A simple question about trade...

[Gundato]

I realize this has probably been asked before, but I did not notice it.

Does anyone know if Civ IV will use the CivIII system of automatic trade routes and the like, or can you actually organize and maybe even use the caravan system?

 

[Civrules]

I think the system has always worked.
Now they are even adding that system to rivers (you have probably heard about it).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I would love it if they did something kind of in-between. Namely that your trade-routes are automatically assigned, but where a player can re-assign both distance and direction for maximum cash-but perhaps at greater risk of having it disrupted.
Either way, though, I really really hope that trade routes are going to be more 'tangible'-both in the benefits they provide and in the ability of the enemy to disrupt them.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

I would love it if they did something kind of in-between. Namely that your trade-routes are automatically assigned, but where a player can re-assign both distance and direction for maximum cash-but perhaps at greater risk of having it disrupted.

I don't understand this. Why not just recalculate the route every turn with it going through safe territory?

 

[Gundato]

Benefits may outweigh the risks. If you can make more cash with a bit of risk, it might be worth a gamble.

I agree, the current system works, I just was hoping that it would feel more, "real". I just don't like the system (in many games actually) where you are automatically connected to the entire world with a single boat. Even if it is just something as simple as the dotted lines in Rome Total War I wouldn't mind.

Especially with the focus on quality over quantity, this could actually be possible. I can understand a relatively automated trade system when you might have 30 cities, but I would love to decide what to export to where.

 

[apatheist]

Benefits may outweigh the risks. If you can make more cash with a bit of risk, it might be worth a gamble.

That makes sense if you're talking about a simple choice like this:

Route 1: 25 gold, 98% chance of success
Route 2: 45 gold, 60% chance of success

But since one of the inputs is the route, it's not going to be like that, because there are numerous slightly different routes. You'd face choices like this:

Route 1: 22 gold, 99% chance of success
Route 2: 23 gold, 99% chance of success
Route 3: 23 gold, 99% chance of success
Route 4: 24 gold, 99% chance of success
Route 5: 25 gold, 98% chance of success
Route 6: 27 gold, 98% chance of success
Route 7: 27 gold, 98% chance of success
Route 8: 28 gold, 97% chance of success
....
Route 42: 45 gold, 60% chance of success
Route 43: 46 gold, 59% chance of success
...
Route 104: 298 gold, 1% chance of success

That's way too much choice. Even if you collapse similar or identical ones, you'd still have to choose between a dozen or so options, for every pair of connected cities.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that-in situations like that-the KISS rule should be in effect. Namely, small changes in risk-benefit should not be allowable, but players should be allowed to go from 1 low risk trade route to 1 high risk one in return for better cash-payout (based on what the original trade deal was worth). Thats just IMHO.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

Having 2 choices doesn't seem like much of an improvement. People would ask "Why those two?" or "Why not three?" I don't think you can satisfy players that way. That's why I think it should just be automatic, recalculating it each turn, and avoid the issue entirely.