Luxuries

[JAffleck]

My first post, though I have read nearly all of them.

My question concerns luxuries. It appears there are two ways to increase happiness through luxuries:

1. Obtain luxuries you don't already have via expansion, conquest, or trade;

2. Raise the luxury rate on the slider.

So far, I've traded for luxuries. I wonder, though, if it's in fact cheaper/better to simply increase the slider. For example, given the choice of increasing luxuries by ten percent or paying a per-turn rate for wine, which is preferable?

Also, I notice that imported goods are identified by civ--French Wine, for example. Does importing wine from more than one civ have any effect, or is the happiness effect limited to the first installment of a given luxury?

In general, how do others deal with luxuries? Opinions? Strategies?

[Matthevv]

With a marketplace, importing luxuries is definitely worth it, as the happiness benefit increases the more different luxuries you have. The third and fourth luxury make two smileys each and the fifth and sixth three each.

I don't think you get the option of importing a luxury from more than one Civ, nor more than one luxury (which would allow you to trade the spare to other Civs).

[Gatlin]

Yes, you cannot import more than one of any specific luxury resource.

When the Trade Advisor says we need to secure more x, that means conquer and get, not trade for!

[Kc7mxo]

It would be very interesting if you could play middleman for other civs. would certainly add an interesting economic effect for the early game. like the portugeuse monopoly on eastern goods (not that they retained it for long).

[Bubba_B]

I don't like giving the per turn gold for lux. either, so I use my techs and small lump sums of gold to get what I want. This usually works if you are willing to part with a tech and some gold.

I like to barter with them every turn till I get a good deal.

[JohnE]

What you prefer to trade for luxuries is up to you and dependent on your situation. But here's what I have found.

In general, raising the luxury slider seems to cost more money per happy face than buying somebody else's luxury resource. This is especially true if you have many marketplaces, because they make luxuries more effective.

Therefore when I need to trade for luxuries, I prefer to trade luxuries. If I have to throw something else in, I try to use gold per turn, unless the Civ in question is way behind in technology. That way, I am not giving away any advantages I might have from strategic resources or technology, and the other Civ has an incentive to not war on me for 20 turns.

I suppose if you have no luxuries, and had to get other people's luxuries with just gold, it might get expensive. I'll have to try that.

[atog]

Originally posted by JAffleck
Also, I notice that imported goods are identified by civ--French Wine, for example. Does importing wine from more than one civ have any effect, or is the happiness effect limited to the first installment of a given luxury?

This is just merely to makes sure that you wont declear war on French if you want to keep your wine

[vmxa1]

It seems to me that the increase (slider) to lux does not do that much. I wonder if it is not cheaper to set some pops to entertainers?

[David Weldon]

The problem with increasing the slider is that its effects depend on the commerce created in your city. Importing luxuries works for all cities by the same amount. Here's an example to illustrate the difference:

Let's say your size 2 city is threatening unrest and because of corruption it is producing only 2 commerce. You must set your luxury slider to 30% or higher just to convert one gold to entertainment and make your first citizen happy, thereby offsetting the unhappy second citizen. The effect of this on your Capital, however, is staggering. You're now throwing away probably 6 or more gold on entertainment that isn't necessary (because you've got more happy buildings there).

Of course the downside to importing luxuries is that no matter how many you import, they only produce happy faces, not content faces. This means that in my example above, the third citizen would be unhappy and send the boarder town into unrest because there aren't any content citizens for the happy faces to act upon. (yes, that means you need to rush religious buildings to get content citizens so that the luxuries can then make them happy citizens)

In my experience unhappiness occurs in the small, newly founded towns much more than the larger, well-improved towns. This means that I basically never use the luxury slider once I can build Cathedrals and Colosseums.

[greggbert]

I have found that it is often Not such a good idea to trade luxuries for luxuries, in that you can more often profit from Luxuries for Cash and Cash for Luxuries.

