Trading for lump sum of Gold requires Friendship

[stealth_nsk]

Obviously I was saying about current situation, which needs to be rebalanced.

Yes, and we could be almost sure it's already rebalanced

 

[headcase]

It's a bit of a kludge compared to the AI assessing the value of gold based on their need for it (for purchasing, city states, etc), but a lot better than nothing - in vanilla\G+K it's flawed enough that I only do it if lux-for-lux isn't an option.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think this is a good, smart change. There's an odd thing where the AI overvalues its gpt and undervalues yours (fwiw, I think gpt should be worth slightly less than a lump sum either way), but that's a minor tweak if necessary.

I am concerned about the Dutch. I already think they have an annoying overlap with the Arabs and were undercut by the Portuguese. This too makes me think they need a little bit more. That being said, the Sea Beggar is awesome, so that might very well be enough to compensate for everything.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I am concerned about the Dutch. I already think they have an annoying overlap with the Arabs and were undercut by the Portuguese. This too makes me think they need a little bit more. That being said, the Sea Beggar is awesome, so that might very well be enough to compensate for everything.

I hope for some change in Dutch:

1. They are too eclectic and don't benefit from any particular playstyle.

2. The name "East India Company" is used for NW, so at least UA name should be changed.

 

[Tinker]

I could see the Dutch UA getting an addition of "don't need DoF to be able to trade lump sums", which would make it work.

 

[Buccaneer]

I could see the Dutch UA getting an addition of "don't need DoF to be able to trade lump sums", which would make it work.

That would be my guess as well.

 

[Jman5]

This is a fantastic change to the game.

1. No more DoW abuse unless you have a DoF.
2. No more GPT for lump sum tricks at the start. (Wasn't imbalanced, but a little cheesy)
3. No more abusing Barbarian pillaging to cancel/re-sign trade deals. I never tried to overtly abuse this, but I wasn't upset whenever it happened.
4. No more selling your embassy for free 25 gold in the critical early game.

The whole concept of front-loading your gold reward from turn 1 of the trade is significantly stronger than relying on gold per turn. You often get to rush buy something 10-30 turns earlier which means 10-30 extra turns of bonuses from whatever you rush-bought, which means you can get something else earlier, resulting in a cascading benefit.

Also, reducing open borders cost is a good way to cut back on players using the AI for free money. The gold tiles for rivers removal will make a big difference.

What this all means is an increased significance in what is left unchanged. Discovering City States first is now more powerful. Getting Ruins has an even greater impact on your start. Killing Barbarian encampments will be a valuable form of early revenue. Working +gold tiles might gain some traction and perhaps might even be mandatory now that food heavy river tiles don't give you +1 gold. Will players switch to some unit heavy start just so they can explore fast and crush barb camps early? I could see a 2 scout into 1 warrior start so the player has 4 units rapidly scouting the map for all the goodies. America's Unique Abilities just got sexier.

Brave New World is really going to shake things up in a great way.

 

[ahawk]

Thoughts on this:

1) I agree with many people saying that this fixes AI issues in trade. One of the most ridiculous aspects of the game used to be that you could trade a lux for lump sum gold with a weak civ, DoW the civ you traded with, make peace ASAP, go back and trade the lux for slightly less gold than before. This worked especially well at higher levels, because even tiny, backwards civs usually still had enough gold for this to be effective.

2) Lump sum itself is a bad idea in regards to AI. The AI often will give me 240 gold (on standard) for a luxury even when the AI has an excessive amount of happiness. The AI will sometimes give me 200 gold for 5 iron even when it has an iron surplus. Because the AI values items not off supply/demand, but mostly off it's diplomatic stance with you (friendly, denounced, etc.), the trade system allows you to get a quick, powerful gold infusion by trading things the AI doesn't even need. Lump sum allows me to trade my first two luxes, buy a settler, and settle a second or third city very quickly even when the AI has no need for my luxes. I'd honestly be okay seeing lump sum eliminated entirely, but at least needing a DoF will keep lump sum from being so exploitable.

3) I don't know, so I'll start by asking: can lump sum gold be traded as part of a peace deal anymore? That's the one exception I might be okay with, if otherwise lump sum requires friendship. Such an exception could still be exploited, sure, but it isn't hard to change code to make it so lump sum is only given on the first or second peace offering (which was how Civ 4 operated, IIRC, though that system was not great either). I just feel lump sum should still be available for peace deals since Civ 5 has a much greater penalty for DoWing someone in terms of diplomatic status with all other civs.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Kinda depends on the AI, and of course you have to take into account that an Emperor player isn't going to be able to get his empire up as quickly as someone good enough to be playing on Deity. Alex, Hiawatha, and Washington typically just don't give you the space to make a strong Liberty start, even on lower difficulties.

