Community Feature: Gold!

[12agnar0k]

he's saying automatic trade routes is gone, i.e you will need to build them.

 

[bjbrains]

I mean the automatic trade route system, not the 'ally' part. The calculations involved in that system were actually a major cause of late game slowdown, and the system itself was unpredictable, with no player control. I agree that not having passive foreign trade is a downside, but I like the simplicity that this new system brings to the mess that was Civ 4.

 

[Ahriman]

As of our current knowledge, a Harbor merely forms a trade route with the capital without needing a road.

I misremembered, apologies. I had thought I remembered it also giving a +25% trade route yield.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

I just want people like PinkHammurabi to know that some people out there see the sense in what you're saying and completely agree. People like myself just have less patience to argue it.

This right here explains so much on the internet. I should have stepped out of this argument earlier than I did, and I'm really happy PinkHammurabi kept fighting the good fight

I really appreciate that guys, seriously. I'm glad to know there's at least a handful that agree with me and that I'm not just insane. Thanks.

 

[12agnar0k]

Maybe your all insane :O

 

[Ahriman]

he's saying automatic trade routes is gone, i.e you will need to build them.

Are you sure? My impression was: you build the roads, or a port, the trade routes are formed automatically, as before.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Trade routes are automatic. They always connect your city with your capital once there's a route.

 

[Ahriman]

They always connect your city with your capital

Which makes it sound like there are no trade routes between non-capital cities, which would be lame.

But I guess not that big a deal.

Except: does this mean if your capital gets blockaded, you lose every single trade route in your entire empire?
That would be a big ridiculous.

 

[Schuesseled]

they might be automatic, but you have to build the road first, although i suppose taht might be automatic too, mayube.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Except: does this mean if your capital gets blockaded, you lose every single trade route in your entire empire?
That would be a big ridiculous.

That's not ridiculous, that's strategic. Don't allow enemy to do that.

 

[12agnar0k]

Yeah besides blockade is only easy on water (by that I mean that an enemy navy conquers your waters and then sets up the blockade), to do a land "blockade" they would need to pillage your road, which should be fairly well protected.

 

[Stalker0]

That's not ridiculous, that's strategic. Don't allow enemy to do that.

Or relocate your palace

 

[stealth_nsk]

Or relocate your palace

Will it disappoint you to know what most likely you can't relocate a palace in Civ 5?

 

[Purpureus]

Will it disappoint you to know what most likely you can't relocate a palace in Civ 5?

Oh, I am pretty sure I saw screenshots where the French moved the capital from Paris to Lyon because of the German conquest...
You mean possibly that one can not relocate the palace EXCEPT such an "accident" happened?

I find that highly unlikely, but if true that would be another +1 on the "lame" items list...
I do stick to the hope that you are wrong -

 

[stealth_nsk]

Oh, I am pretty sure I saw screenshots where the French moved the capital from Paris to Lyon because of the German conquest...
You mean possibly that one can not relocate the palace EXCEPT such an "accident" happened?

I find that highly unlikely, but if true that would be another +1 on the "lame" items list...
I do stick to the hope that you are wrong -

That's not lame, that's cool if you think of it more
Yes, there was quite old screenshot which could be interpreted this way. However, you could see in latest screenshots reports about civs loosing their capitals.

 

[Celevin]

That's not ridiculous, that's strategic. Don't allow enemy to do that.

I think every person who has responded in this way is underestimating how much gold comes from trade routes.

 

[Tomice]

I agree it sounds lame for a moment, but then again, how much trade happens in a real country when the capital is besieged and the main trade harbor blocked?

It might be cool to have a "vulnerable" point in an empire, one where all the administration is centered, where all infrastucture runs together and where all important people are.

Think of ancient Rome - what do you think would have happened if Rome got captured? Or Paris or London or Moscow nowadays?

Admittedly, not every country is so centralistic (e.g. Ancient Greece), but there SHOULD be a penalty for this!

 

[Celevin]

I agree it sounds lame for a moment, but then again, how much trade happens in a real country when the capital is besieged and the main trade harbor blocked?

It might be cool to have a "vulnerable" point in an empire, one where all the administration is centered, where all infrastucture runs together and where all important people are.

Think of ancient Rome - what do you think would have happened if Rome got captured? Or Paris or London or Moscow nowadays?

Admittedly, not every country is so centralistic (e.g. Ancient Greece), but there SHOULD be a penalty for this!

You're missing the point. The point is "It's more detrimental for you to have your capitol blockaded than taken and razed". How does this make any sense? If I was trying to kill a 20-city empire in a huge game, I would rather blockade their capitol than take it. This is stupid.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You're missing the point. The point is "It's more detrimental for you to have your capitol blockaded than taken and razed". How does this make any sense? If I was trying to kill a 20-city empire in a huge game, I would rather blockade their capitol than take it. This is stupid.

If you're able to blockade a capital, you already got them.

 

[Celevin]

I've had multiplayer and singleplayer games continue on after a capitol is taken. This won't be the case with a blockading instead.