Meaning of "0 extra" ?

[JNL]

(I guess the answer is well-known, but I couldn't find it in the FAQ or through a search..) :
I can trade my resources even though there is "0 extra". Does it mean it's not mandatory to keep at least one resource unit for myself ? Will I lose the effect of luxury resources if I trade what is supposed to be the last one ?

Something odd : a friend told me he's unable to trade "0 extra" resources, but the readme doesn't mention any change about this (I've installed patch 1.21f, not sure about him) ; any clue on that ?

Thanks in advance.

[Solver]

While you can put 0 extra resources on the table, the AI will never buy them.

[Aeson]

You can trade your last (or only) resource/luxury if you want. You won't get the benefits of having that resource though.

Sometimes this is a good thing. Trade away your Iron for a bunch of gold, then instead of building Knights, build Horsemen and use the gold to upgrade them to Knights once the Iron deal is cancelled. Works great if you are planning on starting a Middle Ages war in 20+ turns. Just don't trade the Iron to your target unless they already have Gunpowder (and Saltpeter).

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Aeson
You can trade your last (or only) resource/luxury if you want. You won't get the benefits of having that resource though.

Sometimes this is a good thing. Trade away your Iron for a bunch of gold, then instead of building Knights, build Horsemen and use the gold to upgrade them to Knights once the Iron deal is cancelled. Works great if you are planning on starting a Middle Ages war in 20+ turns. Just don't trade the Iron to your target unless they already have Gunpowder (and Saltpeter).

Wow good to know, this should get added to the FAQ

[Random Passerby]

You can trade your own "0 extra" resources, but the AI civs will never, ever give up the last of their own resources, as far as I know.

[Theseus]

Aeson, do you actually do that much? Great concept.

[Aeson]

Aye, use it whenever it looks to be worthwhile. Sometimes it's hard to find a good buyer for the Iron early on though. If I can't get anything for it, I just pillage my Iron road until it's time to upgrade.

[Solver]

Aeson, how do you manage to? Whenever I offer the AI my only resource, it does not accept.

[Aeson]

I just click on the Resource(0) to add it to the table and then ask what they are willing to give for it. If they have nothing to give in return they won't offer anything. You should always be able to gift it to them though.

I just checked and it works under 1.21f for me, and I know it works in 1.17f. Not sure if earlier patches allow it or not.

Trades I usually make, and how much they usually are worth:

Saltpeter to anyone with Nationalism but not Horses. Once Tanks are available, Saltpeter to everyone. 25-50gpt.

Iron to anyone with Nationalism. All my Iron after I have rails laid down. 50-150gpt.

Iron/Saltpeter/Horses to a 'losing' civ that I don't plan on attacking soon in any Middle Ages AI vs AI wars. Not much gpt, but still worth it to weaken the stronger civ.

Coal to anyone after my rails are in place. Especially to future 'target' civs. The AI's rails make invasions so much easier. 50-75gpt

Horses to anyone after Tanks come around. 10-20gpt

Any 'spare' luxuries I might have. Usually in the early game I end up with a couple excess for my city sizes. Highly variable depending on the number of AI cities/marketplaces.

Oil to civs without Rubber.

[Catt]

0 Extra Tactic

Been meaning to post this nifty little tactic for awhile, but so much to do . . .

The "Luxury Trade as the Small Fry" Tactic

If you play out your games to the end, even when far behind, I've found a little tactic that can be very helpful in your climb to the top of the food chain, and I've never seen it posted here at Apolyton.

We know that the value of a luxury is not a constant – its value differs among each civ (human and AI) based on a number of factors, e.g., total population, number of cities, number of luxuries already available, the presence of marketplaces, etc. That "wine" luxury means a lot more to the civ with the highest population, marketplaces in every city and 6 other luxuries in hand already than it does to the smaller, backward civ with only two luxuries. (This variable value is, BTW, the cause of the many rants we see that *&%$#! Joan won’t trade me her excess ivory unless I give her wines, furs, AND dyes!).

Be aware that the variable value works both ways -- you just have to be trailing behind the AI to see it! And be aware of the true potential of your lone luxury when you’re not the biggest civ on the block.

I played a game some time ago where I was quite a ways behind most every other civ, and was in fact one of the smallest civs in terms of population and number of cities. I couldn't afford the unhappiness of trading away my luxuries (had one each of X and Y) I was able to trade away my "0 Extra" luxury for a surplus luxury from a much larger AI civ. Oh, and since the AI civ was much larger than me and would therefore enjoy much greater benefits from the luxury than my civ would, I was sure to ask for some real sweeteners (techs, gold-per-turn, maps, etc.)! I found myself trading my lone "dye" for an AI excess fur plus 25 gpt. Traded my lone "gem" for an AI excess incense plus a tech. End result is that I still have the net benefit of my two "local" luxuries (since each luxury produces the same amount of happiness), but every 20 turns I get to renegotiate for my bonus goodies.

A couple of additional positives about this tactic (beyond the premium prices). The active trading relationships strengthen your reputation -- in situations where you're the small fry, a strong reputation can make a big diplomatic difference. By judiciously choosing with whom to trade, you can obviously seek to strengthen the somewhat weaker civs -- shooting for AI civ parity (and world war) so you can catch up!

(I'd like to say I employed this tactic so brilliantly that it nearly single-handedly thrust me into the victory circle, but . . . )

I am more comfortable trading my "0 Extra" luxuries than I am trading my "1 Extra Strategics" -- since luxuries never "exhaust" I never risk finding myself exporting my only source of rubber for 20 turns, and since I am always trading for another luxury, if my trading partner breaks the deal (war or otherwise) I get my original luxury back immediately without any unhappiness effects.

Hardly a game "strategy," but a nice tactic to keep in your quiver – it is easy to overlook.

Catt

[Panag]

Originally posted by Solver
Aeson, how do you manage to? Whenever I offer the AI my only resource, it does not accept.

hi ,

Solver , you mean the one with zero , or does it say , 1 , and then the resource , there are some people who tried to offer this or that , but a review of their info revealed that sometimes their are more resources then civ's , ...

as for the zero that shows up , dont you think this is to let the AI know what you have , so that later down the line they can come and try to take it away , ...

have a nice day

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Aeson
You can trade your last (or only) resource/luxury if you want. You won't get the benefits of having that resource though.

Sometimes this is a good thing. Trade away your Iron for a bunch of gold, then instead of building Knights, build Horsemen and use the gold to upgrade them to Knights once the Iron deal is cancelled. Works great if you are planning on starting a Middle Ages war in 20+ turns. Just don't trade the Iron to your target unless they already have Gunpowder (and Saltpeter).

Damn, I can't believe I never thought of that! Me, the upgrade fanatic!

Typically, I just avoid chivalry instead, but this gains you money (for the upgrade) too. Brilliant.

-Arrian

[kring]

I accidentally traded away my 0 luxury one time, must have clicked one below the one I meant to trade away. I wondered why the AI was willing to offer more than its usual share of trade for i. The next turn I noticed that I could still trade Wines with them; that's when I realized I had clicked on Furs (0) instead of Wines (1).

[jshelr]

This thread was very helpful. Thanks guys.

Do you think successful trading of useless old resources (salt peter) reflects a flaw in the AI that should be fixed?

[Aeson]

Yes it should be fixed so that the AI won't pay for Saltpeter after Nationalism, at least if they don't have Horses. After Tanks (and they have Oil and Rubber) they should never pay for Saltpeter or Horses.

Of course it's something that the player doesn't have to take advantage of if they don't want to. Firaxis said that most of the remaining bugs were of this type, and they weren't worried about fixing them.