Adam Smith Foundation: Trades in the next 5 turns

[E_T]

What about Roman Ivory

Rome has some Ivory that we can use. We can trade Their Ivory and TM for Our Dyes, 3GPT & 45 Lytons. The TM only cost 1 Lyton and we already know where everything is external to them. We just need their internal info (unless they have traded maps with Persia, a crapshoot).

E_T

[Shiber]

IMHO we don't need ivory that badly.

[adaMada]

For roman ivory, we'd be taking very heavy expenses in a time where every penny counts in the war effort, and in return might not get a huge benefit.

I'd be in support of such a trade if it becomes cheeper, but listening to everyone talk, I'm starting to lean against it now -- I'd love to have it, but we're trying to maximize cash right now, and this trade isn't very cash efficent at the moment.

-- adaMada

[WhiteBandit]

Public Works and connecting dyes

Aggie requested that I build a road towards Tyre to allow him to quickly rush units to the war front. I am going to grant him permission for this. But since we will have workers in the area, providing the coast is clear, I'll go ahead and connect the dyes near Geofront (plus there are even more NE of Loveshack that I will connect at a later time as well!). So we'll be absolutely CRAWLING in dyes!

[adaMada]

Re: Public Works and connecting dyes

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
Aggie requested that I build a road towards Tyre to allow him to quickly rush units to the war front. I am going to grant him permission for this. But since we will have workers in the area, providing the coast is clear, I'll go ahead and connect the dyes near Geofront (plus there are even more NE of Loveshack that I will connect at a later time as well!). So we'll be absolutely CRAWLING in dyes!

Awsome! The more dyes we have, the more options, though I think the real reason we're not doing any more trades right now is A) a lack of good trades, and B) desire to not cut off future diplomatic options. Still, the more dyes the merrier, and it'll make dye trades seem more attractive to say the least.

-- adaMada

[Shiber]

adaMada, we're not doing any of the trades I suggested? Why?

[adaMada]

I haven't written up the orders yet for next turn -- when I do, I'll consider what you've said here and probably use one or two of the trades .

For the past term, we considered it in the informal chat. No one could pay us money that was actually worth the dyes. We did take the French option, since it provided a nice amount of cash, but decided that we could do without the others. For next turn, I'll probably do something similar -- authorize certain trades if the money reaches a certain level or should the president feel that the money is needed for the war effort.

When considering these deals, I'm very willing to trade dyes away, but I'm a bit more cautious about trading away our horses for a deal that's not so great. Also, I don't want to lock us into any twenty turn deals if I think the situation might change very soon in the future, though I'm increasingly inclined to agree with you that we should take advantage of any trades we can make, considering that they only last twenty turns.

-- adaMada

[Shiber]

That's good to hear. I'll be waiting for you to post the orders.

[E_T]

The problem is....

Originally posted by adaMada
For roman ivory, we'd be taking very heavy expenses in a time where every penny counts in the war effort, and in return might not get a huge benefit.

I'd be in support of such a trade if it becomes cheeper, but listening to everyone talk, I'm starting to lean against it now -- I'd love to have it, but we're trying to maximize cash right now, and this trade isn't very cash efficent at the moment.

-- adaMada

The problem is that we are very close to revolt in some of our larger cities. The Ivory would allow us to increase the productivity of our larger cities and/or allow us to move around vital military assets to where they might be needed without having to worry about revolt. The extra productivity WILL increase overall cash flow as more land is being worked. This should more that offset any 3GPT loss for the Ivory. It's also better to have the AI getting a few GPT than paying several GPT, they aren't as inclinded to be aggressive towords us.

E_T

[MrWhereItsAt]

Now we know Uber Island is a high priority and we have a decent number of troops in Persia, we can devote the larger cities to building Settlers for a while. This solves our unhappiness problem and prepares us for taking Uber Island.

[E_T]

Case for Ivory

Because we only have one city that is at 6 (apolyton), the case for Ivory isn't that great, monataryly. But there are other considerations that need to be taken into account.

If we get Ivory we can increase production in 'Poly to a max of 11 (currently at 8 because of Taxman). At one turn of 11 and the rest at 10 we can complete the Library 2 turns faster (5 turns instead of 7). Money wise, that would have us at 40+ for the first turn and 42+ for the next 5 turns (assuming the 3GPT for the Ivory). With the regular production at 10 in Poly, we can complete a settler in 3 turns instead of 4. So, do we wait 3 extra turns for the settle from 'Poly or do we use that time to be able to produce another 30 shield item within the same time frame?

E_T

[Donal Graeme]

I give a big to this trade plan!

[Shiber]

Either that or we can strengthen military police in 'Poly and get the same effect. Also, there's a chance we'll take over a Persian luxury in the near future. Anyway, I'm all against spending so much money for Ivory at this moment

[adaMada]

Shiber,

Looking over your plan more closely, I can say now that I really like four (if we can really get that much for it), and would consider two. I'm not all that hot on three, and would probably only consider it if they got more money, we had an emergency, or we did the ivory plan. I'd like some input as to #1, since I'm personally very cautious about trading away our only source of horses (I was once in a game where I traded away one source of iron, and then lost my connection to the other half way through a war -- it was not cool ), but it does seem to be the most profitable option.

Any thoughts?

I still don't see an orders thread, but I'll probably compile my orders sometime tonight anyway, and even though they'll be undergoing edits till the last, now would be an awsome time for any comments.

-- adaMada

[Shiber]

I'm happy to hear that you like most of my plans. However I think we should do #1 and #3 as well. I'll explain why:
#3: I hate this trade. I really do. But I'm afraid we have no choice. The Romans WILL demand our dyes anyway next turn so it's either we sell them the dyes now (and because it's a good trade we'll improve our relations with the Romans, which is always a good thing) and gain gold and their WM or give them away for free the next turn (which will not get us their WM nor improved relations).
#1: There is no danger of losing our horses here. We have a resource in France and another in Mingapulco. It's impossible that we'll lose Mingapulco (unless hell freezes over and pigs fly, of course) and it's very unlikely we'll lose our French cities as well. If we do, which, I repeat, is very very unlikely IMHO we can always buy horses from another civ for a bit of gold or gpt, cry over the loss but then go on without any major losses.
However, if you think taking this minor chance isn't worth 40 gold and improved relations with the French then I completely understand. Anyway, in the end it's your call.