Modified Trade - Suggestion for CivIII XP or Patch

[dexters]

May 16 2003 - This is a Version 2.0 post. I've Added a new idea about gpt bonus and government types. Other segments of the original posts have also been modified for clarity


I'd actually ilike the see the inclusion of a deal called a "trade pact" that would allow for abstracted goods to flow between civilizations with both civs receiving a gold per turn bonus. This would be an additional diplomatic option.


The trade deals, like all trades, can be renegotiated every 20 turns and cost each Civ nothing. It is meant as a bonus for establishing a trade route. This would essentially represent the economic activity generated from trading goods with another empire.

The gpt can be determined by the size of the empire, population, existing # of luxuries traded, # of strategic resource traded and as I've explained, the level of the trade deal.

The game uses a formula, possibly using the existing resource trades as some of its base values, and I would automatically receive added gpt from international trade. This would encourage players to trade internationally and be less of a warmonger. The idea of a trade pact can be further expanded to included a two sliders (one for each side) that range from "worst" to "best", so that two friendly civs would be on the "best" of terms and receiveadded gpt.

Conversely, A powerful Civ may also demand a "best" trade deal for themselves from a weaker civ while giving them a "moderate" or "poor" trade deal (kind of like exploiting them). This opens up economic war, and hopefully will re-engage the "vassal" system that occured due to a bug in the original Civ III. Again, it won't neccessarily cripple the Civ who is forced to provide the unbalanced trade deal since the gpt earned is bonus and won't come out of the treasury. It will however greatly enhance the feeling of a Civ "submitting" to a more powerful Civ after a war... at least for 20 turns, or until it allies up with someone else to protect itself.

Hostile naitons may only keep a minimal trade deal where both sides receive the least benefits.

Long time allies will offer each other the best of deals, receiving substantial gpt added to the treasure.

Version 2.0 addition
--------------------------
Furthermore, you can add another layer of depth. gpt may also be determined by government type. Two government who are Democracies will have in effect a freer trade deal and generate more gpt. Two communist governments trading may receive other bonus science beakers? ( or something meant to represent the communual brotherhood of communism) And the options may also include bonus units, production, happy faces... etc. outside gpt.


Incompatible governments (even if they are good allies) such as a Democracy and a Communism trading may generate fewer gpt and bonuses than they otherwise would have.

[Azeem]

I like this idea. Although I doubt they'll use it in a patch or an expansion. But it's something they should really include in Civ4 (whenever that would be in the works ).

[Spiffor]

What would the downside of these trade pacts be ?

[dexters]

Trade on a theoretical level is supposed to be a win - win situation. This is true in the real world. The system I am proposing is very simple and adds a gpt income as an abstraction of the economic activity gained from trading with an overseas civilizations and the profit gained from trading (ie: in terms of comparative advantage etc) I'd rather not get into a lecture on macroeconomics. So just take my word for it.

There is no downside per se, except giving another civ a gpt boost which may in turn make it difficult for you to turn around and conquer them because they can afford a larger more advanced military and more improvements.

The idea of such trade pacts is it rewards stability in relationship between naitons, adds another layer of penalty for people who are all too willing to sacrifice their reputation and from a theoretical standpoint, hope that the AI may grow attached to this extra income and act with more logic when it declares war. That is, it doesn't declare war against a traditional ally unless there is a good reason to.

[Spiffor]

(Off topic : While I don't believe in trade being always a win-win deal, I'll keep my opinions for the OT forum. In Civ, the reference economist is Adam Smith, so for the sake of the argument let's say I agree with the idea trade is a win-win situation.)

Well, I have thought of other win-win deals, and from a gameplay perspective, all have a price to some extent. But I agree with you that allowing the foreign Civ to make money is somehow a price to pay for the trade deal.

A good idea And it is no revolution, so we can hope for its implementation in the next XP. However, the money gained by these trade deals shouldn't be too critical. Otherwise, it would unalance the game in favor of builders and would hamper the warmongering.

Besides, I think large economies should profit more from trade pacts, and the mutual profits from it should be asymetric. This way, smaller / weaker Civ can still benefit from trade deals, but by knowing they are helping the fat cat more than them (it could be an incentive to use military action if it brings more benefits).

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, I have thought of other win-win deals, and from a gameplay perspective, all have a price to some extent. But I agree with you that allowing the foreign Civ to make money is somehow a price to pay for the trade deal.

That's the way GalCiv does it. But I wouldn't expect so radical an addition in a mere XP.

[bobbo008]

how about some anger from citizens when you give a civa a bad deal? this is like the globalization demonstrations, saying we give china a "bad trade".

i also think that things in general should cost more, as in a game i usualy play, i would get a lot more money than i could use. lets say if i didnt trade with someone, i should be hardly able to survive, i'm dependant on trade, like so many countries are nowadays...