Game Info:

"Trading Posts are outposts where hunters and trappers may sell their wares to civilians in exchange for food, weapons, whiskey, gold, and all of the other trappings of society. They can generate a lot of wealth for a society."

Yields: +1 Gold. Prerequisite Techs: Trapping


I am a bit curious to hear comments on how would you improve the Trading Post (http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/IMPROVEMENT_TRADING_POST.aspx) worker improvement in CiV Gods & Kings ? Does it even need to be revamped at all ? Or just some minor tweak to it ? I would like to keep this topic an open discussion about Trading Post (ie. Gold improvement) and the role/importance how the concept plays in the game in general, rather than having simply new ideas & suggestions (ie. discussion topic, rather than new ideas) :)

Reminding the Civ IV cottage concept:

Cottages/Towns: Building cottages early in the game to allow them to develop into villages and towns later in the game really help your economy, as not many tiles provide commerce unless there is a resource or river on it. These towns can turn into major commerce sources to help feed your economy.

What are cottages and hamlets?

A cottege is a tile improvements that a worker can build to provide additional commerce. For example, a worker can build a cottage on a grassland tile to provide 1 commerce per turn. After having a city work that tile for a certain amount of turns (dependent on your game speed; it's 10 turns on normal), it will grow into a Hamlet, which provides 2 commerce (these aren't cumulative). Hamlets will grow into Villages, and Villages into Towns. Villages, which produce 3 commerce, yield an extra one if the player has Printing Press, and towns, normally 4 commerce, have the following bonuses: +1 for Printing Press, +2 commerce for the Free Speech civic, and +1 hammer for the Universal Suffrage civic. Over time, and built early enough, cottages can turn into an important part of your economy, as roads no longer provide commerce bonuses.


I really liked the way Cottages -> Hamlets -> Villeges -> Towns system worked in Civ IV. It really gave importance to build them as early as possible and defend them as able as you could. In the other hand Pillaging town tiles was also good way to gain gold and it made the whole pillaging concept more real, useful and fun. Unfortunately in CiV the AI hardly ever pillages any tile improvements even if they have extra ability for that (fe. Ottomans, Denmark). I think AI should always* pillage tile improvements whenever has opportunity to do so. Even Barbarians do not pillage. Especially on harder difficulty levels pillaging should be mandatory. I usually play on emperor. *(This should depend on the AI flavors - Harald, Genghis and Askia for example have very high interest to pillage. Gandhi, Pachacuti and Harun al-Rashid very low.)


"Trading Posts are outposts where hunters and trappers may sell their wares to civilians in exchange for food, weapons, whiskey, gold, and all of the other trappings of society."

Hmm, perhaps the gold yield should depend on how many luxury resources (why not strategic and bonus also) you have gained? This would represent "selling wares and other trappings of your society to civilians". Losing access to the luxury resource (pillaged, lost land or culture) would give direct hit to ones economy (in addition of cancelling possible trade deal, decreases happiness etc.) and makes tile pillagement even more important. Wars are ugly and major devastation of land and infrastructure always happens. I would like to see this having more important role in Civ. You would really want to keep those wars - battles - enemy units away from your territory no matter what. Also would be a nice addition if it would be possible to destroy tile improvements with Siege weapons.

I'm not sure about this, just liked to point out my desire for improved Trading Posts in G&K :)

There isn't much right about the current trading post.
It's way too easy to make money in the game, the trading post just compounds this problem, they can get spammed everywhere regardless - except on tiles with a resource - and on top of it they look horrible.

My first response is to trash the thing, destroy, hack it in pieces and don't let it come back.

I can come up with an idea as well, though, if you don't appreciate me coming here just as a vandalist. :mischief:
I find rivers at the moment too unimportant. You sometimes see a player's starting settler on a river, but the player opting to move a tile away from it to settle on a hill.
This is unhistorical. In real life you would miss out on a lot if you didn't settle on the river. In Civ 5 there's no consequence for trade, this is wrong in my view. It's just a watermill you're missing.
I'm not going to pain my brain to how it exactly should be reworked, but making a market dependent on river placement wouldn't be a bad thing. I'm still not sure how a trading post could blend in. Having both trading posts and markets is like having duplicate buildings; they are both trading facilities that are good for gold.

In general I find less is better here, and somehow river dependency should come back.

It's hard. In a way they are already overpowered (though I never build them outside puppetcities).

I'd give them a bonus when they are on a road or river tile. They get an extra production then (1 gold + 1 production is not bad). It might also makes roads and rivers a bit more important. Perhaps as to not overpower them, they get minus 1 gold for every adjacent tradepost (thus they should never be adjacent to each other.

It's realistic and increases the choices you have, but also makes these choices harder.

I think they're fine right now. I usually don't even bother to build them post-nerf. I should try TP spamming and see how effective they are before I really comment, though.

