Free Trade between Civs

[Vitmore The Great]

Now, I know that trade in Civ III will be empire and not city based, which is a great improvement. But, I assume correctly, you can trade only SPECIFIC commodities through specific treaties specific civs.

Well, what about Free Trade in which you can trade ANYTHING automatically as you need them with a civ whom you signed a free trade agreement like NAFTA or the EU?

The way I can see this working is that the civs who are in the pact have the commodities for their personal use. If I am producing, lets say a Mech. Inf and I need oil. I cue the unit up, and I automatically send gold over the my free trade partner and obatin the oil that I need for the unit. No special agreement. I pay my partner for the resource and get my unit automatically. In this way the member civs can have economic booms. If I am at war with somebody and need oil for my armour, I start building armour and pay my parter civ money for the oil needed automatically. They make money off my demand. It would be in their best interests for me to continue my war because they are benefiting from my trade. A historical precedence for such an occurance is the US Lend-Lease Act with Britain and the USSR in WWII. The US has the industry to build the armarments and therefore benefits from British and Soviet consumption. This model would add another layer the Civ III depth. Of course, the civs would have to be EXTREMELY friendly to each other and possibly have a traditional alliance before the have the option for a free trade agreement. Who knows, maybe this could be the jumping off point for a union between the member civs, a la European Union.

What you all think?

If Firaxis would like to respond (which I doubt ) they are more than welcome to.


Vitmore

[General Ludd]

That'd be nice, though I think it'd be important for all sides to be able to control how many of which resources are available to their allies, and also set the prices that they cost.

[Rommel393]

good idea... as long as its just an option and not the whole trade system. which is what i think u were implying.

[Olangotang]

I think this is a craking idea. Civ's in the free trade then can forces others into the freetrade pac. Forming big unions and the civ with the greatest culture wins by slow asimalation.

No need for war but total world domanation.

[shum00]

But what about this?

Say 3 civs are in the pact, and one civ has a single supply of oil. Both other nations in the pact are in a war, and both require the oil in order to build tanks. Who gets the oil? What if all three nations are fighting a war?

[General Ludd]

I don't think they'd be able to be in a pact while at war, they should at the very least require a non agression pact.

As for 2 civs competing for 1 resource, maybe they can bid against eachother, offering more payment in return so that they can have access to that resource.... but that would be pretty much like how it is already supposed to work through negotiations.

[shum00]

Sorry, I didn't word that very well. I meant the civs in the pact were at war with civ(s) not in the pact.

[Olangotang]

Tricky. Do you have to stock pile a resouce say 5 oil to build one tank. Or is it just that your civ has to have a supply of oil??

[Olangotang]

The whole ppoint of the free trade pact is to stop bidding so all civ's involed buy the oil at the same price if there are storages the price gos up for all.

This may lead to tensions in the pact and the civ with the oil leaves and takes the oil with them force the other civs to attack !

[Pagan]

Vitmore, I’m all for the concept. Perhaps there could be a type of economic victory. Perhaps economic prosperity could lead to population shifts just as the cultural value does. After all people follow the jobs / money.

Further to your Lend Lease analogy, trade in good requires the transportation of the commodities from the producer to the purchaser. Let us not forget the damage caused by German U boats in the early war years (and in the years preceding US involvement in WW II).

[Vitmore The Great]

About competing for resources, I don't think that should be an issue. Any partner civ have access tot he resources according to their relative demands. Of course Civ A, who is at war, is going to get more oil than Civ B, just because A's demand is so much more. I'm not sure if resources are finite in Civ III or not. If they are infinite, then the question of how the resources should be partitioned shouldn't even matter.

About the prices, I don't know how involved Civ III is about pricing. The game would be MUCH more complicated for the user if s/he had to set prices for all commodities. So I would think prices may go up as a civ gets farther along the technological process (inflation?), or the prices stay the same through out the game. Or the game can automatically adjust prices based on demand from other civs. The whole point of the is model is to simulate the fluidity and laissez-faire characteristics of free trade agreements.

