How are trade routes calculated now, and other Q's

[gamemaster3000]

How are trade routes calculated now?

Also, what happens if me and another human player are allied with the same AI and then we declare war on each other?

 

[Makavcio]

Nobody has the faintest idea
I like it how, while playing as Hutama, my aquatic cities have 300 food from trade routes only.

 

[Amrunril]

Nobody has the faintest idea
I like it how, while playing as Hutama, my aquatic cities have 300 food from trade routes only.

It seems like internal trade routes are calculated based on differences in city yields without considering yields from other trade routes. This means that a city producing little food on it's own (often little enough to starve without trade routes) will receive a huge food boost from each internal trade route, and with enough of these will actually grow faster than a city producing lots of food on its own and therefore receiving little or none from trade routes.

 

[Lanth]

It seems like internal trade routes are calculated based on differences in city yields without considering yields from other trade routes. This means that a city producing little food on it's own (often little enough to starve without trade routes) will receive a huge food boost from each internal trade route, and with enough of these will actually grow faster than a city producing lots of food on its own and therefore receiving little or none from trade routes.

Yip, this seems to be the case.

Playing in Fungus biome in my last game, with the fungus mini-marvels that make the base food production for the 6 hexes around them 4 food, I had 3 high-food cities. There was a nice little spot for a water city with 2 titanium, bunch of other sea resources and a small amount of land nearby with floodplains. It was a pretty low-food city, but with great production I wanted it to grow fast. So I set up internal trade-routes from my other high-food cities; eventually it out-grew them and got to pop 26 by the end of the game (other high-food cities were about 24 at the time - even with 30-40 turns headstart on growth). Each trade route was giving something like +10-12 food, and since the city itself became self-sufficient for food, this all just went towards growth.

I built the wonders that gave +production and +science on coast, and built the city improvements for +food and +production on coast, and along with +2 food from vertical farming it ended up being a powerhouse by the end. Around 140 production.

 

[Makavcio]

It seems like internal trade routes are calculated based on differences in city yields without considering yields from other trade routes. This means that a city producing little food on it's own (often little enough to starve without trade routes) will receive a huge food boost from each internal trade route, and with enough of these will actually grow faster than a city producing lots of food on its own and therefore receiving little or none from trade routes.

Not really. Certainly, it's not a huge factor. In my last game, I had a food centre in my capital and all it could receive or provide was a little production. At the same time, a science-focused aquatic city was able to pull 30food/20production trade routes with cities that were neither high food nor high production producers. Oddly enough, a new-founded city surrounded with manufactures in the same game was providing food to other cities.

It can also be a thing that cities with unrest, i.e. cities without produce, tend to have high yields from trade routes, even though they are wasted. As Allahu Ackbar, I've also noticed that setting a development in a city for food, significantly increases potential production yield of internal trade routes originating from them.

I'd need exact numbers in order to plan anything properly. The only sure thing right now is that aquatic cities get 50% bonus to all trade originating from them, which makes them grow to ~35 in ~40 turns on bigger maps. The game usually ends by then.

So yeah, even if trade route yields, something as broken now as in vanilla version of the game, are calculated based on outputs of cities, there are so many silly modifiers that it's hard to predict anything. It's a strategy game; we should be given exact maths for that.

 

[Galgus]

It feels like internal trade routes should be one way benefits and be based on either yields, resources, or buildings.

The current system is rather strange and nonsensical.

 

[Roxlimn]

Aquatic cities take food, Land cities give food. If you're sending and internal and want the biggest boost, you're going to want a central aquatic city. Land to land routes depend more on the differential. Land city to aquatic seems to yield great food to the aquatic regardless of output. Aquatics also get +TR yield, so that could account for it. With Water Refineries and a bunch of hammers, they give back to land routes in hammers.

So make farms (biowells) on land, make hammers on water.

 

[Amrunril]

I hadn't realized that aquatic cities have a trade route bonus, but now that I think about it, it does explain the higher yields I've sometimes been seeing in RT. This does seem like a reasonable way of incentivizing aquatic cities (though I'm not sure why coastal cities shouldn't get the same bonus), but the yields it's providing are just too high. In a game where buildings often give +2 and +3 yields, trade routes with 10+ yields, often of multiple resources, seem out of place and provide a huge potential for balance issues. I think that either the base trade route yields, the aquatic bonus, or both need to be substantially toned down.

 

[Acken]

How are trade routes calculated now?

Poorly.

Trade routes should have been a fixed yield since day 1. The amount of problems created since the very beginning continues to pile up.

 

[Svetkavitsa]

Poorly.

Trade routes should have been a fixed yield since day 1. The amount of problems created since the very beginning continues to pile up.

I think the funniest thing about all this that a lot of people missed (especially Firaxis), was that the actual algorithms/calculations that the trade routes used on day one were quite good, but just needed to be scaled back.

Pretend you were playing BE on the 1.0 build, and the only trade route changes were:
1) Limited trade routes based on population
2) Trade routes gave half (or maybe even 1/3) the yields, but were otherwise calculated the same way.
I would definitely be a lot happier.

 

[gamemaster3000]

It appears to still be based off the differential in productions.

The decision to make the routes based off the differential in production/food is just so weird. It's like if New York City had billions of dollars in trading with Dubuque, Iowa, and then $5 worth of trade with London.

Now game mechanics don't always have to follow real life, but...why this is better for the game is beyond me. I just think it would be best if you got resources equal to 1/6 the combined population of both cities with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4. (i.e. 1<--->1 yields 1 each, a 5<--->7 would be 2 each, and anything above 12<--->12 would be 4 each. That, or it could be completely independent of population but buildings could add to trade yields, like autofactories give +1 production and laboratories give +1 beakers.

From a game design standpoint you want something that is easy to learn, intuitive, and viable for both tall or wide play. The current situation is confusing, bizarre, and requires a few large cities trading with puny ones.

(Also I have to figure out how to rape the benefits of this system because I don't know how to make a mega-city for food.)

 

[bruntfca]

Another thing I think I noticed is that a *land locked* city trading with an ocean city (via planetary survey) is very profitable. This does not appear to apply to coastal to ocean as much. Can anyone confirm by testing, will try again maybe later to verify.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It appears to still be based off the differential in productions.

The decision to make the routes based off the differential in production/food is just so weird. It's like if New York City had billions of dollars in trading with Dubuque, Iowa, and then $5 worth of trade with London.

Now game mechanics don't always have to follow real life, but...why this is better for the game is beyond me. I just think it would be best if you got resources equal to 1/6 the combined population of both cities with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4. (i.e. 1<--->1 yields 1 each, a 5<--->7 would be 2 each, and anything above 12<--->12 would be 4 each. That, or it could be completely independent of population but buildings could add to trade yields, like autofactories give +1 production and laboratories give +1 beakers.

From a game design standpoint you want something that is easy to learn, intuitive, and viable for both tall or wide play. The current situation is confusing, bizarre, and requires a few large cities trading with puny ones.

(Also I have to figure out how to rape the benefits of this system because I don't know how to make a mega-city for food.)

Exactly...
For Total yield, it should be based on the combined characteristics (either pop or actual yield or resources)
For Which city Gets the yield, there the difference makes sense. (smaller getting more or larger getting more whichever)
Easiest is one side gets benefits based on the characteristics of the other side.

For International ones it would be a bit different... there the bonuses should depend on who is sending it, and who is receiving it.
Send from a big city, I get more And They get more,
Send To a big city, I get more (they already get more because that city is more attractive to me)