My suggestion in the past was to give them 2 gold, but -1 food. This meant that they're most beneficial in low-food tiles (such as desert) and you need to have high food sources nearby to support them. Unfortunately, the game mechanics won't let you get less food than the base tile, so it didn't work properly in game when I tried to mod it this way.

Trading Posts were stupid aesthetically. Sure they kind of look like towns later in the game but why not just call them towns? I mean seriously urbanization isn't restricted to a city every few tiles nowadays.

I think the problem with transporting the Hamlet-System into CiV would be in the overal balancing.
Something that V allows you that IV did not is to play a very small yet effective empire.

This is the result of the high upkeep resulting from buildings that make your cities more efficient.

If we were to add the Hamlet-System to CiV they would have to increase maintenance to combat the effect of larger empires growing absurdely rich, thus absurdely powerful. (Reminder: Gold is a lot more powerful in CiV than in CiIV) But raising maintenance would cripple smaller empires, since they can't generate infinite income like a large puppet-state can.

I do agree that the old system was more fun, but then again I like playing as an efficient state with about five large cities. I would not want to sacrifice this possibility for a fun concept.

I like trading posts because they help control unhappiness due to unwanted growth in puppet cities. There has to be some kind of way to keep unhappiness under control.

Really though, I am not sure if I have ever cared for this new happiness system in CiV. The AI is so unbalanced compared to the human in this regard, its like night and day. You can hardly ever keep up with AI happiness. I like large empires with this current system they are very hard to manage. I do hope religion in G&K goes a long way to giving some happiness bonuses to your growing empire.

I would rather see villages grow up around cities and give bonuses to happiness, trade route income (I do not like the idea of tons of roads though like Civ 4, a town within a certain radius to a city is automatically connected to that city's trade route, if that city is linked to a trade route.), and production as they grow. This would control growth in cities, because people could settle in the countryside. This way you can pick and choose when and where to grow a village, using this to balance growth, or deter growth in the big city if you wish. Essentially it would be a great tool for managing happiness within your empire, and it is more realistic.

Trading Posts should stay in the game, but be used for different purpose. Not sure what? Maybe they could be built to give a boost to trade route income, especially if you have a long trade route, which happens often. You could build a trade post every so many hexes, to improve income. (Or perhaps one TP per trade route.) You can call it cheating if you want. :lol:

Trading posts should evolve and improve as the game continues to something else as well. Perhaps a Distribution Center in the Modern Era. Every era should have an upgrade. Then one trading post could be added to one trade route, which evolves and builds up income era to era. I think that could work.

Oh by the way to the poster above, what large empire was not rich and powerful? What is the sense of growing a large empire, if not to become the richest most powerful empire in the world? Who wants to play a strategy game for hours to grow a poor, feeble, huge empire that could fall anytime like a house of cards? Not me good sir! Game balance be damned. If you cannot gain power and money with growth, then the game is already unbalanced.

Trading Posts should stay in the game, but be used for different purpose. Not sure what? Maybe they could be built to give a boost to trade route income, especially if you have a long trade route, which happens often. You could build a trade post every so many hexes, to improve income. (Or perhaps one TP per trade route.) You can call it cheating if you want. :lol:


You could use them to give your city worker access to tiles outside the 3-tile radius.

You could use them to give your city worker access to tiles outside the 3-tile radius.

That is actually not a bad idea, especially if you have a resource just out of your reach. Good thinking!

Oh by the way to the poster above, what large empire was not rich and powerful? What is the sense of growing a large empire, if not to become the richest most powerful empire in the world? Who wants to play a strategy game for hours to grow a poor, feeble, huge empire that could fall anytime like a house of cards? Not me good sir! Game balance be damned. If you cannot gain power and money with growth, then the game is already unbalanced.

I absolutely agree that building a large empire is fun. That is why there are a million strategy games out there that encourage you to do just that! Including four parts of the Civ-Series.

There are hardly any game where you play the efficient and small underdog that takes away the prize on the long run by defending their mountain passes while the rest of the world suffers from war.

If you are dead set on historical examples, though I firmly believe that Civ never was and never will be about historical accuracy, how about Switzerland? Or to some degree medieval France?
France had a centralized economy with only a handful of large cities and Switzerland is pretty much the only country in Europe that was never conquered, yet is very prosperous.

And if you want to see where growth gets you on the long run, just ask the Russians how much they enjoy owning forests ans tundras devoid of civilization.
Though as I said, I don't think we should argue over gameplay elements by pretending we are historians.

Can't stand them either...
They are bland in gameplay and aestatics.

The problem with every modification would be the fragile economy - balace.

I could imagine an upradeable tradingpost, while they have to be either on a river or road.
In that way you have to sacrifice a riverfarm or shell out for a road a few turns.

Additionally a village tile could be introduced that can grow into a town within x turns "worked", providing then 1 gold like the tradingpost does now.

Trading Posts should not be touched in G&K, unless it's a small balance change.