If you're not going to expand relatively quickly (by settlement or war), there is no point in going Liberty to begin with. So the question is not whether or not Liberty suits the map but whether or not one's play style suits Liberty.

3) I don't know, so I'll start by asking: can lump sum gold be traded as part of a peace deal anymore? That's the one exception I might be okay with, if otherwise lump sum requires friendship. Such an exception could still be exploited, sure, but it isn't hard to change code to make it so lump sum is only given on the first or second peace offering (which was how Civ 4 operated, IIRC, though that system was not great either). I just feel lump sum should still be available for peace deals since Civ 5 has a much greater penalty for DoWing someone in terms of diplomatic status with all other civs.

Looks like it can. And I wish it couldn't, because early wars are greatly rewarded already, they need no further encouragement.

 

[ChipB]

I kinda feel like this is the wrong solution to the problem. It seems like a big part of the issue with lump sum transactions is the bug where the AI undervalues that gold. 1gpt = 22.5g, so a lux should trade for 8gpt or 180g lump sum (rather than 240g). As it is now, the AI actually rewards you for taking a lump sum instead of gpt which just encourages players to play this way. If, on the other hand, it was fixed so that the lump sum was only worth 75% of the gpt value then you actually have to make a decision.

That wouldn't fix the gpt+DoW exploit, but I feel like breaking trade deals should result in a global diplo hit large enough to discourage that practice. The bigger the deal, and the more recently it was made, the bigger the hit should be. So, you could still get away with this the first time, but after that other civs just wouldn't trust you with their gold.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

8 gpt x 30 turns = 240 gold =\= 180 gold

 

[ChipB]

8 gpt x 30 turns = 240 gold =\= 180 gold

Right, but gold now is more valuable than gold in the future. If you give the AI 2gpt they will give you a lump sum of 45g, so they will loan you that 45g up front if you promise to pay them back 60g over the next 30 turns. This is perfectly reasonable.

Luxury resource trades should work the same way. If you trade them a luxury for 8gpt (assume they would make this deal since it seems to be the intended value). If you turned around and traded that 8gpt for a lump sum, you'd only get 180g out of the deal, so if you trade that luxury for a lump sum directly, you should only get 180g as well.

If the AI is willing to pay 240g lump sum for the luxury, then that implies that the actual value of the luxury is 10.67gpt. What actually happens, though, is that the AI essentially demands a discount if you want them to pay over time. Because of this, you get the most money out of deals if you get them to pay as much as possible up front, which just encourages people to do this in order to play optimally.

 

[stealth_nsk]

3) I don't know, so I'll start by asking: can lump sum gold be traded as part of a peace deal anymore? That's the one exception I might be okay with, if otherwise lump sum requires friendship. Such an exception could still be exploited, sure, but it isn't hard to change code to make it so lump sum is only given on the first or second peace offering (which was how Civ 4 operated, IIRC, though that system was not great either). I just feel lump sum should still be available for peace deals since Civ 5 has a much greater penalty for DoWing someone in terms of diplomatic status with all other civs.

We don't know. There wasn't any official announce, just screen shot from demo vid.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

3) I don't know, so I'll start by asking: can lump sum gold be traded as part of a peace deal anymore?

Yes
The tooltip said requires Dof unless part of a peace deal (i wouldn't be surprised if cities are the same)

 

[Ulthwithian]

Chip: Correct, and this is also backward. I find it odd (or perhaps not, considering vanilla policy ramifications) that the designers reversed Time Value of Money calculations for less-fungible resources. Well, I guess they didn't reverse it so much as didn't put all non-gold resources in NPV terms.

The net effect, however, is, as you point out, that I can get more money out of a resource all at once rather than over time, which is exactly the wrong way around.

Currently, this means that the AI expects a compound rate of 0.75% (roughly) per turn on its gold. I wonder how hard it would have been to actually set this to the actual rate of gold change? Shouldn't be too difficult, and would immediately create a situation that if their gold income is negative, they will more or less ask for loans.

Hm. Bears thought, anyway.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Well, this may make trading harder...

 

[bcaiko]

I think this is a good, smart change. There's an odd thing where the AI overvalues its gpt and undervalues yours (fwiw, I think gpt should be worth slightly less than a lump sum either way), but that's a minor tweak if necessary.

Yes, I certainly agree. The game should also allow for players to negotiate loans with each other and the AI: Here's 250 gold for 10 gold per turn or something like that. Having a negative income for the moment shouldn't prevent being able to negotiate a deal like that if you have some money in the bank.

I've always found it odd that two civilizations that have just met each other are a-okay with trading half their GDP for an orange.