Anyone else think trade routes are a bit too good?

[GhostSalsa]

Agree 100%

I think limiting the # of routes to 1 per city would make the reassignment very easy to swallow.

Enh, they still need to try on late game destinations bloat - even in BNW with only 7-10 routes the list is a pain to ever look at. As impressed as I am that I can even open that 500-long "available routes" list without crashing the game, it doesn't need to exist.

Yes we want previous route to be easier to get back to - but switching routes should be faster too. Yields change a lot so only a few routes will actually be dedicated to one place for multiple durations.

Maybe each non-capital city should only offer a random "sample" of real available destinations, with little overlap - I don't need all 20 of my cities to send a route to one AI. Limit the destination options.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I disagree with this statement. You should not have to choose between playing the game optimally and having fun. Playing the game optimally should be fun.

That's just ridiculous, how is it taking away from you by providing an option? There's also such a thing as worker automation. Want to take that away too? Because playing the game optimally should be fun?

 

[Gamewizard]

I like having lots of trade-routes, but I dislike the UI for it. It would be a much quicker process to have the previous route ALWAYS at the top and highlighted, and to have it be sort-able by production, food, energy, or science, and to have an auto-renew button for those who don't want to micro them (I personally wouldn't use it but it seems desired by many). I believe this is something they are already working on for the first patch.

Also I think you get all 3 routes too soon into the game, it should be spread out more. Start with 1 from trade depot, 2 from autoplant, and a 3rd from another building at a currently weak lvl 3 tech. Perhaps add another route to one of the weak wonders, like a Petra.

And to make it less game-y, make it so a city HAS TO build or buy it's own trade units, to slightly slow down the snowball from being able to instantly have full trade up and running in a brand new city.

 

[BSPollux]

And to make it less game-y, make it so a city HAS TO build or buy it's own trade units

You think its less gamey to have a unit that is ment to travel between cities be unable to be moved from one location to another?

If you want to limit TRs you should link the bonus they provide to the city size in some way. maybe +1/+1 per pop, or no more than 100% of the citys original income. Or, and that might be the best idea, let trade routes be a sort of trade. Internal routes should cost money and earn production/food, international ones should cost production/food and earn money. Right now they dont trade, they produce.

 

[Cyon]

If they reduced the range of routes we would get fewer options which I tjock would be good combined with fewer routes and weaker internal route benefits.

 

[Cyon]

It would also make city placement more strategic, will this city reach any good ai cities or not?

 

[Haggbart]

That's just ridiculous, how is it taking away from you by providing an option? There's also such a thing as worker automation. Want to take that away too? Because playing the game optimally should be fun?

Call me crazy but I think managing the workers is fun. Any automatic option should be sub-optimal to give you an incentive to do it yourself.

 

[Gort]

That's just ridiculous, how is it taking away from you by providing an option? There's also such a thing as worker automation. Want to take that away too? Because playing the game optimally should be fun?

If a tedious option is provided that is mechanically superior, you have to choose between taking a tedious option or playing the game badly. This is not a choice I would like to make. I would sooner have fewer options that are all fun and good, than more options, only some of which are fun and good.

If you want to talk about automating workers, there's a pretty simple reply - if doing stuff with your workers was actually fun, nobody would have ever thought an "automate workers" button was actually required. I wouldn't cry if they dumped workers entirely and went to a Call to Power-style Public Works system where you simply buy your tile improvements with money. More fun, less hassle. Failing that, some way to program your workers to build the same things you would have. For me, it'd be something along the lines of "improve resources first, then build roads if they'll make me money, then put farms on this type of tile, mines on these, terrascapes on these". But since we don't have that, I'm stuck doing it all manually until I no longer care what my workers do and the game's effectively over.

 

[chumchu]

Yes!!!

 

[Haggbart]

If a tedious option is provided that is mechanically superior, you have to choose between taking a tedious option or playing the game badly. This is not a choice I would like to make. I would sooner have fewer options that are all fun and good, than more options, only some of which are fun and good.

If you want to talk about automating workers, there's a pretty simple reply - if doing stuff with your workers was actually fun, nobody would have ever thought an "automate workers" button was actually required. I wouldn't cry if they dumped workers entirely and went to a Call to Power-style Public Works system where you simply buy your tile improvements with money. More fun, less hassle. Failing that, some way to program your workers to build the same things you would have. For me, it'd be something along the lines of "improve resources first, then build roads if they'll make me money, then put farms on this type of tile, mines on these, terrascapes on these". But since we don't have that, I'm stuck doing it all manually until I no longer care what my workers do and the game's effectively over.

If trade routes were nerfed, specailists were improved, and some more % -modifiers for cities were added (so you could specialize your cities - workers would get more interesting. It's not tedious to move your workers around as long as it actually matters what they do.