The big risk with an expansion pack like this is trying to do too much. They have three major priorities already - the City-State overhaul, Religion, and Espionage. If they try to "fix" the early-mid game economy, or try to better model trade, the most likely outcome is that they mess it up worse AND hurt the city-state, religion and espionage features. A development team can only do so much stuff, and stretching themselves thin isn't going to help anything.

The next expansion pack could address international trade and internal economies, or they can make it a focus of a major post-expansion patch, but these kinds of changes demand a huge amount of attention and they need to do this stuff when it's their sole priority, not when they've already got three other, bigger selling points to get right.

Well remember Civ 5 originally had TPs at 2g, but it was a bit too powerful because of the way gold works in Civ 5 compared to Civ 4. So it was dropped to 1g with a 1g bonus at Econ.

In theory, players are already likely to have more gold in G&K than in vanilla because of the several city-state quests. You'll be able to get influence through a variety of methods and so throwing gold at city-states won't necessarily be the most effective way to gain influence.

I just don't understand what a "trading post" is.

I just don't understand what a "trading post" is.

Unless you have the pirate version of didn't play Civilization V yet,this is a trading post:

http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/IMPROVEMENT_TRADING_POST.aspx


To improve the trading post in Civ 5,I think it's more important to change the concept of puppet-cities and/or the ai balance on higher levels before .

Unless you have the pirate version of didn't play Civilization V yet,this is a trading post:

http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/IMPROVEMENT_TRADING_POST.aspx


To improve the trading post in Civ 5,I think it's more important to change the concept of puppet-cities and/or the ai balance on higher levels .


Well yeah, but why are they clumped around cities? The should go out in the middle of nowhere somewhere.

So it was dropped to 1g with a 1g bonus at Econ.

Maybe at Economics workers can build Towns over Trading Posts for the 1 extra gold instead of being automatic. Then if building\popping workers costs more depending on how many workers your civ already has (and\or cost more maintenance for each additional worker), this would give an advantage to smaller civs compared to the current system.

I find rivers at the moment too unimportant. You sometimes see a player's starting settler on a river, but the player opting to move a tile away from it to settle on a hill. This is unhistorical. In real life you would miss out on a lot if you didn't settle on the river. In Civ 5 there's no consequence for trade, this is wrong in my view. It's just a watermill you're missing.


I agree.


II'd give them a bonus when they are on a road or river tile. They get an extra production then (1 gold + 1 production is not bad). It might also makes roads and rivers a bit more important. Perhaps as to not overpower them, they get minus 1 gold for every adjacent tradepost (thus they should never be adjacent to each other.


This is a good idea. :)

One solution that came to my mind is, perhaps ditch the trading post improvement altogether and create new Town improvement. You can build them only to the tiles around City (six tiles max.) and they give +1 Gold and Towns next to Rivers (perhaps Lakes/Oasis too) give +2 Gold. To balance the loss of Trading Post a bit, why not make Camp and Plantation improvements to generate +1 Gold each ? This would limit the TP/Town spam efficiently and would make Gold gaining a little bit more difficult in CiV. Like it has been mentioned earlier; gaining gold is way too easy as it is. You would have to find other means for your Gold and obtaining Luxuries would be the best way – gold from Plantations and trading the resources to rival Civs.

I still think taking idea from Civ4 would be a strong choice, but to limit it a little bit. The new Town improvement would start from Settlement (no gold) and after certain amount of turns it would grow to Town (or after discover of appropriate Technology).


Trading Posts should stay in the game, but be used for different purpose. Not sure what? Maybe they could be built to give a boost to trade route income, especially if you have a long trade route, which happens often. You could build a trade post every so many hexes, to improve income. (Or perhaps one TP per trade route.)


Yeah, I think it would be nice to somehow represent “Silk Road” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road) and the other important trade routes like it. Perhaps if two cities which generate certain amount of gold and have road connection together, there might be a chance for Trading Post to appear into one of the road tiles. It would generate +1 Gold and since road tiles cost upkeep you do not have that (“too”) much of them.


You could use them to give your city worker access to tiles outside the 3-tile radius.


Not a bad idea at all. :)

I think the idea that Trade Posts lose 1 income for every other trade post they touch would be excellent. The problem with bringing back the cottage system is balance, you can make a lot of gold in this game already. But this would prevent Trade Post spam and reflect history, they were spread out to key locations.

Forts should be improved, allow for ships and air units to land as well.

Mmm, with espionage making an appearance in G&K's, it might be an idea to let TP's generate an espionage point when worked (on top of their current yield).
Also, historically TP's established themselves on "strategic" locations (road junctions, pilgrimage places, stuff like that...). If TP's could only be build adjacent to such "sweet spots" one couldn't spam the map anymore for population control or something.

Unless you have the pirate version of didn't play Civilization V yet,this is a trading post:

http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/IMPROVEMENT_TRADING_POST.aspx


To improve the trading post in Civ 5,I think it's more important to change the concept of puppet-cities and/or the ai balance on higher levels before .

