Bring back the Caravan!

[Teabeard]

I really do not think Caravans should be a unit that you build. I think trade routes should be established in an abstract way, much as they are now, either through the trade or diplomacy window. Caravans should simply be something automatically generated from cities and move along the trade route. They should exist simply for eye candy and also for something that can be intercepted and pillaged. That is all I think Caravans should be.

One other thing: Later in the game Caravans should be upgraded to Freight Trucks and/or Trains and have much better movement rate and be more profitable... because they can haul alot more than a Camel or horse can.

 

[raistlin291]

I agree. The first Civ game I ever played was Call to Power, and it had caravans. They make more sense then just having roads to connect for trading routes. They can also be pirated!

 

[dh_epic]

I'd just like to back off and let nature take its course. I think people have good ideas here and either implementation would work, assuming the details could be pinned down.

ASSUMPTIONS

No movement control. Micromanagement is something that needs to be avoided, or the idea will simply never fly.

Trade routes are established in diplomacy or some other similar negotiation mechanism between two civs. Establishing them through movement is a no-no.

The trade routes would have huge implications for diplomacy, with people trying to get a few extra bucks by attacking a trade route, and people holding others responsible for when things go wrong. Is the person who attacked the route responsible? Is the person who was supposed to be defending the trade route responsible? Maybe both are responsible? One thing's for sure, raiding a trade route will be pretty fun

CHOICES

1. Build caravans or not?

Are they automatically generated when you establish the trade route, or do you have to build them, adding them to a pool? Either method has benefits, and I support either one. To me this is less important than actually having tangible trade routes once again.

2. Draw trade routes or talk about trade routes?

To me this is just an interface decision. To fill in a few fields with drop down menus would be satisfactory, but clicking between points on a map would be kind of neat too. Either way, this decision is important, just not important to me at this time.

3. Dotted lines or moving units?

I think this is one of the biggest talking points right now. Realism is a factor in both -- some people feel as though having units at a certain place and certain time is more real. Others feel that having a route that is covered quickly in the span of a turn is also pretty realistic. To me, realism should not be the question, but gameplay.

A dotted line is easier to pillage since you can be anywhere on the line, whereas hitting the unit is harder since you need to actually find it. On the other hand, a dotted line requires less computation, whereas moving 25 automated caravans could potentially be a resource hog.

Either one is cool with me, but in either case, you need to come up with a mechanism for the following question.

4. How do escorts work?

Personally, I'm a fan of combining the escort feature with the mechanism by which you create the trade route. When you create the trade route, each nation has a hand in building it, which includes supplying the troops for escorting. Whether it's a dotted line or a caravan, a limited number of troops (3?) are "bound" to the route. And whether you're attacking an automated unit, or pillaging a dotted line, you have to go toe to toe with the escorts before you can reap the benefits.

If your trade route is attacked, you would get a pop up at the start of next turn if you'd like to either pay to replace the escorts, or whether you'd like to put the trade route on pause. Maybe force a re-negotiation. Maybe force a multi-lateral talk between the traders, the nations through which the trade route passes, and the attacker.

Any solution is fine, so long as we can prove that there is at least one solution that doesn't make the whole idea fall apart.

 

[Teabeard]

I suggest the addition of a button which, when you click on, creates a cursor (the cursor can look like a shield or something to do with guarding) then you click that cursor onto another unit and then the original unit becomes a protector of that unit until you tell it otherwise. It will follow it around the map wherever it goes until one of them is destroyed or you cancel the action.

Now, this has applications outside of Caravans. You can use a spearman to protect and follow a settler, for example, or have a horseman follow a worker, or a destroyer follow your transport ladden with troops as you set sail to invade somewhere. You can do this with multiple units so you could have a a spearman, an archer, and a swordsman follow your caravan or settler. Then once you've done that is click on the settler or caravan and tell it where to go and you don't have to micromanage the other units because they will follow and protect it automatically.

Thoughts?

 

[dh_epic]

Relevent thought on the whole, but I think Caravans may be a special case. If there are no units (the dotted line approach), there needs to be a way to "load up" the trade route. If there is a unit, it needs to be easier to find that unit and know where it is going so it can be "loaded up" with an escort.

Not to say that your mechnanism wouldn't work, but it would be incomplete without a mechanism that lets you assign an escort upon the creation of the trade route.

