Trade Feedback

[Giaur]

I wanna introduce some example. Net foreign income is important part of economy. Selling resources for gold act like two free courthouses.

So here we go ...

1) Me: 1 sugar, 1 fish, 3 pig
2) Nappy: 2 sugar
3) Mansa: 2 corn, 2 gold,
4) Mao: 2 fish

* Trade screen:
Nappy: nothing <-> fish(1), pig(3)
Mansa: corn(2), gold(2) <-> sugar(1), fish(1), pig(3)
Mao: nothing <-> sugar(1), pig(3)

We could sell pigs, but we will see this would be unefficient ...

Deal:
1) with Mansa: sugar for corn
2) with Mansa: fish for gold

This is interesting part. New trade options are available ...

* Trade screen:
Nappy: sugar(2) <-> pig(3)
Mansa: <-> pig(3)
Mao: fish(2) <-> pig(3)

Deal:
1) with Nappy: pig for sugar
2) with Mao: pig for fish

We have: pig(1), fish(1), sugar(1), corn(1), gold(1).

If we have sold pig to Mansa we would have:

pig(2), fish(1), sugar(1), corn(1)

This is what I call big feedback.

There is also small feedback: pig(1) for corn(2). We sell pig, unless we have only one source, but we acquire better resource. Corn is supported by granaries while pigs are not.

 

[Cam_H]

Giaur,

I do think that you've pointed to a couple of really good tactics that I have made work for me too.

• You can engineer some excellent trades with a resource you have several 'surpluses' which at first glance you can do very little with (as noted in the illustration above - be creative with trades), and

• In the early-game (or even throughout provided you keep constructing/capturing cities with Granaries!) seek out trades for health resources that get benefits from Granaries (being Corn, Rice, and Wheat) in preference to those that get benefits from (say) Grocers and Supermarkets. Be mindful of which buildings give bonuses for which resources and exploit the best fit for the buildings in your empire. Equally so with happiness - got lots of Theatres and Forges but no Cathedrals or Markets? - trade for Gems, Gold, Silver, or Dye in preference to Fur, Silk, Whales, or Incense. In short - pursue resources that best suit your needs.

Thanks for raising this tip. In the 'heat of battle' you might sometimes 'do a little ' and miss these opportunities .

 

[ghil04]

I think this tactic is a bit risky because prior to trading away your resources to Mansa, there's no way to know whether or not Nappy or Mao have AT LEAST two of the resource that you intend to acquire. For example, say Nappy and Mao have only one sugar and fish, respectively. They'll never trade their only supply of fish/sugar to you, and there's no way to make sure if they have extra available until you actually trade away your entire supply of sugar and fish.

You could potentially end up trading away your only supply of sugar and fish and have nothing to show for it.

 

[Giaur]

@ghilo4:

Generally you are right, but ... ironically my example was not so stupid. You risk loosing sugar and fish, but you acquire better resource - gold or corn (small feedback). However after first small feedback (if not succeed), we should stop selling our only source (sugar or fish) and sell pigs ...

Nappy - sugar(1)
Mansa - gold(2), corn(2)
Mao - fish(2)

1)
Deal: with Mansa sugar for gold

Trade screen:
Nappy - nothing
Mansa - corn(2)
Mao - nothing

In this moment we should sell pigs not fish to Mansa. It's the safe way. After this deal we will have:

corn(1), pig(2), fish(1), gold(1).

Still better than:
corn(1), pig(2), fish(1), sugar(1).

I guess if there were 3 trade options with Mansa, we could force small feedback twice, without a risk. Let's see ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We - sugar(1), fish(1), pig(3), clam(1)
Nappy - sugar(?)
Mansa - corn(2), gold(2), dyes(2)
Mao - fish(?)
FDR - clam(?)

1)
Deal: with Mansa fish for corn (SF)

2)
Deal: with Mansa sugar for dyes (SF)

----- In this moment we should stop and sell pig -----

3)
Deal: with Mansa pig for gold (regular deal)

If we had pig and deer for Mansa, we should sell our only source only once (one small feedback).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally I am not saying it's the way man should play, but it's the way man should know

 

[Andraeianus I]

There is also a diplomatic effect to be considered. Often I trade away or even give away a resource/luxury that I don't need even though I have only one source just to improve relations. For instance: trade away copper if you already have iron. Or simply because you don't plan a war! You can always terminate the trade if you need to...

 

[Chemtech]

I was confused a bit as to why completing the first trade made the other two available when they previously were not... if anyone can clarify I'd appreciate it.

I usually give away surplus food to improve relations but I never give/trade oil/uranium/copper/iron. I'm sure the rare occurance of someone needing it AND being in war with my biggest rival might change my mind, but I'm never usually willing to let someone build more advanced units - they usually end up biting you in the rear end eventually.

 

[JimT]

I was confused a bit as to why completing the first trade made the other two available when they previously were not... if anyone can clarify I'd appreciate it.

I usually give away surplus food to improve relations but I never give/trade oil/uranium/copper/iron. I'm sure the rare occurance of someone needing it AND being in war with my biggest rival might change my mind, but I'm never usually willing to let someone build more advanced units - they usually end up biting you in the rear end eventually.

Point 1: You have 3 pigs so can trade one with each person. But Mansa has two of the resources you want so:
1st pig - trade for resource you want
2nd pig - trade for resource MANSA wants (then trade this)
3rd pig - trade for a more desirable resource

Its a good idea I never thought of. I would probably have traded the first resource then waited for trading gold coins option to appear. In my defence I normally play medium size, fractal (usually wnd up on a continent) and warmonger so I rarely have three trade partners until the medieval era.

Point 2: Agreed