Redoing Merchant Navy

[Roxlimn]

This is not a balance idea, nor purely a power-up idea, though lord knows Commerce Policy Tree needs it. This is the basis for a conceptual framework to make naval activity more interesting.

As it is, Merchant Navy only adds +3 hammers to coastal cities. Given that Coastal Cities give up a lot of production tiles because they get a lot of sea tiles and it costs a policy to do this, it only looks impressive, but it's really underwhelming on the whole. On top of that, it's a naval policy that boosts a land tile. Booo.

Replacement Policy:

Merchant Empire:

Sea Tiles produce +3 Gold


Yeah, NOW we're talking. Between this policy and Lighthouse, each coastal tile will produce 2 food and 4 gold which makes it about equivalent to Economics/Rationalism-booster Trade Posts.

It makes coastal cities a lucrative location for mid to late game game gold production, at the cost of flexibility - they'll always be mediocre production cities in general, they'll suck at the start, you're locked into Merchant Empire, and you'll still need to scrounge up some food to grow the city.

Most importantly, they make it worthwhile to have and defend sea tiles. Suddenly that odd Barbarian Caravel blockading your capital isn't just costing you an odd luxury you don't really need and the odd coin; it's costing you tons of gold in lost revenue!

Imagine if you were depending on this gold source to power your empire and buy buildings and support your navy. Then England declares war and blockades 3 of your most profitable cities as an opening salvo! Disaster! It cannot be borne. That scoundrel Elizabeth!

As further brainstorms, perhaps a new unit Age of Sail unit - The Privateer could not just blockade a city, but gain its owner Civ gold, based on how much gold it was blockading! Aha! Wouldn't that be exciting? Plundering Isabella's Galleon Trade never sounded so sweet.

 

[JimboThrasher]

great idea. I'm alllllll for it.

 

[JWAT44]

i like this idea but i think that there needs to be real trade routes so that blockades truly mean something other than just stopping someone work a couple tiles

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

Commerce definitely needs something, I agree.

Your proposed idea isn't bad but I suspect the devs would think its too powerful. Considering how they seem to think the colossus is good as it is (and it does far less).

One of the things I don't like about commerce is its divided nature. The left side is basically for coastal cities only and the first policy on the right side tends to be better for landlocked cities. It's not a massive problem but for most map settings it's unfavourable to actually bother finishing the tree. You also tend not to have many coastal cities due to what others are saying... they suck production wise.

Another side thought that might in addition or an alternate to what was proposed. How about a policy in commerce boosts trade route gold? That IS commerce after all . It could be just for coastal cities, if you like, or for all cities. If coastal cities produced, say, +100% gold from trade routes it might be pretty darn cool.

But yeah... some good ideas here .

 

[Roxlimn]

JWAT44:

I had originally considered the Trade Routes idea, but reconsidered it because of two reasons:

1. Trade Routes require the use of Harbors to connect the cities to the Trade Network and requiring Harbors on top of everything else to enjoy the bonus would make it too weak. We could completely revamp the Trade Route concept, but that's rather long and tedious work. This is a quick and dirty fix that does what we want, for the most part.

2. Even if we reworked the Trade Route, I'm not sure how losing gold on trade routes and losing gold on lost tile revenue is all that different. At the end of the day, you're losing gold both ways. You could even be losing identical amounts of gold. I just don't see a functional difference at the GPT level.

ArcaneSeraph:

The Colossus isn't bad. Assuming a Coastal City in the early game working two Sea Resources, Colossus gives a base +7 GPT for a hammer cost comparable to Pyramids. That's an incredible boost in the early game - just not as great as Great Library.

As your empire grows, The Colossus's effect is largely eclipsed and is eventually rendered insignificant. This change has to be more powerful because it takes effect much later.

Another side thought that might in addition or an alternate to what was proposed. How about a policy in commerce boosts trade route gold? That IS commerce after all . It could be just for coastal cities, if you like, or for all cities. If coastal cities produced, say, +100% gold from trade routes it might be pretty darn cool.

I thought about that, too! It seemed like a really good idea, but in implementing this alternative change, I don't just want to boost Commerce and the value of Coastal cities. I also want the player to have a compelling reason to want to defend his sea tiles. It seemed to me that Sea Tiles with the gold output value of mega Trade Posts would be that thing.

 

[insaneweasel]

I think its a pretty brilliant idea...except I don't want the hammers from coastal cities removed. Maybe if you had them at the same time...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think its a pretty brilliant idea...except I don't want the hammers from coastal cities removed. Maybe if you had them at the same time...

Maybe if the +3 hammers was moved to the previous policy (so a boost to hammers in coastal cities and ships)

 

[JWAT44]

JWAT44:

I had originally considered the Trade Routes idea, but reconsidered it because of two reasons:

1. Trade Routes require the use of Harbors to connect the cities to the Trade Network and requiring Harbors on top of everything else to enjoy the bonus would make it too weak. We could completely revamp the Trade Route concept, but that's rather long and tedious work. This is a quick and dirty fix that does what we want, for the most part.