 

[Teabeard]

Relevent thought on the whole, but I think Caravans may be a special case. If there are no units (the dotted line approach), there needs to be a way to "load up" the trade route. If there is a unit, it needs to be easier to find that unit and know where it is going so it can be "loaded up" with an escort.

Not to say that your mechnanism wouldn't work, but it would be incomplete without a mechanism that lets you assign an escort upon the creation of the trade route.

How about if a unit is set to patrol along a route it is everywhere along that route at once? This could be done when the route is set up, but you'd have to have an existing military unit at hand.

Also, you can, at any time, click the guard button (as I suggested) and set the unit to guard a route just as it would guard a unit. This idea has lots of potential... you could set units to patrol borders or roads too.

 

[dh_epic]

I think that would work, in my mind. It's always "coupled" with the caravan, wherever it is on the virtual dotted line (and even more obvious if it's an actual unit). And the disadvantage is that the troop isn't readily available to "pop out" and switch to defending a city -- the troop is busy.

Seems fair.

 

[menwia]

I have an idea. How about to protect your trade route, you have to build forts, and in them forts you fortify troops. When you try to pillage a trade route, or disrupt it, you actually end up attcking a unit in the fort which has been build on the trade route.

You can maybe call that fort a special name, and each civ can build one for each half of its trade route. Of course, if an ememy disrupted your trade route in a third parties border, it all depends if that third party was defending it or not.

You could do it this way, or just use the units in each of the respective cities as the ones who are actually protecting the trade route.

Its one way of doing things, just depends what your taste buds prefer.

My Dear Aussie - you may have a pont about that un-civ thing - but then again the point is - it's not Un-civ because it might improve a something in the game. I can personally come up with scores of models about varying funtions which would make a improvement on the game - but thinking about what you've already got to work with - the present Civ 3 - some things will just not be prectical.

Nevertheless - you can have your caravans with your little red dot's, I don't guess its gonna ruin the game that much - but what I like to think is, that they got part of it right in the earliar civ's, and instead of perfecting they just jumped onto a differn Caraven (band wagon).

Now you might be against a unit caraven thing here, I think dh doesn't like this idea - but I still think we do need some representation of a unit in the trade thing, the trade unit was the fun part of caravens - the downside was the tidiousnees of it after a while.

But if we have lets just say with one unit, to establis the route to begin with, then we can have the dotted lines scenrio - or the constant moving caraven scenrio - I personally don't like the idea of little units constantly moving up and down a line - it don't achieve anything.

Howver - when you complete a trade route - you should be able to graphically see a Red line underlying the tiles where the route goes through.

If some reason that line is broken or blocked then that's the end of your trade route and you have to make it again. It might not be easy to defend, but who ever said defending trade routes were easy - in times of war they're the first things to be hit - because they're soft targets.

 

[dh_epic]

The forts sound a little too compilcated and cumbersome. It would make trade routes add many minutes to a turn, which in my mind can't be afforded in a game that's already quite complex.

I don't care too much whether it's a dotted line or an actual unit, or that you build the caravan which you use to establish a dotted line between two cities. To me, it's all Civ, so long as it can exist more or less on top of Civ 3, and doesn't require too much more micromanagement.

The only point is that actually physically moving the caravan is not an option. They killed it after Civ 2, and that's one of the very important reasons.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Menwia: First up, sorry for getting narky with you earlier-its just that I have heard the 'it won't be civ' argument a LOT lately! I can accept criticism of my models on almost any grounds-but NOT that one! If you want to be anal about it, anything that doesn't conform with the original Avalon Hill game of 'Civilization' is Un-civ' ! Anyway, looking at your latest post, it actually seems that you are on my side! I am for the trade route 'line' connecting the trading cities AND I want to retain the best part of the civ2 caravan model-which is building them and allocating a resource to them (just NOT moving them around, which was a MAJOR headache!)
As for a trade route having a speed and strength, well the latter is just an abstraction of DH's Escort system. It assumes that all trade routes will have an escort-that the trading parties pay for. However, by adjusting the % you allocate to trade, you can increase the escort for trade routes up or down, which will increase or decrease its strength! Though I liked CtP's trade routes, it really did fall apart for me because of how EASY it was to break or pirate a trade route ! Speed merely effects the total value of a trade deal, per turn, as faster caravans can make more journeys in any given turn-which is again abstracted in my system and which, again, can be altered by how much money you put into trade!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[plastiqe]

There [size=+1]MUST[/size] be a caravan unit moving back and forth. Lines, while they might make sense to some, would be low on fun and high on theory. If you attack a unit, you fight a unit. It would have its own defenders which you would have to defeat, and you would see the unit die.

