TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
They will, it's been confirmed. The thing is this is so you can forget about the trade routes and when they expire you just re-new them, like deals.
New Featurette
- Thread starter Sam Kwon
- Start date
- Status
They will, it's been confirmed. The thing is this is so you can forget about the trade routes and when they expire you just re-new them, like deals.
It would be even better if they made it so you MUST have an international trade route with another civ to be able to trade strategic or luxury resources.
Unfortunately that is not the case, I remember seeing/reading somewhere that they were still able to trade resources with other civs even after a trade embargo was issued against them by the world council.
I am really interested in hearing your thoughts about why it was a good/bad idea not implement such feature.
Unfortunately that is not the case, I remember seeing/reading somewhere that they were still able to trade resources with other civs even after a trade embargo was issued against them by the world council.
I am really interested in hearing your thoughts about why it was a good/bad idea not implement such feature.
Crodface
Chieftain
I would be interested in seeing that source, because I'm with you. That doesn't really make much sense.
"We can't trade with you anymore, but we can still give you furs if you give us spices."
I agree, a trade route should be present to trade resources. That might interfere with the resource diversity mechanic that determines the amount of gold you get, however.
Thanks!Here's a screen from dutch video (blurry as sh*t, but you can still see it's the same icon):
damnyankees
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 281
This really should be a toggle option. Static deals and trade routes should give you the option of having to renew them, or leave them going forever unless turned off.
Found it, here you go.
"Brave New World also brings in trade caravans, special units that set up trade routes with Civs and city states. These don’t supplant trade routes; caravans also a second way to bring in cash. And as other Civs grow, the amount of gold that comes in builds up. In the modern era, I was getting significant amounts. I was able to establish new trade caravans with city states when the gosh-darned Zulus passed the trade embargo, which shut down my trade caravans with them (oddly enough, I could still trade luxury and strategic resources through the Diplomacy screen), and establish a new revenue stream."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/17H0X5G
HemlockMartinis
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 61
You can see a mini-map at 1:07 and there's no sign of a mystery barbarian-related civilization. It's more likely that they included stronger barbarian units in this build for purely illustrative purposes.
JSMCAG
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2009
- Messages
- 780
There are several games being played during the featurette, including one in a Pangea, and another on an Archipelago (as we can see from the Mini-Map).
I'm pretty sure the one where we saw the Barbarian Battleships is neither of them, due to the placement of Portugal in relation to Poland, and the coastal Portuguese City is Funchal, which doesn't seem to fit any of the other ones (that I can see).
Now, interestingly, they have hidden the civilization list from the right side, where it has been for the other two featurettes...
Trying to hide something, Firaxis? Maybe a civilization? 
Crodface
Chieftain
Found it, here you go.
"Brave New World also brings in trade caravans, special units that set up trade routes with Civs and city states. These dont supplant trade routes; caravans also a second way to bring in cash. And as other Civs grow, the amount of gold that comes in builds up. In the modern era, I was getting significant amounts. I was able to establish new trade caravans with city states when the gosh-darned Zulus passed the trade embargo, which shut down my trade caravans with them (oddly enough, I could still trade luxury and strategic resources through the Diplomacy screen), and establish a new revenue stream."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/17H0X5G
Thanks for this. Nice find.
But yea, that doesn't make much sense to me. I wonder if it was overlooked or just was simply too much to overhaul that mechanic.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,937
International Trade Routes and Diplomatic Resource Trading are not related functions. Should they be? I don't know. It sounds like it would be tedious to me if they were.
If you don't want to able to trade luxuries when you're embargoed, then should the City state luxuries be cut off from the embargo City-state policy. If they can't trade with you how can they give you their luxuries. That resolution would cripple Mercantile city states. Also how would Maritime's give you food if they can't trade with you. Let's not open that can of worms.
bcaiko
Emperor
Crodface
Chieftain
I get why you're saying that would be tedious, but it seems like it just makes sense that an embargoed civ shouldn't be able to trade anything, including luxuries. Isn't that what an embargo is? It's the restriction of all trade, meaning more than just gold.
I guess you could trade while embargoed, but I feel like that should have some pretty strong diplomatic penalties for both civs.
Maybe this would make an embargo too strong gameplay-wise, but it just doesn't make sense why you'd still be able to trade with a civ that the world doesn't want anybody trading with anymore.
PerceeP927
Warlord
I don't think any WC resolutions should be binding, that would break the game. If you get embargoed, you can obviously decide to ignore it. There will just be diplomatic penalties for you and the person trading with you. Like all the sanctions on North Korea, but I believe they still trade plenty with China and the whole world hasn't denounced China.
