(1-NS) Resource Trade gated by Active Trade Routes

[Zanteogo]

I could see a softer voting requirement, but I do think you still want some level of approval. I mean if just 1 person wants something, that's a lot of coder time (and permanent maintenance) for something that is a bare fraction of the community.

That's why I said if I coder is willing to do it. It's their time after all. We only put forward suggestions, they aren't bound to us.

If one of the team members can and wants to do it, if it's an optional feature, I say just do it and skip voting.

 

[Solic]

That's why I said if I coder is willing to do it. It's their time after all. We only put forward suggestions, they aren't bound to us.

If one of the team members can and wants to do it, if it's an optional feature, I say just do it and skip voting.

I'd disagree, since unfortunately coders are not infallible and any additional code opens up room for bugs touching other code, still potentially periodically affecting other players who wouldn't care for having the option.

Having said that, I do think this is an interesting option to have.

 

[rkkn]

There are some major balance concerns here, even in addition to what's already been noted. Currently trade routes are mostly just sources of extra yields. But if they are also the means of trading resources, then the strictly limited number of routes you can have becomes a much bigger deal. For instance, among other things, the value of bonus trade routes, such as from Petra, increases.

also how was this thread created in June?

 

[Delvemor]

also how was this thread created in June?

It was an idea OP got in June. Apparently the thread got transferred here.

 

[Recursive]

It was an idea OP got in June. Apparently the thread got transferred here.

I transferred it here upon request. Forgot to note it in the thread, my bad.

 

[Tekamthi]

There are some major balance concerns here, even in addition to what's already been noted. Currently trade routes are mostly just sources of extra yields. But if they are also the means of trading resources, then the strictly limited number of routes you can have becomes a much bigger deal. For instance, among other things, the value of bonus trade routes, such as from Petra, increases.

also how was this thread created in June?

thanks, added this concern to top post. I requested thread moved here, and mods indulged -- struck me as a good candidate for the new congress format, with ambiguous conclusion from community earlier this summer; compelling enough to be worth saving from burial deep in the main forum anyway

I think some of the issues raised thus far could be addressed via buffing/nerfing yields on affected features, and possibly some of their competing choices -- this kind of solution could be accomplished via modmod. AI prioritization of TRs for security and resource concerns, however, would need dev attention one way or another, if this were deemed too important to forego. Others, like WLTKD availability might just become more rare as standard, unless the feature were significantly re-worked. Doesn't strike me as a gamebreaker, any of this, though i suppose i have a high tolerance for asymmetry relative to many in this community.

 

[nekokon]

If we pass the proposal that requests the check for WLTKD to apply to all available resources next voting seaon, then WLTKD might get a boost big enough to counter balance the nerf from this proposal.
The big issue is still AI evaluation regarding trade route and trade deal in this new model, as the AI usually hate their neighbors unless they're fighting another neighbor nearby (and only until that shared enemy is dead, after that the heavy border conflict penalty would kick in again)

 

[CppMaster]

If we pass the proposal that requests the check for WLTKD to apply to all available resources next voting seaon, then WLTKD might get a boost big enough to counter balance the nerf from this proposal.

We don't have such proposal, don't we?

 

[nekokon]

Proposal: The AI should be more willing to buy the last copy of another player's luxury

The recent shift in luxury resource valuation by the AI is refreshing, but has introduced some UI issues when attempting to engage the AI with deals. The problem: It is cumbersome to know what the AI is willing to buy. It seems like there is an assumption by the deal AI that requesting the last...

forums.civfanatics.com

@Recursive noted he plans to fix it next version in his last post here. H might do it another way, better ask again.

 

[SpecifiedUsername]

I'm all for the change, let throw is some realism into VP, cause now it's mostly casino rigged for the player with all the mechanics available to him and no drawbacks or prerequisites. AI could even be exempt from this change if it will be troublesome, as far as I am concerned, the game is easy enough as of now.

 

[SpecifiedUsername]

I mean, you meet a guy on the other continent. And he sends you 50000, idk what tonnes of iron to supply your troops continously for centuries while you might might not even have a port city existing to send him a ship with currency, much lighter trade commodities and treaties once in a while.

THis improves strategic DECISION MAKING so much. Suddenly, you have to make a war with other units to get horses or iron or coal, not magically import from around the world. Suddenly you need a port city to trade by ships with a nation on other island or with which a land route is occupied by another enemy nation. And suddenly, you need a navy, even if just small, just to protect this trade route from barbarians and pillaging. And port blockade=problems with economy, happiness, resources, like in real life. Suddenly you have to make another city, or rethink your placement, just in a spot to reach another AI. There were many reports happinness management is too easy, so guys report having no issue with it no matter how wide they go. Suddenly, happiness might get much more fragile, much more dynamic, cause you would be automatically exluded from trading with half of AIs on a standard game without some cities as trade outposts. SUddenly trade routes deicion must be so much more thought-out, not just extra yields. Limiting anything in a strategy game is such a brilliant move. Suddenly one game will feel more different from subsequent, not just a copy paste like sometimes feel now.

