Aggresive Trading

[dutchfire]

See this article.

What do you all think about using this tactic to try and get more gold. At the moment the tactic can only be used on Russia, but when we meet other civs, this tactic could let us make more money.

 

[robboo]

I read that...it feels exploitish to me. The AI doesnt realize that you are screwing them with the subsidies. Its one of those exploits that they wont be able to stop in the GOTM but it still feels wrong.

 

[dutchfire]

Yeah, that's why I'm asking.
This DemoGame isn't all about winning, it's also about having fun while playing.

 

[Sweetacshon]

As much as we need the money, it seems too expoitative to me.

 

[ice2k4]

Well America in real life does something similar to this. Then again trade relations in real life go down (as in the game they wouldnt.)

I propose mercantilism (not the civic, the actual idea.)

 

[robboo]

want to explain that ice....

 

[dutchfire]

Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy, by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, especially through the use of tariffs.

from Wikipedia

 

[Sweetacshon]

Which would help us in a cash sense, but denies us the happiness luxuries we desperately need.

 

[dutchfire]

we've got some spare resources we can trade, but we shouldn't trade resources of which we only have 1.

 

[robboo]

We are trading copper whihc we only have 1 of....its giving us a littel gold adn we might be able to renegoiate it. I got it bumped up once or twice by an addition 1 gpt. We also might try to trade the copper for another resource

 

[dutchfire]

I'm going to cancel the copper deal, and trade clam (we have 2 or 3 of it, I don't remember it exactly). for 5 gpt.

 

[robboo]

Sounds good.. ( start a discussion to get people approval)

 

[dutchfire]

get approval for trading away a spare resource? If someone has a problem with it, they could always start a thread, but I don't think this trade is a big deal, because we've already got a trade with them, we're just going to change it.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Instead of Clams (which we have 2 of), let's trade Wheat (which we have 3 of). That way Clams are still available to be traded if we ever meet someone else.

And I don't think Dutch has to get permission unless multiple people strongly appose it. That's why we have jobs for people.

Edit: In fact, I'll quote from the Judiciary:
All decisions organized by leaders have the same requirement to follow the people's decision, if there is one. Except for the "Five Things that Must be Polled TM", any game decision can be made in any of the ways specified in the Constitution. If a discussion results in overwhelming support then no poll would be needed, but an evenly divided or questionable support item should be polled.

 

[ice2k4]

I recently experimented with "subsidy trading" (Agressive trading.) Firstly I only had 3 extra resources, (considering I inhabited mostly desert) so I was pretty much testing it on extremes.

Just with 3 extra resources for trade, I was able to bring in 63gpt from trade off of 2 countries.

I'm not sure how many extra resources we have (because I haven't checked), but I'm sure we can begin to fix our money problems by this method.

 

[Oldbus]

It feels rather like an exploit to me. If you put together a list of trades, I'll be willing to reconsider, but at the moment I don't like the sound of it.

 

[GeorgeOP]

I also think this is an exploit, for a real opponent would cancel the deal the same time you cancel your deal.

 

[ice2k4]

Not exacly.

Think of it like this. (The following is completely fictional)

America is one of the few countries that has an excess of cotton.

Italy has no cotton and wants it. The only place to import from is America.

America asks to sell the cotton at 20 gold per turn.

Italy only has 11 gold per turn at the current time.

America offers to loan italy 9 gold per turn to cover the cost for 10 years as long as italy promises to buy cotton for the next 20 years.

There is a subsidized trade.

 

[robboo]

so you net 2 gpt for 10 years...dumb move.

You example...you get 2 gpt for 10 years then 20per year for 10=220 total. Whereas just take 11 for 20 years...you get 220. better off just taking 11 so if they die out or break the deal you have the money up front.

 

[Sweetacshon]

Yes, they would have to be a stable partner.

There has been a lot of diuscussion about this in the strat threads. For me, it comes down to whether the AI can actually afford to pay 20 to us (possibly on multiple items) after we cancel the subsidy. The trade maxuimum is based on our relationship, so in theory, the AI wiill pay (for eg) 20 for EVERY resource we can trade to them. Are we rorting them, or is it akin to just adjusting the science rate downward for extra trade cash? I don't think the AI has the ability to say "Our relationship modifier says I am willing to pay 20, but with the subsidy gone, this trade(s) is ruining the economy, so we'd better cancel it." That's why it feels like an exploit, imo.