Uh, well I know what they are in the game, I guess what I meant to say is I don't understand what they are supposed to represent. :rolleyes: They don't make much sense surrounding cities the way they are. Civ IV's cottages -> towns thing was much better, but would not work in Civ V because of balance issues. Still, I'd like the graphics to look better.

They could start by making the trade post buildable in osasis!

I like trading posts because they help control unhappiness due to unwanted growth in puppet cities. There has to be some kind of way to keep unhappiness under control.Oh, but we're hearing the opposite even more often; that there should be curbs on big empires.
If trading posts help big empires, that could easily be used as an argument against them. If without trading posts you would be more tempted to raze or sell that conquered town, that would not be bad for gameplay.
Spamming puppets with trading posts isn't pretty gameplay. It reminds me a lot of the old science farms in corrupt places in Civ III, they weren't pretty either - and I'm talking about gameplay mainly.

But visually, it's kind of funny what the developers said when they developed Civ 5: they said they had now found a way to eliminate the ugly spaghetti you got everywhere with a road on every tile; there would now be maintenance for roads and the ugly spaghetti would disappear. I agree with them; this is better.
But it's extremely ironic that they brought back exactly the same thing with trading posts; remember the old roads (at least in Civ III, Civ IV is a game I'm not familiar with) added a gold to each tile.
The new trading posts do the same thing, and having a trading post on each tile is just as ugly as having a road on each tile. An unbelievable decision from the developers.

''having a trading post on each tile is just as ugly as having a road on each tile.

Actually, just having a trading post is already ugly ;)

I say change the graphic. Make them buildable only on roads and rivers and don't allow them to be next to another trading post or to another city. Then it's also ok if they are powerfull since they will be limited (you only have so many roads because those cost money and using your river tiles means losing a irrigated farm).

There are hardly any game where you play the efficient and small underdog that takes away the prize on the long run by defending their mountain passes while the rest of the world suffers from war.

If you are dead set on historical examples, though I firmly believe that Civ never was and never will be about historical accuracy, how about Switzerland? Or to some degree medieval France?
France had a centralized economy with only a handful of large cities and Switzerland is pretty much the only country in Europe that was never conquered, yet is very prosperous.

And if you want to see where growth gets you on the long run, just ask the Russians how much they enjoy owning forests ans tundras devoid of civilization.
Though as I said, I don't think we should argue over gameplay elements by pretending we are historians.

I am not saying that small empires cannot be as powerful. Some are, but this game is not really about history. However, the game has always been an empire builder. That is one of my favorite things about Civilization, to change that now is a waste of the tradition, myself and many, many other gamers, grew to love.

Also, the Russians having those endless miles of forest, tundra, along with the dreaded Russian Winter, saved them time and time again from being conquered. In that regard I am sure any Russian would admit that fact. If I was Russian I would. ;)

Oh, but we're hearing the opposite even more often; that there should be curbs on big empires.

I know all too well, I still disagree with this assumption, Civ has always been an empire builder. I am too old to change my thinking on that now.

Yeah, they want to curb warfare, and give huge penalties for warmongering. Then they want to curb large empires. I just completely disagree with this train of thought. The game should not be that fundamentally changed from what it has always been. Without wars to me the game would be no fun. The other aspects are important too. But I never will play a completely peaceful game of civ. To me that is so dreadfully boring. To me the wars are my favorite part and always will be.

Why do you think in CiIV we modded in all of those fancy and diverse military units into the game? So we can play Mr. NiceGuy and not use them? Not likely. Even now in CiV Gods and Kings is going to come with a whole new WWI era. For what? So we can be penalized for having World Wars? It is ridiculous to think they are adding triplanes, machineguns, landing ships (which is a ridiculous name, what a chuckle I get out of that one!), and WWI bombers, we are supposed to be so very careful, because remember the world will not like you if you fill your neighbor full of holes and blow his keister off. Peace and focus in this game, is nonsense to me.

Besides like George S. Patton said, "Better to fight for something than live for nothing." That quote fits my understanding of Civilization. :lol: I can't imagine Patton ever playing Civ without going to war, can you imagine? :lol:

I liked the growing element in civ 4, too bad it isn't as easily implemented in civ 5 regarding balance. One aspect not mentioned is the effect of pillaging; the civ 4 way was horrible when something pillaged your town, but it was kinda fun to pillage enemy towns. ;)
But the pillaging can be negated by being able to repair the village instead of regrowing the whole thing from scratch. Also, I like the idea of CYZ of selective placement like on roads or near rivers.

Trading Posts should not be touched in G&K, unless it's a small balance change.

The big risk with an expansion pack like this is trying to do too much. They have three major priorities already - the City-State overhaul, Religion, and Espionage. If they try to "fix" the early-mid game economy, or try to better model trade, the most likely outcome is that they mess it up worse AND hurt the city-state, religion and espionage features. A development team can only do so much stuff, and stretching themselves thin isn't going to help anything.

The next expansion pack could address international trade and internal economies, or they can make it a focus of a major post-expansion patch, but these kinds of changes demand a huge amount of attention and they need to do this stuff when it's their sole priority, not when they've already got three other, bigger selling points to get right.

