Pounder
Phaethon was here
Is There a Reason Why You Can't Trade Resources for Technology?
It was allowed in previous Civ games.
It was allowed in previous Civ games.
Is There a Reason Why You Can't Trade Resources for Technology
- Thread starter Pounder
- Start date
Psyringe
Scout
This feature could easily be exploited: Sell the AI a resource for its tech, then declare war -> you have the tech, the AI has nothing.
A smart AI wouldn't trade "permanent" things (like a tech) for things that can be retracted (like a resource) anyways, so they took it out.
A smart AI wouldn't trade "permanent" things (like a tech) for things that can be retracted (like a resource) anyways, so they took it out.
That's one of the features I always liked in Alpha Centauri. It had that whole "level of integrity" ranking (I can't remember the actual name). If you constantly screwed your neighbours or commited atrocities against your own people, the ranking would drop and you woud basically become a scumbag in everyone's eyes. I'm not sure if civ4 has anything like that (Im usually goody two shoes in civIV 
).
).
You'd need a 'relationship bar' that prevented you from turning on them (or them on you), however in most games including diplomacy it isn't a very reliable function.
Zhahz
PC Gamer
In Civ IV binding agreements last 10 turns minimum (like peace or open borders). Would you trade a good tech for a resource that might get pulled after 10 turns. I doubt it. A reputation system is a decent idea but I think it's just as good to have AIs that better at avoiding getting screwed in the first place.
Only Peace and cease fires last for 10 turns. Everything else lasts until it is cancelled, whether that be after 1 turn or 100 turns. Since you can only trade resource for resource or gpt for gpt or resource for gpt, the ammount of time it lasts is unimportant.
lishifeng
Chieftain
i think limit trading resources for techonlogy is just one of the solutions of the problem we're talking about. But it's not the best one.
If the rep point will influence the happiness of citizen and the diplomatism with other country, players will pay more attention to it, isn't it?
If the rep point will influence the happiness of citizen and the diplomatism with other country, players will pay more attention to it, isn't it?
lishifeng said:
I have to agree there, not allowing techs to be traded for resources seems to be the easy way out. At the very least you should be allowed to do it at the start of the game and if you ever renege on it then no one else would ever do that sort of trade with you.
Pounder
Phaethon was here
I think that it could be managable in Civ 4.
If there is no trust between Civs, the trade won't happen, but if the 2 Civs are allies, the trade could/should be doable.
If there is no trust between Civs, the trade won't happen, but if the 2 Civs are allies, the trade could/should be doable.
megabrainz
Visionary Luddite
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2002
- Messages
- 125
That would be just like the rep system from civ 3, which was broken as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad you no longer need to worry about your rep in civ 4.
I thought the rep system made sense. Its only problem was that your reputation could be broken by someone else's actions (e.g. some Civ through which your trade route ran declares war on you and you lose the trade route). It would have been better to put the deal 'on hold' until the trade route was restored, and/or enable the re-negotiation of the deal midway through ("I know I said I'd give you iron for 20 turns, but how about 1000 gold to cancel the deal?").
In general, I would prefer it if you could specify the length of any deal and renegotiate at any time (albeit with the AI demanding significant compensation). But assuming you can do these things: yes, simply cancelling a deal should trash your rep.
By the way, someone mentioned that no smart person would trade something concrete for a future payment. This is completely untrue; our entire banking system rests on the ability to do this. Every time someone makes a loan, they are exchanging $cashnow for $cashlater.
I thought the rep system made sense. Its only problem was that your reputation could be broken by someone else's actions (e.g. some Civ through which your trade route ran declares war on you and you lose the trade route). It would have been better to put the deal 'on hold' until the trade route was restored, and/or enable the re-negotiation of the deal midway through ("I know I said I'd give you iron for 20 turns, but how about 1000 gold to cancel the deal?").
In general, I would prefer it if you could specify the length of any deal and renegotiate at any time (albeit with the AI demanding significant compensation). But assuming you can do these things: yes, simply cancelling a deal should trash your rep.
By the way, someone mentioned that no smart person would trade something concrete for a future payment. This is completely untrue; our entire banking system rests on the ability to do this. Every time someone makes a loan, they are exchanging $cashnow for $cashlater.
Reg Pither
Warlord
On the whole, I think the changes in AI diplomacy such as not being able to trade resources for techs are a Good Thing. It was always too easily exploited before.
onedreamer
Dragon
slothman said:
no, thanks. This is one of the biggest bummers in Civ3. I have such a deal, then a third civ destroy the connection of one of my resources so I can't trade it anymore, and for this reason I'm screwed.
MrCynical
Deity
There is a very good reason for total separation of per turn and one off deals, which became glaring clear in Civ 3. There were far too many ways for a connection to be lost that weren't the player's fault, but they would still lose their reputation. There were also many exploits possible involving deliberately breaking connections. This system is a lot better.
Similar threads
