Anyone else think trade routes are a bit too good?

[proftc]

Thing is though, if a trade unit costs 2 energy, you can pay for about five internal trade routes with a single good external trade route. The solution is still "have your trade routes maxed out at all times".

Not too different from Civ5, then.

 

[Haggbart]

Not too different from Civ5, then.

It's quite different, because internal trade routes are more powerful now they yield both ways, and also trade routes are not unlocked one and one from tech. So while you were chosing unlocking an extra trade route by chosing a particular tech over another tech that you also really needed, you now basically have full access pretty early to a number each city. And since they are so powerful, any new city will pretty much require trade depot and 2 (3) trade convoys as the first you build there, this is completely regardless of terrain.

I'm not opposed to trade routes being good, but not so good it's ALWAYS the right choice to build them right awayin every city.

 

[Miravlix]

...

Why should I care if internal trade routes is better than in Civ5, it's not like I'm going to fire up a civ5 mutiplayergame and play against someone with civ5...

Weird arguments.

I just don't get this thread and I still haven't been told what trade routes is better than. It isn't better with an internal trade route if I need energy/science and it's not rare to have worthless internal trade routes in the LP's we have seen.

Trade routes is an important part of growing you're empire, to the point that wars that result in loosing a lot of them is really painful. That seems like a really good thing to me.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The question of this thread is not if internal or external trade routes are stronger, but rather if trade routes in general are way more powerful than any other option in the game.

There is no problem with having strong trade routes as a game mechanic, but from what we have seen they are so strong that they may become a no-brainer. If you always have to go trade depot first in each and every city you found, it removes choise instead of adding to it.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

The bonus Depends on the difference in Production and excess Food from the sender city and the reciveing city.
This means that New cities can be up and running With 20+ yield from each trade route. and tradeing units pay themselfs back in 3 turns.
it also means it is really Nice to make 3 super yield cities in Your core empire. Terrascapes and manufactories become super tiles for internal tradeing purposes.
the secondary cites get farms and generators and rely on trade to get hammers.

on a secondary note solar collectors will be really Nice since they do not require Strategic resourses. You can therfore get +20% energy in every city and 1 gold in every tile for 1 hammer per turn per 7 tiles.
The solar collectors are why the bonus Production and duration of orbital units in industry is really Nice.

 

[Haggbart]

...

Why should I care if internal trade routes is better than in Civ5, it's not like I'm going to fire up a civ5 mutiplayergame and play against someone with civ5...

Weird arguments.

I just don't get this thread and I still haven't been told what trade routes is better than. It isn't better with an internal trade route if I need energy/science and it's not rare to have worthless internal trade routes in the LP's we have seen.

Trade routes is an important part of growing you're empire, to the point that wars that result in loosing a lot of them is really painful. That seems like a really good thing to me.

You can't see the problem if the optimal build order of EVERY new city you found is basically "trade depot -> trade convoy -> trade convoy"?

 

[Aeson]

No, you only build the Trade Depot (and then Autoplant). And then only if you don't have the Energy to rush them. The Trade Convoys/Vessels you Energy rush or airlift in from your established cities who can built them very fast because of their Trade Routes

 

[Haggbart]

No, you only build the Trade Depot (and then Autoplant). And then only if you don't have the Energy to rush them. The Trade Convoys/Vessels you Energy rush or airlift in from your established cities who can built them very fast because of their Trade Routes

Lol, my bad, you're one step ahead of me [emoji2]

 

[Ryika]

Well, I don't actually find that THAT bad anymore though, as trade routes themselves requite a lot of decisions to be made. Internal, External, Station? And which areas will be save, which won't? They're very situational. So I can really live with the Trade Depot always being the first choice, although I'd argue that removing the trade depot altogether, making the caravan slots passive and upping the time it takes for outposts to become cities would be the better solution then. That way you'd actually have to defend the outpost for a reasonable time and not have to go through the whole "Okay, first building... as always.. trade depot!"-process again and again.

 

[CraigMak]

Kind of like it's a no brainer to build a granary in every city you make and get a caravan going ASAP. Trade routes are very strong in civ 5. I think most people just don't get it and don't get them up and running as soon as they should. Then there's those really thick people who actually send caravans to other people or CS. BAD BAD idea.

Anyways this mechanic is already in place for Civ 5. Caravans and Cargo Ships are extremely strong.
Moderator Action: Please watch your tone. Please make your points without calling people not doing what you suggest names.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Stalker0]

Trade routes are very strong in civ 5. I think most people just don't get it and don't get them up and running as soon as they should.

I think it is fair to say that trade routes in Civ 5 are very strong, but its also a matter of degrees.

In Civ 5, you build roughly 5ish trade routes, assuming they don't get pillaged. That is 5 units...out of your entire civs building queue.

In BE, you build 3 trade routes PER CITY. So effectively every city wants to build a Trade Depot and 3 trade convoys. That is a lot of repetition in the game, and really does detract from other options.

Further, in Civ 5, since trade routes were an important but still only small part of your economy...city placement and resources were still vital.

