1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Trade has no value in civilization V

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jtb1127, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. jtb1127

    jtb1127 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,498
    Location:
    Arlington, Virginia
    Throughout history trading with other nations has been beneficial in every way. For example, one of the main reasons the Europeans had a technological advancement over much of the world is due to the constant trade and intermingle between civilizations on Europe. An inversed example is the Japanese Sakoku. Japan shut down their boarders to all foreigners for 200 years. As a result they experienced no technological advancement and failed to keep up with the industrializing world.

    In civilization V it seems to me that trading with other civs is not as beneficial as it should be. On emperor difficulty I can easily ignore everyone and everything outside my boarders and still come out on top. Really it seems the best way to play the game is to ignore foreign politics as when I do get involved, I'm invaded and denounced. Why is it this way?
    I think a major problem with this is research agreements. They are too expensive and the wait is too long for them to pay off. In civ IV the instant tech trading was always essential. Those who had isolated starts or did not want to trade lagged behind. Technology is not the only problem. Resource trading could be helpful but the AI hate trading. It is nearly impossible for me to secure fair deals with them especially when all they do is declare war on me?
    Trading with other civs should be more important. Is this a problem with the AI's stupidity? Or does is there something else?
    How do you think trade can be better implemented?
     
  2. esemjay

    esemjay Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    USA
    I literally don't expect anything from the AI in this game. Their diplomatic skill is god-awful, and unfortunately this makes international trade not only risky- but near suicide.

    Rules of Civ5 Trade:
    1. Do NOT give the AI strategic resources, because they WILL use them to build an army to invade you with.
    2. Do NOT give the AI luxury resources, because they will use the extra happiness from the resources to justify annexing your cities.
    3. Do NOT give the AI a lump-sum of money, because they will use the money to buy a research agreement, and then use that technology in war. Against you.
    4. Do NOT give the AI gold per turn, because they will use the money to fund research for a war... against you.

    Basically, whatever you give the AI, they will find a way to use against you during wartime. I don't even read diplomatic messages anymore... they pop up, and I press "Escape."
     
  3. Cyrus of Persia

    Cyrus of Persia Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    114
    I tell you this as someone new to the game but has read a lot of stuff here so far.

    The AI design is the problem.

    Don't waste your time on speculation and discussion of how the game "could" be made better. Unfortunately the AI CAN'T be made better and WON'T get better because the problem is too deep and the designers will not "redevelop" a game after release, which is what is needed here.

    Minor improvements is made through mods but it seems the improvements are marginal. Major problems don't get fixed, like the actual "intelligence" of the AI.

    Thank goodness I didn't actually buy this game.
     
  4. esemjay

    esemjay Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    USA
    As much as I try to like Civ5, and try not to dissuade people from buying it, this man speaks "Da Troof."

    The AI likely won't get any better without serious modding after the DLL is released, if the DLL is released. The things the AI was already good at in Civ4 got gutted, and the things the AI should have been improved for remained the same. It is awful at building a military without the bonuses of higher difficulties, it is awful at commanding those armies, the diplomacy is too unpredictable to be useful or fun... in general, the AI feels more like an obstacle or a last-minute addition than an actual feature.

    I really, really tried to like Civ5... but as much as I like certain features that were added, I just can't bring myself to play it anymore. It stopped being a "toy", where the game could get interesting enough to where you actually wanted to press "One... more... turn...", and now I wonder why that option is even there. I mean, who are they kidding? Did any of the play-testers actually press that button? If it did the same thing as "quit", I doubt anyone would notice.
     
  5. Schalke 04

    Schalke 04 Knappe

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    429
    Location:
    Münster, Germany


    1. I don't know if these two rules are valid.

      1. If they attack you with your traded strategic resources -> be happy. They will likely have less resources than they need for their army, which means: they suffer from a big malus in fight. At least they are close to this point -> one pillaged resources, a captured CS, and they fight with this malus for a long time ;)
      If not -> who cares. Then your traded resources didn't affect the AI's strength at all, but you got some money from them ;)

      2. AI seem to not have big problems with happiness. If you trade them your spare luxiries, they will maybe get an GA a little earlier, but who cares. The money you can get from this deal is well worth it in the hands of a human player.



