[DLL] (6-21) Block Resource Trading if No Trade Route With a Civ Is Possible

Status
Not open for further replies.

usadefcon1

Prince
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
443
Rational: In the current game you meet someone on the other side of the world and you instantly start to trade your Sugar for their Tea. This seems a bit unrealistic.

Proposal: Resource trading is only allowed if a trade route with that civilization is POSSIBLE.

No need to start a trade route or keep a trade route. Just can't trade resources until it is possible to start a trade route on the map between any of your cities.

EDIT: The resources on the trade screen would be gray with a tooltip explanation that no trade route is available yet with that civ.

EDIT 2: Similar to the way Open Borders is available when either civ unlocks the tech, resource trading would be available if either civ was able to create a trade route.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't this proposed like in the 1st or 2nd Congress?
 
You might want to include some notes about WLTKD resource logic. Aka you don’t want cities to start asking for resources you can’t acquire.

So visually how wlukd this work, would the resources all be red, would that part of the trade screen be missing?
 
You might want to include some notes about WLTKD resource logic. Aka you don’t want cities to start asking for resources you can’t acquire.

So visually how wlukd this work, would the resources all be red, would that part of the trade screen be missing?

WLTKD resource logic is bit weird sometime, like sometimes i got asked for Pepper/nutmeg/cloves before i even met Indonesia, so I automatically knew, that they are somewhere on the map, even though I was not even able to get to them yet cause of the ocean, or got asked for CS exclusive resource like porcelain, even though none of the CS i met up to that point had it. I guess if this proposal of TR requirement passed, some WTLKD rework would be usuful, maybe even needed separate proposal?
 
I am all for it! Might toughen the early game with happiness but it makes sense
 
I am all for it! Might toughen the early game with happiness but it makes sense
yeah probably the biggest change this causes is the very early game. Its quite possilble to meet civs you can't get TRs to right away. For people reliant on early lux trades to keep their happy up with initial expansion, this is actually quite a big penalty.

Probably too much imo.
 
Wasn't this proposed like in the 1st or 2nd Congress?
I proposed that an active trade route should be required for trading strategics in particular iirc. I think the general conclusion was this was just too limiting to resource trade, both for human & AI, though the usual concerns with AI vs human disparity for optimizing such a feature were present.

I like this for its thematic value, the balance concerns are lesser here. I suppose human could prioritize far off colonies to increase trade opportunities in a way that status quo AI would not, but this doesn't seem such a big deal, distant colonies are difficult to support. Are there any ways to block two civs from making TRs, and thus exploit their behavior in a way they won't reciprocate? I can't think of any, but other than limiting trade opportunities (which I find tolerable), I don't see much downside.

As an alternative to achieve similar effect, could look at ways of limiting establishment of embassies
 
Last edited:
My armchair analysis of this is that hurts Wide early from the aforementioned happiness issues, then hurts Tall mid-game since they will naturally be further away from other civs and will be unable to trade for a longer time, then evens out late game since everyone should be able to trade.
 
yeah probably the biggest change this causes is the very early game. Its quite possilble to meet civs you can't get TRs to right away. For people reliant on early lux trades to keep their happy up with initial expansion, this is actually quite a big penalty.

Probably too much imo.
Actually the biggest hurdle is having to research the Trade tech to unlock Trade Routes.

Also, the proposal is unclear - does it mean that as long as any one side can send a TR, a resource trade deal can be made? Or does it require both sides?
 
does it mean that as long as any one side can send a TR, a resource trade deal can be made? Or does it require both sides?

I'm not sure the proposal is a good idea, but if implemented I definitely think that only one party should need to be able to establish a trade route.

Realistically speaking, one civ establishing the trade route is all that would be needed. And more importantly it would also make for a much better player experience. It would be very annoying to have infrastructure in place to extend your trade routes (and possibly even have an active trade route with them!), but not be able to trade resources because the other guy didn't build their trade stuff---something you have no control over, and no knowledge of either.

And besides, the other trade/diplomatic stuff (open borders, defensive pact, etc) only needs one party capable.
 
Isn't it already the case that a civ can send a caravan to one of your city but you can't because you don't have the range to do so? In which case the ability to send a trade route from one side is not affected by this proposal. It is just about delaying the ability to do it or not.
 
I'm not sure the proposal is a good idea, but if implemented I definitely think that only one party should need to be able to establish a trade route.

Realistically speaking, one civ establishing the trade route is all that would be needed. And more importantly it would also make for a much better player experience. It would be very annoying to have infrastructure in place to extend your trade routes (and possibly even have an active trade route with them!), but not be able to trade resources because the other guy didn't build their trade stuff---something you have no control over, and no knowledge of either.

And besides, the other trade/diplomatic stuff (open borders, defensive pact, etc) only needs one party capable.
Good points, I made Edit 2 to address them
 
What happens when trade route becomes impossible, for example when the only city in range is lost? Would the trade agreement be canceled, and if so would it cause a diplomatic incident of any kind?
 
What happens when trade route becomes impossible, for example when the only city in range is lost? Would the trade agreement be canceled, and if so would it cause a diplomatic incident of any kind?
This would only apply to initiating a new trade. Deals already made would continue until expiration.
 
I'm really not persuaded.
The only thing I have in my mind and is kinda related to what you suggest and is currently debatable: WLTKD requests from cities asking resources not encountered by player. It's a bit annoying and spoilering. I will make my own proposal for that.
 
Last edited:
whether this passes or not, can we get a lua Test function that calls when game is checking if resources can be traded? something like GameEvents.PlayersCanTradeResource(iPlayerA, iPlayerB, iResource), allowing modder to return 'false' and override trade eligibility per resource?

alternatively having some override for embassies, or resource categories (luxuries, strategics, etc.) would accomplish the same objective. Just wanna have some ability to mod the trading mechanism
 
Feels strange that this would apply to civs but not City-States.
 
This would really punish landlocked civs. The way this usually happens is a civ has a large chunk of cities conquered and they are left as a tiny rump state in the middle of their continent. With this proposal they would also probably not be able to trade with anyone except the civs that took all their cities in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom