Trade has no value in civilization V

[gingerbill]

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.

agreed .

Disagree with those saying trading isnt worth it . It's worth it because you can make better use of the trade than the AI . I find trading can be vital at the start to allow you the happiness to capture more cities or expand or grow.

 

[eric_]

Couldn't disagree more strongly with the premise of this thread. I use trading to my advantage in myriad was in all of my games. Most of all, I love using it as a weapon and/or to overcome diplomatic hurdles (attain open borders, goad others into war/peace with other civs, etc).

 

[Pazyryk]

The OP might want to diversify his play approach. Read some strategy articles. Learning to trade aggressively improved my play dramatically. I was trading before, but now I do it very deliberately and even jot down dates of RAs and resource trades. My typical Science Victory (playing Emperor, standard map and speed) was around 1950 before, and the best I ever did was 1920. Now I can get that Science victory before 1750. My best is now 1705 at Emperor. So effective use of trade (alone) has opened up a whole new difficulty level for me. (these are pre-March patch observations)

 

[eric_]

even jot down dates of RAs and resource trades.

FYI - this info is available in the Diplomatic Overview "Deal History" sub screen. In my last game I referred to it to decide if I wanted to DoW to cancel deals where I allowed myself to be extorted for open borders. I was waging war on one side of a Pangaea while half my troops were on the other side with a guarded civ between them. When that war was winding down, I wanted my money and resources back (80 gpt + my 1 source of Dyes) and needed to know if I had 5 or 15 turns left til the deals expired.

I also like to use lopsided trade to bribe other civs out of wars that stand to significantly improve their standing or into wars with one another to distract and reduce their armies in advance of my invasion

Of course, all of this requires careful diplomatic manipulation (and/or a network of allies) early - mid game and a fairly large, peacefully-settled empire with lots of resources so you can build a *very* strong economy.

 

[skallben]

Couldn't disagree more strongly with the premise of this thread. I use trading to my advantage in myriad was in all of my games. Most of all, I love using it as a weapon and/or to overcome diplomatic hurdles (attain open borders, goad others into war/peace with other civs, etc).

Well compared to IV this is a simplified system, the trade route system was more elaborate than the system in V because it was actually a global system generating revenue from foreign trade routes. Trading in V is reduced to domestic trade routes and bilateral resource trades, IMO a step back. I sincerely hope an expansion will emphasize trade because it has been to much a part of history and fits into a more peaceful mode of play, the second is something that is desperately needed IMO.

 

[eric_]

I agree that trade routes in particular leave something to be desired. IMO, it would be more interesting to implement something like Trade Pacts, available in the "Discuss" screen, allowing two leaders to open their trade routes to one another. I think that would be much more interesting than simply needing to build a road to link in to some other leader's trade network. It could also provide a pretty serious disincentive for backstabbing.

 

[cccv]

I miss trading for food resources, but there's obviously no point in V.

The best use of trading? I just had Khan pay me 4,000 gold for everything I had, then immediately clicked "declare war." When the best use of diplomacy in the game is a cheating exploit, there's something wrong.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

That's not an AI problem, its a Game Design Problem.

The Game is designed around trying to Win rather than trying to build a Civilization.

When I am competing in a Civ game, I should not be competing with the other players, I should be competing with myself.

When the Game Ends, I should immediately go to the Score board and see how my Score compares to My other Scores. (as well as the "Rankings")

This means significantly rearranging "when the game ends"
1. Time is obviously necessary

2. Elimination also is an option (a 'loss' but perhaps one that can still give you a good score if you played well)

3. Removal of all opponents (ie all surviving civs are fully/permanently allied)

4. Someone goes into Space.

It also means making Score the focus...

If someone else goes into space, you still get a score for points for surviving to this point. (And for how close You are to a spaceship win). so there isn't a reason to mass nuke them.

If someone is doing better than you in score, actions which boost both your score and theirs is a viable option.










However, in the game that is designed to win, it seems there is still a Major benefit from "trade"... and that is RAs, they give Massive Gold->Beaker benefits

 

[lepruk86]

I miss trading for food resources, but there's obviously no point in V.

The best use of trading? I just had Khan pay me 4,000 gold for everything I had, then immediately clicked "declare war." When the best use of diplomacy in the game is a cheating exploit, there's something wrong.

I kind of avoid using these exploits personally as it breaks the game.

IIRC the AI will not declare war if you have active trade set-ups. I think they need to implement punishment for this kind of style personally. Maybe either make a 30 turn trade also include a 30 turn declare of peace (though even this is can be easy to abuse).

Or they get to keep your resources for the 30 turns and rather than them going negative; you should go negative. So if you destroy the Iron tile then you take the - hit as realistically you have already given them the Iron.

I also think that one other potential solution would be so that when you trade a strategic resource; they keep it for 30 turns and until all units are dead that have been built with it. I.E after 30 turns they can't replace any units but they don't take a hit on their effectiveness. (this may be already in the game as I am not the best at understanding mechanics of the game).

On topic; I trade for RAs and resources constantly. With the new patch; securing a luxury resource via trade can help with early city spread.