:agree:

For this expiation the focus should definitely remain on religion and espionage. I already worried they might be taking on too much with the revamp to the combat system and changes to the city states. Personally I believe city states should have bean left out of CiV vanilla and brought in with the first expansion maybe six to nine months ofter the release of CiV. give creators more time to work out balancing everything else in the game.

OK back on topic. how about thy split the economic tiles into two different improvements. First you could have a hamlet witch could only be built adjacent to the city and would start out providing a minor gold boost while taking away and tile features but as the improvement grew it could actually start replacing other features on the file so taking away food or hammers from the tile as the influx of people start to consume and swarm the land.

The second improvement would be the basic trading post but have a limit one per road. maybe include a bonus for being further away from the city itself and a greater bonus for being on an intersection of roads where both act as separate trade routs.

you still have multiple economic tile improvements in a city but you don't get the same incredible trading post spam.

I'll take a trading post upgrade as part of my expected (free) set of balance and bug patches after G&K releases. :)
Ok, ok I'll buy it as part of a 'Trader's Pack' for as much as $1.99


IMHO, trading posts feel like a stunted relic by the mid to late game. A solution could be to add a new set of tile improvements for industrial/modern era.

Farms/trading posts simply don't play the same role they have in a modern economy. Right now, changes in society is only vaguely simulated with tech advancemnets, like farms getting +1 food at fertilizer

Rather than have trading posts 'evolve' ; allow addition of a 2nd tile improvement that can only be built with TP in place and the improvent can take up to 4 tiles. This way, it also look aesthetically more pleasing with fewer numbers of spammy buildings around your city.

Farms > Factory Farms > Supermarkets (paired with a Mall in 1 of the up to 4 tiles) Max bonus with up to 4 tiles improved together.


Trading Posts > Malls > Supermarkets (paired with a Factor Farm in 1 up to 4 titles) Max bonus with up to 4 tiles improved together.

Supermarkets in this case will be a kind of hybrid improvement that scales bonus depending on if it is farm oriented, (paired with factory farm) or goods oriented (paired with a mall)

Bonusus should then scale with the quality of tile improved, any resources underneat (like wheat or floodplain) and number of tiles improved.

I've been saying since before the launch, I thought a nice simple way to keep spam down would be to make them require a road. If you're spamming, they dont give any net bonus overall, but if you restrict them to vital routes you can maximise their efficiency.

It also has the bonus of allowing cities that are at the centre of your empire to benefit the most, as they're likely to have roads heading off in different directions as it is!

It also has the bonus of allowing cities that are at the centre of your empire to benefit the most, as they're likely to have roads heading off in different directions as it is!

I hadn't thought of that, that's great! It will make the central cities the most commercial cities. There could then also be a Wonder boosting trade points, really adding a new dimension to city placement and specialization too!

Perhaps a wonder that makes all roads with a tradepost on them mainteance free for the city it is build in. Adds Great Merchants point obviously (which is also needed).

I want to go back to the importance of rivers. Playing civ makes you see the world in a new way. When I look at the United States, all the major cities are on some kind of water way. Look at the Mississippi and all the huge cities that formed because of the river.

One obvious bonus that should be added to building a city on a river or freshwater lake is food. Those cities should grow faster because they have access to clean water. You can never underestimate the power of this.

Weren't there going to be wells at one time?

As far as trading posts go, I hardly ever build them because they are butt-ugg. I can get two food and more later with irrigation... but only one gold forever? I guess maybe I should see how overpowered they are, but as for now, I hate them.

Mines are ugly too, but at least they serve a purpose. Cottages were much better.

I also hate trading post because they are so ugly, they ruin the map.

I guess that if international trade routes existed in the game, trading post would make sense, looking to building them on roads with lots of traffic, mountain passes and bottlenecks would suddenly be very profitable and worth fighting to control, or just earning bonus gold if they are built within radius of luxury and estrategic resources. controling key cities on the map would be very fun.

As it is now, its actually boring to use them.

I also hate trading post because they are so ugly, they ruin the map.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=391749
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10106144#post10106144

Don't change the mechanic, just the graphic.

The trading posts should be renamed towns/villages and the graphic should mimic the buildings in cities.

I was going to say I'd be happy if they just started calling them towns and de-uglified them, but ^ just beat me to it. I think that's what it's /supposed/ to mimic in the modern era anyway, at least I hope so.

Can't stand them either...
They are bland in gameplay and aestatics.

This nails it (spelling aside ;) ).

TP's in civ5 are a most boring feature, unbelievably ugly and unnecessarily unrealistic (should be limited to one or two per city, with additional bonuses when at river or road hubs).

The cottage>>>town feature of civ4 was great, encouraging long-term planning and continual growth and protection.

It's a shame TP's didn't develop similarly (Trade Post>Fair>Market>Showground??).

Can't see G&K improving them though, perhaps civ6 can bring back cottages:goodjob:.