Lines? How do you defend a line, with imaginary units that are everywhere at once? Or do you assign a spearman to defend a trade line, except that the spearman is just standing in one spot, he can't really defend a whole line. It is also way too easy. All you have to do is look on the map for where your opponents trade lines are and attack the easiest spot. With units, while you might know where the units path is, you would have to wait for it to come by, like an ambush. How do you blockade a line?

Caravans are easy to keep track of. In the Trade Advisor screen his map shows the route each caravan will take (there you can have some lines) and he will also have a list of what each route is trading. The Military Advisor has the option to show where exactly a caravan is in Civ III, when you check the number of each unit you have.

I agree with Teabeard 100% about the new escort button, he even thought of a mouse icon for it. And I do not think you should get automatic escort units in the diplomacy screen. If you want an automatic defense, then just give the caravan better stats so it can defend itself. dh, you said yourself in the other thread:

Can you really afford to protect your one main trade route with 10 units, that might be better allocated elsewhere?

There should be real units defending because it makes sense gameplay wise, when you want to defend something (a city, a settler, etc) you use your units.

I disagree with the player having no control over the unit. I think the unit should start out automated and be able to go the whole route and back without a player touching them. But, you have to be able to change the route it takes mid course because all kinds of factors can come up during the course (a volcano, enemy civs, faster route built) that you can't trust the computer to spot for you. Imagine sitting there yelling at your caravan, "No you dumb caravan, I just built a road over here, use it!" and not being able to do anything about it. There could be a pop up like,"are you sure you want to move this unit sire?" to make sure you didn't accidentally mess up your route.

The other thing that hasn't been decided is what happens when you kill a caravan unit. In my four steps post I suggested, "When you attack a caravan you need to kill the caravan unit and you would get all resources and luxuries being carried by that caravan, and a sum of gold depending on the "worth" of the route." Does anyone have any other ideas?

 

[menwia]

Aussie - i don't blame you - it would piss me off as well if the same 'un-civ' arguement is used every time I try to put my postion forward. lol - now I know how to annoy you in the future. IF ever the risk of me lossng a debate crops up - the old and trust worthy 'un-civ' argument is ready to be deployed at a moments notice - lol (yes - i admit, I did enjoy that).

Plastique - I think you make some good points. okay - if you did have little caravens running up and down, then maybe they should be the ones getting attacking - it might be fun - its alot more fun then little red lines every where - but -and this is a Big BUT - you gotta to watch for it getting to micro-managment on us, if you have the option of controling all your units, well guess what - in a time of war your probably gonna be moving them around alot. I can see it becoming a problem - especially with the length and size of alot of civ games. it sounds simple to begin with, but belive me - it gets pretty complicated as the routes increase and your empire increases.

Pastique - So you have a valid point - but your approach still runs that moving too many units tedious side of things to it.

Aussie - Main problem is, game wise its not so appealing as actually having units and attacking real live units instead of little red lines or dots.

so we got to have a solution which maintens the aspect and fun of units, but leaves out the tediousness of all that micro-managment side of things.

I just had a Game Civ3 Vanilla - I was roman's surpirise surprise. Played Worl map Huge - max civ's were chosen. Got control of all of south America - whooped the English, Romans and the Russians. Egyptians had control of North America - next thing I know the whole world declares war on me.

My riflement got taken out by a horde of infantry - needless to say I Quit in disgust afte spending several houre on the game. Apart from my complete displeasure I was just thinking - at least I don't have to move around a whole load of caraven's- that would of really ticked me off then, especially losing after all that too. (skillfully worked it so it become part of the topic - but real aim was just to have a bit of a moan).

(As you can see, I don't think i'm that good a player . . .but that's only between you and me . . . don't go telling anyone now . . . I don't want the word to get out - it would ruin my street cred . . .) lol

 

[dh_epic]

Plastiqe -- I think the essence of the trade routes still have to be largely automated. Roads should be a pre-requisite for trade, or harbors. But everything in between two cities (aside from "by road" or "by sea") should be automatically calculated. If you don't like that route? Find another one.

