Bring back the Caravan!

[plastiqe]

When making a deal to trade resources or luxuries, a caravan unit is sent between two civilizations to deliver these items. This opens up entirely new options in blockading and stealing resources, and requires players to protect their trade routes as well as generating extra commerce for the cities involved. Here is how caravans would work:

Diplomacy Screen

- agree on the items to be traded with the other civ​

- choose the city your items will depart from and be delivered to​

- other civ chooses the city their items will depart from and be deliverd to​

- land or sea caravan​

Caravans

- a route is determined by the computer with the "goto" function​

- the caravan is created at the city specified in the diplomacy screen​

- you may assign units with the "escort" command to protect your caravan​

- the caravan automatically moves from the origin city to the destination city​

All kinds of new diplomatic options are now available. If the route becomes dangerous due to a war, both civs may agree to call off the route or change the path of the route. If a rival civ attacks your route, they would steal the resources/luxuries so both of the trading civs may declare war on the attacker.

 

[Teabeard]

This is similar to the thread I just posted except Caravans are land based.

Caravans can be some sort of automated thing that moves across the map from city to city, or resource to city, and it can be intercepted or it's route can be broken thus depriving it's destination of it's goods. If you intercept an enemy caravan you should either get the goods it carries or some gold or both.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

I would like the caravan back in Civ 4. Going around the world and making trade routes with the furthest cities was awesome in Civilizations. It would be cool if you could load up your caravan with luxuries and send them out to trade.

Oh good gawd NO!!! That's a MM nightmare I don't want to see return!

 

[slothman]

I didn't like the micromanagment aspect of them but I did like them in general. If you could make them and either automatically send them to th desired city, whatever would give you good trade, or keep them for wonders or buildings that would be good.

 

[Teabeard]

I didn't like the micromanagment aspect of them but I did like them in general. If you could make them and either automatically send them to th desired city, whatever would give you good trade, or keep them for wonders or buildings that would be good.

I think so too. You should set up trades through the diplomacy screen, but after you do that caravans will automatically set out, but those caravans can be intercepted by enemies and the enemies can take the goods and/or gold. This way it requires no micromanagent.

 

[menwia]

I lie the idea - but what was really tidious was keeping track of all those trade routes, of all those cities, of all those caravan's.

IF they do bring the caravan's back - then there should be auto trade function where the caravan will automacticall find the best city to trade with for your civ.

Eg rome trades wines wtih Babylon for 10gold per turn, however, if Pompay trades wines with Babylon iit recieves 14gold, therefore, when wine caravan is produced it automatically goes to Babylon and replaces the rome/babylon trade route, rome then produces a wine caraven which then seeks out the next best city to trade with - eg, trades wine with Boston for 10gold per turn.

If you know what i mean, that way - the comp automatically does the best trade rutes for you - because in a really big game, trade routes just became to complicate - teidous - boring and in atucal fact unimportant.

 

[dh_epic]

The micromanagement sucked and caravans led to a lot of exploits.

But I do think that establishing tangible trade routes is important.

Sorry to repost, but this came up in another thread:

I think the idea of having trade routes is pretty important. They shouldn't just be virtual, it should be possible to intercept a tangible trade and mess up a civ's foreign relations, all while getting some money.

It wouldn't need units... Maybe just "drawing" a route between two cities in the sea. And if an enemy decided to land on that route and pillage it, they'd gain money, and mess up your trade.

Not to mention that having tangible trade routes opens new strategies with some Nations as economic hubs. Do I go through the Near East? If the Near East is at war, then trade to Japan is nearly impossible, and the world has a stake in peace in the middle east. And discovering a trade route around Africa becomes pretty huge. And whoever has the security and resources to maintain that trade route becomes a superpower.

 

[plastiqe]

Well I was thinking something like you'd have both land and sea caravans. You'd then make a caravan unit which can then be connected with another civ to form a trade route. Upon making the connection you gain a sum of money that varies depending on how far away that civ is from your own.

And then as far as a tangible trade route, your route would be a path from the city that built the trade route to the city the caravan connected to. There could be automated units going along the trade route which you could protect with an escort if they were going through dangerous lands. Killing these units would give you a small sum of gold, as well as stop trade along the route until it was cleared.

It seems to me that trade is very important for any civilization. Many explorers set out looking for trade routes, and caravans would represent this in the game. And having a dominant navy meant that you could control the sea trade, keeping your routes safe and blockading those of your enemies. It sure would make the trade advisors screen a lot more interesting. : P

[size=-2]edit: sp[/size]

 

[baseballfan45]

I think so too. You should set up trades through the diplomacy screen, but after you do that caravans will automatically set out, but those caravans can be intercepted by enemies and the enemies can take the goods and/or gold. This way it requires no micromanagent.

i totaly agree

 

[Marlos]

Caravans can be some sort of automated thing that moves across the map from city to city, or resource to city, and it can be intercepted or it's route can be broken thus depriving it's destination of it's goods. If you intercept an enemy caravan you should either get the goods it carries or some gold or both.