Forts should be improved, allow for ships and air units to land as well.


Totally agree. This would be simplest and most efficient way rather than creating new improvements like Canal and Airport. Forts could (and should) take those roles as at present they hardly have any use (other than the joy of building them in strategic places/aesthetical pleasure).


Mmm, with espionage making an appearance in G&K's, it might be an idea to let TP's generate an espionage point when worked (on top of their current yield). Also, historically TP's established themselves on "strategic" locations (road junctions, pilgrimage places, stuff like that...). If TP's could only be build adjacent to such "sweet spots" one couldn't spam the map anymore for population control or something.


Yes, it would fit realistically for TPs, as in trading places different kind of people meet and exchange information among goodies. Perhaps some Social Policy or Wonder could add Espionage points to Trading Posts.


But visually, it's kind of funny what the developers said when they developed Civ 5: they said they had now found a way to eliminate the ugly spaghetti you got everywhere with a road on every tile; there would now be maintenance for roads and the ugly spaghetti would disappear. I agree with them; this is better. But it's extremely ironic that they brought back exactly the same thing with trading posts; remember the old roads (at least in Civ III, Civ IV is a game I'm not familiar with) added a gold to each tile. The new trading posts do the same thing, and having a trading post on each tile is just as ugly as having a road on each tile. An unbelievable decision from the developers.


Agree. I really love the improved (from previous games) road system and for me the disappearance of "spaghetti roads" was one of the favorite things in CiV. Now if we could get Trading Post (or equal Gold improvement) to the same level of aesthetically pleasing and efficient gameplay-wise, I would be extreme happy with the expansion! :)


I liked the growing element in civ 4, too bad it isn't as easily implemented in civ 5 regarding balance. One aspect not mentioned is the effect of pillaging; the civ 4 way was horrible when something pillaged your town, but it was kinda fun to pillage enemy towns. ;)

But the pillaging can be negated by being able to repair the village instead of regrowing the whole thing from scratch. Also, I like the idea of CYZ of selective placement like on roads or near rivers.


Yeah, like I mentioned in the OP about tile Pillaging, this what I am after too. To add to the effect I think it might be very worthy addon to give Siege units ability to destroy tile improvements with ranged bombardment. Naturally it would not be same kind of pillaging than with other units and you would not gain the gold coins from it.


I say change the graphic. Make them buildable only on roads and rivers and don't allow them to be next to another trading post or to another city. Then it's also ok if they are powerfull since they will be limited (you only have so many roads because those cost money and using your river tiles means losing a irrigated farm).
Rather than have trading posts 'evolve' ; allow addition of a 2nd tile improvement that can only be built with TP in place and the improvent can take up to 4 tiles. This way, it also look aesthetically more pleasing with fewer numbers of spammy buildings around your city.
I've been saying since before the launch, I thought a nice simple way to keep spam down would be to make them require a road. If you're spamming, they dont give any net bonus overall, but if you restrict them to vital routes you can maximise their efficiency. It also has the bonus of allowing cities that are at the centre of your empire to benefit the most, as they're likely to have roads heading off in different directions as it is!
I hadn't thought of that, that's great! It will make the central cities the most commercial cities. There could then also be a Wonder boosting trade points, really adding a new dimension to city placement and specialization too! Perhaps a wonder that makes all roads with a tradepost on them mainteance free for the city it is build in. Adds Great Merchants point obviously (which is also needed).


Plenty of really good ideas! With addition of these elements the whole TP system would improve a lot.


I'll take a trading post upgrade as part of my expected (free) set of balance and bug patches after G&K releases. :)
Ok, ok I'll buy it as part of a 'Trader's Pack' for as much as $1.99


Heh, I'd too :D
But seriously if they do not have the time to add TP upgrade to G&K anymore, I would be more than happy to get it later via patches and such or at least in the 2nd exp. With a whole new focus on the city health & trade.


One obvious bonus that should be added to building a city on a river or freshwater lake is food. Those cities should grow faster because they have access to clean water. You can never underestimate the power of this.

Weren't there going to be wells at one time?.


Yeah, availability of fresh water should not be underestimated - rivers and lakes should be far more important as a "growth/commerce mechanic".

Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember reading about Well improvement at some point. Perhaps it was in early previews of CiV? Can't remember that precisely....

A small fix that would appease me aesthetically would be just to rename Trading Posts to Towns and make them look like towns. That way I can have more of a feel of urban sprawl if I want a prosperous civilization while not affecting any current mechanics.

Reading the above posts I'm surprosed that Road sprawl in civ4 was a problem.

IIRC in civ3, a road increased Trade by +1, but not in civ 4.

I actually enjoyed the logistical challenge of having to connect resources and cities by road (or river after Sailing). I don't recall ever just building excessive roads as my workers nearly always had plenty to do (unlike now).

I want to go back to the importance of rivers. Playing civ makes you see the world in a new way. When I look at the United States, all the major cities are on some kind of water way.

