I think there should be no trade routes w/o open borders

A

AlextheGr8

Warlord
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
180
I think if you don't have an open borders pact with a civ, they shouldn't be able to open up trade routes with you.
 
But some goods have a mysterious way of sneaking their way over borders sometimes...

Would be hilarious if they had more drugs as luxuries, like tobacco, opium, marijuana, etc. That would make for more realistic trading/banning.
 
The only real affect of open borders deal with military units. It wouldn't be wise to let an civ that you don't know much about bring their entire army to the front door of your capital. However, that shouldn't affect trade. Have custom check the goods and if all is as it should be pay them the asking price, the rival civ cargo never actually needs to enter the city and should stop at customs.
 
Fair question . But many countries who have straigned relations or very straigned relations still do some kind of trade dealings with each other . See current day U.S and Venezuela . Not friends at all . Definetely enemies in a cold war .
I do think however having another tool to isolate your enemy would be thoughtful but not needed addition . If you could lessen the put of tariffs maybe on your cold war enemy 's goods. This would lessen trades with people you wanted to punish but also hurt your economy posibly . Lessen or element tariffs for your buddies.
 
I don't think open borders should be needed, but I still do feel that there should be a new option in the diplomacy screen called "allow traders" or something like that.

It doesn't make sense that foreign traders are simply allowed everywhere under all conditions except during war. Its both highly un-historical as well as dumb from a gameplay point of view. What if I don't want my arch enemy from making money by sending traders to my cities? Why am I FORCED to accept them?
 
hardcore_gamer said:
I don't think open borders should be needed, but I still do feel that there should be a new option in the diplomacy screen called "allow traders" or something like that.

It doesn't make sense that foreign traders are simply allowed everywhere under all conditions except during war. Its both highly un-historical as well as dumb from a gameplay point of view. What if I don't want my arch enemy from making money by sending traders to my cities? Why am I FORCED to accept them?
Click to expand...

You can't make that decision for your people though, because they will smuggle in foreign goods if they have to, regardless of your border relations.
 
I_qua_I said:
-why?
Click to expand...

Well because it isn't realistic. No country trades with another unless they have some sort of pact, open borders could be a trade pact as well. But in general I just don't like other civs going around my borders at will, and making money off me without my say in the process.
 
You don't need open borders to sell resources (both strategic and luxury) ... why should ITRs be any different? From a realism point of view they shouldn't be any different, but from a gameplay pov? Eh.

Unless you mean they *shouldn't* be any different, so you won't be able to send or receive ITRs *and* won't be able to buy or sell resources without open borders, and then, what's the point? It becomes too important. The status quo is fine for gameplay reasons.:/
 
No, I completely disagree. That would break the whole mechanic. Imagine how your economy would collapse if the entire map hated you. What if you're trying for domination victory and the whole world thinks you're a warmongering menace. Your economy will collapse under the pressure of unit maintenance. You need those trade routes to keep you going. Open borders just adds an unnecessary step. There is no downside to having trade routes come and go.
 
AlextheGr8 said:
Well because it isn't realistic. No country trades with another unless they have some sort of pact, open borders could be a trade pact as well. But in general I just don't like other civs going around my borders at will, and making money off me without my say in the process.
Click to expand...

If not being realistic is to be our sole-criterion for whether a certain game feature/mechanic needs changing we might as well toss the game out. Heck, in real life many leaders don't even have authority when it comes to his/her country's trade. This has been stated to death but it is a game, not a history simulation. I'm not saying your proposal isn't a good one but I am saying that if you want it to be taken seriously you're going to have to include in your reasoning how it would benefit game-play.

"I don't like" assertions are equally irrelevant without further elaboration.

EDIT: Here's what the above poster wrote. Again, I'm not saying he/she is right or wrong, or making good points or not so good points but notice how his/her reasoning references in-game effects (unit maintenance, diplo difficulties, etc.)

