Banning resource trading

[GodKing]

I was hoping, and it is probably too late if it is already not in, but for conquest can we get a diplomatic option, perhaps through the UN or similar organization, to ban trade on some resources/lux?

For example, there is a nice thread up and running about the “exotic birds” luxury resource that is in conquest. People have been stating that isn’t a very good luxury, and something like opium/coca/tobacco etc. which has had a more dramatic impact on world history be included. I kinda agree, but that is beside the point. I understand why these resources probably will never be in the game.

But we can change them in the game with simple mods if we want to.

However, in order to be accurate, what would be nice is if for example we did have opium in, some country that doesn’t have the resource can put a resolution in front of the UN saying “ban trade in this lux” and the ban lasts until another motion passes in the UN allowing trade. Two things come to mind, first, it would be kinda humorous to cause a ban on things like spices. Second, there should be something allowing a country to “ignore” the UN mandate, and another espionage option to “smuggle in banned trade goods” that allows one to steal gold from their treasury (random amount per turn, say -5 to +10 percent – risk of loosing money). Failure to smuggle in (your caught) is diplomatic bobo. With another option for the player to send their diplomats to “intercept smuggled in goods” – A much more difficult and a very expensive option.

Does this make sense?

You have 3 “exotic bird” trade goods in your county.

The UN bans trade in “exotic birds”

You click on your foreign advisor screen, and you click a button that is “UN options”.

In there, one of the things you can do is “ignore ban on trading “exotic birds””

You hit no (so you stop receiving the benefit of that luxury, and can no longer trade it to other countries – however, you do NOT get hit with a diplomatic message for breaking trade in this substance – it was the UN that did it, not you). If you hit yes, you get the benefit of the luxury and can trade it to all other countries that are also ignoring the ban.

Because you hit no, you now have three birds that you can send your diplomats/spies to “smuggle in banned goods”. You pick three countries that you want to weaken, spend a small amount of gold, and watch their economy sneak its way into your banks. If you hit yes above, you would only have 2 to smuggle (you are using one to keep your people happy, remember).

The first two countries you sneak them in. The third county detects your smuggling attempt, and gets ticked off at you. Also, because you are dealing (abet clandestinely) in a banned substance, all other nations get a little upset with you as well. The risks of dealing in “exotic birds” I guess….



So, what ya all think?

[vmxa1]

Sounds like you played some GalCiv or Moo3. I am not too fond of votes for anything and I hate arbitary rules that can be imposed by whim or caprice.

[Mad Bomber]

on the other hand, it would give the UN a nice boost to a wonder that needs it esp with the diplo victory disabled. Imagine if you built the UN and could use it to ban resources that your enemies controlled, it could add a new depth to diplomacy and strategy.

For example If I controlled the UN and was unfriendly to a country that controlled the Gem industry, then I would ban the Gems and watch as the world slowly started to become unfriendly to my enemy or have them stuck with a bunch of luxuries that they cant use ; in addition you would lose the tile bonuses so your enemy would also lose a good amount of revenue overnight.

[Shogun Gunner]

I love freebasing exotic birds -- its quite a high.

[johncmcleod]

I am not too fond of votes for anything and I hate arbitary rules that can be imposed by whim or caprice.

Yeah, it would be really annoying for the AIs to start ganging up on the human by banning their luxuries/resources. Also it's probably just plain annoying to have to follow rules voted by an AI.

But, I think it would be nice to have this feature. I wish the UN was more than a victory condition, and this would help create a new dimension to the game. It would be really neat if the UN was like real life and they sometimes voted that a bullying nation was violating international law and the whole world declared war on that nation.

Anyway, back to your suggestion. It would be nice but like many other suggestions for civ, I could live without it.

[Kuciwalker]

It would be nice if you could propose it, not just have it come up randomly.

[stonewall]

It seems like a neat idea, I would just be worried about it being abused. For example, I have enough votes (myself plus maybe some friendly or bribed AI) to ban trade in EVERYTHING. Or, this is done by the AI when you are playing catchup, now one of your good sources of income is gone.

Or you do this selectively with other civ's only tradeable resources. In this case, it seems like your idea would be an easier to obtain and more powerful embargo.

So, in summary, not sure without more details on how it would be implemented.

