Anyone else think trade routes are a bit too good?

[Gort]

I'm a big fan in Civ 5 of using internal trade routes to pump up my Tradition capital into a gigantic metropolis, then sticking the National College there to give me vast amounts of science. I think it's a bit too good of a strategy, actually.

So I was a bit worried when I saw MadDjinn's PAC game and he was getting far larger returns from his internal trade routes than I saw in Civ 5 - 15 production and 8 food was one value I saw.

This just seems nuts for a 60-production unit - it's hardly even a risk since it'll stay inside your own borders the entire time, and it puts a lot of the production or food buildings to shame.

MadDjinn was able to effectively win the game on Deity, and he spent most of his time building and monitoring his trade - I'm not sure the AI used the same focus on trade as he did.

I have heard it mentioned that some of the trouble was the "mirroring" of trade routes, where City A would trade to City B, and City B would trade to City A, somehow resulting in inflated values, but the trade routes still seemed too powerful early on.

Do they seem overly-good, or have I missed something?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They are overly good and probably need to be toned down... (they did lose the mirroring)
Although they can vary a lot... we don't know the actual output formula for anything except stations.

 

[motku]

I think that trade routes and quest upgrades are why we've seen the specialist nerf. Keep in mind you are limited by your routes, you can't have two or more cities sending to one station.

And, if you don't take the upgrade where aliens won't attack your routes; they are easily squished out there in the fog. So I say this is a "how easy or hard" do you really want the difficulty to be.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I suspect the subject is being reviewed by whomever looks at balance issues.

 

[Joneill]

On total yields alone internal trade routes do seem to outperform other trade routes quite easily, mostly because they now benefit both cities.

However, in the PAC game you could also see that while internal trade routes are quite strong, you'll eventually have to switch out some for international trade routes (and go generator spamming with your workers) in order to keep up with maintenance costs.

 

[TLHeart]

If my memory serves me correctly, trade routes have been changed, and no more mirror routes.

 

[Gort]

If my memory serves me correctly, trade routes have been changed, and no more mirror routes.

Oh, cool - any idea where you saw this info?

 

[joncnunn]

If my memory serves me correctly, trade routes have been changed, and no more mirror routes.

I've heard that to, but all that means if you get 3+ cities and form a ring.
(A -> B -> C -> A)

 

[Haggbart]

I think that trade routes and quest upgrades are why we've seen the specialist nerf. Keep in mind you are limited by your routes, you can't have two or more cities sending to one station.

And, if you don't take the upgrade where aliens won't attack your routes; they are easily squished out there in the fog. So I say this is a "how easy or hard" do you really want the difficulty to be.

Can't really see why there should be any correlation between trade routes + quest upgrades, and specialist yields?

For the OP, yes at the moment they seem too powerful. And the quest giving you an extra trade route should at least be balanced with a real choice on the other hand.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I find it unbelievable that they havent changed that Auto plant quest. Why you would not take the extra trade route? +1 energy is pretty meaningless. Even if it would be +2 energy it would usually be much better to take extra trade route.

 

[joncnunn]

I find it unbelievable that they havent changed that Auto plant quest. Why you would not take the extra trade route? +1 energy is pretty meaningless. Even if it would be +2 energy it would usually be much better to take extra trade route.

Several of the quests actually appear to suffer from one side obviously better than the other. It's so widespread I suspect that affinity bonuses to different sides will be added to them.

 

[TLHeart]

Oh, cool - any idea where you saw this info?

Madjinn verified in the new KP stream, no more mirror routes....

 

[TLHeart]

On total yields alone internal trade routes do seem to outperform other trade routes quite easily, mostly because they now benefit both cities.

However, in the PAC game you could also see that while internal trade routes are quite strong, you'll eventually have to switch out some for international trade routes (and go generator spamming with your workers) in order to keep up with maintenance costs.

depends on, do you need production, and food, internal
or do you need science and energy, external.

PAC game mechanics no longer matter, they have been reduced.

 

[Gort]

Good to hear - hopefully it makes Apollo difficulty less of a pushover.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

I would set a limit to 4 out going and incomeing internal trade routes per city. that way you can send 2 and recieve 2 internal traderoutes, or you can recieve 4. The reason for this is to limit each cities max Production so Wonders do not finish in a single turn.

 

[Miravlix]

Bit to good compared to what?

If I need energy and science, then internal trade routes is worthless...

 

[lordrune]

Miravlix, the internal trade route gives you food and production. The food can convert to specialists or extra tiles - or exponentially, if you let it grow - and the production converts to infrastructure. Yes external trade routes will give you more energy and science *now*, but less over time - and because the internal trade routes give food and production to both cities, they're much more powerful as a result than they were in Civ 5.

The other thing I don't fully understand is why it was necessary to remove the civ-wide cap on the number of trade routes.

 

[Miravlix]

Miravlix, the internal trade route gives you food and production. The food can convert to specialists or extra tiles - or exponentially, if you let it grow - and the production converts to infrastructure. Yes external trade routes will give you more energy and science *now*, but less over time - and because the internal trade routes give food and production to both cities, they're much more powerful as a result than they were in Civ 5.

The other thing I don't fully understand is why it was necessary to remove the civ-wide cap on the number of trade routes.

So you're saying that I should 100% of the time use internal trade routes, but that doesn't seem to be the reality in game.

MD latest stream he went from internal trade routes to external and went from having the worst science output to being at the top.

If he had continued with internal routes and converted his cities to turn production into science, it would have killed all growth in his empire.

So again I ask. What is internal trade routes better than?

 

[Japper007]

I think it's a nice risk-reward thing, remember that you also have to keep all those trade routes safe from enemies and aliens (if you don't pick the Ultrasonic fence boost for trade routes that is). Though I will admit that is more a multiplayer thing, AI doesn't do guerilla tactics.

 

[lordrune]

So you're saying that I should 100% of the time use internal trade routes, but that doesn't seem to be the reality in game.

Not 100% of the time, no. There's a time when you don't really need food and production. But when you're growing your civ, you do, and right now, you get a heck of a lot of it through internal trade routes, and more if you have a wide empire.

I haven't played the game yet. But it looks to me like a mechanic that's out of balance - and I reckon after spending maybe twenty or thirty thousand hours playing hundreds of strategy games over two and a half decades, I've got a bit of a nose for that.