People have different stuff they like about a Civ-game, so automated workers were added as a popular demand. But especially in Civ 4, you were greatly rewarded for doing it manually (as you should be). I don't mind an automatic function as long as it's not as good as doing it manually. But if it was reduced to 1 trade route/city, how hard would it be to assign it manually? Are people really that lazy?

 

[Mustakrakish]

If a tedious option is provided that is mechanically superior, you have to choose between taking a tedious option or playing the game badly. This is not a choice I would like to make. I would sooner have fewer options that are all fun and good, than more options, only some of which are fun and good.

If you want to talk about automating workers, there's a pretty simple reply - if doing stuff with your workers was actually fun, nobody would have ever thought an "automate workers" button was actually required. I wouldn't cry if they dumped workers entirely and went to a Call to Power-style Public Works system where you simply buy your tile improvements with money. More fun, less hassle. Failing that, some way to program your workers to build the same things you would have. For me, it'd be something along the lines of "improve resources first, then build roads if they'll make me money, then put farms on this type of tile, mines on these, terrascapes on these". But since we don't have that, I'm stuck doing it all manually until I no longer care what my workers do and the game's effectively over.

In other words, there's still no reason for there not to be a choice to automate trade routes. If anything, you convinced me even more.

And BTW it wouldn't be that hard for them to make automated trade routes always pick the best routes. When you have some other plan on uber optimal play, do it manually, otherwise let the people who want it, have it, it doesn't take away from you.

EDIT: And yes, Haggbart, people can be that lazy Especially if they don't have all day to play and don't want to spend a significant part of that doing something tedious, that an automated system could do just fine for them as long as all you want is for it to pick the best routes (which is exactly what I'd want to do). Right now it feels like refortifying a unit on the same tile each turn and I'm not an AI, I don't get the kicks out of it as much as they do...
So why should I be forced to do that same tedious operation? If I really want a change (as in NOT simply picking the best route, but to focus on particular region for example), I'd go and reassign it manually. So I'll repeat, "I doesn't take away from you".

 

[Haggbart]

In other words, there's still no reason for there not to be a choice to automate trade routes. If anything, you convinced me even more.

And BTW it wouldn't be that hard for them to make automated trade routes always pick the best routes. When you have some other plan on uber optimal play, do it manually, otherwise let the people who want it, have it, it doesn't take away from you.

EDIT: And yes, Haggbart, people can be that lazy Especially if they don't have all day to play and don't want to spend a significant part of that doing something tedious, that an automated system could do just fine for them as long as all you want is for it to pick the best routes (which is exactly what I'd want to do). Right now it feels like refortifying a unit on the same tile each turn and I'm not an AI, I don't get the kicks out of it as much as they do...
So why should I be forced to do that same tedious operation? If I really want a change (as in NOT simply picking the best route, but to focus on particular region for example), I'd go and reassign it manually. So I'll repeat, "I doesn't take away from you".

Well, no, I don't mind an automatic feature as much as I mind a feature so easy you could in 2 seconds chose the best route/improvement every single time. In CiV you could chose from internal trade route with food or prod, internation routes and also city state routes that were tied to city state quests. Ideally you want a system where you take a strategic approach to "what yield do I want for this city?", not simply chose the highest number from a list.

Suggestion: Separate the yields, not have combined routes that goes both ways. Also more stations that give other yields, like culture, health and affinity XP.

Also as I said: make specialized cities possible again. With %-modifiers and specialists.

 

[tesb]

just my impressions:

1.) never played BNW (stopped with G&K)
2.) in the demo trade routes seemed okeyish (as a game mechanic), although way too strong (imbalanced)

my verdict after playing some hours with the full release:

trade routes are an abomination that needs to die

like many of the civ V mechanics, trade routes are good in first one hundred turns or on smaller maps, but may god have mercy on your soul when you play longer games on bigger maps (i tried ics with cities at 3 tiles distance). the micromanagement hell is unreal. who of the developers/testers played with this system in the late game and thought it is a good mechanic?

a) trade routes are not a choice like any other mechanics, they are so good that they are mandatory
b) they clutter the map making it harder to read where improvements and actual units are (in civ V we had military and civilian units, now we got military, civilian, trade and orbital units)
c) because trade route yields are not constant you always have to check the popup when renewing a trade route and compare with other options, have fun when you have 30+ trade caravans ...

in combination with those pesky stations and their habit to land on spots where my colonists are going i can only say:
==> remove trade stations and trade routes and replace with some cool mechanic related to aliens.

 

[Autoclave]

Bring back the BNW-style trade routes. Trade routes per city are making this game not very fun.