      And for the RAs. OK, my highest Level ist Emperor, but what i heard/read from this community, you need to sign RAs on higher difficulty levels to stand a chance. Moreover: with RA blocking, you can make a huge profit out of it, more than an AI ever could. Need money for these RA? Well, get back to point 2 -> get the money from luxury trades ;) There are quite some synergy effects in trading with AI ;)
     
  6. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,968
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Fixed it for ya :D

    EDIT: Schalke beat me to it
     
  7. Goknub

    Goknub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    I believe the issue is the AI Objective.

    They "Play to Win" rather than "Build a Civilization"
    Its a zero-sum game, as there is no ability to jointly win a game.

    You and your best-friend-for-life Ally can't both win, sooner or later you have to destroy each other so there is no reason to help anyone or establish relations.

    If it was possible to "win" as a Alliance or Coalition than trading would be useful but that goes against the "I'm Number One, WOOOT!" idea that drives CiV.
     
  8. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Yep. It makes diplomacy awful.

    I am playing a cultural game with Siam currently. I tried a normal game and a military game previously. The normal game was ruined by cascading denunciations triggered by one "Don't settle near me" and the military game was a joke because I steamrolled everyone.

    The current cultural game isn't very fun. It's either the AI being demandbots and whining and asking for everything and even when I give it to them they do jack **** in return (It's truly a one way street here) or it's Civs going hostile for no reason whatsoever even when I have given them free stuff in the past and have done absolutely nothing to provoke them. Well, I suppose since they are all ICSing little monsters maybe my 4 cities is pissing them off. My military is even pretty decent so it can't be that. The diplomacy blows in this game.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As far as trade goes, I agree that it really is extremely dull and unrealistic. On another note, the Op's example mentioned Japan. As a slight correction, Japan did have some trade during that time. They traded with the Dutch and the Chinese through Nagasaki.

    I'd suggest that Korea would be a better example. They were called the Hermit Kingdom for a reason. They had extremely limited trade with China and merchants as a class were looked down upon in Korea. There's a reason why Korea's population declined from 18 million in 1777 to around 13 million in 1910. A state that crumbed due to being extremely hostile to foreign ideas and influence.
     
  9. ColinTH

    ColinTH Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    441
    Location:
    Bedford
    I totally disagree on both counts, RAs are essential. Find other Civs as soon as possible and get those RAs in motion. I have yet to be attacked/ declared war on by an AI civ whilst an RA is in effect, exception being, I declare war on another civ they have a defensive pact with, but why would I do that?

    Shalke 04 and Bilbor IMO are quite correct to be critical of Essemjay's list.
    If Essemjay is winning on Emporer level following the rules of his list, then he is a very tallented tall City builder. He would definately have to be blessed with a Resource and Luxury rich area in which to build. We all have different ways of playing, I just wouldn't recomend Essemjays style.

    I never make Friends, Denounce or sign defensive pacts, my 3 rules for what it's worth.
     
  10. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,968
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    You should broaden your views, in my opinion. MadDjinn's deity video is a perfect example how to make all 3 work to your advantage.
     
  11. elthrasher

    elthrasher Revcaster

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    712
    You appear to have a much higher opinion of the tactical ability of the AI than most players. I will make any trade I can, even if it is not a "fair" trade, because I am confident in my ability to utilize any resource or sum of gold better than the AI is able to. Easy example: AI sits on 5000 gold while there are unaffiliated city-states around. Stupidity or cunning plan? I'm gonna go with stupidity. Anyone disagree?

    If I weren't able to use my resources more efficiently than the AI, I wouldn't be able to succeed above king level in this game.
     
