Buildings with Trade Routes Tags Discussion

Yes we do read your rationales! :)

+100% :gold: on Hypermarket! That's a lot!
Granted It's been a while since I had gotten that far in the tech tree, it might be in line with all the super-power-ness of the future era

When the Great Lighthouse obsoletes, will the extra move for ships also disappear?
 
*looks at Spain, England*

I'm pretty sure declaring war on a partner nation would cause economic recession on England even having India, Canada, Australia and South Africa as vassals in the late XIXth century (e.g. Brazil, which stood confident that England wouldn't try to do with us the same they did with China in the Diplomatic Issue of 1862, because they relied a lot on our exports and our debts).

This is indeed an important aspect of war that's being completely removed. In the light of simplification the mechanic is turning into exploitation.

Instead of carefully choosing sides in wars, now you just amass vassal cities until no building/wonder you have may benefit from additional Foreign Connectedness. After reaching that point you're free to enter wars, from the economic perspective.

I think a number of connected Foreign Nations should also influence some buildings/wonders. This way it wouldn't let you just get enough vassal cities to fulfill the numbers. Is there a way to check if a Player is connected to another without going back to the whole TR calc problem? If so this would prevent the exploitation a lot.
 
I think a number of connected Foreign Nations should also influence some buildings/wonders. This way it wouldn't let you just get enough vassal cities to fulfill the numbers. Is there a way to check if a Player is connected to another without going back to the whole TR calc problem? If so this would prevent the exploitation a lot.

I could add a way to view the number of connected domestic/foreign cities in the city screen somewhere.
 
So do I. I think it's more helpful than the actual rules. :D

Why would you spend all that effort building the Internet if everyone everywhere benefits from it?

If you are the biggest civ (which is likely a goal) than you benefit the most of it.

Good question . Why do modders release public mods when everyone else benefits...

:p

:goodjob:

I really like the Marco Polo's Embassy and Petra effect (foreign capitals only).
... and the Rationale too :lol:
 
What about buildings that give +x commerce only if the cities they're connected with a specific route type? Is this programmable?
 
What about buildings that give +x commerce only if the cities they're connected with a specific route type? Is this programmable?

Yep. In general, all modifiers are possible, just a matter of time investment. ;)

What would you use them for?
 
I've done tests with my changes in Revision 755, and it was fairly straightforward to entirely turn off trade routes. It didn't cause any unexpected crashes or stability issues, so I think at least on the technical side, I'm ready to start implementing these. I will take a first stab this weekend.
 
I could add a way to view the number of connected domestic/foreign cities in the city screen somewhere.

That makes it even easier for exploiting. Is there a way to check connected players instead of only connected cities, without falling on a nasty loop like that one? If we could have not only bonus for connectedness with cities, but connectedness with players, the exploiting would be diminished.

And a size-dependency seems more then needed for this new mechanic, because if not bigger maps will always be easier to get more bonuses then smaller maps
 
This is indeed an important aspect of war that's being completely removed. In the light of simplification the mechanic is turning into exploitation.

Instead of carefully choosing sides in wars, now you just amass vassal cities until no building/wonder you have may benefit from additional Foreign Connectedness. After reaching that point you're free to enter wars, from the economic perspective.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by exploitation. First off, you don't need to amass vassal cities to benefit from foreign connectedness, just open borders and well built trade routes. Second, I seriously doubt anyone other than you considers the impacts of what will happen to TR when they declare war. It's just too complicated to consider, and too random. I'm not very worried about that.

I think a number of connected Foreign Nations should also influence some buildings/wonders. This way it wouldn't let you just get enough vassal cities to fulfill the numbers. Is there a way to check if a Player is connected to another without going back to the whole TR calc problem? If so this would prevent the exploitation a lot.


They do, for two of the wonders. Petra and Marco Pollo's embassy are based on Foreign Capitals, which is an easy proxy for being connected to their "nation".

That makes it even easier for exploiting. Is there a way to check connected players instead of only connected cities, without falling on a nasty loop like that one? If we could have not only bonus for connectedness with cities, but connectedness with players, the exploiting would be diminished.

I guess I don't care. Perhaps you aren't explaining your problem very well because I don't see any reason I would care about the tiny details of TR mechanics and warfare. I know I have never considered that factor when deciding when to declare war.
 
Was it too much work for the Tax Office to work if you do not use Rev? Just curious.

