Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The whole system is there not to bother you with selling.
The benefits lay in buying luxuries. The money doesn't matter. It's the bonuses you get from buying luxuries. You can buy more then one from the same luxury and get more and more bonuses. The more you buy the better it gets.
Maybe it is a bit counter intuitive, because most 4X games I played use the trade system to generate money. Not the case with Humankind.
There is a treaty in peacetime status that allows forbidding trade in resources or relaxes limits for different types (luxury, strategics, all). Goes both ways though so if you forbid trade you're not buying resources either.
Buyer beware indeed!
Each price consists of 3 main parts:
1) The price the other nation actually gets
2) Some overhead
3) transport costs.
You as buyer pay all those three. However if you sell something you only see nr 1, which is why it looks like the other nations are paying peanuts but in reality they are paying more than what you see.
Typical false good design idea because the idea is nice but bad by not allowing any good feedback to player. But trades should not have spread influence/faith that way.
But it's not trades design that is the problem.
To stop trades and try manage such problem, you can't for trade imports, and if you can for exports it's brutal and involving all AIs.