Trading Posts

I miss the suburbs created by cottages. One problem was the grief caused when a top-tier cottage was pillaged, but with Civ V's repairable "pillaged" state, that wouldn't be a problem.

I suppose the other problem was that the AI was too stupid to use them properly. It would constantly bulldoze high-level cottages and replace them with mines, then replace the mine with a cottage, and so on...
 
I like trading posts because it gave an extra incentive not to chop down the jungles, besides the university bonus. It makes it more worth it to leave them as jungles and keep the science bonus since it gives you gold too. Otherwise I get too tempted to turn them into farmland or mines.
 
Unfortunately, if they eliminate Trading Posts, then they eliminate the only choice left in the Improvement system, and all that's left will be busy-work. Then you really will want to automate workers.

The only other choice I can think of is farm or mine on a hill by a river. The rest is all automatic.
 
Yeah, that's a big reason I hope they're not gone. I suppose roads are still a strategic choice to some degree (as is which tile you improve first), but that's much less significant.
 
God of Kings said:
The removal of trading posts would lead to puppet cities growing (unless the farms are all pillaged), leading to unnecessary unhappiness.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that necessarily a bad thing from a game balance perspective. Long term, assimilating cities into your empire should be better than having puppets, and at the moment it isn't really.
 
Eh, it's a tradeoff - when you raze a city, you get benefits (less unhappiness in the long run)/penalties (don't get the food, production, gold of the city) as well.
 
Louis XXIV said:
Eh, it's a tradeoff - when you raze a city, you get benefits (less unhappiness in the long run)/penalties (don't get the food, production, gold of the city) as well.
Click to expand...
It's a trade-off, but the incentives are backwards. You're rewarded for ignoring the city, and penalized for managing it... not just in the Happiness hit, but in the increasing Social Policy and Great Person costs as well. And it's not a very interesting choice; unless you absolutely need to produce something in that city, the vast majority of the time it's better to leave it a Puppet for the rest of the game. It's functional, but not very satisfying.
 
AriochIV said:
It's a trade-off, but the incentives are backwards. You're rewarded for ignoring the city, and penalized for managing it... not just in the Happiness hit, but in the increasing Social Policy and Great Person costs as well. And it's not a very interesting choice; unless you absolutely need to produce something in that city, the vast majority of the time it's better to leave it a Puppet for the rest of the game. It's functional, but not very satisfying.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is all the wrong way around.

Despite all that they have done with the game, global happiness still creates some odd situations.
 
AriochIV said:
It's a trade-off, but the incentives are backwards. You're rewarded for ignoring the city, and penalized for managing it...
Click to expand...
Ignoring the city means it just sites there..ignored. It just does its little gold focus routine, and as a result often doesn't even grow its population.

The only disincentive to annexation is the extra unhappiness. And even that's managed once a courthouse is built, which is not longer particularly onerous.

It's not even really intended as a trade-off. You puppet until A) you can manage the resulting unhappiness of annexing, and B) when you actually have a reason to do something with it other than gold focus.
 
Number of cities don't increase GP cost--that is a typo and AFAIK the game has never functioned that way. The only thing that increases GP cost is getting a GP.

As for social policies, if it is a strong enough city with culture buildings, there is a good chance it won't increase policy acquisition, just keep it the same.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if in BNW culture cost no longer increases with the number of cities. Great Works instead of buildings are going to be the main culture generators, and Great Works are going to be limited. Just need a few tweaks to the early policies.
 
Perhaps...caravansary replaces trading post...kasbah = unique caravansary replacement?

It makes sense because caravansaries should double as a place out in the field for your trading units to hide under duress rather than things you build in your city.
 
How would you positives here balance the huge increase in income over time if Civ4 cottages where introduced into the Civ5 economy? Perhaps an upkeep cost again per city?
 
Not an upkeep cost per city, but higher upkeep for more advanced buildings. For compensation, these buildings would grant higher benefits (e.g. +25 XP in stead of +15 XP for units when built in a city with a military academy). This would nicely model an efficient but expensive high-tech society.

(I still would love to read about your thoughts regarding my cottage concept represented in my signature's link. Its old but still not outdated.)
 
Deggial said:
Not an upkeep cost per city, but higher upkeep for more advanced buildings. For compensation, these buildings would grant higher benefits (e.g. +25 XP in stead of +15 XP for units when built in a city with a military academy). This would nicely model an efficient but expensive high-tech society.

(I still would love to read about your thoughts regarding my cottage concept represented in my signature's link. Its old but still not outdated.)
Click to expand...

Might work.
 
What I think trading posts should have:

- Double gold on roads and ITR
- Gold on coast when trading post is built near coast
 
It would be spectacular to me if the TP's were gone. They really make no sense. Even if they simply replace them with a town, or a villiage or subburb tile improvement that would make much more sense, and make the whole countryside more immersing.

I feel like the scale of tile improvements should be bumped up any ways. Farms should be farming commuiuties, TP's should be Towns or Subburbs. Mines, Mining communities etc.

It would make the scale of a City equal more like a capitol city and then the towns and subburbs would be the surrounding commerce centers, farming communities etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blake00
CivBattleRoyale Season 4 (CBR X4)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
A
Thinking about bailing on Civ V for VI...
Replies
17
Views
3K
Licentia
Licentia
Tekamthi
  • Locked
(5-CP) Counterproposal: Keep tech trading enabled by default, but limit tech trading opportunities
Replies
8
Views
856
Hinin
Hinin
A
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (5-80) Make "Enable Research Agreements" and "No Tech Trading" the Default Settings (Special Supermajority Vote)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Amask
A
A
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-60) Can't Sell Cities Founded By Their Current Owner
Replies
10
Views
1K
dostillevi
D
Top Bottom