This add so much depth by a single change.

I also consider all other side eeffects like imiting WLTKDs or limiting strategic resources as GOOD. LEt have some wars for lux/strat resources as they were in real life.

 

[Tekamthi]

AI could even be exempt from this change if it will be troublesome, as far as I am concerned, the game is easy enough as of now.

Added this as a possible alternative implementation.

I also amended the proposal slightly: re-organized so that the request for a feature creating a form of "trade network" using open borders in addition to TR, is optional, and not a core part of the request -- though nice-to-have, and would serve to reduce the limiting-effect the proposal would have on resource access, on reflection this likely adds significant dev-time and complexity to the implementation, while its really only a garnish and not the core feature desired. This could just as well be explored in a future proposal, in the event the current proposal is successful. Also added another optional feature request using cities as trading hubs, similarly intended to blunt the resource-limiting effect.

 

[Rekk]

How often do human players even rent strategic resources from the AI to fuel war?

From what I understand, it's usually the AI doing the buying.

 

[ma_kuh]

In my limited experience, the AI is always using as many strategics as it can, so it never has any to sell, and when they do they're fairly overpriced (or maybe I just don't know their value).

I'll also add, the idea of "renting resources" (luxury or strategic) for WLKD or wars is even less feasible on epic and marathon, where your commits are much longer-term. It's a similar problem with trade caravans; I'd hate to have to dedicate a caravan for 50 turns just to pick up a risky, long range luxury for a WLKD. I could get behind "phantom" caravans that show connections but don't cost a slot, though.

 

[Tekamthi]

How often do human players even rent strategic resources from the AI to fuel war?

From what I understand, it's usually the AI doing the buying.

Good question, it's not infrequent in games I play, though probably somewhere less than 50% of games, and typically early game if at all.

I do often try to obtain ivory in early game though somehow -- not a strategic per se but for same reason. I envisioned proposal as affecting both strategics and luxuries, but this raises the question: it could be adjusted to just strategics or vice versa, if this is somehow favorable

 

[usadefcon1]

How about:

Resources are only tradable if a trade route is possible with the civ, and that trade route would not go through enemy territory.

 

[SpecifiedUsername]

Resources are only tradable if a trade route is possible with the civ, and that trade route would not go through enemy territory.

IMO that would change very little compared to requirement to have trade route sent. How are these resources transported? Trade routes should represent logistical capacity. When you import lux, enemy should be able to cut physical transport of it off.

 

[Recursive]

Integrate caravan/cargo-ship trade routes with resource trading on the diplomacy screen.

This would be a good fit as a toggle-able option via "advanced setup" screen.

Proposed Implementation:

• resources only appear as available for trade in diplomacy screen if an active trade route (either incoming/outgoing; every TR is 2-way for resource access purposes) exists between both civs
• if last remaining TR between two civs is severed, any existing diplomacy screen resource deal is terminated
• discovery of globalization overrides TR requirement, allowing diplomacy-screen trade access to all resources
• research agreements, if enabled, are gated as per above, though can be completed even if all TRs are severed after agreement begins

Optional Implementation Features:​

Spoiler :

1. Open borders agreement & trade route enable civs to access each others trade networks (ie civ A & B have OB & TR; civ B & C have TR; civ A & C no TR: A can trade resources with C via OB & TR w/ B)
2. Any civs w/ TR's w/ same destination city are allowed to trade resources with one another (ie city X is owned by civ A, civ B & C send TRs to City X but do not have TR's between one another, B & C can still trade resources as long as they both have TRs connecting to same city)
3. AI adjustments for TR prioritization
4. UI adjustments to indicate resource opportunities on TR selection screen
5. CanTradeResourcesWith LUA hook, allowing modder to override resource trading gating mechanism with custom criteria
6. If last remaining TR between two civs is terminated while resource deal is in place, players are offered opportunity to reassign another route to trading civ and save the deal
7. Open Borders agreement also requires TR as prereq before being proposed in diplomacy screen

Intended effect(s):

Primary​

• improve thematic experience from inter-civ trade, linking what's seen on the map to diplomacy choices
• add additional strategic dynamic to war in which one or both sides are being supplied with external resources

Secondary​

• add depth to prioritization of TR destinations
• Reduce trade diplomacy spam from ai
• Increase value of open borders (via optional features)

Identified Limitation(s) & Balance Issue(s)

Spoiler :