Ever play Call to Power? What Teabeard describes is exactly how trade routes were handled in that game. Breaking or intercepting an opponent's trade routes was a tactic in disrupting their economy during periods of war. It is generally viewed as reprehensible by the other civs, but when has reputation ever really mattered?

 

[dh_epic]

Teabeard raises an interesting proposition, sorry for not noticing it sooner.

Caravans suck for micromanagement AND exploitation by users. But they were killer for modelling the real barriers to trade:

Security: can a caravan get killed or intercepted, with a big pay off for the captor?
Distance and Time: how long does it take them to travel? it's often faster by sea.
Maintainance: how much does it cost to keep that route going?
Frequency: if we get more caravans going, will there be faster, increased benefits?
War: how hard is it to get from Germany to China if the Middle East is at war?
Corruption: if you send spices into a crime ridden slum, do you expect it to get to its rightful recipient?

Without caravans, those are all cut out. Frequency, maintainance, distance, corruption and security are assumed to be nonfactors, with the same results no matter what. War is factored in, but with distance as a non-factor, you could have the entire world at war and still basically have a path between two distant allied nations even as early as the middle ages.

We can do better.

 

[plastiqe]

I don't think there would be much micromanagement. Build the land caravan, send it to an opponents city. Trade route. Build the sea caravan, explore and find another civ's city. Trade route. If you can't handle that then I wonder why you like civilization in the first place.

 

[dh_epic]

Two important responses, Plastique:

One is that they don't want to increase the amount of complexity (and thus micromanagement) for Civ 4. I'm sure caravans were one of those things they killed in order to make room for new concepts in Civ 3, like culture and resources.

Two is that having complete control over caravans does lead to a can of worms... the user can exploit them in unrealistic ways. That's above and beyond the issues of micromanagement -- which, if you can believe it, is not the reason people like Civ.

I think more people would automate the tedious boring decisions if they didn't think that automating them would leave it to dumb AI. I say take away the tedium, and keep the user focused on the big decisions.

 

[menwia]

I don't think there would be much micromanagement. Build the land caravan, send it to an opponents city. Trade route. Build the sea caravan, explore and find another civ's city. Trade route. If you can't handle that then I wonder why you like civilization in the first place.

Come on - Plastiqe. . .think about it - fifty cities, each wtih 3 trade routes - that's 150 trade routes, then you have to remeber and figure out wihch caraven to send where to get the most money - how is one suppose to remeber that over how many hours I don't know how long a game might take - while dealing with all the other 'IMPORTANT' stuff like expanding, fighting and actually trying to win the game.

Maybe I got it wrong - maybe you play on a small map and have no more then maybe five or six cities - but in my own situation - i like the huge maps, and the more cities the better. But that's my own personal choice - so if you've got a very small number of cities it shouldn't be a problem. But belive m, when you get into double figure cities - then it does become a bit of challenge. Maybe i'm just a bit slow - but I find it difficult and not to mention tedious remembering all those trade routes and everythign else that comes with it.

I could be in the minority here - the "thick minded minority,' and just don't have the CPU power to handle the information.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my solution to this was based on CTPII! That is that you BUILD caravans but don't MOVE caravans! Instead, the number of caravans dictates the total number of seperate trade routes you can have going at any one time! As with Civ2, when you build a caravan, you indicate what type of caravan it is (a spice caravan, a timber caravan etc). Only the caravans you have available will show up in the trade screen. The other side of the coin, though, is that a caravan costs a baseline maintainance whether you use it or not, so it might not pay to simply build '1 caravan for every resource you possess', as the costs might outweigh the ultimate benefits.
Once you establish a trade pact with a nation, the number of turns it takes for the trade route to form will depend on how far away the other capital is, but no more than 2 turns will elapse between a trade pact being signed and a trade route forming!
Lastly, the per turn cost of a trade route to each nation will depend, in part, on the distance and type of terrain the trade route crosses. However, distance also enhances the base value of a trade route to each player! Any third party nation through which a trade route passes will require a seperate RofP deal with said nation, and that nation also gains a % of the total value of the trade routes which pass through it! You can increase the amount of gold you spend on your trade routes (overall and/or seperately), which will improve the trade routes resistance to disruption (by making it 'quicker' and 'stronger'!) Only those directly involved in a trade can actually see the trade route, though 'enemy' units can see a trade route if it gets within X squares! An enemy unit which can 'see' a trade route can try and attack it-though success is by no means guaranteed (and will be seen as a hostile act IF news of the attack reaches the trading civs!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[plastiqe]

Two is that having complete control over caravans does lead to a can of worms... the user can exploit them in unrealistic ways.