In BE, the primary yields of a city come from trade. And since each city gets to do its own suite of trade routes...the city placements themselves don't matter that much. Its better to get more cities with full trade routes than fewer cities on better land. In other words...land doesn't matter that much, the number of cities you control is far more important.

 

[Aeson]

I don't think that's necessarily true that more cities > bigger cities (same set of tiles) because of Trade Routes. While more cities do have some benefits, they also have drawbacks. Tile yields are still important early on, and gain in importance as the game progresses.

Bigger cities are spaced out more, so can claim more tiles for any given number of Colonists produced. That's more resources and more tile based output. They also work on more tiles, which means their buildings are more efficient in regards to production and maintenance costs to effected output.

While Trade Routes will be giving a large share of output early on, the more you build with Trade Routes the less % of your total economy they will be. Tile output will be important in the long-run, and not so long-run as well. Because of the potential Food yields from Trade Routes, population growth should be very fast ... so even cities with a lot of tiles should be working them rather quickly, and should have a better selection of tiles to work with up until that point.

So while I could see situations where you want to pack the first few cities close together to get extra Trade Routes ... I can also see situations where spacing them out would be the best move.

 

[CraigMak]

So if the trade routes give you yields based on the difference between the two cities doesn't that mean you want to get a massive capital then make a bunch of smaller cities and the trade routes will be extremely beneficial to the cities.

Also does beyond earth have national buildings like national college or some equivalent? If it does then it seems like with this trade route mechanic the way to go would be to get your capital really big make a National college equivalent and then make your additional cities much later.

Since the difference between the cities will be very large the trade routes will yield massive benefits.

 

[Acken]

So if the trade routes give you yields based on the difference between the two cities doesn't that mean you want to get a massive capital then make a bunch of smaller cities and the trade routes will be extremely beneficial to the cities.

Not really. It's true the route will be bigger but based on number shown it doesn't make up for the potential loss in natural production, extra science, extra culture etc. It's a catch up mechanic but a late city will ultimately produce less than an earlier one. Getting your cities fast in Civ5 is already the optimal strategy (but you are slowed by happiness to do so). With that many routes and no hard issue with negative health, expanding fast will be the way to go. The thing that will slow you are aliens, up to a point.

Also does beyond earth have national buildings like national college or some equivalent? If it does then it seems like with this trade route mechanic the way to go would be to get your capital really big make a National college equivalent and then make your additional cities much later.

There is no civ5 national wonder requirements (is there a national wonder besides the spy agency even ?). This is one of the prime reason why CivBE is unlikely to have "few cities" being a competitive strategy. The game is clearly rigged toward grabbing as much land as possible and fast. At least in SP, I guess in MP if you don't make an army and just expand you'll just get conquered.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

So if the trade routes give you yields based on the difference between the two cities doesn't that mean you want to get a massive capital then make a bunch of smaller cities and the trade routes will be extremely beneficial to the cities.[...]

What I wonder is if equation for the trade route yields includes the yield gain from other trade routes. So if I boost my capital with trade routes will all other trade routes to it become more effective?

 

[Acken]

What I wonder is if equation for the trade route yields includes the yield gain from other trade routes. So if I boost my capital with trade routes will all other trade routes to it become more effective?

I doubt it. This would create a circular formula.

Most likely it's based on base yield.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Would it? It could use the total value from the beginning of the turn and update it on the end of the turn.

 

[Acken]

Would it? It could use the total value from the beginning of the turn and update it on the end of the turn.

I'm not sure what you mean. It's certain that there are solution to the problem (a trade route value being function of total production itself being function of trade route value) by fixing one of the value rather than having it being dynamic.
But I still doubt that's the case, Civ5 prefers simple systems and calculations and designers probably just avoiding such issues

 

[lordrune]

There is no civ5 national wonder requirements (is there a national wonder besides the spy agency even ?). This is one of the prime reason why CivBE is unlikely to have "few cities" being a competitive strategy. The game is clearly rigged toward grabbing as much land as possible and fast. At least in SP, I guess in MP if you don't make an army and just expand you'll just get conquered.

This is the reason that I haven't pre-ordered the game, and may well not get it at all. As much as I'm intrigued by the affinity mechanic, satellites, the new setting, and other things, it feels like a step backward, in that small and tall empires are now of questionable viability. Simply by making the number of trade routes proportional to the width of your empire instead of simply fixed, they've arbitrarily knocked out my favourite way of playing Civ and insisted I play a style that necessarily requires more spam and more micro, at least at any significant difficulty setting.

I know people will pooh pooh what I'm saying, and that's fine, people are entitled to do that, the reasons that any person might not want to play a game aren't universally applicable after all. But I'd just comment that it's very unusual for me to feel this concerned about a mechanic in new game in a franchise. Most of the time I can see some positives, even in controversial design changes. This time, I can only see negatives and I don't understand why they had to go down this path

 

[Gamewizard]

You can still play small and tall if you want, just like you can play wide and short if you want in Civ V. It may not be optimal, but nothing is stopping you from doing so.