sonicmyst
Emperor
Do you intentionally withhold strategic resources that the AI badly need? Do you often reject their trade requests, or you just proceed with trading just to be friendly with them?
Do You Trade Strategic Resources to the AI?
- Thread starter sonicmyst
- Start date
sonicmyst
Emperor
Updated
sonicmyst
Emperor
I find it a valid strategy to withhold strategic resource to AI to ensure they won't be able to upgrade their units. Is that harsh?
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,713
If they're like out on the other side of the map somewehere I don't really care.
Inlex
Warlord
I often push my strategic resources on anyone who'll take them. Especially those resources of earlier eras. Iron and horses seem to be valuable to post-information warmongerers for some reason.
I must note that I am a turtle style player who rarely uses the resources for units.
I must note that I am a turtle style player who rarely uses the resources for units.
Something that I find weird, unless I'm misunderstanding the AI (maybe they still have lots of older units in place, I don't know), is that they will still pay quite a lot for something like Horses or Iron (if they don't have it) even when the game has advanced quite far.
EDIT: Inlex just beat me to it, hehe. But yeah, it's a bit strange that the ancient resources still seem to be valued so highly even in the late-game.
EDIT: Inlex just beat me to it, hehe. But yeah, it's a bit strange that the ancient resources still seem to be valued so highly even in the late-game.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
I trade outdated ones to them. So niter when I have infantry, cool. Or if they're not a threat. Also keep in mind you only need 1 of a resource with an encampment/harbor for a city to make something. So usually coal is something to trade if your ship producing cities all have harbors. Also, you seem to only need 1 aluminum to build aircraft, though I'd hesitate a bit on that.
Weirdly enough this can have some occasional application as Gorgo, since you can kill stronger units for more culture!
Weirdly enough this can have some occasional application as Gorgo, since you can kill stronger units for more culture!
Last edited:
I often try to trade them off if I don't have a war planned. You can get a lot for "useless" coal or niter. Although surprisingly, it often seems to work out that just after I decide to not need niter, an Ai will start to attack me, and it always takes me a while to remember why I see the niter mine in my land but I can't upgrade to musketmen...
Stilgar08
Emperor
If I get a good deal, if I'm friends with the AI or if we are in a joint war, if a weak AI is in a fight with a strong AI; I'm happy to help them out 
Most strategic resources are obsoleted so fast that I spend most of the game regularly going down the list of AIs and pawning them off to the highest bidder. 30 gold per turn and a Great Work for horses in the modern age? It's a deal.
They should make strategic resources required for a far greater variety of units and buildings. It's just lame that some mounted units don't need horses, or that some modern navy units don't need any resource. In Civ 3 and Civ 4, units usually needed the resources they need in real life - even if that meant needing 3 different types - and sometimes you had the choice between different fuels, such as aircraft carriers needing either oil or uranium. If you didn't have oil, then too bad, you can't build half the units of the industrial and early modern age - oil is SUPPOSED to be that important, it's why wars are fought over it. Civ 6 misses all of that, I guess in the name of not making it "unfair" if someone doesn't have certain resources. But that's part of the challenge!
They should make strategic resources required for a far greater variety of units and buildings. It's just lame that some mounted units don't need horses, or that some modern navy units don't need any resource. In Civ 3 and Civ 4, units usually needed the resources they need in real life - even if that meant needing 3 different types - and sometimes you had the choice between different fuels, such as aircraft carriers needing either oil or uranium. If you didn't have oil, then too bad, you can't build half the units of the industrial and early modern age - oil is SUPPOSED to be that important, it's why wars are fought over it. Civ 6 misses all of that, I guess in the name of not making it "unfair" if someone doesn't have certain resources. But that's part of the challenge!
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
Civ iv is actually more flexible than vi when it comes to resources. Not only is oil and uranium interchangeable a lot of the time, you can also build obsolete units when it is cut off. Also later resources get revealed long before they can be used, giving you much time to plan ahead. In vi, you pretty much cannot prepare for aluminum
There is generally very little wrong with 6's system besides the tech pace/build time issue. I think only niter and oil stand out as poor.
There is generally very little wrong with 6's system besides the tech pace/build time issue. I think only niter and oil stand out as poor.
Last edited:
SirWill90
Warlord
If I don’t seem likely to be low on that resource myself, I will. My logic is that if they were to declare war on me, I would no longer be providing it to them, and their resource-dependent units would suffer the penalty. So no big risk really. As if an AI DOW ever is, but just to pretend, heh
Trengilly
Prince
As long as I'm not using them myself for an active war then ABSOLUTELY! The AI usually pays more for strategic resources they don't have then for luxuries. (I just got 17 gpt plus a gypsum from Greece for iron). Its free money! And in the rare case that they might build resource dependent units and then attack you - well the war will end the trade deal so their units won't heal 
Magma_Dragoon
Reploid
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,354
I have yet to encounter a situation where an AI wants to buy a strategic resource that I know it would actually use in a current conflict that I wanted it to lose
Otherwise, gold wins.
Returning Lurker
Prince
I’d sooner trade the ai my firstborn son than give them the means to produce weapons. Mostly because then I could declare a liberation war to free him and my men will have swords and war horses while their army will be defending themselves with pointed sticks and branches with rocks tied to the end of them.
Disgustipated
Deity
I usually don't trade them to #2 or the AI I'm most concerned about (like an aggressive AI on my border).
This game has a bad habit of asking for your strategic resources when you only have 2 and leaving you with 1. I often don't have encampments built (I never seem to have time to build these), so it leaves me unable to build units. So I make sure I build the units I want before trading, I just have to remember not to trade it away. The AI loves asking for strategic resources, but I usually oblige.
This game has a bad habit of asking for your strategic resources when you only have 2 and leaving you with 1. I often don't have encampments built (I never seem to have time to build these), so it leaves me unable to build units. So I make sure I build the units I want before trading, I just have to remember not to trade it away. The AI loves asking for strategic resources, but I usually oblige.
sonicmyst
Emperor
I wonder if someone had traded uranium to the AI then eventually became a victim of nuclear attack.
Those units don't heal without the strategic resource - so it might be harsher to trade them the strategic resource and let them upgrade their units - that won't heal without said resource when you go to war.
Tho on the other had, with the differences in unit strengths, it may just be easier to curbstomp their non-upgraded units.
Similar threads