Some civ is going to have the cheapest luxury and some civ is going to want luxuries the most. If you can get a good lump sum or per turn from selling yours and a cheap lump sum or per turn from buying, then that will often set you better than luxuries for luxuries, and it is more flexible. This flexibility can be used to a huge advantage. Consider the following:

Sell 2 Luxuries to player A for a lump sum of cash. Use the cash to entice player B (who is currently receiving 2 luxuries from player A) to enter into a military alliance Against player A. Player B declares war and now is short 2 luxuries, so you sell THE SAME 2 luxuries to player B on a per turn basis Now you can buy 2 cheap luxuries from player C, who's got way too much ivory and Deys so you get it cheap. See that! You are now getting tons of cash from your ally player B and getting bargain basement prices from C and got a free alliance from the extra cash you got by double-crossing player A. Just make sure that if someone gets new luxuries in the war that it is YOU AND NOT PLAYER B, and you are all set!

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by greggbert
Sell 2 Luxuries to player A for a lump sum of cash. Use the cash to entice player B (who is currently receiving 2 luxuries from player A) to enter into a military alliance Against player A.

Setting up a trade (with player A) then declaring war (military alliance)... from what I understand that hurts your reputation since you're fullfilling your end of the trade agreement (20 turns of the luxury to player A). Just like setting up a Right of Passage & then declaring war does. If you don't mind a crappy reputation I guess that's ok.

[jasonab]

Has anyone else noticed that offering luxuries can hurt a trade?

I was trying to trade with the Russians, getting a tech and gems for tech and silks. When I offered only the tech, my adivor said they were unlikely to take the trade. When I added the silks, my advisor said the Russians would be insulted.

Why would adding a luxury decrease the desirability of a trade?

[vmxa1]

I do not know, but the whole trade this is out of whack due to the high value given for having cities of any size and troops of great numbers, regardless of the type. If the AI has 70 warriors and 20 cities most small and you have 12 calv and 15 cities all at least 6, most 12 or more, the AI will likely thing you are inferior. In that case it wants more than it is willing to give. I see that insulted stuff all the time while I am ranked first. It will ask for a tech and cash and offer me just a tech and be insulted if you want more? Just for fun I make the offer I think is fair and if they get insulted I declare war. Too bad it does not learn to offer better deals after getting jacked for low balling me. At the slightest thing, I attack. Offer a bad deal, send a settler in my land you get war. So much fun. Those 70 warriors are not worth anything as they can not get them to one point at once and you can get enough man power to the city under fire to stop them. If 70 warriors where able to attack 10 calv in the open, they would have value, but they are spread all over the civs empire.

[Skanky Burns]

Trading for luxuries is definately better. With a marketplace, you can make up to 20 people happy if you have access to all luxuries, with just a marketplace in the city!!
If you only have 1 luxury, it will double the number of happy people! If you have 2 luxuries, a third will also double the number of happy people you have (assuming you have marketplaces).

I only really use the luxury slider when im in a war as Democracy or Republic, and just need to crush a few more cities before making peace. Rather than let war weariness overcome my cities, i just put the luxury slider to 10%. This mostly affects the larger cities, those with more commerce, which also tend to be the ones on the brink of disorder

[MadWombat]

Heh. I VERY rarely trade specifically for a luxury; if I'm selling tech, and someone wants to offer me one, I won't say no, likewise for peace treaties.

Basically, my philosophy is this: The more gold they're paying me (even if I don't use it), the less they have to put into research, and the easier it is for me to get further ahead in tech. So, I'll sell the AI nearly anything simply to drain his cash. If I have resources, strategic or luxury, I'll sell 'em for as much as I can get. Same goes for tech and even cities that I really don't want.

In my last (Emperor) game, I was pulling in about 800 gold/turn from other civs before I decided to kill everyone. That was enough to allow me to sit my research on 100%, and not worry about cash. Since the other civs were using all their cash paying me off, they weren't getting ahead in technology. That allowed me to keep on selling them new techs, at a slower rate than I could research them (got it down to 4 turns/tech), and thus constantly increasing my tech lead.

If you MUST pay gold for something, try and give them a lump sum; they tend to spend it, and not get the advantage of being able to lower their taxes to increase research. =]

[JohnE]

Originally posted by jasonab
Has anyone else noticed that offering luxuries can hurt a trade?

I was trying to trade with the Russians, getting a tech and gems for tech and silks. When I offered only the tech, my adivor said they were unlikely to take the trade. When I added the silks, my advisor said the Russians would be insulted.