About Lend-Lease, Pagan, you are quite correct about the damage done by German U-boats, but this model would not use any units to transport goods a la Civ II. The Lend-Lease analogy was just to illustrate the supply/demand of the free trade model. Perhaps there can be an option for a belligerant to the free trade/military alliance to interupt their trade in war? In an effort to break it up?


Vitmore

[Urban Ranger]

Usually "free trade" means no traiff barriers, not your partner will automatically sell you whatever you want.

[Method Man]

What about diplomatic options? Will there be any way to "force" civs into trade pacts besides threatening war? Will this even be possible in the first place because I know the diplomatic options have been enhanced but I still haven't heard any info from Firaxis of the ability to make ultamatums-ex. " Dare to enter into a trade pact with X and we will crush you!" or "If you dare enter the territory of our economic allies the Americans, we will destroy you!"??? Ultamatums should be able to go beyond the barbaric well-known ultamatums from civ2 such as the popular, "Give us Pottery or we will annihilate your pathetic civilization!" It is clear that diplomacy and trade will be extremely intertwined so I only hope we will be given many economic options in the diplomacy model.

[waynehead]

Test.

[Vitmore The Great]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Usually "free trade" means no traiff barriers, not your partner will automatically sell you whatever you want.

True. But in the Civ games there are no tarriffs in the first place on goods. Only their value, the civs don't control how much they cost. When I say "free trade" for Civ III, I mean trading without having to open up the diplo screen and having to negotiate for a resource everytime you need and have the possibility of being turned down. In free trade, you have uncurtailed access to the resource anytime, unless you cannot pay the regular "market" or default prices for it. So, it's not like you would be getting the resources for free. No way, that would be to easy.

Vitmore

P.S. no tarriff barriers and partner civ automatically selling you whatever is the same thing, yes? At least in the limited bounds of Civ III?

[Edward]

Civ3 site
Strategic resources are needed to make certain military units (iron, for example, is needed to make the Swordsman or Roman Legion units)

Civ3 site
Do resources ever run out?
Yes. Though it happens infrequently, resources will sometimes be exhausted, forcing you to find a new source.

Civ3 site
How do I utilize resources?
To access any good, you need to build a road to that good. That good must also be connected to your capitol in some way, be it by road, harbor, or airport. If the good in question lies outside of your borders, you will also need to build a colony on that square. For luxury resources, all cities connected to the trade network will automatically receive the benefit of the luxury. For resources, all networked cities should now be able to build units that require that resource.

It seems to me (and this is just a guess) that you merely have or do not have access to iron (or whatever resource). I think your supply might randomly be exhausted, but I don't think there'll be a fixed number or iron units in the mine, nor will there be a fixed number of iron units per mine that your city/colony can "produce" per turn.

Civ3 siteYou can trade a variety of things, including:

• Gold (lump sum or per turn)
• Resources[/li]

I'm pretty sure you can set up a "give me access to Oil for 3 coins/turn" deal. This (I think) is similar to what Vitmore The Great is referring to when he says "Free Trade" (regardless of what it might mean in the real world). Of course you'll have to pay 3 coins/turn whether you build 100 tanks or no tanks at all. Once you're set your cost, you needn't go back to the Persians every turn and ask that the deal continue. (I assume that you will have to open up the diplomacy screen when you want the deal to stop or to change the price.)

[Edward]

from Civ3.com's 22 Aug Ask the Civ Team update
Finally, another thing to note is that the trade advisor screen will tell which Civ has surplus resources you need, as long as you have a trade route with that civ and are not at war. This allows you to quickly determine who you should be trading with.

Apparently the supplier needs to have a surplus. Perhaps my previous post was incorrect. My next misleading guess is that you need one iron mine to supply yourself with iron. If you have two iron mines then you have a surplus and can supply it to other civs. (perhaps one other civ per "extra" iron mine?)