Bring back the Caravan!

[dh_epic]

Tying resources to AI to diplomacy, I just read this quote from an article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041008/ap_on_el_pr/cheney_iran

At an energy industry conference in 1996, Cheney said sanctions were the greatest threat to Halliburton and other American oil-related companies trying to expand overseas. "We seem to be sanction-happy as a government," Cheney said. "The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."

What if the good lord (of Civ) DID have a sense of humor / irony / fate? What if it was rigged so when the oil spots appear in the late industrial era, they always appear within the borders of Type B Civs who are highly authoritative and militaristic?

 

[plastiqe]

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.

So what is to stop me from making a new deal the very next turn, changing where the line is? Stealing the resources by pillaging is not the same as a blockade. The only way you liners are going to be able to blockade is with 30 ships covering every harbor like it is now. Until someone comes up with a fix to this major flaw, then actual units are still the way to go.

Oh and check out the resource and luxury pools which was designed to fit with our caravan idea.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I think that having trade routes like in Call to Power would give the privateers something to do. They have hidden nationality so you wouldn't have to always get a rep hit everytime you do it.

 

[dh_epic]

Pillaging IS a blockade. How else would you stop a caravan from making it to their destination if not by force? And if they had escorts to defend the caravan, wouldn't you expect a fight?

 

[rhialto]

If all you were doing in a line system was making a line, then pillaging would not hurt the target overmuch. But in my line model, you build a caravan first, whch then goes into a resource pool. Each caravan is good for one line, and if the line gets pillaged, the caravan is lost.

(Edited for spelling)

 

[Teabeard]

All other arguments aside, I think we can all agree it is more fun to attack an actual unit Caravan instead of some abstract line on the map...

 

[menwia]

True . . .

 

[rhialto]

but we have to weigh the fun gained in attacking caravans agaisnt he fun lost in micromanaging them. I thinkwe can agree that any model that has caravans as actual units will necessarily have more MM than one with lines, as it will always be open for the player to directly control teh unit's movement.

 

[plastiqe]

If all you were doing in a line system was making a line, then pillaging would not hurt the target overmuch. But in my line model, you build a caravan first, whch then goes into a resource pool. Each caravan is good for one line, and if the line gets pillaged, the caravan is lost.

Your line model has people building caravans which, aside from being dropped back on page 1, also counts as MM. And there is [size=+1]still no blockade[/size] here. All I need is enough "caravans" built in reserve and I can make as many new lines as I want as soon as my rival breaks one. A blockade is an effort to prevent supplies from reaching the enemy, not just stealing them temporarily.

That is the other thing I don't like about lines, they are the same instant trading that happens with two connected harbors in Civ III. If you have caravan units that have to physically travel the route, then it takes time for resources/luxuries to get there, rather than it being delivered by magic.

 

[rhialto]

Eh? Why does being on the first page automatically count against an idea?

Blocakade wise, if you then draw a new trade route and it isn't properly protected, it will simply get pillaged again next turn anyway, wasting as many caravans as you care to stockpile or until you get bored with wasting them. In this, it is no different from having actual caravan units being sent unprotected to their doom.

 

[plastiqe]

I only bring up the first page because the majority of players did not want to have the headache of building caravans, which was my original suggestion. I think the better suggestion is that they are created from the diplomacy screen.

Now the way I understand the line system, you can draw lines from different cities, yes? So if the line between city A and city Z is broken, I could just make another one that goes halfway around the world between city F and city Q. You can't blockade because of problem #2.

These lines are instantaneous. It doesn't matter if the cities are right next to each other or on opposite sides of the world, the resources get there right away. The "escorts" for the lines are also instantaneous. It is as silly as units warping around the map on railroads.

 

[rhialto]

I think that was a false assumption. Perhaps what people don't want isn't the bother of building caravans, but the bother of moving them around the map. Since this model hadn't been proposed then, that question probably wasn't answered in a way to make the answers relevant to this model.

Yes, you do draw lines between cities, but beyond choosing the cities, you get no control over where exactly the traders go. The line gets drawn by the computer to minise the total travel time, following roads and such. If the line between two cities has a hostile civ in the way, you're out of luck.

We could also say that the line doesn't start generating income until 2-3 turns after it is built. That would satisfy your problem with teh instantaneity of existing trade ideas, would it not?

 

[menwia]

I think that was a false assumption. Perhaps what people don't want isn't the bother of building caravans, but the bother of moving them around the map. Since this model hadn't been proposed then, that question probably wasn't answered in a way to make the answers relevant to this model.

Yes, you do draw lines between cities, but beyond choosing the cities, you get no control over where exactly the traders go. The line gets drawn by the computer to minise the total travel time, following roads and such. If the line between two cities has a hostile civ in the way, you're out of luck.

We could also say that the line doesn't start generating income until 2-3 turns after it is built. That would satisfy your problem with teh instantaneity of existing trade ideas, would it not?

