|
Author
|
|
Topic: Greedy tech-trading AI thumb-rules needed |  |
|
Ralf
Prince
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
 |
posted January 11, 2001 15:06
  | 
 |
 |  |
In the old Civ-1 game, any AI-CIV that was building a Wonder could happily trade away that same Wonder-allowing tech to the human player, before his wonder was finished. This was eventually fixed in Civ-2. 1: A Wonder-building Civ-3 AI-civ should never trade away neither that wonder-allowing tech, nor its nearest prerequisite, to the human player. Ever! But, why stop there? Here some greedy tech-trading thumb-rules, that also should be incorporated in Civ-3: 2: Even if the AI-civ currently dont build any wonders, he should never trade away any still potent Wonder-allowing techs to the human player, without asking for non-negotionable extras. - Non-ceased Wonder-allowing tech, that no AI-civ is currently work on. AI-civ demands 2 techs for 1.
- Non-ceased Wonder-allowing tech, that another AI-civ is currently working on. AI-civ demands 3 techs for 1.
- Some few extra important key-techs (any suggestions?). AI-civ demands 2 techs for 1. I want to place the burden on the human player here, so the second thumb-rule shoudnt apply between AI-civs - only between AI-civ and the human player - and only for the human player.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 11, 2001).] |
zyxpsilon
Warlord
Laval,Quebec,Canada
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted January 11, 2001 23:54
 |
|
| |
Since Wonders have "overall" impact on game mechanics; trading, say, prereq's for GreatLib would also mean wasting the path needed to gain -common- techs of still to be discovered advantages by the human player OR ai's.
Negotiating "fair" exchanges of strategic prereq's then becomes an edging factor between "aiming at a goal AND have the AI's reach that goal for the HP".
Values of key Wonders like LeoWorkshop greatly increases the asking prices for the equivalent techs, IF the Ai's builds it first.
Would a human player trade "gunpowder" for "conscription" knowing that one Ai's has refused to let it go AFTER Darwin's wonder is almost ready to be purchased instead of next-turn-built?Some key research is worth much more than two tech's.
Negotiations should reflect that, i agree. |
JosefGiven
Settler
Okehampton,Devon,UK
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 13, 2001 12:29
|
|
| |
You have a point, but, if I may say so, not a particularly Earth shattering one...Yes, what you say is valid about the change in AI attitude concerning Wonder-specific advances from Civ I to Civ II. But does it really matter whether the computer trades them off, as long as it gets something in return? What matters to the would-be Wonder-builder, is whether or not he/she has the industrial output to compete with other civs going for the same Wonder... After all, if I was confident my industrial capacity far outstripped that of other civs, I would trade off all the top Wonder-permitting advances without breaking into a sweat. Perhaps, then, the AIs willingness to trade Wonder-permitting techs should be directly related to it's industrial base...There's a thought  ------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com
|
Crustacian
Prince
North Idaho PST
Jul 1999
|
|
posted January 13, 2001 12:40
 |
|
| |
And it says that sneaking caravans in during time of war is good. But maybe it should not generate anything more than the initial cash/beaker bonus from the "smuggling venture.
I mean who really would openly trade when at war with someone?
------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus |
Ralf
Prince
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted January 13, 2001 14:05
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-13-2001 12:29 PM
You have a point, but, if I may say so, not a particularly Earth shattering one...
|
I agree. It isnt the most important idea that i ever come across. Nevertheless. quote:
After all, if I was confident my industrial capacity far outstripped that of other civs, I would trade off all the top Wonder-permitting advances without breaking into a sweat.
|
I think Firaxis should avoid as much as possible to cram too many factors into AI decision-making. Most of us have practical Civ-2/SMAC/CTP/CTP-2 gameplay experience of how bad the AI can exploit buckloads of confusing choices, dont we? I say above AI tech-trade rules should be "chiseled in stone": By that i mean always the same and non-negotionable. They should only changeable through the text tweak-files. There are far more urgent and important things that the AI-programmers must concentrate on.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 13, 2001).] |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted January 13, 2001 21:05
 |
|
| |
The AI should not trade techs to a civ that is not an ally, or is at peace with them but with over 50% likeability | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