Why would adding a luxury decrease the desirability of a trade?

Yes I just noticed that last night!

Interestingly, I was trying to trade with the Russians, too. I wanted to trade Printing Press and Dyes. I asked them what they would offer for Printing Press and they offered most of their gold, plus 9 gold per turn, plus their World Map. When I threw in Dyes with the intention of getting more from them, the advisor said they would be insulted! When I asked what they would offer for Printing Press plus Dyes, they only offered 8 gold per turn. What the heck is that about?

[dweez]

Originally posted by JohnE
What the heck is that about?

It's a bug, obviously.
I understand that the AI doesn't like getting things per turn (afraid of losing them if you declare war), but the algorithm for calculating this has some flows. Yesterday for example: I want a technology (don't remember which), I offer 200 gold. The deal is acceptable, but if I throw in additional 5 gold/turn "they would never accept it". Silly.

[MarshalN]

It's great to have a lot of per-turn gold deals with the AI though, because they have no incentive to war you and will avoid it a lot more than they would otherwise. I am trying to win culturally this game, and so I'm tying them up with deals that keep my neighbours at peace with me. They're not a big threat militarily, but I don't want a war to disrupt my culture production.

The problem with paying lump sum is that it's difficult sometimes to gather the 600-800 gold you need to pay, especially in early-mid game where things start to cost a lot more. There are always places to spend money, and I think sometimes dealing a luxury away for something in return is a very good deal, even if it means you have to throw in 3 or 4 gold per turn. Usually if it's a tech you're getting, you can get another deal in return for more money.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by MadWombat
Basically, my philosophy is this: The more gold they're paying me (even if I don't use it), the less they have to put into research, and the easier it is for me to get further ahead in tech. Since the other civs were using all their cash paying me off, they weren't getting ahead in technology. That allowed me to keep on selling them new techs, at a slower rate than I could research them (got it down to 4 turns/tech), and thus constantly increasing my tech lead.

Perfect example of how the AI gives up it's soul (usually all it's treasury, income, & future science) for simply 1 tech today... disappointing... the AI is very stupid, vulnerable & weak in this department. Worse it will do it for even Music Theory (even if the wonder is already built).

[vmxa1]

I find that unless I play on chieftian, I have no tech to trade until it is very late. I did luck out in my current game and got an early leader (japan) and hurried the Great Lib. This let me turn my research down to 10% and let them give me techs for free. When I see a tech that I can jump ahead of the tree and reseach, I may try that.

[Nero Would]

Originally posted by David Weldon
(snip)

Of course the downside to importing luxuries is that no matter how many you import, they only produce happy faces, not content faces. This means that in my example above, the third citizen would be unhappy and send the boarder town into unrest because there aren't any content citizens for the happy faces to act upon. (yes, that means you need to rush religious buildings to get content citizens so that the luxuries can then make them happy citizens)

(snip)

That is the way it works according to Civilopedia, but the manual says (page 177) that if there are no content citizens, a happy face will make an unhappy citizen content. Normally I would believe Civilopedia rather than the manual as it should be more up to date. But when I checked this in a game, it seems the manual is right, if you have no content citizens and a bunch of unhappy ones, an extra happy face will make an unhappy citizen content.

That implies that a happy face is always better than a content one (which, after all, seems reasonable).

[Matthevv]

About the AI Civ being insulted when you include a per-turn in the offer. I think this might be to do with your reputation. If you have stopped paying before the end of 20 turns previously you might find that they won't enter into per-turn deals with you. There may also be a similar thing with offering luxuries, if you stopped providing a luxury before the 20 turns. I think that if you want to get the most from trade you have to have good relations and reputation with the Civs you are trading with, then they give you a better deal. I notice that in my game the Japanese won't offer much to buy techs off me, though they are several behind the rest of the world and have the cash. We were at war until recently. I give presents to everybody else to make sure they love me, and never break a deal. I have ridiculous amounts of cash now.

[MadWombat]

Certainly, the AI could use some lessons as to which techs are worth trading for, but really, the player does need SOME strategy to get ahead on higher levels since te AI gets massive production bonuses....