If rivers are made more powerful, the game should also be consistent about giving your capital a river, and having a fairly consistent amount of river near each capital for expansion. Otherwise it's pretty hard to come back from a bad start no matter what your strategy is, especially if trading posts are only allowed next to rivers and roads.

If rivers are made more powerful, the game should also be consistent about giving your capital a river, and having a fairly consistent amount of river near each capital for expansion. Otherwise it's pretty hard to come back from a bad start no matter what your strategy is, especially if trading posts are only allowed next to rivers and roads.

Yep, obviously the importance of starting near a river would have to be increased in the map generator (or at least in the start location placement part).

That being said, rivers should not be so important that not starting next to them is gamebreaking. Not starting next to a river should be like not starting near iron or starting with only 2 luxuries and no new types nearby. Or not starting on the coast on a waterheavy map. It's more challenging but that makes this game fun.

Reading the above posts I'm surprosed that Road sprawl in civ4 was a problem.

IIRC in civ3, a road increased Trade by +1, but not in civ 4.

I actually enjoyed the logistical challenge of having to connect resources and cities by road (or river after Sailing). I don't recall ever just building excessive roads as my workers nearly always had plenty to do (unlike now).

Road sprawl was a problem in Civ4, but it wasn't because people wanted gold (in Civ2 it was called Trade, not Civ3). Rather, the problem was a combination of boredom and benefit without cost. People would have spare workers lying around so they'd build roads. There was no reason not to if they had the resources, since movement bonuses are excellent for defending your civ from attack.

Road sprawl was a problem in Civ4, but it wasn't because people wanted gold (in Civ2 it was called Trade, not Civ3). Rather, the problem was a combination of boredom and benefit without cost. People would have spare workers lying around so they'd build roads. There was no reason not to if they had the resources, since movement bonuses are excellent for defending your civ from attack.

Ah, Civ 2 was it, I couldn't remember if it was 2 or 3. :)

Personally i didn't bother 'roading' every tile, but i guess if you wanted too then it would at least be realistic!

People thought it looked ugly. Especially since, throughout history, major roads were relatively rare.

I was relatively indifferent, but I'm fine with the change. Also, with the end of corruption, it's the only way to penalize distance.

When playing as the Inca, I still end up spamming roads in Hills. :)

When playing as the Inca, I still end up spamming roads in Hills. :)

Yeah, the part of Incan UA "No maintenance costs for improvements in Hills; half cost elsewhere" is surprisingly powerful. I am hoping to see some other Civ to benefit improvement maintenance cost (Roads?) like that as well.

It is a really great idea to change Trading Posts to be buildable only in road and river tiles (perhaps -minus gold effect to them, if theres too many of them around a small city - bigger city can support more of them). Plus with a updated graphics I would be a happy gamer. :)

I find rivers at the moment too unimportant. You sometimes see a player's starting settler on a river, but the player opting to move a tile away from it to settle on a hill.

Maybe thats true in PVP, but in a game against the AI I always like to have a watermill, garden and windmill in my capital city.

However maybe settling a city next to a river should give it an additional small +1 :c5food: boost, along with which watermills cant be built if the city is settled on a hill.

Can't we just bring back that rivers spread trade routes like roads do? The 3-5 gold saved from having a road would be huge in the early game. Maybe also faster movement if you move alongside the river like in Civ2. That was pretty cool and made exploring 'feel' more natural. Later, the capability to have a watermill and other buildings, plus the extra gold from all the riverside tiles is enough.

I think that trading posts are fine as they are, they should simply be renamed to villages/towns and the early graphic changed accordingly.

I think rivers are fine both in singleplayer and multiplayer. Depending on your strat in multi it can become very useful too. Rivers also make important places to place your troops behind and act as a good defense mechanism that you should use when playing a tech game.

Yes the defence from rivers is also important, as are watermills and gardens for tech games for extra specialist support and more GP points.

Allowing trade routes over rivers would be a huge nerf to the Iroquois UA.

Or similarly to my previous suggestion, give watermills a buff.

Allowing trade routes over rivers would be a huge nerf to the Iroquois UA.


I'm not so sure about this, creating traderoutes will be even easier and cheaper for them if they can use rivers combined with forests.

It might be easier for them, but it would negate the usefulness of their UA when every other civ can also get free trade routes over rivers.

Maybe add a building that enables trade routes over rivers like the harbor does, perhaps a canal with 5 maintanence that adds +1 gold on each river tile and enables trade routes over them, available at engineering.

It might be easier for them, but it would negate the usefulness of their UA when every other civ can also get free trade routes over rivers.

Maybe add a building that enables trade routes over rivers like the harbor does, perhaps a canal with 5 maintanence that adds +1 gold on each river tile and enables trade routes over them, available at engineering.

then no one would use it, as you could have just built roads by then for much cheaper.

10 gpt (canal in both cities) is a fairly high cost for something that's replaceable.

then no one would use it, as you could have just built roads by then for much cheaper.