Also, "defending a line" isn't such a bad thing. In fact, it kind of works out to the defender's advantage, which is one of few advantages they have in a system that seems to favor the attacker. Assuming a line system where you assign a maximum of 3 units to escort:

An opponent moves his attacking unit -- a horseman -- onto the trade route.
He selects "pillage", and selects "trade route".
It prompts him if he's sure he wants to get this motha****a started.
He selects yes.
Right then and there, he encounters the defending unit. It is a pikeman.
The pikeman and him duke it out on the spot where he pillaged.
After some dicerolls, the horseman is luckily victorious.
The caravan is not captured, suggesting that there is still another defending unit.
He moves another horseman onto the same route.
Pillage, trade route, yes, duke it out.
He is victorious. Again.
Because he killed the last defending unit, it gives him a message:
"You have successfully raided a caravan carrying 5 oil and 20 gold".

It *does* give the defender an element of surprise. I could just imagine some raiders preparing to attack a known trade route, only to find one of the most powerful soldiers ready and waiting.

Again, that's assuming the line-thing is what we'd want. I don't personally have a problem with it, and I don't think it ruins the whole concept to have a physical unit or a virtual line.

 

[plastiqe]

Also, "defending a line" isn't such a bad thing. In fact, it kind of works out to the defender's advantage, which is one of few advantages they have in a system that seems to favor the attacker.

Yes it is! Yes it is a bad thing!! Units poping up along the imaginary route of a trade? What happens when a player attacks two or three places along the line in the same turn? Your adding an entirely new, unrealistic feature when instead you could have one that fits with the current system and is way more tangible. And I still haven't heard any ideas on how your going to blockade a trade line...

It *does* give the defender an element of surprise. I could just imagine some raiders preparing to attack a known trade route, only to find one of the most powerful soldiers ready and waiting.

You can do the exact same thing when there are units escorting a caravan.

menwia, you are right, the micromanagement is a big concern. Like me and dc mentioned earlier, there would be diplomatic options when war breaks out. You'd probably call up your trading partner and agree to either a time out in trading, or to both ally against who ever is attacking and continue trading. Maybe they don't give a crap and just want their resources, getting them there is your problem.

If you go back to that rough draft of 4 steps I wrote, the only parts the player has to worry about are making the deal, protecting the caravan, and improving the path of the trade route (although if the AI was smart enough to do this for you then we could drop it.. I'm gonna drop it).

 

[dh_epic]

You don't have to blockade a trade line. You destroy it. But I see your point, but I think it's an aesthetic one (e.g.: talking about realism). I think the basic idea is still there. But I'm just as much in support of an automated caravan unit with 3 escorts bound to it. If that makes you significantly more happy, then by all means

I think we'll agree that the idea is more or less working, though, regardless of the dotted line or automated unit approach.

 

[plastiqe]

Naw, I don't really care if I have support if I know I'm right. I do really like the discussion though.

So you destroy the trade line in that horseman example. Next turn I call up my opponent and change the path of the line. Bing! We both still have our resources. One of the selling points of actual units is that you can stop a civ from sending another civ a resource, all you have to do is find the units and destroy them.

[size=-2]**amended 1st post[/size]

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As I have said previously, for me its not about realism or aesthetics, but about pragmatic issues of processor power! Every new animation takes processor power away that could be used for something more important-so don't do it unless its absolutely neccessary! We know MM of caravans is a pain from civ2, and I know that 'trade lines' work from CTPI and II-and we ALL know that a physical trade route has GOT to work a damn sight better than the one currently in place in civ3!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[plastiqe]

All we are doing is adding more units on a goto command, they don't have any special functions that would take up more processor power than if you sent a ship from location A to location B. And by the time Civ IV is out, computers will be that much better than they were back in 2001 when Civ III came out. I think they can handle it. And you had better not tell me that it would take too long for the artists to animate the units either.

 

[rhialto]

We should have lines as trade routes. Any hostile unit that can pillage the line gets to break that trade route. This makes perfect sense.

In teh real world, there are no stable trade routes in actively contested territory. Having trade routes this vulnerable perfectly reflects how sensiive trade is to war.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie raises an important point about processor power. Even to automatically move units with the GOTO command requires a set of computations. Multiply this by 30 trade routes, and you could lose even 10-15 seconds of time. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Like I said, though, the whole lines versus units thing isn't terribly important to me. I think they both have their plusses and minuses.

The only point being that:
1: the trade routes need to be sensitive to war
2: the trade routes need to require as little micromanagement as possible
3: the trade routes need to visibly go through different mediums -- from another Civ's territory, to the ocean, to around the mountains. Whatever leverages the geography of the situation.