Version 3.0.4
Dyarbakir has been captured and is in the process of destruction. The partisans appeared.
The city is completely paralyzed and produces nothing, but continues to generate income for the empire through the route to the capital. Logically this shouldn't be the case.
The table shows that Dyarbakir is not on the list of cities generating gold, but is on the list of cities connected to the capital.
Here are a few questions:
1) How do cities treated by inquisitors behave? Does gold continue to be supplied to the imperial treasury through the connection between the city and the capital?
2) If someone else’s caravan goes to a paralyzed city, does our empire receive income from the caravan? If yes, then why do we get it? Does the other empire receive income from its caravan? If yes, why does it receive it? Markets don't work, customs don't work, buyers are rioting.
3) If our caravan is sent from a paralyzed city, does our empire receive income from the caravan? Is another empire receiving income from our caravan?
There are a lot of issues with caravans in general. If the caravan's destination city has become our enemy, then the caravan turns around and moves home. But all this time we receive income. Why do we receive income? Trade links have been destroyed.
It seems to me that when a city is paralyzed (and also if the city has become an enemy), incoming and outgoing caravans should be canceled and turned back to the owner without generating income (and various cultural, scientific and religious influences).
Such mechanics will make you re-evaluate the need to declare war. If we instantly lose a significant portion of our income when war is declared, then perhaps war does not need to be declared. In vanilla, I remember, caravans were instantly robbed and income instantly disappeared. Factors such as religious pressure from the caravan also instantly disappeared. Therefore, in vanilla, declaring war was one of the ways to instantly neutralize foreign caravans and their influence on our empire.
Also, this mechanic will allow you to neutralize empires that choose the Statecraft tree. We become allies of those city-states where the caravans of the Statecraft empire go and declare war, instantly neutralizing the influence of trade routes and dealing an indirect blow to the enemy’s economy due to the disappeared income. This means that the enemy will not be able to buy new units for several turns, until the caravans return and new routes are assigned.
If we capture a city where someone's caravans were going, then it may well be that the owner of the caravans does not want to send the caravans to us. But now we have a positive 'trading partners' modifier between us that wouldn't otherwise exist. It is possible that we also do not want to share science and culture with the caravan owner or receive religious pressure on the city.
To compensate for the negative effect of stopping a caravan with a long route, we can increase the caravan's income from the length of the route.
There will be a choice - either we send low-profit caravans to our neighbors, but in case of war we can quickly redirect the caravans and the loss of income will be insignificant.
Or we take risks and send caravans very far for the sake of significant income, but when war is declared, it may turn out that our caravan will return home 10-15-20 turns without bringing profit. We ourselves will not be able to remove such a caravan, but in reality, empires also did not destroy their caravans if a trading partner suddenly became an enemy.
In addition, this will reduce the possibility of influencing very distant city-states through caravans. Or you'll have to take risks.
Dyarbakir has been captured and is in the process of destruction. The partisans appeared.
The city is completely paralyzed and produces nothing, but continues to generate income for the empire through the route to the capital. Logically this shouldn't be the case.
The table shows that Dyarbakir is not on the list of cities generating gold, but is on the list of cities connected to the capital.
Here are a few questions:
1) How do cities treated by inquisitors behave? Does gold continue to be supplied to the imperial treasury through the connection between the city and the capital?
2) If someone else’s caravan goes to a paralyzed city, does our empire receive income from the caravan? If yes, then why do we get it? Does the other empire receive income from its caravan? If yes, why does it receive it? Markets don't work, customs don't work, buyers are rioting.
3) If our caravan is sent from a paralyzed city, does our empire receive income from the caravan? Is another empire receiving income from our caravan?
There are a lot of issues with caravans in general. If the caravan's destination city has become our enemy, then the caravan turns around and moves home. But all this time we receive income. Why do we receive income? Trade links have been destroyed.
It seems to me that when a city is paralyzed (and also if the city has become an enemy), incoming and outgoing caravans should be canceled and turned back to the owner without generating income (and various cultural, scientific and religious influences).
Such mechanics will make you re-evaluate the need to declare war. If we instantly lose a significant portion of our income when war is declared, then perhaps war does not need to be declared. In vanilla, I remember, caravans were instantly robbed and income instantly disappeared. Factors such as religious pressure from the caravan also instantly disappeared. Therefore, in vanilla, declaring war was one of the ways to instantly neutralize foreign caravans and their influence on our empire.
Also, this mechanic will allow you to neutralize empires that choose the Statecraft tree. We become allies of those city-states where the caravans of the Statecraft empire go and declare war, instantly neutralizing the influence of trade routes and dealing an indirect blow to the enemy’s economy due to the disappeared income. This means that the enemy will not be able to buy new units for several turns, until the caravans return and new routes are assigned.
If we capture a city where someone's caravans were going, then it may well be that the owner of the caravans does not want to send the caravans to us. But now we have a positive 'trading partners' modifier between us that wouldn't otherwise exist. It is possible that we also do not want to share science and culture with the caravan owner or receive religious pressure on the city.
To compensate for the negative effect of stopping a caravan with a long route, we can increase the caravan's income from the length of the route.
There will be a choice - either we send low-profit caravans to our neighbors, but in case of war we can quickly redirect the caravans and the loss of income will be insignificant.
Or we take risks and send caravans very far for the sake of significant income, but when war is declared, it may turn out that our caravan will return home 10-15-20 turns without bringing profit. We ourselves will not be able to remove such a caravan, but in reality, empires also did not destroy their caravans if a trading partner suddenly became an enemy.
In addition, this will reduce the possibility of influencing very distant city-states through caravans. Or you'll have to take risks.
Last edited:
