[R&F] Attracting traders as a strategy

[Trengilly]

While I'm not opposed to a more involved trade system. I feel trade routes is one thing Civ 6 has pretty well balanced. I'd hate to see them break that balance and they have more important things to work on.

Tying road construction to traders is genus in my book. (But I'd be happy if builders could also build them and forts, Military Engineers should just be scrapped). It forces your to spread your traders around if you want roads and use some sub-optimal trade routes. The choices are often tough. Do I build a needed road, run an internal route to boost production and growth of a new city. Or send them external for better yields but put the trader at risk of war. Now with religious pressure back in that is another consideration.

The change in R&F to granting trade routes on lighthouses/markets instead of just the districts is going to be a big change. That combined with moving city state bonus to your first and second tier buildings is going to really alter priorities. Gonna have to build/buy buildings instead of just coasting along with empty districts.

 

[dagriggstar]

I think the biggest factor in determining where the AI sends its routes is the "safety" of the route. From what I have observed the AI will send to the city with the best yields that it deems (And it is very conservative about this) a safe city. I play with a lot of mods, in my latest game I have Peter sending me all his trade routes as we are neighbors and he gets the highest yields from my cities (I think on his own he was generating like 18 science per turn, then +8 science from each trade route he sent me, while he was in the medieval era).

So yeah, it could work as a strategy, but given the AI doesn't usually have many traders around AND the fact it won't (for instance) protect its trade routes (There needs to be no fog between it's target city and destination) means that it isn't usually a good strategy.

 

[Caballero Murcielago]

This issue with AIs not identifying the most attractive cities isn't new. I remember Civ V games with a massive, centrally located capital with rich resources, when routes to me must have paid half again the gold as routes to other AIs, yet nobody traded with me. If the developers could get the AIs to actually use the most profitable trade routes, it would make the gameplay more logical. And it would improve the AI's game, at least a little bit, gaining them more money and giving them hints about where to go to find the most trade routes to plunder during times of war.

I never played Civilization before version V. Were trade routes handled more logically in earlier versions?

 

[Scaramanga]

This issue with AIs not identifying the most attractive cities isn't new. I remember Civ V games with a massive, centrally located capital with rich resources, when routes to me must have paid half again the gold as routes to other AIs, yet nobody traded with me. If the developers could get the AIs to actually use the most profitable trade routes, it would make the gameplay more logical. And it would improve the AI's game, at least a little bit, gaining them more money and giving them hints about where to go to find the most trade routes to plunder during times of war.

I never played Civilization before version V. Were trade routes handled more logically in earlier versions?

They didn't exist. You could get gold from water tiles, tiles by a river, or roads themselves. Basically anywhere trade is implied.

 

[Disgustipated]

trade in Civ4 did exist at a passive level. Certain levels of tech and diplomatic relationship affected how much you were making in trade. Coastal cities could make more generally if I recall correctly.

I can't exactly remember how Civ3 handled it. SMAC was passive as well. And Civ2 had caravans. Civ2 model I liked the least, I didn't like that level of micromanagement.

 

[MrRadar]

I never played Civilization before version V. Were trade routes handled more logically in earlier versions?

They didn't exist. You could get gold from water tiles, tiles by a river, or roads themselves. Basically anywhere trade is implied.

They did.

In Civ 1&2 you had to build caravan units and move them to other cities to get lump sum gold and establish trade routes giving commerce per turn, iirc.

In Civ 3 trading cities meant they were connected to luxuries by a road or a sea route, and the more luxuries they had, the more happy citizens a marketplace would ensure in that city, meaning they could work more tiles and generate more commerce, food or production. Commerce was then channelled via sliders into science, gold or culture for happiness.

In Civ 4 there were a certain number of automatic trade routes per city with other AI you had open borders with. and who weren't running mercantilism civic (including yourself), again generating commerce. Civ 3&4 did not require you to build caravan units to trade.

I think Civ 4 handled this best among all the versions.

 

[Scaramanga]

They did.

In Civ 1&2 you had to build caravan units and move them to other cities to get lump sum gold and establish trade routes giving commerce per turn, iirc.

In Civ 3 trading cities meant they were connected to luxuries by a road or a sea route, and the more luxuries they had, the more happy citizens a marketplace would ensure in that city, meaning they could work more tiles and generate more commerce, food or production. Commerce was then channelled via sliders into science, gold or culture for happiness.

In Civ 4 there were a certain number of automatic trade routes per city with other AI you had open borders with. and who weren't running mercantilism civic (including yourself), again generating commerce. Civ 3&4 did not require you to build caravan units to trade.

I think Civ 4 handled this best among all the versions.

I stand corrected. I had put all that stuff behind me and concentrated on 5/6's similar system.

 

[Halcyan2]

IIRC, Civ V calculated trade route yields based on the resources available in the destination city that were NOT present in the home city. So if one had Iron and the other didn't, that increased the yield. But if both had Iron, then Iron wouldn't increase the yield. They showed all the calculations to you too.

I agree that the AI is poor at making trade route decisions. Despite using Zhang and Marco in a big city with lots of districts, the AI still don't send many trade routes there.