10 gpt (canal in both cities) is a fairly high cost for something that's replaceable.

It would cost 10gpt minus 1 for each river tile worked by either city...

I don't see the need for canals at all.

The way I see it, having rivers spread trade routes would only be a benefit for the early game (up to the middle of the classical period max). Later than that, you will want roads anyway for military reasons and to the link the cities that will invariably not have river access. In any case, when cities get to a reasonable size, the maintenance cost of the road becomes negligible. The main additional advantage of a river side city would be saving the time to build the road, and not having to wait for the city to grow to become worthwhile. Both being mostly early game advantages.

In terms of net gold, the main reason for having a city near (but not necessarily adjacent) to a river is the extra gold for all those river side tiles. Rivers spreading trade routes would only make it beneficial to build a city right next to a river, rather than slightly further away.

This incentive, (for reasons described above) is mainly an early game one. In the first 60 turns, there would be more a small incentive to build cities on rivers rather than just close to them. This, however, means possibly sacrificing access to resources, or having them in the 3rd ring of a city and harder to get too. The bonus is also not so big that it will completely shift the balance in favour of those lucky enough to spawn by rivers.

The main effects of making rivers spread trade routes are:
a) More 'organic' spread of civilizations along rivers which adds immersion
b) More factors to weigh when deciding city placement (which IMO makes the game more interesting)
c) Make road building a more interesting choice, rather than just a yes/no depending on the city size

I also agree, allowing Trading Posts to only be built on roads / next to rivers would definitely add some more strategy (and realism to it), especially if you have a penalty to having them touching each other (realistically you'd never have a road surrounded by trading posts the whole way down).

The only concern is that the AI might not understand the new mechanic re: penalties for them touching each other. I mean, the AI doesn't really seem to understand the Moai statues that well.

That being said, Trading Posts could use an improvement. I only tend to use them in the forests (before I have construction) and Jungle (because I want the Science Boost later on) since they don't chop forest/jungle down.

I also agree, allowing Trading Posts to only be built on roads / next to rivers would definitely add some more strategy (and realism to it), especially if you have a penalty to having them touching each other (realistically you'd never have a road surrounded by trading posts the whole way down).

The only concern is that the AI might not understand the new mechanic re: penalties for them touching each other. I mean, the AI doesn't really seem to understand the Moai statues that well.

That being said, Trading Posts could use an improvement. I only tend to use them in the forests (before I have construction) and Jungle (because I want the Science Boost later on) since they don't chop forest/jungle down.

I wouldn't give them a penalty for being next to each other. It should just be impossible to build a trading post next to another trading post or next to a city :p AI can handle that.

Rivers are already extremely strong in this game. Much moreso than in civ 4, where they give the same amount of commerce but everything else gives 2-3x as much. I think anything that made them stronger would be a mistake. The incentive would need to specifically be, "when near a river, I want to settle immediately adjacent to it" as opposed to "my cities need to be near rivers." With regards to realism, in the real world rivers are freaking everywhere outside of truly uninhabitable areas. With how uncommon they seem to be on civ maps, I would say a river on the map means a river at least in the ballpark of the ohio or missouri rivers (if those two could be said to be in the same ballpark). A look at the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the world reveals that only about 1/4 of them are located on rivers that size or larger. It might actually be a reasonable interpretation to say all cities are located by rivers or fresh water in CiV and the rivers on the map are there to represent sufficiently large rivers to yield trade bonuses beyond what any old city would have. There are size scaling problems when going between the civ world and the real world of course.

I'm unsure what you would do with the tiles if you heavily restricted the ability to put trading posts down. Mostly they're probably going on flat land, so the only alternative would be farms. Unfortunately the number of worthwhile specialists slots in a city is pretty small most of the time. Growing just to work more farms to grow faster to work more farms would be quite unsatisfying and problematic happiness-wise. I feel like if you heavily restricted trading posts you would probably have to put something in that does the same thing with a different name.

I would be in favor of some cosmetic changes to TPs. Both the renaming and the new graphics would be welcome (That seems like the sort of thing that would be moddable). The cottage system in 4 was great, one of the crowning jewels of that game. The numbers in 4 and 5 are different though and as it stands TPs don't need a boost in gold output to be worthwhile. There would be significant rebalancing needed to implement it.

I wouldn't give them a penalty for being next to each other. It should just be impossible to build a trading post next to another trading post or next to a city :p AI can handle that.

I suppose that the AI problem is that it might handle that restriction by putting the ones that it does place in the wrong tiles.

That is the problem, rather than preventing it breaking the game rules.

http://gamershavennews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Civ5Pax.jpg
What's that above the right most landshiop? A customs house? (I never build those, so I wouldn't know)
anandus: according to the mouseover in the video, it's a new graphic for the Trading Post.


Seems like they have included a trading post fix (at least graphics) in G&K. Great ! :D

Well, at least it looks a lot prettier now. I'd still prefer a return to the day of cottages -> towns, though.