Disadvantage to trade?

**ScottishAdam** · October 27, 2010, 11:25 AM

Does anyone know if there is an actual disadvantage to trading with anyone?

To me it seems everyone benefits but sometimes other civilisations really do not want to trade with you.

Anyone?

Cheers

**Tidybeard** · October 27, 2010, 12:20 PM

Not that I know of; as far as I was aware, the more factions you trade with, the better off you are.

**daxypoo** · October 27, 2010, 12:32 PM

none

getting trade w/ everyone is the only way for me to make enough money to surge early game as the maxim "agreements are meant to be broken"-- getting those ceasefire agreements where you can milk 10k each time is precious and its easier when you have previously gotten trade agreements and the ai diplomats will seek you out for the rest of the game

**LogicOneTwo** · October 27, 2010, 02:35 PM

None...when you make a trade agreement, it simply allows your cities that are close to foreign cities to trade with them, increasing your income. It won't kill you to not trade, but every trade agreement means more chances for your cities to trade goods and raise tax income.

**Maxent** · October 27, 2010, 05:18 PM

As said no disadvantages and more income for you,the more trade agreements you have the more income,and more income means you can have a bigger army,and a bigger army means you can conquer
so trade = you conquering the world

**ScottishAdam** · October 28, 2010, 03:51 AM

Thats what I thought but I did notice that some civilisations do not always want to trade. For example I had a cease fire agreement offered to me and when I added a trade arrangement with that they backed down!?

Maybe they feel I have more to gain than them?

**Chris Death** · October 28, 2010, 06:14 AM

Uhmm - the same advantages you gain from trade - your trading-partner will gain - so if you want to
eliminate your enemies, you wouldn't feed them.

That's the one disadvantage i know about.

~S~ CD

**ScottishAdam** · October 28, 2010, 06:22 AM

Yeah true. If the TW series used more advanced trading options like that in the Civilisation games it would be better. E.G trading valuable resources for other valuable resources or food etc Still not much to complain about with this game

**Tidybeard** · October 28, 2010, 08:44 AM

I wouldn't want trade overly-complicated. The premise of the game is to generate money, raise armies and conquer the map, and adding complexity would probably take some of the fun away.

**ScottishAdam** · October 28, 2010, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tidybeard

I wouldn't want trade overly-complicated. The premise of the game is to generate money, raise armies and conquer the map, and adding complexity would probably take some of the fun away.

Not for me. The more advanced the better the game

**Entropy Judge** · October 28, 2010, 09:42 AM

Or add to it ... presuming, of course, they fix the diplomacy. For example, if you got more money by trading with a different faction than you did by owning the territory in question, you'd have to balance whether the increased income from trading is worth having the rival in a potentially troublesome spot. More fun for the strategy-lovers, anyway.

**daxypoo** · October 28, 2010, 10:36 AM

in response to the "making trade more involved" requests i dont think it should be done

there is only so much capability the game can have
the reason i play rtw instead of civ is for the campaign battles
in civ i always say to myself--"if only you could control the battles..."

rtw is a classic b/c of its restraint---> no naval warfare, decent trade, decent growth and progression, awesome battles

**ScottishAdam** · October 28, 2010, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by daxypoo

in response to the "making trade more involved" requests i dont think it should be done

there is only so much capability the game can have
the reason i play rtw instead of civ is for the campaign battles
in civ i always say to myself--"if only you could control the battles..."

rtw is a classic b/c of its restraint---> no naval warfare, decent trade, decent growth and progression, awesome battles

I completely agree but making aspects of the game like trade more advanced is not unthinkable. It could be done. I love the big battles but the diplomacy could be improved

**Entropy Judge** · October 28, 2010, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by daxypoo

there is only so much capability the game can have
the reason i play rtw instead of civ is for the campaign battles
in civ i always say to myself--"if only you could control the battles..."

I play both for pretty much that reason; Civ is the better Empire-builder IMO, where you deal with grand strategy. In Rome, strategy takes a backseat to tactics most of the time, especially if you're a weaker faction, as your strategy is constrained by what your tactics allow you to do.