  12. MadDjinn

    MadDjinn Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,554
    Thanks guys :goodjob:

    At least some people are learning the game before commenting! :king:

    Yeah.. the rules of esemjay are all wrong headed about how to work with the AI.

    a Caveat to what has already been said is that giving lump sum gold is no issue if the AI isn't going to be spending it anyways! (see elthrashers post) Early game it's bad, since they'll spend it.

    gpt is just fine to give away if you actually need something they have. (coal/lux/whatever) Better that than lump sum gold if they DoW before the end of the trade.

    Remember: do the opposite of the AI.

    DO trade your lux/strat. resource for lump sum gold. (300)
    DO trade gpt for their lux/strat. resource (9gpt = 270)

    Though, that brings a small thought. Sell all of your ivory (1+) to the AIs and then buy one from another AI. you'd end up 30g richer by doing that. (if you actually needed the ivory for happiness purposes)

    Absolutely all the time - Sell extra strat. resources to the AI. Not using horses? sell them! Stupid AI DoWs you? -50% combat for all of their horse units if they made enough that your SRs mattered. That's ALL horse units. So you can take a 'free' shot at the 12 knights bearing down on you who are now sharing 8 horse resources. trim them all down to low health, then starting killing them. eventually they'll go below the 8 horse line and get their CS back, but until then they are easy targets.

    Oh, and if you aren't using RAs, you aren't playing a serious enough game. (Ie, if you can go on emperor and think the game is too easy, step up to something harder)
     
  13. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,348
    I agree that winning as an Alliance/Coalition would be good. Ideally, I'd like to see Diplomatic+Domination victories merged into one... basically You dominate by either conquering or allying with all other civs+City-States. Uniting into a Permanent Alliance would have to be a complicated process, ie Research Agreements (cost on both sides and time required.. but taken to the extreme)
     
  14. duddyz_dad

    duddyz_dad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    21

    How about adding a shared victory option (an entirely new concept in CIV)? Players have the option of pursuing a shared victory with another civiliation. Final victory tally would allocate a score amongst the civs within the victorious alliance based on relative proportion of population, infrastructure, culture, military, who created the spaceship, etc. To create an incentive for players to pursue this option, you could make the final victory score for an alliance to be greater than victory achieved through solo pursuit (i.e. the greater # of civs in the alliance, the higher the score).
     
  15. bhavv

    bhavv Glorious World Dictator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,358
    What terrible advise, seriously. But Bibor already fix'd it :)
     
  16. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,348
    Just adding Permanent Alliances Like in Civ 4 (but with Multiple Alliance options) would work..
    If it was
    1. Default enabled
    and
    2. worked sensibly... properly balanced

    Then it could be dominant.
     
  17. Martin Alvito

    Martin Alvito Real men play SMAC

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,332
    What this proves is that absolutely anything will work on Emperor. That's a recipe for your civ to fall victim to genocide on Deity. Early game cash is essential for competing with the AI's huge production and growth advantages.

    That makes the game a lot more realistic. It doesn't mean that you should stay out of diplomacy. It just means that you need to plant the knife first.

    I think it's so unpopular because it's such a radical departure from Civ IV. Players seemed to like the fact that AI leaders had very distinct personalities.
     
  18. freeluos

    freeluos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    79
    If the ai doesn't understand your fixes the game is broken. If the ai does understand your fixes why is the OP complaining?
     
  19. Polish

    Polish Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    Avilton, MD
    I play mostly on Prince. I always trade away my excess luxuries, sometimes even the base ones. It is my best source of early game cash, it slows the GA down till it will do me some good, it allows me to afford research agreements. I always take RAs when I can afford them. Not unusual to have record of 15 to 20 completed RAs by the end of the game--almost all paid for with luxury traded gold. Makes me smile to have the other guys pay for so much of my research. I sometimes even loan them enough so that they can afford the RA.
     
  20. Bandobras Took

    Bandobras Took Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Orem, UT
    This, in a nutshell. I wish they could add a custom game option:

    "Leaders with personalities instead of the same backstabbing personality." :)
     

Share This Page