War cancels deals?

[Archon_Wing]

Which makes me think. What's to stop you from trading some GPT or a resource for 30 turns for like a great work or straight up gold and then declaring war immediately afterwards? Maybe I should remember to do that before I go to a war.

 

[Forster]

Which is why I think there ought to be a minimum number of turns before you can declare war after a deal is made. Or, if not that, a massive hit to your relations with other civs for being an untrustworthy back-stabber.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, I figured there might be two ways.

One is just that the GPT you offered is simply lost and any resources you offered for trade are inactive for the remainder of the deal (nobody's gonna take that stuff, and maybe the otherside won't give it back). Of course great works and cities you got, I have no idea

The other is as you suggested would be a global diplomatic malus that you are untrustworthy and other civs are hesitant to deal with you, or it'd be funny if they told you only prefer payments straight up, lol.

 

[bbbt]

This has always been an issue(or common exploit) in Civ as far as I remember. I believe in 5 they required you to have a declaration of friendship with a civ before doing lump sum trades of cash, to try and limit it a bit.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, in 4, GPT was really only for peace treaties and resources. AI mostly took everything else for lump sums. Deals only lasted for 10 turns though.

5 AIs humorously would go to war with someone else for like 3 gpt. Which is very exploitable.

 

[Michkov]

Well, in 4, GPT was really only for peace treaties and resources. AI mostly took everything else for lump sums. Deals only lasted for 10 turns though.

You can't end the deal for the first 10 turns, but there is no upper bound to how long they'll last.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Right, that wasn't well worded.

Deals didn't have to be renewed but could be cancelled arbitrarily after 10 turns.

I would have much preferred Civ 5's way of them reminding you a deal had to be renewed. I don't remember half the deals I make in this game.

 

[stinkubus]

The same or another AI will solicit another trade within a turn or two of the deal ending.

 

[Monthar]

What if trade deals were tied to the CB system? By this I mean if you have an active trade deal you can't declare a surprise war on that civ and you can't make a trade deal with a civ you've denounced or has denounced you. Thus you would be forced to have the trade active for a minimum of 5 turns before you could go to war. Which means you'd have to make the trade deal then denounce them. Then the warmonger penalties would make it more likely for the other civs to denounce you, thus preventing new trade deal with them until you've improved the relationship enough to not be denounced by those civs.

 

[Victoria]

AI mostly took everything else for lump sums

That's exploitable also, here is some mercury, gimme 200 gold and I'll send it to you for 30 turns..... I promise....

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ah, well, in that case, it was for things like change government and techs; there were very little things that were based on turn, besides peace deals which mostly couldn't be broken. They would never take gpt for a tech for example like how you can for a great work in 6.

The main exploit here is that 5 gpt for 30 turns isn't the same as having to pay 150 gold upfront.

 

[Victoria]

I believe if a civ is not your friend they should only give GPT for your goods and only accept lump sums for theirs with a stronger chance to act this way as friendship is coming to an end.

I have bought cities off civs for GPT before going to war, it's just bad, especially as England when you get a free redcoat in it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, in 4, GPT was really only for peace treaties and resources. AI mostly took everything else for lump sums. Deals only lasted for 10 turns though.

5 AIs humorously would go to war with someone else for like 3 gpt. Which is very exploitable.

Seems to me like 4 had the most exploitable trade deals of all if I recall . . .

 

[Karpius]

Try to look at it in the historical sense....

Many a war was started over broken trade deals (treaties). The exploitive aspect of making an advantageous deal right before declaring war sort of fits in with real world politics. Just ask the Native Americans! Or pretty much any other group throughout history.

Broken treaties are an equal opportunity offense.

 

[Rosty K]

Try to look at it in the historical sense....

Many a war was started over broken trade deals (treaties). The exploitive aspect of making an advantageous deal right before declaring war sort of fits in with real world politics. Just ask the Native Americans! Or pretty much any other group throughout history.

Broken treaties are an equal opportunity offense.

Well, a deal that was broken because of the war can't be a reason for the war (as the war is already there). There should be a diplomatic penalty for doing that though (as if anyone cares anyway).

 

[Archon_Wing]

Seems to me like 4 had the most exploitable trade deals of all if I recall . . .

Tech trading, maybe, but that was more of it being an inherently flawed system rather than the deals as they'd generally never give you a fair trade (for you) as well as the irrationality of the AI to not.

It probably would have made more sense to disable tech brokering by default.

Regardless though I think it'd be better to only allow GPT for resources and peace deals. (Later is pretty obvious)