There's nothing wrong with building the caraven units. Its just controling them which is a pain in the butt. We got to have a system - if possible, where you can build the caraven units - also attack caraven units but not have to control them. Basically WE WANT OUR CAKE AND EAT IT.

I'm against a player being able to control every single caraven of his as it goes along a trade route. I'm against also little red lines in that its more fun to have units - not that it wouldn't work, it just wouldn't be as much fun.

 

[Jon Shafer]

What a paradox... creating units which can't be controlled but can be attacked...

 

[dh_epic]

Controlled isn't a yes or no proposition. It's just a matter of having them be highly automated and highly efficient.

As for the whole question of building caravans, nobody ever ruled that out. Moving caravans was the thing we wanted to dodge. But building a caravan might be important -- there needs to be at least SOME kind of barrier to entry. If you can literally draw a line as a trade route, you can just keep on quickly repairing your trade routes every time they're pillaged. Having a finite number of caravans that you need to restock should something happen changes the strategy. You care if your trade route gets messed with.

That's above and beyond the loss of resources / gold being traded, and the potential damages to the international order.

All the same, I just don't see the need for such a passionate debate about lines and caravans. They can both work, in theory.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The way I see it, a 'blockade' could be done in the game in several different ways.

a) Place diplomatic pressure on nations to prevent them from trading 'legally' with a nation that has sanctions on it. This would be especially good if you were required to form some kind of 'diplomatic agreement' as a prerequisite to all future trading with that nation (as it was in 'Birth of the Federation')

b) Place units in the way of a key city in a sanctioned nation. Said nation will only be able to trade if it can trace at LEAST one viable trade route between it and the nation it wishes to trade.

c) If a trade route passes through your nation, you could repeal a right of passage to the nation you wish to place sanctions on. Any nation that requires a trade route to run through your civ to a sanctioned nation will now NOT be able to trade.

d) Banning a resource can prevent a nation from trading that resource with you AND prevent any 3rd nations trading that resource if said trade route has to pass through your nation!

e) 'Pillaging' a trade route will break it, essentially creating an embargo. You can then keep units in the vicinity to 'enforce' the embargo.

f) destroying critical trade infrastructure in the nation you wish to sanction might also prevent said nation from trading.

Of course, all this deals with LEGAL trading between civs. A civ under sanctions should be able to 'smuggle' goods into and out of their nation.

Smuggling routes, under my model, would be 'faster' (worth more), weaker but more expensive to maintain. They could be set up in one of a few ways.

First, if you wish to trade with a nation who is under diplomatic 'sanction', or if you are under sanction yourself, then the trade advisor will say so, but ask if you wish to 'smuggle' goods. This would also be the case if you wish to trade a resource than either you or your potential trade partner has banned. Additionally, when establishing even a normal trade route, you could be given the option to create an 'illegal' trade route. Aside from what I mentioned above, said trade routes would be financially more lucrative than a standard trade, they would be 'stealthier', but would create corruption within the cities of the two nations involved-though the corruption would, on average, be worse in the recipient nation than the dealer nation!

EDIT: One final point to answer Plastiques criticism of blokades in the 'line model'! Not only do you have to build another caravan in order to renegotiate the trade route but, in my model, the amount of maintainance you have to pay for a trade route depends in part on the distance between the two trading cities. The more hexes it has to travel, the more it will cost you. Terrain will also alter the cost of the route. In addition, I have also pointed out that an especially long trade route may take an extra 1-2 turns to take effect, not to mention the fact that the base value of the traded goods will decline over long distances, because the 'assumed' number of trades in a turn will be fewer over that distance. So, as you see, blockading a single, short and lucrative trade route might in fact make a new trade deal with that civ a pointless excercise, for one of the parties or both!

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

oh and, btw Plastique, I have no recollection of people 'dropping' one model in favour of another-so please don't go speaking for everyone OK? Just some friendly advice !

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh and, another quick point. DH_Epics idea regarding the defender of a trade route having the advantage of suprise would still work just as well under my system. After all, the only people who would know the 'strength' of a trade route would be the two trading nations. An enemy could discover the strength of the trade route, but only by getting close enough with a scout unit (which might reveal their intentions to the trading nations) OR through espionage committed against one of the two trading civs. Otherwise, they might attack a trade route which they think is easy, but which either 'eludes' them (due to speed), or damages/destroys the attacking unit (due to strength)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[menwia]

I agree with dh, the main concern with units is that they have to be effiecent. And yes, both ways could work - the question is - which one would be more playable - fun, better in a game?

 

[dh_epic]

I think we're arguing for the sake of arguing I think the key is there's a large degree of support for this idea and it would make the game better either way.

Although I could understand how some people would be put off by the lack of certainty. Is it a line or is it a unit? I don't personally care, but some people like to know for sure before they make up their mind.

 

[menwia]

dh - as you said, I think everyone agree's there should be trade routes, and such, which one can activelly take part in. Be it red lines or caraven units moving up and down is the sticking point.

Everyone I think is agreed its better to have either of the suggestions rather then what is in place at the moment . .. or not?