Market Mechanism

[dagriggstar]

I think rather than negotiating with other factions for resources, it should all be handled by "the market".

Essentially any excess resources not being used by a faction automatically are put on "the market" and are available to be bought by any other faction. No negotiating with other factions (although we could make use of "open borders" to make it cheaper and/or "trade embargo" to make it more expensive).

As an example lets say England has no Iron and clicks to build a Swordsman. The nearest source of Iron is the French city of Paris. As England clicks to build the Swordsman, x amount of gold is deducted from England and delivered to France for the Iron.
Bonus points for a trade route appearing between the city building the Swordsman and Paris.

(I may be basically lifting this from the hexarchy demo)

 

[Naokaukodem]

And if Paris doesn't want to sell ?

 

[Henri Christophe]

And if Paris doesn't want to sell ?

That means war to take the resource, or sell by a peace.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That means war to take the resource, or sell by a peace.

I mean the sell seems automated... how does one tell the game one doesn't want to sell ? Or I misunderstood something.

 

[MistroPain]

Could treat it like how Open Borders works in some games, its Open until you place a trade embargo disallowing sales of your goods to a particular civ.

I like this idea; seems simple, adds a vastly improved trade system (over what we have), could work in mechanics like tying cost of sale to distance needed for the good to travel, with that cost elevated further if it needs to go around a civ that has an embargo placed on you. Might work better if luxuries were reworked to being actively consumed though, that way you can also tie this in with luxuries.

 

[bene_legionary]

What's the price of a resource? What would the interface look like? What civs would it take from?

I think some people might be confused when they're building swordsmen and end up spending too much gold, when they need to buy more iron and don't realise it. It might be worse if someone's getting ready for a war and they start building swordsmen only to find out they've been undercut by their opponent (or someone else) buying their iron from them and building swordsmen first.

Maybe a good solution is to put your goods on 'the market' instead of the market taking it from you automatically. We can avoid the problem of excess and make it simpler for players to understand. The issue is making it visible to the player, and avoiding gaming the system, which is a big problem with diplomatic trading in Civ 6.

I think trading resources needs to go beyond strategics and luxuries to food and bonus resources as well, and getting rid of the incredibly easy self-sufficiency that civ 6 provides. There wouldn't be trade with a country having sufficiency anyway. Potentially a way to do that is for stockpiling resources but that might be too much.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe a good solution is to put your goods on 'the market' instead of the market taking it from you automatically. We can avoid the problem of excess and make it simpler for players to understand. The issue is making it visible to the player, and avoiding gaming the system, which is a big problem with diplomatic trading in Civ 6.

I don't know why but I'm picturing something like a civilization version of eBay where you put up something to trade and other players/leaders have a certain number of turns to outbid one another, which could be interesting.

I too am wary of the idea of late game how possibly oil and uranium can just freely go to whoever it wants, without the player, who owns it, consent.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Maybe a good solution is to put your goods on 'the market' instead of the market taking it from you automatically. We can avoid the problem of excess and make it simpler for players to understand. The issue is making it visible to the player, and avoiding gaming the system, which is a big problem with diplomatic trading in Civ 6.

I think trading resources needs to go beyond strategics and luxuries to food and bonus resources as well, and getting rid of the incredibly easy self-sufficiency that civ 6 provides. There wouldn't be trade with a country having sufficiency anyway. Potentially a way to do that is for stockpiling resources but that might be too much.

The idea of a market is interesting, I like it. But maybe it would be too easy if one would only need a harbour to have access to everything that is available in all foreign harbours?

Considering how control of trade routes has been strategically decisive all accross History, I believe that aspect would deserve being detailed a bit more in the game. It would be interesting if trade routes would physically appear on the map and would require to be properly defended to avoid getting plundered by steppe hordes, privateers or pirates.

