Return of a diplomat/caravan type unit?

[Baleog]

Now I know there would be some who would object to this, but consider the return of the diplomat. Trades and diplomatic negotiations between countries not sharing an adjacent border on the same continent could only commence by bringing a diplomat/caravan type unit to a city of another civ.

Also to further the accuracy, if a trade of resource or gold per turn was agreed, the diplomat unit would have to return to it's home civ to commence the 20 turns of trade. And this unit need not fade out with the onset of radio. During times of war enemy ships destroy supply ships. So the diplomat unit would have to be an ever present (though it's movement rate would increase with the dawns of wheel, navigation, motorized transport and flight (or radio).

EDIT:
Actually make it so that even civs with an adjacent border need a diplomat. Obviously there'll be no dificulty in making the agreement, but the goods still need to make it past the border.

[MummyMan]

This is an interesting topic, i too miss the caravan and freight from Civ2, but mostly because of the satisfaction i got from deliverin those dyes to a faraway highly-populated city for tons of gold. But for dimplomats and spies and such to return, it would slow the game down a lot. I guess developers decided to cut it out because it restricts the playing of such elements like diplomacy. Its accurate and realistic, but not exactly "game practical". Still cool though.

[Baleog]

I don't advocate the return of spy options for the diplomat. I think the Espionage screen is good enough for that. Of course then there is a discrepency of sorts ...

EDIT: No, wait, no discrepency. Just call the unit caravan (evantually freight). Screw the diplomat.

[nmcul]

I agree with you totally in regards to the Civ 2 trade network. Over the course of civilization, trade has not been hammered out like treaties, but has instead been carried out between two or more economic parties that are independent of government. Consider, for example, the joint-stock companies of the Age of Discovery. Not only did these companies send forth numerous expiditions to the New World and the Spice Islands, they also pioneered the modern corporation as it is today, with shares, stockholders, etc, etc. And these companies were powerful entities by themselves. Consider the Dutch East India Company, which gained a stranglehold grip on the spice-laden islands of the East Indies; or the British East India Company, their Anglo dopplegagner, which came to dominate the Indian subcontinent. Clearly the Civ 2 trade system was the better suited method of simulating these bold trade expiditions.
In the spies category, however, I felt that you missed the mark. I thought that the diplomat unit was excellent. I find that for most naysayers of the Civ 2 espionage model, their gripe was that they were victimized by it easily. Frankly, as arguments go, this is bull dung. I developed strategy to prevent the AI from overpowering me with spies, and to claim that a feature should be removed because you can't deal with it is pathetic. I bet that these are the types of players who are slaughtered constantly on PTW, no doubt faulting unfair usages of "airdrops" and "marine assults." And as for slowing the game pace down? Never a problem in Civ 2 Gold. Most of us already know what we're going to do when we enter a city, so it wouldn't be an issue anyway. Civ 2's spy dialouges are just as efficient as Civ 3's, so what's the problem?

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by nmcul
I agree with you totally in regards to the Civ 2 trade network. Over the course of civilization, trade has not been hammered out like treaties, but has instead been carried out between two or more economic parties that are independent of government. Consider, for example, the joint-stock companies of the Age of Discovery. Not only did these companies send forth numerous expiditions to the New World and the Spice Islands, they also pioneered the modern corporation as it is today, with shares, stockholders, etc, etc. And these companies were powerful entities by themselves. Consider the Dutch East India Company, which gained a stranglehold grip on the spice-laden islands of the East Indies; or the British East India Company, their Anglo dopplegagner, which came to dominate the Indian subcontinent. Clearly the Civ 2 trade system was the better suited method of simulating these bold trade expiditions.
In the spies category, however, I felt that you missed the mark. I thought that the diplomat unit was excellent. I find that for most naysayers of the Civ 2 espionage model, their gripe was that they were victimized by it easily. Frankly, as arguments go, this is bull dung. I developed strategy to prevent the AI from overpowering me with spies, and to claim that a feature should be removed because you can't deal with it is pathetic. I bet that these are the types of players who are slaughtered constantly on PTW, no doubt faulting unfair usages of "airdrops" and "marine assults." And as for slowing the game pace down? Never a problem in Civ 2 Gold. Most of us already know what we're going to do when we enter a city, so it wouldn't be an issue anyway. Civ 2's spy dialouges are just as efficient as Civ 3's, so what's the problem?

Exactly.

[Baleog]

Originally posted by nmcul
I agree with you totally in regards to the Civ 2 trade network. Over the course of civilization, trade has not been hammered out like treaties, but has instead been carried out between two or more economic parties that are independent of government. Consider, for example, the joint-stock companies of the Age of Discovery. Not only did these companies send forth numerous expiditions to the New World and the Spice Islands, they also pioneered the modern corporation as it is today, with shares, stockholders, etc, etc. And these companies were powerful entities by themselves. Consider the Dutch East India Company, which gained a stranglehold grip on the spice-laden islands of the East Indies; or the British East India Company, their Anglo dopplegagner, which came to dominate the Indian subcontinent. Clearly the Civ 2 trade system was the better suited method of simulating these bold trade expiditions.
In the spies category, however, I felt that you missed the mark. I thought that the diplomat unit was excellent. I find that for most naysayers of the Civ 2 espionage model, their gripe was that they were victimized by it easily. Frankly, as arguments go, this is bull dung. I developed strategy to prevent the AI from overpowering me with spies, and to claim that a feature should be removed because you can't deal with it is pathetic. I bet that these are the types of players who are slaughtered constantly on PTW, no doubt faulting unfair usages of "airdrops" and "marine assults." And as for slowing the game pace down? Never a problem in Civ 2 Gold. Most of us already know what we're going to do when we enter a city, so it wouldn't be an issue anyway. Civ 2's spy dialouges are just as efficient as Civ 3's, so what's the problem?

Now that I look back on what I said, I see that it doesn't entirely coincide with what I meant. I actually did like the old system (at least the AI would dabble in espionage), but if it is to be brought back then I feel it should be kept entirely seperate from the caravan/trade unit.

Another point which I forgot to mention (this time in my first post) is how the caravan unit reflects realism. The cities of renaissance Italy had contact with China, yet it took years for succesful trade to be carried out. In civ 3 two civs, thousands of kilometres apart can teleport several tons of iron to each other with the touch of a button.