General Concern	Specific Issue(s)	Possible Solution(s)
WLTKD more difficult to achieve	Theocratic Rule (& other?) WLTKD-reliant strategies less effective	1. See discussion re: WLTKD beginning around post 53 of this thread
Skews relative value of TRs & related features	Decreases relative value of internal TR Decreases relative value of TR to CS Increases relative value of wonders, policies, etc. that buff TRs (eg. petra)	1., 2. & 3. buff/nerf yields & other bonuses of affected features and/or their competing choices via modmod
Increased difficulty obtaining strategic resources	UU's requiring strategic resource may be less-available or altogether unavailable in some instances; early UU's particularly affected	1. See "optional implementation features" 1. & 2., above.
current AI not optimized for proposed change	adds complexity to decisions about prioritization of TR destinations existing tendency for hostility towards proximate neighbors may unintentionally limit access to desirable resources	1. See "optional implementation features" 3., above.
increased importance of defending too-vulnerable TRs	TR in early game often impossible to defend TR throughout game too difficult to defend	1. & 2. See thread re: improving TR defensibility
Decreased incentive to explore	Why seek out distant civs outside the range of TRs if trading resources is impossible?

Suggested Alternative(s):

Spoiler :

Description	Pros	Cons
1. Resource trade gated by potential for trade route to trade partner (can trade resources with all civs to which a TR could be established). Possible additional criteria on whether route is available without passing through unfriendly territory.	achieves primary objective of linking resource trade to the map simpler functionality, easier for AI to use optimally	does not achieve primary objective of enabling player to affect opponent's resource imports in war, nor most secondary objectives code to check potential trade routes may be more complex than mostly binary checks on existing trade routes or OB agreements required in proposal
2. Diplomacy resource trade deal spawns a no-yield water/land hybrid caravan unit moving between the trade partners' capitals; pillaging this pseudo-TR breaks the diplomacy trade deal and imposes x turn cooldown on new resource deal between former trade partners	achieves primary objectives of linking resource trade to the map & enables resource imports to be affected via war simpler functionality, easier for AI to use optimally	adds more TRs to defend, an already-impossible task does not achieve secondary objectives muted thematic effects relative to proposal is a no-yield TR, separate from standard TRs achievable in current dll etc?
3. Implement features as-proposed, but for human players only (ie AI can still trade resources unrestricted, human must have TR to trade partner)	achieves one-directional version of several proposal objectives simpler functionality, easier for AI to use optimally	human-only features generally not within spirit of VP, and not well-liked by community
4. Implement features as-proposed, but only affecting strategic resources, and not luxuries (or vice versa)	simpler functionality, easier for AI to use optimally	muted thematic effects relative to proposal

Github feature request link: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/8993

Spoiler Old, pre-congress OP content :

Has vp ever explored creating a link between trade routes and the trade available via diplomacy screen?

Returning to the game after several years spent on other hobbies, it strikes me that these should be connected somehow.

ie strategic and/or luxury resources should only be tradeable with civs with whom active trade route exists. Having them linked may add some strategic depth to vp's wars and geopolitics. In my current game I just worked out a trade deal satisfying my capital's demanded resource for furs with land locked civ on another continent. Meanwhile my caravans can barely make it 10 tiles from their starting point without being captured by one belligerent force or another...

Does anyone know off hand if there are Lua hooks to mod available trading resources in diplo screen?

Upon revising this, an amendment is needed. Optional features cannot be added to a proposal - you're either proposing it or you're not. Suggested alternatives are ok, but not optional features as part of the main proposal text.

This brings in a question that @Recursive can maybe answer.

The VP congress / proposal system was made to allow the community to come up with changes and let the community vote on them.

However, when a change will only affect people if they opt into it, either by the advanced menu or my changing a value in a file, what is the point of voting on it? At this point it only changes things for people who want the change in the first place.

If a team member is willing to make the change, can't they just skip the voting phase and say, "I'm doing it anyways"?

I'm gonna say things that are options in game setup are something the community should vote on, but things that are options only if you modify the game files are feature requests and should go on GitHub. The proposal system should generally be for changes that you want to be part of the main mod, turned on by default.

 

[Tekamthi]

Upon revising this, an amendment is needed. Optional features cannot be added to a proposal - you're either proposing it or you're not. Suggested alternatives are ok, but not optional features as part of the main proposal text.



I'm gonna say things that are options in game setup are something the community should vote on, but things that are options only if you modify the game files are feature requests and should go on GitHub. The proposal system should generally be for changes that you want to be part of the main mod, turned on by default.

OP adjusted to match quoted feedback. Slight amendment to move a few critical "optional" features into main proposal text, to suit this feature as an on-by-default change. Main proposal is the non-spoiler portion of OP, all else for discussion only.

 

[Recursive]

@Tekamthi Also, how would this impact Peace Treaty deals? Would resources be unable to be given in a Peace Treaty? If not, the current rule is that Peace Treaty deals are unbreakable, if I'm not mistaken.