Overlooked economic bonuses

King Jason

Fleece-bearer
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,040
Here's a way certain UUs and Special abilities could be even more interesting and valuable, except in a unique way.

Take for example all of the resourceless UUs. Like Elephants and the War Chariot. We always note that the immediate advantage is that we don't need to worry about horses for their construction.

But what about selling off the horses we already have? Trade deals always usually exist for X number of turns... So if you reach the point in tech where you'll be using the Narusean Elephant for example, which replaces knight... It will (arguably) be a fair amount of turns where your empire has no need of the Horse strategic resource. If this lasts 20, 40, 60, more turns? That is X turns where your empire is generating whatever GPT you can negotiate to trade off your resources. Which essentially means resourceless UUs, in a round about way, provide a great economic gain to your civilization.

Further, let's take a look at Russia and Arabia. The immediately observed bonus is larger armies... But what if you didn't necessarily need a larger army. For example, a Civ with 10 Iron versus Russia with 10 Iron... Russia can field 20 Iron units and the other civ can field 10... So what if instead of massing an army 100% larger in any given scenario... you instead mass an army only 50% larger... then sell off the excess.

Plus, this oddly provides some incentive to play those two civs a bit peacefully, as you could theoretically just sell your huge cache of strategic resources for large quantities of gold in order to say... Influence city-states?

Now obviously you wouldn't want to sell these resources to potential threats. But there are plenty of occasions where players reach a comfortable position in world power, and there are other civs that are at the bottom of the ranking and no real threat or danger. It's those who we could profit from. Or of course, selling to our allies is mutually beneficial.
 
Excellent points. Especially since I suspect that in Civ V the relationship between expansion (peaceful or martial) and economic development (happiness management) will prove much more cyclical. You can't really afford to expand until you have enough happiness cap to allow it, and once you reach it, you will need to pause and build it up again.

Excess resources could definitely prove a significant source of extra income from, or brownie points with, your allies.
 
hmm.. interesting. Isn't that what Russia has been doing for quite a few years?
 
I'm not sure trading Strategic Resources to anyone, even your best buddies, is advisable. It's giving someone else more units with which to attack you. Naturally the supply of the resource will be cut off the moment they declare war, but the extra units they built with those resources will still persist... to kick your butt.
 
^ seconded.
If in Civ4 you notice your neighbour Monty doesn't have access to copper or iron and you've got plenty of both, do you give them those resources for some pittance?
F no; you abuse that fact to keep him weak if not to kill him outright.
 
Provided you can see how many of each resource your neighbour has, it should be possible to assume how many soldiers he can support. So it should be possible to trade away some of your resources, and still control your neighbour. Russia is an excellent civilization for such a tactic.
 
Provided you can see how many of each resource your neighbour has, it should be possible to assume how many soldiers he can support. So it should be possible to trade away some of your resources, and still control your neighbour. Russia is an excellent civilization for such a tactic.

Arabia too in case of finding who has oil since the Arabs get a bonus from oil deposits
 
Yes. If Arabia finds two spots of oil and the neighbour only one, Arabia will have 4x more oil. It could easily afford to trade away one or two. This is of course assuming you can trade away less than the whole spot of oil.
 
I'm not sure trading Strategic Resources to anyone, even your best buddies, is advisable. It's giving someone else more units with which to attack you. Naturally the supply of the resource will be cut off the moment they declare war, but the extra units they built with those resources will still persist... to kick your butt.
1) If they declare war though they might attack you with their units but since they don't have strategic resources, it will cost them a lot of money to maintain those units. If you hold up for a little long your enemy would suffer heavy losses due to increased expenses.
2) Enemy's enemy is your friend. Remember that :D. So trading with your enemy's enemy might prove to be fruitful. While trading strategic resources with your immediate neighbour might be dangerous but trading with far off civilizations could still be very beneficial.
 
I also could imagine peaceful Germany:
- Build less units in early period and filling the gap with barbarians.
- Delay military branch in medieval, researching Civil Service instead and upgrading Spearmen to Landsknehts, having strong defencive army without building more units.
 
I also could imagine peaceful Germany:
- Build less units in early period and filling the gap with barbarians.
- Delay military branch in medieval, researching Civil Service instead and upgrading Spearmen to Landsknehts, having strong defencive army without building more units.

Peaceful Germany? I don't see it that way I belive Germany is well suited to warfare in the Medival era and then again in the modern era:)
 
Yes. If Arabia finds two spots of oil and the neighbour only one, Arabia will have 4x more oil. It could easily afford to trade away one or two. This is of course assuming you can trade away less than the whole spot of oil.
You think the trading works per unit instead of per source?
(eg. let's say one source of iron provides enough for 5 swordmen; does trading iron mean trading enough to build one swordsman, or do you trade the source instead and thus the possibility to build 5 swordsmen?)
I thought it to be the latter really, trading one full source. Has either way been confirmed anywhere?
 
Peaceful Germany? I don't see it that way I belive Germany is well suited to warfare in the Medival era and then again in the modern era:)

You could have powerful defensive army with them with little effort and delayed military techs. That strategy will allow powerful economic development development...
Well, until modern age, when they should build panzers and use economic advantage to burn the world :crazyeye:
 
You think the trading works per unit instead of per source?
(eg. let's say one source of iron provides enough for 5 swordmen; does trading iron mean trading enough to build one swordsman, or do you trade the source instead and thus the possibility to build 5 swordsmen?)
I thought it to be the latter really, trading one full source. Has either way been confirmed anywhere?

I have no idea really, it was only my intuition speaking. But since one source gives many units, and sources come in different sizes (they do, right?), I thought it was logical to be able to trade units.
 
^ seconded.
If in Civ4 you notice your neighbour Monty doesn't have access to copper or iron and you've got plenty of both, do you give them those resources for some pittance?
F no; you abuse that fact to keep him weak if not to kill him outright.

In Civ4 he could build as many units as he wants with one iron source, in Civ5 it's your choice how much oyu can let him build and you might include a war declaration against one of your enemies in your deal, but we'll have to see how sneaky or psychotic the AI is.
 
In Civ4 he could build as many units as he wants with one iron source, in Civ5 it's your choice how much oyu can let him build and you might include a war declaration against one of your enemies in your deal, but we'll have to see how sneaky or psychotic the AI is.

yeah who knows Askia might be the psychotic this time and Monty be more like Genghis in[civ4]
 
I have heard this talked about here, but I have never seen this claim substantiated.
It was in the very early game previews, when they first started talking about how the limited resource system worked. Maybe the early IGN interview?
 
@OP maybe in the short term, but eventually you'll be much better off training horsemen and knights lancers or chariots from those horses.
 
Top Bottom