Bisqit said:
No, I completely disagree. That would break the whole mechanic. Imagine how your economy would collapse if the entire map hated you. What if you're trying for domination victory and the whole world thinks you're a warmongering menace. Your economy will collapse under the pressure of unit maintenance. You need those trade routes to keep you going. Open borders just adds an unnecessary step. There is no downside to having trade routes come and go.
Click to expand...
 
I think "open borders" is more like "military access", so imho it is perfectly fine to allow trade with someone even if you didn't sign it.
 
I'd only support this option if Open Borders were moved way back on the tech tree. Failing that, I'd support a system (assuming it doesn't already exist) where how lucrative a trade route is depends on how open your borders are-both in terms of gold, tourism, religious pressure & science. A similar thing should apply to trade with City States (neutral less than friends, less than allies). This then leads to potentially tough decisions-open your borders to make trade more lucrative, but at the risk of letting their prophets & missionaries in to convert your cities, or close them and (a) have less stellar trade and (b) risk driving them to denounce and/or DoW you!
 
AlextheGr8 said:
Well because it isn't realistic. No country trades with another unless they have some sort of pact, open borders could be a trade pact as well. But in general I just don't like other civs going around my borders at will, and making money off me without my say in the process.
Click to expand...

You are also getting gold in exchange, all and all it's almost never completely a bad thing unless the civ in question is on your hit list and in that case declaring war on them will break all those trade routes.

They aren't making money "off" of you, they are making gold off the trade route and whoever they make it with also gets a cut.
 
AlextheGr8 said:
Well because it isn't realistic. No country trades with another unless they have some sort of pact, open borders could be a trade pact as well. But in general I just don't like other civs going around my borders at will, and making money off me without my say in the process.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Private industry always does business with each other laws are implemented to prevent that. Perhaps a country could create an embargo to prevent trade with that country (Internally, not within the congress). As result, unhappiness would increase.

Or maybe trade is not allowed within 5 tiles of any enemy military units.
 
perhaps no trade routes with them unless they have an embassy in your capital? and you cant send a trade route to them unless your embassy is in their capital? the trades could be with any city, but as long as an embassy was established you could trade with them. just a thought on it being conditional.
 
CrazyHeaven said:
The only real affect of open borders deal with military units. It wouldn't be wise to let an civ that you don't know much about bring their entire army to the front door of your capital. However, that shouldn't affect trade. Have custom check the goods and if all is as it should be pay them the asking price, the rival civ cargo never actually needs to enter the city and should stop at customs.
Click to expand...

Open borders does give +25% tourism too. This isn't something to ignore.


As for open borders being needed for trading, I disagree. Letting another's army inside one's country is a whole different deal than some trading (even in Civ where the army can't do surprise attacks from the inside). On the other hand, there should be a way to embargo players one-by-one without declaring war, I think. It would be fun to try.
 
So the real question here is should we be able to easily prevent trade with another civ? I mean, doesn't it make sense that trade should require some consent?

Problem with Open Borders is that it was pushed to being a mid-game unlock. It also requires embassies, which is annoying because it means you can't make open borders part of a peace treaty, which can lead to some annoying situations with units locked into inescapable border traps.
 
Hammer Rabbi said:
perhaps no trade routes with them unless they have an embassy in your capital? and you cant send a trade route to them unless your embassy is in their capital? the trades could be with any city, but as long as an embassy was established you could trade with them. just a thought on it being conditional.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a very good compromise. I mean, could Marco Polo have established trade with China before going to the Chinese Capital?

Aussie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kryat
Borders and True Diplomacy in Civ VII
Replies
1
Views
347
luca 83
luca 83
myclan
Removing troops from border requirement
Replies
1
Views
346
Bryan317
Bryan317
R
Few questions about vox populi and more
Replies
0
Views
164
Ramzes
R
mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
327
mastrude
mastrude
usadefcon1
  • Locked
[DLL] (6-21) Block Resource Trading if No Trade Route With a Civ Is Possible
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Top Bottom