Looking forward to the new TR less system.

JosEPh
 
Was it too much work for the Tax Office to work if you do not use Rev? Just curious.

Looking forward to the new TR less system.

JosEPh


What, no. I just saw that when going through the buildings, the tax office providers less maintenance at the cost of revolution instability. That's not a fair mechanic for players who turn off revolutions, so I required the building to use revolutions game option. Totally unrelated, and just a minor tweak I saw while making this list of re-balances.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by exploitation. First off, you don't need to amass vassal cities to benefit from foreign connectedness, just open borders and well built trade routes. Second, I seriously doubt anyone other than you considers the impacts of what will happen to TR when they declare war. It's just too complicated to consider, and too random. I'm not very worried about that.




They do, for two of the wonders. Petra and Marco Pollo's embassy are based on Foreign Capitals, which is an easy proxy for being connected to their "nation".



I guess I don't care. Perhaps you aren't explaining your problem very well because I don't see any reason I would care about the tiny details of TR mechanics and warfare. I know I have never considered that factor when deciding when to declare war.

I'm sorry people don't worry about it. Indeed when people play civ to have fun, they probably play in a difficulty lesser then their sweat mark, and they normally become the master of the world soon (or for players in smaller maps it doesn't make much difference anyway). When you are the best undoubtly at least since the time of Navigation, you don't have to worry with TRs. Actually you don't have to worry at all with anything.

But when you play on a difficulty harder then your sweat mark, details matter a lot because you're trying to best something hard for you. In this situation it makes much difference who you'll declare war based on the economic perspective. If I declare war on a guy that supports 800 :commerce: in TRs with me, and all the others give me less then 100 (while I give myself 1500), this war will be costy (I may at least lose 400:commerce:/turn with this). If you are struggling to keep in tech with the best players, losing 400:commerce: is a lot. If you are the supreme leader of techs, maybe it won't make much difference anyways (as you'll probably conquer new land soon enough to fill the gap).

And this is realistic. And not complex, before someone comes here again saying that playability > realism. The more partners available, less economic impact on decisions, it seems straitforward to me.


And sorry I didn't check the Wonder effects. Indeed you found the way :goodjob:. But I think more buildings should have this property.

By exploitation I mean using the info to its best result, with a not so nice way of doing it. Former TRs were hard as hell to manage and get benefits. With MAX X:commerce: that is related to a MAX N° of cities connected (be foreign or not), it becomes incredibly easy to use the mechanic to its most by playing the game appropriately. If Vassals are considered foreign, then here is the exploitation taking form: Just amass a number of vassals that make all your cities have MAX bonuses by connectedness, and then you don't have to worry with this feature of the game anymore. It's solved for you, and you're free from it to do whatever you like, while former TRs never let you do that.

Another example of Exploitation on CIV is the Shield Exploit. The AI considers an unpassable terrain by land (like coast or peak before mountaineering) the same of an enemy unit on land. The exploit is done when you make a shield of troops around your cities. If you have this shield of at least a single troop in all tiles making a "circle" around all your cities, the AI thinks it is incapable of reaching you by land, so it'll try someone else to bother or will get ships to attack you. Guess why the AI never attacked you by land on that penninsula with a single tile entrance? Well if you put a garrison on that tile here is your answer. Although this is possible to do it's not intended to happen and let you be free from early wars unscathed. There are some flaws on the Shield Exploit, but that's another topic already.


BTW one last thing: Don't you think bonuses should be:

- Fractions, like they were in TRs
- Unlimited (but with a function to cap it somewhere)

Instead of saying 1:commerce: per connected city, it'll be a fraction (to have a bigger range of values without increasing the absolute values too much), and it may not be the same value for every connected city. It could be a bonus that decreases the more cities you add to the list. This way we still have a cap for the :commerce: gain, we kill the exploitation because more cities will always mean more commerce (even if a slight one) and we bring back the economic recession issue of declaring war on foreign nations. It won't be random as former TRs. With a proper advisor you'll be able to see everything you need.
 
I'm sorry people don't worry about it. Indeed when people play civ to have fun, they probably play in a difficulty lesser then their sweat mark, and they normally become the master of the world soon (or for players in smaller maps it doesn't make much difference anyway). When you are the best undoubtly at least since the time of Navigation, you don't have to worry with TRs. Actually you don't have to worry at all with anything.