Another aspect which would be interesting is if civs (both human and AI) wouldn't only buy what they need, but also buy in order to sell back to others. We could therefore simulate something similar as trading powers (Phoenicians, Byzantium, Venice, Arabs, Portugal, etc...). The idea would be to see emerging hubs that would become strategic cities to control (Antioch, Malacca), and why not being able to establish trading posts in order to secure the control of trade routes. Alright, maybe I'm pushing it too far for a general audience game...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The idea of a market is interesting, I like it. But maybe it would be too easy if one would only need a harbour to have access to everything that is available in all foreign harbours?

Maybe this is a good idea to give Stock Exchanges something else to do?

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I too am wary of the idea of late game how possibly oil and uranium can just freely go to whoever it wants, without the player, who owns it, consent.

Players could set a stockpile (akin to the strategic limit) above which resources automatically go to market. As for oil, uranium, aluminum, etc. perhaps the solution would be to dismantle improvements if you are concerned about others having access. This would balance improvement yields against security concerns and would also pair nicely with exhaustible resources.

On a side note, I would also like to see some sort of dynamic pricing.

The idea of a market is interesting, I like it. But maybe it would be too easy if one would only need a harbour to have access to everything that is available in all foreign harbours?

Trading posts could help with this. Any power (or even city) that a trade route can reach could be part of the player's market. Certain technologies would probably have to massively increase the current range to represent early modern trade. Airports could lead to a global resource market. Admittedly, this sounds rather simplistic to me, as historically (and prehistorically) material access was often very diverse, but it nonetheless could work in-game.

 

[dagriggstar]

I actually imagined the gold price of the resource being paid completely upfront, with the trade route appearing while the swordsman is in production. No price fluctuation while the unit is in production.

I pictured trade units sort of moving about the map "during turns" sort of like how animal resources might move while it's your turn. The entire trade route needs to be protected, rather than just one unit.

I sort of put forward an automated aspect to it as I was thinking about how during WWII Americans were being shot at by the Japanese with weapons made in America. Really, I think if you the player don't want to sell, you should need to take steps (trade embargo/war) to prevent it from happening. The default position should be resources within a range are useable.

Pricing wise, well as a starting point I was thinking we don't actually accumulate resources over a number of turns. You never have an economic reason not to sell (you can argue about I don't want to equip my enemy with weapons, in which case embargo them). But one deposit can generate multiple uses, even during the same turn. Each use increases the price, unless you are the player with the deposit (since you aren't paying yourself). Then you might have factors like distance increasing cost.
The exact numbers though, well it all depends on game balance really......

I had this trade route range in my head, lets say 6 tiles around a city to start the game. As you progress through the game, the range increases. Like you don't just get access to literally every resource on the map. I can't say I had like middle-men empires in mind, although I don't see a reason why they can't just automatically get a cut when the buyer selects to make the relevant unit if the resource is somewhere far enough away.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

And if Paris doesn't want to sell ?

Good question, and it's why I think working strategic tiles needs to require more effort than other tiles. If working a horse tile cost 6 food or a wheat resource a turn it might be worth trading those Horses if you don't need them. And you may have to adjust horse stockpiles so that you loose one every turn because of attrition.

I'm pretty sure that most trading in the past was exchanging one good for another but I'll let someone more knowledgeable speak about that.

 

[rocksinmypath]

Hey, guys. First time poster here.

I had a similar idea a while back, but maybe a little bit simpler. All excess resources go to a "pool" accessible by everyone meeting some requirement (e.g. unlocked a relevant civic, built a market). Instead of buying from a specific seller, players can buy from this pool, and reward is distributed to players who contributed to this pool based on their contribution. Like suggested by others here, there's no negotiating of prices between players, and the game determines what's a fair price for the buyers to pay (maybe based on supply and demand?).

