Luxury swapping

Knecht · July 11, 2003, 12:26

On rare occasions I'll get an offer to trade luxuries straight across - ivory for incense, gems for silk, etc. - with no other demands. I'm usually inclined to agree to the trade just because it's as close to a good deal as I'm likely to get from those other greedy civs. But I have to ask myself, why should I do it? I don't gain any advantage from it in terms of happiness - at least I can't see how because I'm gaining one and losing one. I suppose the good will might be worth it. Is there any advantage either in terms of happiness or good will? Thanks in advance for any input.

Catt · July 11, 2003, 14:03

You only get the luxury happiness effects from one type of luxury, no matter how many you control. So, if you control 8 gems but no other luxury, you really only "have" 1 luxury for happiness purposes. If you trade an excess gem for an AI's spice, you now have 2 luxuries, increasing your people's happiness levels.

They only time you wouldn't gain any happiness from a luxury trade is when you trade away your sole source of a luxury. For example, say you only controlled 1 gems and decided to trade it for an AI's spice - following the trade your people have lost the happiness from the gems but it has been replaced by happiness from the imported spice. The AI won't ever trade its sole source, and I'm pretty sure it will never ask for your sole source, but nothing prevents you from offering a sole source as part of a deal (and you can strike some pretty advantageous sole source deals when you're not among the strongest civs in the game).

Catt

vmxa1 · July 11, 2003, 14:04

You won't be losing anything as it is only an extra lux.
If you do not have marketplaces, you will not get eh full effect, but it will still help.
The other thing I like to trade or sell luxs is it a mean of keeping them from doing you harm. They will be less inclined to sign embargos or alliances against you or break deals if they are gettign a lux from you as they want them for their own people.

zorbop · July 11, 2003, 18:09

on the topic of trading luxuries, why does the ai's luxuries always seem more valuable? i will normally have to trade money/tech AND a luxery for just one of their luxuries.

Theseus · July 11, 2003, 18:40

The value of a luxury is proportionate to the benefit to the receiving civ.

So if you get more happy faces from a lux-lux trade than an AI civ does, you have to pay more.

vmxa1 · July 11, 2003, 18:50

I have no problem wiht that, but I would not mind if it was tad more intelligent about the thing. I mean if they are sitting on 14 extras silk and no one is make a bid for them is it not worth less than they seem to think?
I don;t mind when I ask one for one on lux and they only have 1 and demand more, but when they have a box ful and they are not moving? Worse yet when they are broke and at war. Could they not benefit here?

Theseus · July 11, 2003, 18:56

Or the reverse... monopoly control and pricing.

The Mad Monk · July 12, 2003, 06:51

Does the AI consider supply and demand at all at this point?

From what I've seen, I'd say it dosen't, and only considers the balances of benefits between two parties, without considering the possibility that another party might be more "reasonable".

ToeTruck · July 12, 2003, 08:20

I don't think the AI considers supply and demand at all.

I've negotiated with a rival that has extra luxuries, something like:

Spices (2)
Furs (4)
Gems (1)

The asking price is the same if I'm asking for Furs or Gems which makes me think supply and demand does not come into play. This is true in reverse if I'm the one with the extra luxuries; the price offered by the rival is the same for Gems and Furs.

Plus, if you ask for Gems from another rival in the same turn, his asking price is often wildly different.

-TT

vmxa1 · July 12, 2003, 13:38

It would appear that it does not consider much at all. Maybe how much it likes you as a civ and how much you have and little more.
If you have tech they do not they will nearly always want the tech. The more you have on hand the more they will ask.
I say that as I tried to get furs from Japan at one point and they had 14 extra and wanted tech and gpt and we were on a polite basis.
They went through the whole game with those 14 extra until I got mad and took them away.
So you tell me, what was the thinking there?

Catt · July 12, 2003, 15:06

If the AI does take supply and demand into account, it does so only in very limited circumstances and the effect is small. Normally, any luxury from the same civ will come at the same price (as one would expect) but I have come across several instances of differing prices on luxuries from the same civ -- even posted an example some time ago, in a thread over-confidently titled AI Understands Monopoly Value - the posted example was from AU 107 (before it became AU 107). In subseqent instances where I've seen examples, I couldn't divine any obvious logic that could account for disparity (monopoly control wasn't the sole factor) and haven't tested it at all -- but I do know that there are at least certain instances when different luxuries command different prices for whatever reason.

Catt

Knecht · July 12, 2003, 15:32

Okay, let me see if I have this right. If I have extra luxuries, they don't really do me any good unless I trade them, yes? With this in mind, I just traded the Chinese one dye and one silk for Invention. This seems to me a good trade because after twenty turns these luxuries won't do the Chinese any good and I'll have Invention forever. Am I missing something or was this a good deal for me? Also, I have have a running swap of Spices for Incense with my good neighbors the Chinese (who are, by the way the only Civ ahead of me in points and probably much stronger) and so far they haven't attacked me. This new deal should cement that relationship, right?

Rhothaerill · July 12, 2003, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Knecht
Okay, let me see if I have this right. If I have extra luxuries, they don't really do me any good unless I trade them, yes? With this in mind, I just traded the Chinese one dye and one silk for Invention. This seems to me a good trade because after twenty turns these luxuries won't do the Chinese any good and I'll have Invention forever. Am I missing something or was this a good deal for me? Also, I have have a running swap of Spices for Incense with my good neighbors the Chinese (who are, by the way the only Civ ahead of me in points and probably much stronger) and so far they haven't attacked me. This new deal should cement that relationship, right?

Luxury deals are often a very good thing for you, but not if you are going for a points win. I would bet that one of the reasons the Chinese are ahead of you in points is because they were aided in the happiness department by the luxury deals.

Theseus · July 12, 2003, 18:09

And lux-lux trades don't quite cement relationships, although they do help.

vmxa1 · July 13, 2003, 01:14

Knecht it is hard to say form here. I mean a glass of water for 1,000 dollars is a good deal is you are thirsty enough.
In general I would not want to give two lux to the same civ, unless it was weaker than me by a fair amount.
That said, if I need invention and it was not close to hand, then that is a good deal.
You are correct that they get it for twenty turns. You could stop them from having after one turn by declaring an embargo or war, but it may cost you.
Anyway it is surely a good idea to get those extra luxs traded for something in most cases. I will take gpt even if I do not need the gold, just so the AI can not spend it on units/improvements or research. The trick is to decide if it helps them more than you. Each extra lux adds more happy citizens if you have a marketplace it gets even better. If they can take those two luxs and move into WLTKD, they made out. Don't forget a deal can be good for both.