But when you play on a difficulty harder then your sweat mark, details matter a lot because you're trying to best something hard for you. In this situation it makes much difference who you'll declare war based on the economic perspective. If I declare war on a guy that supports 800 :commerce: in TRs with me, and all the others give me less then 100 (while I give myself 1500), this war will be costy (I may at least lose 400:commerce:/turn with this). If you are struggling to keep in tech with the best players, losing 400:commerce: is a lot. If you are the supreme leader of techs, maybe it won't make much difference anyways (as you'll probably conquer new land soon enough to fill the gap).

And this is realistic. And not complex, before someone comes here again saying that playability > realism. The more partners available, less economic impact on decisions, it seems straitforward to me.

I've seen people with this sort of playstyle, and I agree you probably need this micro-micro-management on Diety difficulty, but I don't think we should cater to this type of gamestyle. Very, very few Civ players aim for that sort of gameplay. I guess what I am saying is that your not my primary audience. I'm not trying to ignore you, but I also am not focused on your style either.

By exploitation I mean using the info to its best result, with a not so nice way of doing it. Former TRs were hard as hell to manage and get benefits. With MAX X:commerce: that is related to a MAX N° of cities connected (be foreign or not), it becomes incredibly easy to use the mechanic to its most by playing the game appropriately. If Vassals are considered foreign, then here is the exploitation taking form: Just amass a number of vassals that make all your cities have MAX bonuses by connectedness, and then you don't have to worry with this feature of the game anymore. It's solved for you, and you're free from it to do whatever you like, while former TRs never let you do that.

Ah ok. I am used to exploitation = abusing a bug, taking advantage of a bad situation. I am perfectly fine that it reduces the complexity and difficulty. RAND is difficult enough in terms of management, especially in the late game. So this "exploitation" as you term it, is what I would call "streamlining".

BTW one last thing: Don't you think bonuses should be:

- Fractions, like they were in TRs
- Unlimited (but with a function to cap it somewhere)

Instead of saying 1:commerce: per connected city, it'll be a fraction (to have a bigger range of values without increasing the absolute values too much), and it may not be the same value for every connected city. It could be a bonus that decreases the more cities you add to the list. This way we still have a cap for the :commerce: gain, we kill the exploitation because more cities will always mean more commerce (even if a slight one) and we bring back the economic recession issue of declaring war on foreign nations. It won't be random as former TRs. With a proper advisor you'll be able to see everything you need.

Totally. I was saying 1 :commerce: per 3 cities because that is how it will be worded in the civilopedia text. In game, it might be 0.33 :commerce: or 0.66 :commerce:. Fractions and Decimals all the way.
 
About details, I would suggest actually play-testing before tweaking. I'm no Deity player. I'm definitely this mod's dedicated follower because it has a just-right level of details and Automation orders. I don't mind tweaking because we are playing beta version after all. But please less over-analyzing before testing in-game is my request :).
 
About details, I would suggest actually play-testing before tweaking. I'm no Deity player. I'm definitely this mod's dedicated follower because it has a just-right level of details and Automation orders. I don't mind tweaking because we are playing beta version after all. But please less over-analyzing before testing in-game is my request :).

Right, I am a fan of fast iterations. If we break or unbalance stuff, we can get feedback and fix. Attempting to figure out whether it is good or bad with complex game theory will probably not work until someone actually plays a game with it.
 
The solution to one of Spirictum's issues would be to consider a vassal's cities as "internal" and not "foreign".
 
I researched Conquest victory and Vassals. Found out if you vassalize all other AI you didn't exterminate, you win that victory condition. So considering Vassal cities as domestic can work.
 
Also it's worth improving the AI logic for open borders. I don't know about everyone else, but it seems nearly all non-hateful AI's want open border ASAP.

That strategy seems shortsighted. Especially with foreign modifiers. The AI should want open borders with friendly civilizations when it needs more foreign connectedness, or when it is spreading its religions/corporations, or when it is conducting a war campaign against an enemy where the enemy shares a border with the open borded'd civilization. I don't think the AI should just spam open borders.
 
Some very good changes overall. Pyramid of the magician got a well deserved nerf as it was way too op imo (thats the religion I always aim for in my games since that wonder is waywayway better than most other religion wonders in most situations). Actually, its the best wonder bar none and its not even close (it will still be good but not OP as it was before this change). Very well done changes overall, Aforess. :goodjob:
 
Top Bottom