LukaSlovenia29
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,500
With the new trade route changes, players and AIs alike will be sending more TRs to far away cities, meaning they will be more vulnerable than ever.
I'd like to propose, as food for thought, whether we could&should change where plundering/pillaging TRs can take place. Specifically, I'd propose that pillaging TRs can not take place in 3rd civ's territory with whom neither the sender nor the plunderer are at war.
For example, if I'm France and I'm at war with Mongolia, Mongolia can currently pillage my trade routes using units in Assyrian territory or territories of other major civs, even if both myself and Mongolia are at peace with Assyria.
Under the proposal, Mongolia couldn't pillage my TRs using units in Assyrian territory etc., whereas it could still use units in Mongolian territory, my territory, Neutral Zone (unclaimed tiles) and city state territories.
That would represent a "buff" to TRs to offset the current "nerf". It would also be more realistic, because to me it's counter-intuitive that Mongolia can plunder my trade routes to Assyria on Assyrian territory, thus hurting Assyria as well (because it loses gold, science, culture from incoming trade routes). In general the concept of foreign military units performing military actions on a neutral country's soil seems unrealistic, but at least I can have some sort of control over my military and civilian units being attacked in Assyrian territory, because I can control their movements and use convoys/military escorts. But in the case of caravans and cargo ships, that's impossible. Instead of trying to make it more realistic by introducing new mechanics ("add armed escort to trade route"), it's far easier and simpler to protect trade units on neutral AI's territories.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
I'd like to propose, as food for thought, whether we could&should change where plundering/pillaging TRs can take place. Specifically, I'd propose that pillaging TRs can not take place in 3rd civ's territory with whom neither the sender nor the plunderer are at war.
For example, if I'm France and I'm at war with Mongolia, Mongolia can currently pillage my trade routes using units in Assyrian territory or territories of other major civs, even if both myself and Mongolia are at peace with Assyria.
Under the proposal, Mongolia couldn't pillage my TRs using units in Assyrian territory etc., whereas it could still use units in Mongolian territory, my territory, Neutral Zone (unclaimed tiles) and city state territories.
That would represent a "buff" to TRs to offset the current "nerf". It would also be more realistic, because to me it's counter-intuitive that Mongolia can plunder my trade routes to Assyria on Assyrian territory, thus hurting Assyria as well (because it loses gold, science, culture from incoming trade routes). In general the concept of foreign military units performing military actions on a neutral country's soil seems unrealistic, but at least I can have some sort of control over my military and civilian units being attacked in Assyrian territory, because I can control their movements and use convoys/military escorts. But in the case of caravans and cargo ships, that's impossible. Instead of trying to make it more realistic by introducing new mechanics ("add armed escort to trade route"), it's far easier and simpler to protect trade units on neutral AI's territories.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