2. Even if we reworked the Trade Route, I'm not sure how losing gold on trade routes and losing gold on lost tile revenue is all that different. At the end of the day, you're losing gold both ways. You could even be losing identical amounts of gold. I just don't see a functional difference at the GPT level.

yeah i realize that making water trade routes between different civs would be hard to just do but hopefully they will do it in an expansion or the next game or both but it would make navies and water a lot more important than they are now

 

[Kevin J]

How about a free harbour in all coastal cities instead of +3 production in coastal cities?

It would save 3 gold in maintenance per coastal city, provide a trade link (it *is* the commerce tree after all), and make those sea resource tiles immediately useful. For fully developed cities, it would still save 3 gold per city over not having the policy thanks to the free harbour (nice, but not overly powerful) -- but for fledgling ocean empires, it would be quite handy. You'd get a small production boost based on the number of sea resources, a small gold savings, and trade routes (more gold).

Possibly an overpowered idea, though I don't think so, since it ultimately saves you only 3 gold in a fully developed city - it just lets those small coastal trading ports actually *be* trading ports without an incredible amount of hammers that coastal cities tend to lack. Well, it seems less overpowered than +3 gold in every water tile (1 per tile would be more balanced), and more useful than the existing policy. Seems to fit with the wide theme of commerce tree too.

An alternate version could work like Legalism - a free commerce or naval building in 4 cities. The mechanics would be the same as for Legalism, but would provide, in each of the 4 cities, one of: market->mint->bank->stock exchange, depending on the tech and buildings present when the policy is taken. Or to keep with the naval theme the left side has, it could provide 4 free naval buildings: lighthouse->harbour->sea port. And for a later policy tree, I think a legalism-style limit of 4 cities would be underwhelming and wouldn't fit as well thematically - perhaps 6 would be a better number.

I'd prefer a harbour in every coastal city, however - it would require less gaming the system than a Legalism-style policy.

 

[insaneweasel]

Possibly an overpowered idea, though, but I think less overpowered than +3 gold in every water tile (1 per tile would be more balanced), and more useful than the existing policy. Seems to fit with the wide theme of commerce tree too.

+1 gold is underwhelming (look at colossus). Riverside trading post is 2f 3g, and maybe a science.

 

[Kevin J]

Colossus is limited to one city. The proposed policy change is empire-wide - so +3 per tile could be a little too big. 3 Colossi in each coastal city? Yeah, no way that would fly with the devs.

+1 per water tile would make a water tile equivalent to a non-riverside grassland tile with a trading post post-economics - 2/0/2 - pretty balanced. Rivers are a special feature, I don't think *every* sea tile should be better than a post-economics riverside/TP grassland tile, which they would be with the proposed change - 2/0/4.

I think +1 per tile might be underwhelming, but fairly balanced. It would amount to several gold per city, roughly the same as the change I proposed, which has more of the fun factor I like in policies. +2 per tile would be more exciting, and put a default water tile to the same level as a post-economics riverside/grassland/TP - quite strong, perhaps too strong, perhaps not. 3 is just too much.

I'd still rather have free harbours for Merchant Navy - those merchants need ports to dock in! Add the +1 gold per tile or +1 production per tile to the Naval Tradition policy (in addition to its movement/sight bonuses), and I think we're starting to have a useful policy tree.

 

[Kevin J]

So how about this then for a reworking of the left-side commerce tree:

Option 1 (the underwhelmer)

Naval Tradition
+1 per water tile
+1 and +1 sight per naval unit

Merchant Navy
Free Harbour in every coastal city (Trade routes, yay!)


Option 2 (stronger version)

Naval Tradition
+1 per coastal city, +10% when producing naval units
+1 and +1 sight per naval unit

Merchant Navy
+1 per water tile
Free Harbour in every coastal city


Option 3 (sticking to OP idea for Merchant Navy)

Naval Tradition
+1 per coastal city, +10% when producing naval units
+1 and +1 sight per naval unit

Merchant Navy
+2 per water tile


Option 4 (Legalism-style)
Naval Tradition
+1 per coastal city, +10% when producing naval units
+1 and +1 sight per naval unit

Merchant Navy
+1 per water tile
Provides a free naval OR commerce building in your first 6 cities


(Personally, I like option 2. Sorta OP, sorta not when you compare it to other trees. And really, commerce needs buffing. Option 4 using the legalism mechanism wouldn't give maintenance free buildings, which why I included the gold/production buffs by default without making it yet another option.)

 

[Blue Oyster]

I also like Option 2.

 

[killmeplease]

maybe

Entrepreneurial spirit
+3 from merchants

 

[ArcaneSeraph]

Kevin J:

Option 2 is nice... option 4 isn't bad either, though, as it would allow land-locked to at least get a free market. Or would allow some new playstyles possibly. Like say when Persia unlocks banking, they can insta-build Satrap's Courts... which might be very nice. So I really like some of those options there.

The only concern I have is that you've taken away the +3 and replaced it with a free building, +1:c5prodution:, and +1 / water tile. In some situations that's better but in some situations that's worse... in most it's about the same. I think personally I would go with option 4 but restore the production bonus to +3.

