Anyway to have TRADE on ROADS start with a certain tech?

In the CIV4TechInfos.xml file, there is a <TerrainTrades/> tag to allow certain types of trade. Here is what Sailing's tag looks like:
Code:
<TerrainTrades>
	<TerrainTrade>
		<TerrainType>TERRAIN_COAST</TerrainType>
		<bTerrainTrade>1</bTerrainTrade>
	</TerrainTrade>
</TerrainTrades>
Just change TERRAIN_COAST to the terrain you want. However, I don't know how to change what terrain types you start out with...someone else can fill you in there. I'm sure that with a bit of digging through the XML files you'll find it though.

EDIT: Wow, I totally missed the "roads" part of your post. I'm not sure that's possible through XML; it might be hard coded.
 
Yeah it looks like it might be hard coded to me too. I'd really like to fix that though. In history roads weren't big tradeways, coastline and rivers were. I want road trade to occur much later in the game, so inland cities away from rivers or the coast would be stifled in growth a bit.

Darn! I was hoping this might be easier.
 
Why would there be a road, on which no trade is possible? Can't you achieve the effect you want by making road-building a later tech, or more expensive?
 
Historically roads were routes of military travel primarily. Trade (REAL trade) as somewhat reprfesented in CIV did not take place on a massive scale along roads. It was by boat along rivers and coastlines. For example, do you think the corn shipment from Alexandria to Rome or Constantinople could have taken place at all along middle-age land routes as it can in CIV? No it didn't and it couldn't. No massive draft animal convoy could manage that kind of commodity shipment.

Real trade along roads historically didn't begin until even after the railroad. This is why cities until 1940 or so in the US (for example) didn't develop except: on coasts, by rivers, by rail lines.

Imagine how much trade would come by road if the internal combustion engine didn't exit.

See it now?

Again, armies moved quicker along roads- and this was their main purpose when built by a civilization (not paths and dirt tracks, I mean real roads, as in Rome or Byzantium).

So the short answer is: to mimic history a bit better. I want the unit movement effect but not the trade effect until a later tech. It's too apocryphal to have a large inland city rich in trade goods without any river/water connections as it is now.
 
Trade (REAL trade) as somewhat reprfesented in CIV...
See, the problem is Civ doesn't represent real trade. It's an all or nothing kind of thing. Cities not connected to trade networks are all but useless. If there was some way of distinguishing small scale trade that's just basic common sense (like supplying your cities with metal to make weapons) from "REAL" trade, I would agree. But there isn't! Roads are such a basic necessity in the game because they connect trade networks.
 
You're right the Silk Road was a river...

You're a sarcastic idiot who thinks that was all a road without shipping at Constantinople and along other water routes, and the quantities of commodities coming through there was comparatively small; they were rare items which cost a LOT and thus made the trip worthwhile. The fact of the overland portions is also what drove prices up to huge amounts. Once SHIPPING occurred, the commodities were available to more people in higher quantities and lower prices and you had real trade begin. The silk road ended as a transport route for a reason.

Plus there was only one silk road for a reason (unique market of demand and supply), but since you're not interested in real history and where *population centers* developed and how (uh... FOOD trade which is cheap and in MASS quantities), please go wallow in your ignorance.

-sigh-
 
maybe you could remove any base traderoutes and allow cheap buildings only for riverside/coastal cities (using the same game logic for dikes) that add trade routes, then at a later tech allow the same kind of buildings for regular cities too.
 
Back
Top Bottom