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

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.

If anything, realism *demands* that you can't stop trading with other nations.

Trading is a civilian matter that governments don't control and, historically, couldn't if they tried. First of all, you can't ban trading with one country while allowing trading with other countries. The trade would get around the ban by using proxies. So, you'd need either a fully isolationist stance (like medieval Japan) or a full embargo/blockade against the target country (like the one against modern day Cuba). Even these are usually bypassed by smugglers unless the country is easy to guard (note that both of my examples are small islands). The Ming Dynasty tried to stop trade with Spain via the Philippines but it didn't work, because the country was to large to effectively control its borders. In fact, well guarded borders are a modern novelty that didn't exist for most of history (and even today they are quite permissive, allowing for instance masses of people and drugs to move illegally from Mexico to the United States).

It's not that I care about realism, but it annoys me when people with no knowledge of history criticize the game because it doesn't fit their ignorant beliefs. This happens quite a lot on this forum.
 
well, the game added caravans. how about it add a black market unit just for trading at reduced rates with countries you have no agreement with? you could even get away with this during war (as some history has shown) but really, just a black market unit for unsanctioned trade would be interesting. also, this kind of dynamic is the kind of thing that UU's and UAs could make use of for added Civ flavor.

sounds like a job for modders.
 
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.

No as everybody here said trading is not the same than letting tanks and bombers go in your territory
 
If anything, realism *demands* that you can't stop trading with other nations.

Trading is a civilian matter that governments don't control and, historically, couldn't if they tried. First of all, you can't ban trading with one country while allowing trading with other countries. The trade would get around the ban by using proxies. So, you'd need either a fully isolationist stance (like medieval Japan) or a full embargo/blockade against the target country (like the one against modern day Cuba). Even these are usually bypassed by smugglers unless the country is easy to guard (note that both of my examples are small islands). The Ming Dynasty tried to stop trade with Spain via the Philippines but it didn't work, because the country was to large to effectively control its borders. In fact, well guarded borders are a modern novelty that didn't exist for most of history (and even today they are quite permissive, allowing for instance masses of people and drugs to move illegally from Mexico to the United States).
That's all quite valid to a point, but saying governments can't stop trading turns the matter into a binary equation. They can certainly make a significant impact. Big difference between flying to France and buying Cuban cigars and being able to go pick them up at the local Target.

Old cities certainly had walls and gates and guards, and it was their business to enforce sanctions. Obviously, crime and corruption make inroads, but smuggling is rarely a high-volume operation.

So, while I'd be fine with a trickle of trade flowing in from an banned nation, a civ certainly shouldn't be helpless to prevent caravans and cargo ships from entering your lands, your gates, and your ports.
 
That's all quite valid to a point, but saying governments can't stop trading turns the matter into a binary equation. They can certainly make a significant impact. Big difference between flying to France and buying Cuban cigars and being able to go pick them up at the local Target.

Actually, what would happen is that you would find them in the local Target re-branded as French cigars. The French would be more than happy to resell them in your country and take a cut. You really can't have an embargo if other nations don't cooperate.

Old cities certainly had walls and gates and guards, and it was their business to enforce sanctions. Obviously, crime and corruption make inroads, but smuggling is rarely a high-volume operation.

Read up on the scale of smuggling between China and Spain that I mentioned. It was huge! The administration of the time simply did not have the reach to control such a big country. Even today's administrations can't cope with some large scale challenges, as it was proven with the American prohibition.

Of course, all of the smuggled goods have good papers by the time they reach a city gate... In the specific case I mentioned, the Chinese mostly brought in Spanish silver, which was very easy to pass off as local.
 
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.:/

Because selling resources means both parties are accepting a trade. If I don't want someone making a trade route with me, I should be able to close my borders and deny them access, just like I would in real life.

I think tying it to open borders gives open borders new life, because there's really no reason to accept it with no benefits to you.
 
If anything, realism *demands* that you can't stop trading with other nations.

Trading is a civilian matter that governments don't control and, historically, couldn't if they tried. First of all, you can't ban trading with one country while allowing trading with other countries. The trade would get around the ban by using proxies. So, you'd need either a fully isolationist stance (like medieval Japan) or a full embargo/blockade against the target country (like the one against modern day Cuba). Even these are usually bypassed by smugglers unless the country is easy to guard (note that both of my examples are small islands). The Ming Dynasty tried to stop trade with Spain via the Philippines but it didn't work, because the country was to large to effectively control its borders. In fact, well guarded borders are a modern novelty that didn't exist for most of history (and even today they are quite permissive, allowing for instance masses of people and drugs to move illegally from Mexico to the United States).

It's not that I care about realism, but it annoys me when people with no knowledge of history criticize the game because it doesn't fit their ignorant beliefs. This happens quite a lot on this forum.


Of course you can deny trading in real life. You can create tariffs and embargos and other examples so no trade occurs. If I want to close my nation to trading I should be able to. You should be able to at least confirm or deny a trade route.
 
What do you mean, "no benefits to you"? Free passage of military is useful, increased tourism is useful.

I still remind you that the binary distinction between "no, you can't bring ANYTHING here" and "caravans, nuclear subs, bombers, tanks, all welcome!" is silly.
 
It's only useful if you are going for a culture win. Putting something else like trade routes in open borders makes it more useful for other victory conditions.
 
Top Bottom