deal.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
I just want to point out that weapons tech is NOT a one turn research until mid-game on a small map.

M
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
@Thongor
I have to apologize – my last two post haven’t been respectful. It's just that many people say "the AI cheats" because they don't understand how it works. In a first glance I thought you’d be among them, and hence my apologies. After re-reading your posts I’m aware now, that you just want to enhance the AI, which is surely a noble ambition.

Although I think you should take into consideration, that maybe the AI knows why he want’s that much of you. Resembling what I said above, I wouldn’t trade Defense Theory cheaply neither.

So I’m with DblDamage here, keep up your reports on the trading values, it sure IS interesting for all of us (even the ignorant bunch’s like me ;)), but stay careful with rejecting the results. Perhaps there is a reason for them.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Malleus,
Weapons Tech and all of the other beginning techs can be researched in 2 turns at the beginning of the game. It seems to cost 34 BC in research like all of the other beginning techs. Universal Translator is only 17 BC and can be picked up in one turn after you get Comm Theory. All you need to do is raise your tax rate and spending at the beginning of the game.

Your morale (and pop growth) will drop as a result, but it's an easy way to get techs if you need them right away.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
Personally I ignore everything else and go straight for the most questionable choices that the AI made in the given screenshot.

It doesn't matter to me that the player can get Xtech later and trade better etc. I don't see that as the prime issue here. The tech issue is aside to what appears to be something more broken.

Putting it simply.

There is no rational reason why the AI should refuse a deal that exchanges money for money where they benefit.

That alone says something isn't quite right. And if it isn't quite right there, what else is being influenced?

Granted diplomacy is probably one of the hard parts of the game, but that doesn't mean we should accept that and let it slide because of it.
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
I Think Throngor is onto something here. Take this example I just tested:

The Arcaens initiated a trade with me (they are "neutral" to me right now and we have approximately the same amount of military force), asking for 1D phasing in exchange for artificial gravity. I declined the trade then immediately made the same offer back. He refused. I then added all the techs I had at that time to the deal - a total of 6 technologies for controlled gravity, and they offer was still refused.

I think this illustrates Throngor's point. I supposed it's conceivable that since I refused the AI's first offer, they got mad and refused my subsequent offers, but I don't think so. Even if that is the case, it's irrational behavior for the AI - refusing 6 decent technologies (including one he obviously wants) just because moments before I refused one trade.

More likely, in my opinion, is that the AI uses different routines for initiating trades as opposed to responding to trade requests, and these routines are out of sync. I think this is "bug" or something that should be looked at.

Just my 2 cents
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
quick apologies. thongor = uruguru.

The latter is my old pre-Stardock ID that was still logged onto my work PC. I have cleared out that cookie to make them consistent.

I apologize if this has caused any confusion on this thread.
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
thongor: the AI isn't getting any "advantage" here. It's not a cheat, and it's not playing by different rules than the human player. It's simply being an obstructive prick, just like the player can be.

You offer the AI a trade, and it says, in effect, "no, I'm not getting enough out of the deal for it to be worth my while". That's it's assessment of the deal, and whether or not YOU think it's worth its while is irrelevant. When the AI comes to you and offers you a trade, you have the ability to do the EXACT SAME THING -- refuse the deal because it isn't sufficiently biased in your favour. In other words, you're playing by the same rules: there is no imbalance or advantage for the AI, as you can be just as much of a prick as it is.

You have a couple valid points, in that there are some logic issues with the trading AI, but it's not an imbalance, cheat, or example of the AI playing by different rules. It shouldn't refuse that straight cash-for-cash deal; I think that's an unintentional side effect of the code that tells the AI to have a bad hair day whenever the human player initiates a trade (and that bad hair day is perfectly reasonable: since the AI has expressed no interest in the trade -- if it was interested, it would have come to you and offered you a decent deal -- why should it be accomodating about it?). I would like to see that fixed, but I can see how it would take some time to build in the code that would differentiate between no-lose trade scenarios (like cash-for-cash deals) and ones that have subjective valuations (like tech deals).

Your other valid complaint is the misleading nature of the diplomacy descriptions ("great advantage", etc.). Phrases like "great advantage" suggest that the human player will get a better than even deal. In reality, however, all it's doing is moving you closer TO getting an even deal (i.e. reducing the amount above and beyond "even" that the AI insists on having before it will make a deal). That text should be reworded, but as long as you understand what it means, and don't get hung up on what it actually says, it isn't a terribly big deal.

Also, you should keep in mind that morality and your relationship with the AI affect your trades. You may have a "great advantage" in diplomacy, but if the AI in question hates your guts, it's not going to give you a fair shake.

In short, there ARE flaws in the trading AI and mechanisms, but they don't contradict Stardock's "the AI doesn't cheat" claims the way you say they do.

- Ash

~SDC~
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
"It's simply being an obstructive prick, just like the player can be. "

I am no programer but could someone plz post the psuedo code for this algorith, could help me improve my abilities in RL too.
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
Great Post, Asharak.

When the AI really wants something I have, he'll come to me
and initiate a deal. (And when he does he tends to offer a
pretty good deal because he knows he's getting exactly what
he wants). Similarly, when I go to the AI and initiate a
trade, I'm the one who really wants something and it's
reasonable for the AI to make me pay for. I completely
agree with Asharak when he says that it's not "cheating" or
"unfair" to give the AI the oppertunity to refuse a "fair"
trade which I initiate. (I have seen no evidence to suggest
that things are any different when two AIs trade with each
... That is, in all cases, the initiator is expected to pay
a bit more).

That being said ... It definately seems that Defense Theory is
a bit over-valued ... and of course refusing cash for cash
trades is just silly. However, on the whole, I think the
diplomacy system works pretty well. It's possible to make money
by trading the AI things it wants or needs and the AI is
unwilling to pay top dollar for things it doesn't feel it needs.

- Matt Lepinski :->
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
Asharak,

"It's simply being an obstructive prick, just like the player can be. "

I understand what you are suggesting, but I think that's a copout unless the AIs are being "obstructive pricks" when they are dealing with each other. Maybe Brad can confirm that the obstructive prick algorithm is used in all AI-to-AI dealings.

I'm guessing it wouldn't take me too long to test it out on a Tiny map.

Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
thongor,

You better have 100% bulletproof examples or you will be shot down out of hand. When someone produces a good trainer that lists there production on each planet ect then it will be easier to pin down with proof, untill then be ready for a huge number of people to call you a troll
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
thongor,

while i find your posts regarding the diplo AI informative and understand your complaint, the last thing i want in this game is for the diplomacy to become any more of a cash cow. i *almost* feel guilty milking those minor (and weaker major) civs dry. i think the only reason my spend slider isn't always at 100% is because i'm too lazy to constantly swap techs and trade goods. btw this is playing on all "incredible" AI.

i prefer that the AI be "an obstructive prick" as asharak so charmingly put it.

and yes...defense theory is bizarrely overvalued, but that's just a quirk.

cheers

h