Cosmetic Change: Traders

[Zaarin]

So the other day I was thinking about how the last few patches have included cosmetic changes (like aurora, desert mountains, and motion blur), and I was also thinking how odd it is that every civilization in the game has traders pulled by camels--an animal that fares poorly outside its native environment. So, I was thinking we could get some trader variety.

Northern European civs (America, England, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Russia): horse-pulled cart
Southern European civs (Brazil, Greece, Macedon, Rome, Italy): donkey-pulled cart
Middle Eastern/North African civs (Arabia, Egypt, Nubia, Sumer): dromedary-pulled cart (i.e., no change)
East Asia (China, Japan): ox-pulled cart
South and Central Asia (India, Persia): Bactrian camel-pulled cart
Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Khmer): elephant-pulled cart
Eurasian Steppe (Scythia, eventually Mongolia): horse-pulled cart
Native American civs (Aztec): dog-pulled travois
Inca: pack llama
Australia: a cart pulled by kangaroos; at sea, a raft pulled by platypuses riding sharks

I have tentatively placed Nubia in the Middle East/North Africa category, and I have absolutely no clue what to do with Kongo, being entirely unfamiliar with Subsaharan African pack animals. A quick Google search suggests that, like the Native Americans, they lacked wheeled transport or pack animals, and where Native Americans used dogs and travois West Africans used human porters...

And if it's not blatantly obvious, the suggestion for Australia was a joke. Just like including Australia before Mongolia, the Ottomans, the Inca, the Maya, Korea, or any civ from Southeast Asia or Native North America.

 

[Siptah]

I'd only leave Arabia and Nubia with dromedaries, Egypt and Sumer would do better with donkeys, no?

 

[Zaarin]

I'd only leave Arabia and Nubia with dromedaries, Egypt and Sumer would do better with donkeys, no?

That would certainly be more historically accurate, but I'm okay with a certain level of oversimplification/abstraction in Civ. But sure, if they wanted to be that accurate, I'd make no objection.

 

[Kimiimaro]

An interesting Idea. However, how the embarked traders of different Civs should look? Same ship design, or differrent for each pack of Civs?
And should the modern traders look same for each Civ?

 

[Zaarin]

An interesting Idea. However, how the embarked traders of different Civs should look? Same ship design, or differrent for each pack of Civs?
And should the modern traders look same for each Civ?

I think it makes sense for modern traders to look the same (sure, cargo trucks in Europe, Asia, and North America look a little different, but I'm not overly concerned by it). As for embarked, it might make sense to make them different, but I wouldn't have a problem with that being a later update.

 

[Xandinho]

I agree that we need different designs for traders. It is simply strange to have civilizations from cold regions (like Norway and Russia) using camels on their trade routes.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree that we need different designs for traders. It is simply strange to have civilizations from cold regions (like Norway and Russia) using camels on their trade routes.

Going with camels was an especially odd choice. Horses can manage in just about any climate except some of the really hot, wet ones; camels just don't do well outside the desert.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Going with camels was an especially odd choice. Horses can manage in just about any climate except some of the really hot, wet ones; camels just don't do well outside the desert.

Civ has been using a 'camel train' to represent a caravans/trade routes since at least Civ III. Accurate or not, it's become the "graphic shorthand" for a non-combat trade unit. - but that doesn't make it a Good Choice.

Not only should they change the draft animal to be more appropriate to the Civilization/Terrain/Climate, but the vehicles should probably change with the Eras as well:
Ancient Era: solid-wheeled carts
Classical Era: Spoked 2-wheel carts
Medieval Era: back to solid wheeled carts
Renaissance Era: Spoke-wheeled wagons
Industrial Era: 4-wheeled freight wagons (Conestogas without the canopy)
Modern Era: Mack-type trucks
Atomic Era: 18-wheeler trucks
Information Era: 18-wheelers without drivers, which occasionally veer off the trade route and hit trees

Seriously, though, if they have any graphic talent/assets lying around, I would much prefer some more ethnicity and variety in the combat units before anything else. Why, with all the variety of graphic representations, do all the musket men and infantrymen look alike? And, with the myriad graphics of modern combat equipment all over the net, why does every Civ have to have the same tank, same fighter and bomber aircraft, same aircraft carrier...

 

[Zaarin]

@Boris Gudenuf Yeah, I think we all got prematurely excited about "ethnic units" when announced. I mean, sure, it's better than it was in Civ5, but most of the tweaks are so minor as to be meaningless beyond the units' skintone.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, I think we all got prematurely excited about "ethnic units" when announced. I mean, sure, it's better than it was in Civ5, but most of the tweaks are so minor as to be meaningless beyond the units' skintone.

I confess, I paint miniatures for war-games, so I may have a better idea than most about just how much variety the game is missing. Just in the so-called 'drab' 20th century, Infantrymen could be in dark khaki, light khaki, olive-brown, olive-green, field gray uniforms, wearing flat helmets, deep helmets, turbans, burnooses, or soft caps, in high boots, low boots, or puttees and shoes - if you're keeping track, that's 75 possible combinations of uniform, headgear and footgear: there is no reason why every Civ in every Era couldn't have a distinctive 'look' to its units...

 

[Uberfrog]

@Boris Gudenuf Yeah, I think we all got prematurely excited about "ethnic units" when announced. I mean, sure, it's better than it was in Civ5, but most of the tweaks are so minor as to be meaningless beyond the units' skintone.