Example:
A contributes 50 iron
B contributes 30 iron
C contributes 20 iron
D purchases 10 iron at 10 gold

A gets 5 gold
B gets 3 gold
C gets 2 gold

We can also introduce a monopoly dynamic to this system. In addition to gold, sellers can be awarded another yield like diplomatic favour or influence, which under normal circumstances (w/o monopoly) is divided up proportionally among sellers. When a seller has a monopoly, they can "steal" a portion of the influence that would otherwise go to other players. (Note: this yield is not extracted from the buyer)

Also, we can introduce the concept of price spread, so that buyers generally pay more gold than what sellers receive. A monopolistic seller gets a "better deal" than other sellers, meaning their spread is smaller.

Example w/o monopoly mechanism:
A contributes 50 iron
B contributes 30 iron
C contributes 20 iron
D purchases 10 iron at 20 gold

A gets 5 gold and 5 influence
B gets 3 gold and 3 influence
C gets 2 gold and 2 influence

Example w/ monopoly:
A contributes 50 iron
B contributes 30 iron
C contributes 20 iron
D purchases 10 iron at 20 gold

A gets 7.5 gold and 7.5 influence
B gets 3 gold and 1.5 influence
C gets 2 gold and 1 influence

The skew can scale with how strong A's monopoly is. In the example above, A's spread improved from 100% to 50%, and it stole 50% of the influence that B & C would've received.

The existing economic alliance feature can be expanded to allow players with non-majority control over a resource to form a cartel to obtain the monopoly bonuses together.

Example:
A contributes 40 iron
B contributes 40 iron
C contributes 20 iron
B & C form a cartel
D purchases 10 iron at 20 gold

A gets 4 gold and 2 influence
B gets 6 gold and 5.33 influence (4 + 2 * 40 / 60)
C gets 3 gold and 2.67 influence (2 + 2 * 20 / 60)

Both B & C's spread improved from 100% to 50% and they split 50% of A's influence between themselves according to their relative contributions.

 

[Skybuck]

I would also like to see a market/exchange in civilization 7.

Where resources can be sold or bought. Especially oil is very interesting as in todays world !

Where prices can fluctuate based on supply/demand...

Also keeping certain nations friendly could help with that, otherwise enemy/angry nations start up driving prices or so...

Or if they get destroyed they can no longer participate in the market/exchange which could hurt other civs and piss them off and try and stop the destruction !

A bit like BRICS and Saudi Arabia en middle east etc

Also uranium for power plants be interesting to sell and buy.

Maybe even the price of gold ! =D Not sure what gold could be used for... maybe to produce computer chips/military stuff ! =D

Being an economic power house that way sounds interesting !

Or perhaps a rare civilization with some rare resources that the rest of the world needs ! LOL =D

 

[Zaarin]

Endless Space 2 had something like this. It worked so-so, though I think that's more a result of the market being nerfed to oblivion in successive patches rather than the idea itself being bad.

 

[Skybuck]

A great example of a exchange is Star Trek Online.

The exchange is a game in itself !

Highly fascinating ! =D

 

[xehgre]

Pricing wise, well as a starting point I was thinking we don't actually accumulate resources over a number of turns. You never have an economic reason not to sell (you can argue about I don't want to equip my enemy with weapons, in which case embargo them). But one deposit can generate multiple uses, even during the same turn. Each use increases the price, unless you are the player with the deposit (since you aren't paying yourself). Then you might have factors like distance increasing cost.
The exact numbers though, well it all depends on game balance really......

curious on a couple of things.

Does trade embargo, stop all trade or do we have level of trade embargo (strategic, luxury ,etc)?
Without accumulating resources I am curious on how resources would work, similar to oil usage ?
Knowing gamers tend to do what is best for winning and not what best for enjoying the game. If one resource deposit can generate multiple uses and we can't accumulate them. Along with having less control over who we sell the resources to, I have a feeling the 'generic' play would be to not activate a resource deposit until you can consume all of the uses turn 1. Leading to weird timing plays that will be seen as an issue or as micro-management play.

