weird AI trade terms

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I asked Attila what he would give me for cotton, he would give:

40 gold
3 gpt
2 iron
embassy

this doesn't seem very reasonable

 

[mystikx21]

Maybe he REALLY needs happiness? (no, not so reasonable).

When was this in game also? Could be the AI doesn't need the iron yet without any units for it? (Thal has iron reveal and unlock both at Bronze Working. They're close together so I'm not sure if this would impact diplomacy at all).

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

late classical age, I had IW for a while without focusing on it and I'd definitely expect warmongering Attila to have IW by that time. King difficulty.

 

[Ahriman]

I asked Attila what he would give me for cotton, he would give:

40 gold
3 gpt
2 iron
embassy

this doesn't seem very reasonable

What's so weird? The baseline is 240 gold. Here, he is giving 40 gold, 120 gold from gpt, embassy is worth 25 gold. So he's offering 185 gold and 2 iron per turn for 30 turns rather than 240 gold.

He probably doesn't need the iron, because he has battering rams and horsies.

 

[ekolis]

In GEM 1.6.6, I just met Isabella, and didn't have any iron, so I asked her what she wanted for her 2 spare iron. She said "the deal is fine as it stands" and didn't ask for anything in return!

 

[Ahriman]

In GEM 1.6.6, I just met Isabella, and didn't have any iron, so I asked her what she wanted for her 2 spare iron. She said "the deal is fine as it stands" and didn't ask for anything in return!

What era was this? If she didn't have any military units than required iron, then its fine for her to value it at nothing.

 

[ekolis]

It was the Renaissance era, for me at least - don't recall what era she was in.

Even if she doesn't need the iron herself, she shouldn't be giving it away for free!

Speaking of units which require iron, I find it kind of funny that Ironclads require coal, but not iron...

 

[mystikx21]

Ironclads are apparently to be changed to require iron instead of coal as in VEM. I'm not entirely sure this was a great idea, but it at least means I might build some of them. Coal always went toward factories.

I agree she shouldn't be giving it away unless you've got some diplomatic pressure/advantage to wield. Or unless you have no real use for it either.

 

[Ahriman]

Ironclads are apparently to be changed to require iron instead of coal as in VEM.

I think this is a bad idea. Iron is not scarce by that stage, so it isn't going to be binding.

Coal was the important strategic resource of the time, iron was largely just a commodity.

I think we should try to have at least 2 different things that can be built with each of the late game strategic resources: coal, oil, aluminium, uranium.

I think there is an interesting question as to whether I build more factories now, or build the factories in the modern era and use the coal for a kick-ass navy now.

 

[Zaldron]

I asked Attila what he would give me for cotton, he would give:

40 gold
3 gpt
2 iron
embassy

this doesn't seem very reasonable

Let's add this up:

40 gold +
3*30 = 90 +
2 *45 = 90 +
embassy 25 = 245 gold

That's more than they would give you in straight cash. So presumably they're treating the iron as worthless and they slightly dislike you, decreasing the amount they'd give you.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

is iron really worth so little though? generally I don't think it's a good idea to trade away resources that will be converted into units that could be used against you.

 

[Hreat]

generally I don't think it's a good idea to trade away resources that will be converted into units that could be used against you.

I feel the exact opposite. If those units ever get used against you they'll have the strategic resource penalty because DoW ends the trade agreement by which you're supplying iron to support those units.

Getting your enemy to pay you and weaken their own troops at the same time sounds like pretty good strategy to me.

 

[mystikx21]

The strategic resource penalty is being reduced in GEM (and the AI gets extra experience). So it's not quite as lucrative a strategy...

 

[ekolis]

How about making ironclads require iron AND coal, but giving them a small buff to compensate?

 

[Thalassicus]

I will increase the ironclad requirement from 2 to 4.

 

[Ahriman]

4 iron?!?
Why? Why not just just 1 coal? It is more realistic, it is more interesting strategically.

 

[Thalassicus]

I changed from coal to iron a few years ago because no one built ironclads. They've traditionally been marginalized in each version of Civilization, which I don't like, because they were a big stage in naval warfare. It makes sense to use iron for building ironclads, and creates a smoother unit progression (iron sotl -> iron ironclad -> oil battleship -> oil cruiser).

Iron is just as common as aluminum in the modern era, so why are they strategic resources? It's because the game is an abstract representation of the real world. Some people notice things like units dwarfing cities, or rifles with lower range than archers, but these abstractions don't bother me.

 

[Ahriman]

I changed from coal to iron a few years ago because no one built ironclads.

I built ironclads.
I agree that the vanilla version isn't worth building, because like other melee ships it is underpowered, but it is perfectly possible to have a powerful ranged attacker that is worth building, particularly one that can be upgraded into and that upgrades into the battleship.

I think people mostly didn't build ironclads because navies were still weak and boring in general and couldn't capture cities. If the ironclad unit is sufficiently powerful, people will build it. You have everyone complaining that the battleship is overpowered, so surely there is a way to make a powerful ironclad with a strong range 2 indirect fire ranged attack.

It makes sense to use iron for building ironclads

No it doesn't. Iron was not a strategic resource in short supply. It wasn't hard to get the raw materials to build them. The resource constraint for them was having enough coal to fuel them.

Just because it has iron in the name or is made of metal doesn't mean it needs a strategic resource constraint. Cannons are made of iron; they don't need to require the iron resource. Railroads are made of iron; they don't need the iron resource. Tanks are made of steel, but they don't need an iron resource.

Without a coal ironclad, there are no longer any interesting strategic decisions with coal, unlike with oil or uranium. I think the late-game resources (coal, oil, uranium, aluminium) should all have some kind of use decision.

Iron is just as common as aluminum in the modern era, so why are they strategic resources?

Aluminium is a necessary compromise; oil is really the only strategic resource in the real world modern era, but that would be boring in gameplay terms.
Aluminium was a real strategic resource with access limitations back in the 1950s when it was first being used for jet aircraft.
Aluminium could be renamed to rare earths or rare metals, but this probably isn't worth doing.

 

[mystikx21]

This is the same argument being refought over skyscrapers and other steel requirement buildings.

The two cents are that iron still doesn't make sense. But that the trade-off is that most people probably won't build ironclads (I wouldn't) unless they're made into a more powerful unit.

 

[Ahriman]

So make them a powerful unit, a real pre-battleship, and have them use a coal.
Then there is an interesting tradeoff; factories now, powerful ships now and factories later, or some of each.

I can live with the skyscraper issue, though I don't really like it, but it feels weird if it is replacing the med-lab, which does not require a strategic resource.