How?

Come on - Plastiqe. . .think about it - fifty cities, each wtih 3 trade routes - that's 150 trade routes...

[size=+3]ACK NO![/size] Thats not what I meant at all, I'm talking about 1 caravan making 1 trade route between your civ and another civ. The city that actually constructs the caravan could get a small commerce bonus or something, but you can only have 1 route to each opponent. Sorry I guess I wasn't clear on that part.

So for example lets say I'm Greece on a starting island with Rome, and Egypt is on another island right next to us. I would construct a land caravan with Athens and send it to a Roman city, any Roman city and I'd have my trade route set up with the Roman civilization. Then I'd make a sea caravan with Sparta and send it to any of the Egyptian cities and I'd have a trade route with that civilization.

Graphically I would now have little caravans travelling between Athens and Rome, and I would have little ships sailing between Sparta and Thebes.

 

[Teabeard]

I don't think there would be much micromanagement. Build the land caravan, send it to an opponents city. Trade route. Build the sea caravan, explore and find another civ's city. Trade route. If you can't handle that then I wonder why you like civilization in the first place.

I think trade routes should be set up in the diplomacy screen, and once that is done Caravans automatically set out by land or by sea to find the nearest route to their destination. The caravans would be something automatically generated every X amount of turns and could be intercepted, so it is up to you and the civ you are trading with to secure the trade routes by building forts and stationing troops along the routes, and if the trade route goes through another civ's territory then perhaps you need some sort of agreement with that civ and maybe they collect a bit of money for letting you use their roads.

 

[dh_epic]

I think we have multiple ideas that all solve the same thing -- how to avoid caravans getting as ridiculous as they did in Civ 2. There were times when people would produce nothing but caravans and get great results doing so -- although I never personally tried this.

Plastiqe talks about having one caravan between each Civilization, and no more.
Aussie talks about building caravans that move themselves.

I think either of these would be good.

I kind of envisioned it as a diplomatic thing. You negotiate a trade route with Italy, and not only does it work out the benefits... but it also works out the costs. You can plan the route together. The route has a number of features:

- Your city
- Their city
- Number of caravans (more results in more transport, saturated risk, but more maintainance)
- By Sea, by Land (you move faster through the sea, but land might be closer)

You negotiate what you think minimizes costs, maximizes benefits... but also minimizes risks (of your caravans being intercepted).

Also, if you made a route from Persia to China and went through India, India could charge a small fee. This would also put more pressure on India to minimize corruption and chaos -- if they're at war or are experiencing high amounts of corruption, you might be pissed off that your spices aren't making it back and forth!

 

[plastiqe]

Actually doing it through the the trading screen would work pretty good. I guess I just had my heart set on that first caravan being the explorer and finding the route a la Marco Polo. I'll amend the first post.

I'd like to nail down some specifics though. Firstly, do caravans cost any resources to build or are they free for the duration of the Trade? I would think they are built for free upon siging a trade.

Who sends a caravan? I think the best way to handle this is for each team to send out a caravan from their selected city once the deal begins. That way you would be responsible for your own caravan to drop off and pick up your resources and the resources wouldn't be usable until that first caravan arrived.

How often are they sent out, and how much of a supply do they carry? I think the easiest way to do this is say each load of a caravan will supply a 20 turn deal. So the computer could calculate at what rate they would need to be sent out and do it automatically.

What happens when they are delayed? There will be times when a road that was there last time has been destroyed, or a city has been built that you don't have permission to pass through. I'm not sure what would happen in these situations.

Lastly, what happens when a caravan is destroyed or captured? If they have an attack and defense (very low) then does the destroying civ caputure the resources that were on the caravan or do they just steal some gold from the team who's caravan they killed. On the other side, do you capture caravans, like artillery, and bring them back to your city to gain the resources and luxuries from that caravan?

I think the main benefit of having Caravans as trade routes isn't the seeing them go back and forth or the parameters you can set for the trip, but the fact that it forces you to to defend your trade routes more and gives you a tangible unit to attack when disrupting an opponents route.

Ooh I just had a good idea. Imagine sinking an opponents ocean liner in the industrial age, and that liner was carrying oil which spills out all over and polutes the surrounding sea tiles for a few turns.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

EVen if the whole caravan thing is handled automatically there's still 1 of two problems that revolves around capture or pillage of caravan units.

1) If they can't be pillaged then they are completely superfluous and nothing but eye candy since CIV 3 already handles this dynamic.

2) If they can be pillaged I now have to MM units to protect from loss of income. If protecting units are generated and controled with the Caravan unit, part of my economy is now dependent upon the RNG.

Either way I don't like this idea.