Also, we can introduce the concept of price spread, so that buyers generally pay more gold than what sellers receive

Not a huge fan of the "pool" system, but I like the price spread concept. Maybe the spread could be based on distance from buyers capital to you nearest market building. With trading post , Stock Exchange, and open borders decreasing the cost.


I would really like to see a market for Civ 7, but I have to say in my games I never feel like I am in such a need for a resource except for maybe luxuries once in awhile. That I would purposely build something and submit myself to the market in order to maintain it.

 

[DeckerdJames]

I might prefer that the trade of physical goods needs a physical trade route. Maybe even one trade route per deal. I know that would cap the number of trade deals with the number of traders you have, so it might require some tweaking to how many traders you can acquire. I love the trader game and would like it very much if Civ 7 enhanced it. I think you should be able to adjust the number of round trips and be able to terminate a deal at any time and the trader turns around immediately (but must return to a city to be usable again). Maybe even have a difference between a civilian and military trader. Military traders have some defense and offense.

Maybe luxuries should be like strategic resources. They accumulate and can be stockpiled, though some might be perishable, and the stockpile goes down over time. Population use perishable luxuries like units use oil in in Civ 6 and affect their contentment. Non-perishable luxuries, like diamonds, add to your civilizations wealth metric and affect contentment. However, a very rich civilization yields more gold/luxuries when their tiles are plundered and take a bigger hit to contentment. If you plunder a trader, you get the option of turning the plunderer unit into a military trader and can pick a city it goes to. Alternatively, you capture traders and they become yours.

Lots of possibilities for what they could do in Civ 7. Maybe they should have a "contentment" win condition. You become the happiest people to have ever existed. So happy no one ever wants to see you unhappy because you make everyone around you happy. Maybe that should be the only win condition, but everything your civ does affects contentment. Become super wealthy or cure all diseases or have no homelessness. You can take all the things that a civ tries to solve and make solving them first, or enough of them, or really excel enough at some of them, the one-win condition. So, all your efforts across all the empire are part of the score to become happiest people on the planet.

 

[xehgre]

Expanding on the way Civ 6 currently does trading. Here is my version of the market

Keep Civ to Civ trading as an option.

Upon completing your first Commercial District you unlock the market tab and are provided 1 contract. Contracts are how many market request you can make in a single turn we could also apply a cooldown to contract use. On your turn, you open the market and create a contract for the item you are selling. Before submitting you will see a Supply/demand metric for the item. This could be a single number (Number produced - Number in use). The contract will be seen by any Civ where you have a trading post. It will also be seen by any city-state where you have at least 3 envoys. On their turn, each Civ or CS will have a chance to bid on the item. They can see all parties involved with the contract but will not be able to see the individual bids. On your following turn, you are presented with all of the offers and you can then select who wins the bid.

The winning Civ will receive the goods on their next turn. Magical teleportation of goods to keep complexity down.

All other Civ will receive a notification stating who won and the total cost of the contract.
If an ally didn't win and where within x% of the final cost. it will negatively affect their relationship with you.
If a Civ has a trade embargo on the winner. it will negatively affect their relationship with you. Larger penalty if you are their ally.
If a Civ lost and bid more than the total cost. It will negatively affect their relationship with you
Civs and City-States will bid based on a mix of their current needs, Supply and demand, and leader traits
City-States will bid based on their type
Military CS favor strategics
Trade CS prioritize Supply and Demand and will bid hoping to resell in a few turns.
Culture CS favor luxury and Great Works
Religious CS favor Relics and will bid higher if they share a religion with you
Scientific and Industrial no effect.

Having a trade embargo against a Civ. Will stop them from bidding on your contracts.

Having the City-States involved in the market should make it more dynamic and help form a better market price for items.

Airport could allow your contracts to be seen by all Civ and CS

I think there should be some kind of cost to using the market. Either a cost to open the contract or a 'spread'. The spread could be based on distance from buyers capital to you nearest market building. With trading post , Stock Exchange, and open borders decreasing this cost.