Arachnofiend
Perturbed Pugilist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,950
Regardless of how you think WC resolutions should be that is exactly what they are. You can't ignore the resolutions; they tried that for a while but playtesters figured out quickly that they could just ignore the feature entirely.
Crodface
Chieftain
Yea, I feel like that have to make it meaningful somehow.
And maybe they found that managing happiness could be difficult or something of that nature and that's why you can still trade luxuries with an embargoed civ, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
The trade route itself, not necessarily the actual trade unit, can be directly attacked with the "Plunder Trade Route" function. So escorting the actual trade unit would not seem to have any benefit. You have to protect the whole length of the route.
I too find it odd and a bit gamey (gimmicky) if you ask me. There should be a trade route present with X civ so then you can tap that via diplomacy, it's the way it's done irl and pretty logical btw. Don't get me wrong, this is not a rant or whine of any kind but if you are going to include trade routes and dedicated units that go with it might as well do it right and include the whole trade mechanic under the same subject. That way if you pass a trade embargo against X or Y civ you stop the trade route units (namely caravans and cargo ships) on their tracks and any other trade operation done in the diplomacy on their tracks altogether. Other idea that comes to mind is that in the ancient, classical or medieval eras you most likely traded with nearby civs not with someone on the other side of the world via magic diplomacy hokuspokus. My 2 cents.
I have to agree with Crodface and Buho. Requiring trade routes to trade resources/luxuries would bring a lot more depth to it, even more if you integrate city connections like AriochIV suggested.
Just an example that comes to mind, for the sake of discussion.
Lets say; you are at war with a nation to your west and need iron to level the playing field. You have a coastal city with an international trade route to another civ which has 8 units of iron for sell, the tricky part is the trade route goes near the enemy territory, if they happen to plunder this only trade route or the world council happens to pass a trade embargo against you, they will cut you off from the iron. You could establish more trade routes with said civ to ensure delivery, but the trade embargo is still a possibility. At least the civ agrees for you to pay him per turn instead of a lump sum, so if something happens at least you won't have paid in full for a resource that you wouldn't have gotten for the whole length of the deal.
On the other hand, there is a shorter safer route to another civ which has only 4 iron, but the civ that is selling wants a lump sum of gold for it, the problem is if you happen to get a trade embargo or the enemy realizes this and plunders it, you have just paid in full for a trade route that won't last as long as it was agreed upon.
Which one would you choose. Maybe building a navy just big enough to ensure the delivery of 4 units of iron its the better deal, you just need to hold on until the army is ready to move out. Maybe playing it safe with the shorter route, theres still a chance the enemy will find it.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the attacker, there are a lot of tactics you can pull off to cripple another civ even against a mightier foe if you play smart. Add to all that what AriochIV suggested, and everything will also need to get to the capital to get the resource, or maybe even just the individual cities that get the strategy resource get to build such units. I don't know if it is just me, but they are simple easy to grasp rules that instead of adding complexity add a lot more depth to the game than the current system, it adds a lot more difficult choices for you to make, which at the end of the day is what Civilization is all about. Choices.
Just an example that comes to mind, for the sake of discussion.
Lets say; you are at war with a nation to your west and need iron to level the playing field. You have a coastal city with an international trade route to another civ which has 8 units of iron for sell, the tricky part is the trade route goes near the enemy territory, if they happen to plunder this only trade route or the world council happens to pass a trade embargo against you, they will cut you off from the iron. You could establish more trade routes with said civ to ensure delivery, but the trade embargo is still a possibility. At least the civ agrees for you to pay him per turn instead of a lump sum, so if something happens at least you won't have paid in full for a resource that you wouldn't have gotten for the whole length of the deal.
On the other hand, there is a shorter safer route to another civ which has only 4 iron, but the civ that is selling wants a lump sum of gold for it, the problem is if you happen to get a trade embargo or the enemy realizes this and plunders it, you have just paid in full for a trade route that won't last as long as it was agreed upon.
Which one would you choose. Maybe building a navy just big enough to ensure the delivery of 4 units of iron its the better deal, you just need to hold on until the army is ready to move out. Maybe playing it safe with the shorter route, theres still a chance the enemy will find it.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the attacker, there are a lot of tactics you can pull off to cripple another civ even against a mightier foe if you play smart. Add to all that what AriochIV suggested, and everything will also need to get to the capital to get the resource, or maybe even just the individual cities that get the strategy resource get to build such units. I don't know if it is just me, but they are simple easy to grasp rules that instead of adding complexity add a lot more depth to the game than the current system, it adds a lot more difficult choices for you to make, which at the end of the day is what Civilization is all about. Choices.
- Status
Similar threads