 

[Roxlimn]

Kevin J:

I like Option 2, but I think that the gold bonus is a little small. Granted, I want erring on the generous side of the coin, but I was factoring in the Policy cost. Having 2/0/4 on water tiles costs you the land tile, as well as the policy cost to get to Merchany Navy, where the normal Naval Tradition benefit doesn't have much of a point.

Defending virtual normal Trade Post tiles doesn't make much sense when you could just have land Trade Posts that are better (with Secularism) that don't require naval defense at all!

Granting that we're not removing hammer benefits, and moreover, giving free Trade Routes and Hammers (Free Harbors) to Coastal Cities, I think +2 Gold per tile would be good enough to work, but at the cost of making the sea tiles less valuable.

The point of putting emphasis on buffing the sea tiles (and not the base city tile) is to compel the player to defend his sea tiles and to create an means by which you can effectively attack a naval Civ by just blockading his Cities, without even invading.

My proposed change is grossly similar in power, I think, given that you will still have to maintain the Harbors, Coastal Cities will still have poor production, and you still have to buy the Harbors to create the Trade Routes. By putting the emphasis on Gold production on the sea tiles, you give value to the base Naval Tradition benefit, as well as to the right side Mercantilism Policy. This makes it desirable for Naval players to build Gold boosting structures, naval units, and to take the right side of the Tree, if only for the sake of Mercantilism.

 

[Kevin J]

Kevin J:

I like Option 2, but I think that the gold bonus is a little small. Granted, I want erring on the generous side of the coin, but I was factoring in the Policy cost. Having 2/0/4 on water tiles costs you the land tile, as well as the policy cost to get to Merchany Navy, where the normal Naval Tradition benefit doesn't have much of a point.

Defending virtual normal Trade Post tiles doesn't make much sense when you could just have land Trade Posts that are better (with Secularism) that don't require naval defense at all!

Granting that we're not removing hammer benefits, and moreover, giving free Trade Routes and Hammers (Free Harbors) to Coastal Cities, I think +2 Gold per tile would be good enough to work, but at the cost of making the sea tiles less valuable.

The point of putting emphasis on buffing the sea tiles (and not the base city tile) is to compel the player to defend his sea tiles and to create an means by which you can effectively attack a naval Civ by just blockading his Cities, without even invading.

My proposed change is grossly similar in power, I think, given that you will still have to maintain the Harbors, Coastal Cities will still have poor production, and you still have to buy the Harbors to create the Trade Routes. By putting the emphasis on Gold production on the sea tiles, you give value to the base Naval Tradition benefit, as well as to the right side Mercantilism Policy. This makes it desirable for Naval players to build Gold boosting structures, naval units, and to take the right side of the Tree, if only for the sake of Mercantilism.

Yeah, I agree they are pretty comparable. I started off thinking "let's be severe and balanced", but the more I thought of it, the more I agreed that the tree needs a buff. My option 1 is my balanced but boring option - with a gameplay change, a debatable buff - the rest are right in line with you, because I agree this tree needs a buff. I'm just trying to add a little twist to it - tile bonuses are great, I love tile bonuses, but I also like those "ooh fun, gameplay change" policies. I do see your points about the tile bonus changing gameplay re: valuing/protecting water tiles. I enjoy a combination of now + later benefits for policies - buildings and naval sight/movement now paired with small tile bonuses accruing over the rest of the game (later). That makes the policy feel meaningful now, and feel like a good investment down the road.

@ArcaneSeraph

The reason I have the production at +1 is because I assume you'll be getting an average of +2 (two sea resources) from the harbour per city. Yes, this is a temporary improvement if you would have built the harbour anyway, but the buildings themselves are worth many turns of the few that a new city would have (especially those one-tile-islands with a resource, or polar sites), and is maintenance free - worth 3 per turn per city - not insignificant. The harbour isn't normally a top priority building given its fairly high hammer cost and the other options available, this makes it a viable route for those far-flung resource-extracting settlements.

Clearly, this wouldn't benefit tall empires near as much as wide, but that's intended. The +10% naval production bonus on the other hand is better for tall than wide in general, and makes up for the production discrepancy, but for a more limited focus so as not to overpower it. I would like the policies to be, in most cases, at least as strong as current policies - but to have the potential for noticeably greater benefits in the right setting.

Feel free to disagree or suggest an improvement though - I just feel +3 paired with the changes I suggest would be too much. I tried not to over-buff the policies in my options - though in fact, I had thought I likely went too far. I think the free buildings would be quite powerful - but perhaps I erred too far on the side of caution in buffing, from the responses.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I like option #2... keeps the gold bonuses up top, and the military bonuses below it.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[Snuffleupagus]

I'll chime in with others in support of Option 2.

I really think some people are undervaluing the free harbour in coastal cities. This completely changes the game, as it makes building new coastal cities in mid/late game a potentially viable strategy.

A free harbour makes thematic sense, and would give a small/new coastal city a significant boost to what can be a painfully slow start.