[Solomwi]

Yeah, it would be really annoying for the AIs to start ganging up on the human by banning their luxuries/resources. Also it's probably just plain annoying to have to follow rules voted by an AI.

I agree, but that could be turned into more incentive to build the UN. Put the builder and maybe the top non-building civ (by score or perhaps power) on the Security Council, with full veto power. That will usually be enough to get a good chance at cross purposes on the SC, and will give the player a way to avoid being dictated to by an AI controlled UN.

[GhengisFarb™]

I think it would add an excellent element to the game. If Civ A requires Saltpeter for their UU or specific units and are in a dominant postition yet lack that resource the other civs could have a blockade of that one resource and that resource alone to restore some balance of power.

My biggest wish is to have the 8 player Multiplayer mode WITH AI civs. I have no problem with only 8 human controlled civs, but there should still be an option to go with 16, 24, or 32 civs and have the rest fleshed out by the AI.

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by GodKing
The risks of dealing in “exotic birds” I guess….

There are more risks in dealing with exotic birds than you think. There is a new disease going around in birds. It's called chirpees. It's a canarial disease, and it's untweetable!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Quasar1011


There are more risks in dealing with exotic birds than you think. There is a new disease going around in birds. It's called chirpees. It's a canarial disease, and it's untweetable!

Okay, that was a little too much.

[Kuciwalker]

too... much... information...

[johncmcleod]

There is a new disease going around in birds. It's called chirpees. It's a canarial disease, and it's untweetable!

I must say that that was so ridiculously stupid that I laughed pretty hard.

[vmxa1]

That was right up the alley of my girlfriend. She wanted me to print it out.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, my idea was that, with the advent of "Code of Laws", you can go to the Trade Advisor Screen and Ban luxuries/Strategic Resources (even ones you don't currently have!). You should, through diplomacy, also be able to ask/demand that other Civs do the same! When this happens, you obviously lose all the benefits of that resource but, as stated above, you can potentially prevent someone else from getting it's benefits as well!! Imagine a world-wide ban on the one luxury or resource possessed by your biggest enemy . Anyway, you should be able to build a small wonder called "The Black Market" for instance, which reduces war weariness and Culture, whilst increasing happiness and corruption-Civ Wide!! The main benefit of this wonder, though, is that you can access your list of "Banned Resources" and convert them to "Contraband". You can then 'Trade' (i.e. smuggle) this contraband internally or externally (assuming you have the resource in question-of course). If you trade it internally, then you get another corruption hit-in the cities which have that resource in their radius-but you get the normal effects of the resource-plus a bonus 'happy face'. If you trade it with another civ, then you get an immediate gpt benefit, based on the resources 'rarity' (based on appearance and disappearance ratios), the number of the resource possessed by both civs, and the distance between the two civs!! If the civ you are 'smuggling' to has also banned the resource, then you get double the gpt value AND that civ suffers a Culture and corruption hit-but you get a reputation hit with that civ and all it's Allies! If the Civ has converted the resource to Contraband, then all corruption effects caused by your 'smuggling' are doubled-but the same can happen if someone 'smuggles' a resource you've banned into your civ!! Obviously this gives another method by which you may wage 'war' with another Civ, without having to declare war on them via official channels! Instead you just weaken them financially and culturally by flooding them with contraband!!! The role of the UN in this system would be the ability to declare that you want a particular resource banned, and get the other Council members to vote Yes or, alternatively, you could get a ban on a resource lifted via the UN!!!
Anyway, that's my idea, in a nutshell, what do you guys think?

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[The Mad Monk]

It sounds like an interesting idea, but I can see every AI civ on the planet banning a different item, so meaningful trade becomes next to impossible.

I would suggest leaving "banning" till later in the tech tree. Maybe Monotheism.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, definitely the Tech is open to "negotiation"-so to speak, although it should DEFINITELY be editable!! The other thing, though, is that you should be able suggest/demand the banning/unbanning of specific resources in the diplomacy screen! This may help you to achieve a greater consensus with what is actually banned! Also, just because other Civs ban a resource, doesn't mean that you can't still go ahead and trade it normally within your own empire! You just won't be able to trade it with Civs who have banned it!! Also, I doubt VERY much that a civ will ban a strategic resource UNLESS you make it very worth their while -financially or militarily!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker