[GS] Do I waste my early trader on roads?

[agonistes]

I don't think an early trade post in a foreign civ is worth much, unless you can stack it with other modifiers. +3 is meh.

If you want a fast path to invasion, that's a different story. Speed is everything. But if you aren't playing a conquest game, not only is the +3 not worth it, but you're giving a potential enemy a nice path to your front door. Note: this can work to your advantage, as the ai will use the road, so you can set up a nice killing field.

Rather, I'd use the first trader to both start building roads in my kingdom, and to increase food/production where I most need it. If I'm invaded, I'd rather have roads connecting my own cities so I can move my troops faster within my own borders. Plus it speeds up builders.

 

[Jaybe]

Slightly different topic:
I don't care for being able to use roads in enemy territory. Their only use to enemy units should be to reduce movement cost to ONE (1) MP. Should not be reduced further with industrial roads, etc.

 

[Scaramanga]

yeah, my bad, I was thinking of having a trading post gives you +1 but that’s just Shaka... hmmm will have to double check though. The in game wiki says establish a trade route.

Do you mean Genghis Khan/Mongols? they establish a trading post immediately so getting the bonus after sending a route is accurate.

Domestic routes are a bit of a waste because only foreign trading posts grant gold for your routes passing through so if you don't start foreign routes early you won't get the trading posts early. Domestic is good for food when you need to get your capital up to size 10.

 

[KayAU]

I do wonder, does anyone actually prefer the Civ 6 model of having roads automatically created by Traders? It is certainly a novel approach, but I find it to be really inconvenient and annoying.

 

[Starwars]

I'm personally not a fan. Not necessarily a fan of systems where you road absolutely everything but infrastructure like that is one area where I would personally like there to be a bit more "game". I guess it could easily turn into a micromanagement hell for some but I personally would love a gameplay element where I had to consider where I wanted to build my roads.

It drives me bonkers when I want a road between two cities but the trader just wants to go via the sea instead or something else.

 

[MrRadar]

I do wonder, does anyone actually prefer the Civ 6 model of having roads automatically created by Traders? It is certainly a novel approach, but I find it to be really inconvenient and annoying.

Yes, I do
That was one of those new features that I did not know how to feel about upon first hearing them announced, but I really like it now, as I do builder charges. I think for the earliest road network that works just fine. That being said, I'd still like to see them implement UI for trader routes that would clearly tell you how long a new route will run and how many turns it still has left to run for already active routes.

And also, Military Engineers now being able to lay tracks without expending charges, only using resources, should be given similar ability for building roads. No charges, just 1 coal for a tile of a road, for example.

 

[agonistes]

I do wonder, does anyone actually prefer the Civ 6 model of having roads automatically created by Traders? It is certainly a novel approach, but I find it to be really inconvenient and annoying.

I like it

 

[KayAU]

I'm personally not a fan. Not necessarily a fan of systems where you road absolutely everything but infrastructure like that is one area where I would personally like there to be a bit more "game". I guess it could easily turn into a micromanagement hell for some but I personally would love a gameplay element where I had to consider where I wanted to build my roads.

It drives me bonkers when I want a road between two cities but the trader just wants to go via the sea instead or something else.

Yes, that is one of the things which really annoy me. I agree that the having roads everywhere isn't a good thing either, but it's easy to prevent. Just add some cost to creating and/or maintaining roads, and some benefit to connecting things, and you will be incentivized to make sensible road networks.

I don't think giving the player the ability to manually place roads is much of a micromanagement problem, as there are only so many things to connect, and once connected, there's rarely much need to adjust the roads again. Another alternative, which some games use, is to make road placement automatic. In Fallen Enchatress, roads appear automatically between cities once you research the appropriate tech. In Endless Legend, roads appear if you build the necessary improvement in a city. While I would like manual placement, I don't mind these approaches much either, as they do provide me with sensible land routes between all my cities, which are not far from what I would have built anyway.

And also, Military Engineers now being able to lay tracks without expending charges, only using resources, should be given similar ability for building roads. No charges, just 1 coal for a tile of a road, for example.

Yes, I generally use Military Engineers to connect my cities once railroads are available, but it would be great if I was able to do it with roads a bit earlier in the game.

 

[Disgustipated]

cost to creating and/or maintaining roads

Please don't implement this again. I absolutely hated this in Civ5. It actually drug my economy to a halt many times in Civ5. Civ6 system I like. It's pretty cool watching traders making roads. As has been mentioned, it would be nice to have options to either control the route, or use a unit to make additional roads as needed.

 

[Victoria]

Just add some cost to creating and/or maintaining roads,

This game avoids taxation of cities which I imagine also pays for roads. Would rather leave that fairly pointless overhead out.
I just struggle with an 1800+ city without a road to it.

 

[KayAU]

I really didn't mind paying for road maintenance. It seemed realistic, and encouraged making efficient road networks. Roads between cities would yield a net benefit, while roads to "nowhere" would cost money to maintain. Roads between cities would also generate a loss during construction, which also makes sense to me.

 

[AsH2]

Districts do, I guess they are not officially 'tile improvements'
I have many times purposely dropped adjacency to get a road over a river by placing a district.

There's a swedish saying: Gå inte över ån efter vatten.
Translation: Do not cross the brook for water.
Meaning: Do not do things in a needlessly laborious or complicated way.
Civ6 context: Do not waste trader to get road over river, when just placing a district would do.

 

[AsH2]

This game avoids taxation of cities which I imagine also pays for roads. Would rather leave that fairly pointless overhead out.
I just struggle with an 1800+ city without a road to it.

You know the old hardcore school puritans should banish roads and disdain the hightech people of Amish.

 

[Scaramanga]

There's a swedish saying: Gå inte över ån efter vatten.
Translation: Do not cross the brook for water.
Meaning: Do not do things in a needlessly laborious or complicated way.
Civ6 context: Do not waste trader to get road over river, when just placing a district would do.

By district you mean city centre? They act as bridges from the dawn of time so it's far better for me to align their hex with any empire-spanning trade routes.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I do wonder, does anyone actually prefer the Civ 6 model of having roads automatically created by Traders? It is certainly a novel approach, but I find it to be really inconvenient and annoying.

I like at the beginning of the game because as the OP states there is a trade off made based on your decision. Although I like that I don't have to make a trade off with my builders if to make roads or improvements.

My issue is that roads and railroads always have the same effects in the game. AOE should be replaced by connected cities or make AOE 4 MP rather then 4 hexes. (Some adjustments of that formula would have to be made for water/air born travel.

 

[NukeAJS]

Trader to get a key CS envoy (to get to 3 first) is an obvious choice. The yields are normally garbage, but being able to get the suzertain bonus and/or levy their troops is invaluable.

 

[Victoria]

By district you mean city centre?

The quote was mine and I mean any district counts as road once built.

 

[Scaramanga]

The quote was mine and I mean any district counts as road once built.

Yeah, I can't visualise doing that just to cross a river. It seems far easier to plant the city centre in a location along a river where a future trade route will pass or one already is and then all the troops just go through the city centre.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Very generally speaking I tend to do interrnal routes early and foreign ones late.

 

[Minou]

If I am warmongering and the land is hilly/forested, I almost always send my first trader to my intended target and let him reach the city. Then you can declare, get your trader back, and send him elsewhere - usually at least one city state will ask for a trade route as a quest and the timing often works out for you to complete that road (just the road not the actual trading post), declare and re-route to complete the quest before the Ancient Era ends.