Give tradeables intrinsic value

[dunkleosteus]

The value of the things you can trade is basically multiplied by the AI's opinion of you. If you're on good terms, they'll give you a good deal. If you've pissed them off (which is not that hard) they will give you next to nothing, for example they'll ask for two luxuries for one gold per turn.

That's ridiculous. The value of the resources should barely change, if at all. The global economy would collapse if every country was so childish as to refuse to pay a fair price because they had a disagreement about something. Why bother trading if you won't give a fair deal? Bad opinion should drop the trade value by 1 or maybe 2 gold.


Clearly, firaxis is trying to add a penalty to pissing off other civs but there are better ways of doing it than this, which makes no sense and gives the AI the maturity of a 4 year old.

The AI should either refuse to trade at all or give you a reasonable-ish price. If you have something they need, they shouldn't offer pocket change in exchange for it.

 

[teks]

Think of it more like you are giving them 'free' access to a resource you have in surplus. Free means free from tarriffs, which means the government (you) doesn't see any revenue, but it does not mean you're literally handing them over the resource for free, because its intristic value is seen in the private market (and the inevitable indirect tax revenue)

Countries we don't like. We have many, and extreme, tarriffs on them. Either they suffer without it, they treat us better, or they pay us...a lot. Tarriffs have consequences, but it'd be hard to see them properly imagined.

 

[Amrunril]

I don't think prices necessarily need to be fixed, but the variation should be based primarily on supply and demand, with opinion playing only a secondary role. There's no reason the AI should go around offering 1:2 or 2:1 trades by default, but in a situation where a civ desperately needs a resource and only one other civ is willing to sell, the selling civ should be able to demand high prices.

An even better system, I think, would be to give different AIs different trade philosophies and priorities based on their agendas. Some could be willing to trade with anyone at an equitable rate, while others would focus on gouging desperate civs for the highest prices possible. Some could outright refuse to trade with anyone they dislike or see as a threat, while others could trade generously with these threats as a form of appeasement. This would take a lot of work to get right and be less transparent than the current system, but it would make the AI more realistic, whether you use human players or real world politics as your reference.