I think many of us were just relieved that they finally got the skin tone right...

I guess they're always working with limited time and resources for art, but it is odd how the ethnic diversity just... stops after a point. They managed really cool jaguar-helmeted swordsmen and knights for the Aztecs, when that was a free DLC, but all the musketmen look like they've come from a Spanish tercio.

As well as changing the camels, I'd like to see a midway between the caravan and the truck as well. Maybe a larger multi-horse wagon for the Renaissance and early Industrial eras. I also liked Civ V's galleons as a mid-game ship trader unit.

 

[Siptah]

It‘s strange that warriors and swordsmen look different for different civs or at least use different weapons. It looks to me like they wanted to do that for all unit types and eras but run out of time to do so. But I might be wrong. Religious units could look according to the religion as well. But this might be confusing.

 

[Uberfrog]

It‘s strange that warriors and swordsmen look different for different civs or at least use different weapons. It looks to me like they wanted to do that for all unit types and eras but run out of time to do so. But I might be wrong. Religious units could look according to the religion as well. But this might be confusing.

As long as the general unit silhouette is kept reasonably consistent, it shouldn't be a problem.

As long as say, a Swordsman, always has a big sword and a shield, and the Missionary always carries their big standard, Firaxis' artists could change a lot of the particular details (robes, headdress, helmet, sword and shield shape) without it being confusing.

 

[Siptah]

It works well for the swordsman, and the icon helps of course, too. This is why I don‘t understand why they stopped doing it for post-medieval units.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It works well for the swordsman, and the icon helps of course, too. This is why I don‘t understand why they stopped doing it for post-medieval units.

What is really peculiar about it is that, except for a few instances like the Spartans' 'Red Lambdas" on their shields and red cloaks (which, in fact, Civ VI missed) and the Romans' mass-produced armor and weapons, there were very few 'uniforms' of any kind until the 17th century CE. Starting with distinctive colored sashes and flags, and then by the 1680s with uniform coats and accessories, you get an incredible explosion of color on the battlefield in what is, in the game, the late Renaissance Era. By the 18th century the uniform coat colors become Stereotypes: The Royal French Army in 'gris-blanc' (Gray-white - unbleached wool, I suspect) and then white, the British 'Redcoat', the Germans in (Prussian and Indigo) Blue, the Russians in dark, dark green, the Imperial Austrian 'White Coats'. We've never had any of that in Civ games, and it's a screaming shame, given that the actual 'cut' of the coats are all very similar, so that the required color/graphic ('skins') changes to the basic figure are not huge. It could be done, and with a lot less time, effort and money than required for a single new Leader whose animations you will skip past after the first half-dozen games...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I kind of wish we could get a covered pioneer wagon for the settler in the Industrial Era or even earlier in the Renaissance Era looking like colonists. It just seems weird that we have nothing until a camper in the Modern Era. Of course this idea was given to me by the 2010 board game where you literally found cities with a wagon piece.

 

[Zaarin]

I kind of wish we could get a covered pioneer wagon for the settler in the Industrial Era or even earlier in the Renaissance Era looking like colonists. It just seems weird that we have nothing until a camper in the Modern Era. Of course this idea was given to me by the 2010 board game where you literally found cities with a wagon piece.

A lot of things could use more diversity. I understand there were doubtless time limits on first release, but I'd love to see them fill in these gaps over time.

 

[BlackWizard]

Traders should be present only in trade screen. Everyone should have different special traders like art traders, metal traders, food traders etc and better your trader is better trades you get from AI or out of thin air. Greece should have best traders because they are traditionally best trades in world

 

[Zaarin]

Traders should be present only in trade screen. Everyone should have different special traders like art traders, metal traders, food traders etc and better your trader is better trades you get from AI or out of thin air. Greece should have best traders because they are traditionally best trades in world

I don't think Civ needs to get that specific--some abstraction is fine for a 4X game--but having trade a) benefit both sides and b) not appear out of the aether would be an improvement. As for that last sentence, it doesn't merit a serious response: there have been many civilizations that have thrived on trade and Greece would be pretty low on that list compared to other civilizations like Phoenicia, Aram, the Old South Arabian states, the Silk Road city-states, the Netherlands...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think Civ needs to get that specific--some abstraction is fine for a 4X game--but having trade a) benefit both sides and b) not appear out of the aether would be an improvement. As for that last sentence, it doesn't merit a serious response: there have been many civilizations that have thrived on trade and Greece would be pretty low on that list compared to other civilizations like Phoenicia, Aram, the Old South Arabian states, the Silk Road city-states, the Netherlands...

Specifically, Civ needs a Single Trade System, not the two separate systems it has now:
One set of trade routes which are limited by distance and number of Traders available and get the player Gold, Production, Science, Religious Points, etc
One set of trades that have No Routes and no limitations on numbers and distances, but are 'negotiated' between Civs to trade Resources and Gold.

I strongly suspect the reason for the Unlimited Resource Trading is the limitation of Resources on the map: without the ability to potentially trade with any other Civ in the world for scarce Strategic or needed 'Amenity' resources, at least one Civ in every game would be utterly crippled.

If instead they opened up 'regular' trade with City States and Barbarians under certain circumstances for Resources of all kinds, the entire Trade System would be both more realistic and give players enough options to get needed Resources that the 'cheat' trade system would no longer be needed...

Fat Chance