Should trade routes with city-states increase influence?

I know there's an occasional quest for it, but right now trading with city-states seems like a last resort and less of a choice. If trading with city-states gave +2 or 3 influence a turn I'd find a lot harder to choose between that and the superior gold and science of trading with a civ'.

Trading with city states already offers a substantial, if hidden, benefit: that you are not enriching one of your competitors. It is true that trade routes with other civs are more lucrative, but the other civs will be getting money too... that is the trade-off.
 
Having a trade route with a CS should decrease the rate your influence with them falls, similar to when you share a religion with them. This would seem very natural, and I was surprised to see that wasn't in the game.
 
Trading with city states already offers a substantial, if hidden, benefit: that you are not enriching one of your competitors. It is true that trade routes with other civs are more lucrative, but the other civs will be getting money too... that is the trade-off.

But you can usually get that GPT straight back from them by trading luxes. Particularly early game when the other civs tend not have much money and your settler spawned near 3 identical luxuries. Late game it doesn't really matter because the AI is swimming in vast amounts of gold no matter what you do.
 
Trading with city states already offers a substantial, if hidden, benefit: that you are not enriching one of your competitors. It is true that trade routes with other civs are more lucrative, but the other civs will be getting money too... that is the trade-off.

Agreed. I have done this intentionally when I'm either ahead on science (and don't want to give AI the boost) or to limit a neighbour's gold to hopefully slow them from getting a decent army to attack me with.
 
Top Bottom