How important should be trade routes in Civ7 and how should they work?

[Marla_Singer]

If we look at history, the control of trade routes has always been essential for powers to grow influential. Most of the earlier civilizations of the ancient world grew on rivers (Nile, Mesopotamia, Indus, Yellow River), as they allowed large resources shipments over long distances. Then trade grew over the coasts (already at Sumerian and Egyptian times), leading many earlier civilizations to spread over the seas rather than over the lands (most notably Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, but not only).

In the Civ series, rivers are primarily depicted as a terrain feature allowing more food production, but its transportation value is more secondary. They aren't even on a tile, but between tiles, meaning that a unit can't even follow a river, it can only move alongside it. I think it would be better if rivers would be pictured like roads are, joining tiles to one another from the river spring to the sea. The game has a weird obsession to develop roads and wheel as very early techs, yet using roads for trade has been suboptimal untill the early 20th century. There were indeed important terrestrial trade routes, such as those used by caravans in Central Asia and Sahara (without wheel, actually), but that was the case only because there were no navigable alternatives.

Also I think it would be interesting to see trade routes appearing physically on the map. That would force their owners to protect them from raids and piracy, and make of them military objectives for rivals. As such, they would become a serious incentive to build military outposts or why not trading posts far from our borders.

What are your thoughts about it?

 

[bene_legionary]

Trade should be very important... but how trade will work has to depend on everything else. Will resources be traded? Are trade routes going to be beneficial for both the sender and the reciever? How will trade affect diplomacy and the development of your cities? Are traders going to be units?

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I want them to be renewable on a shorter timeline. But not too short. 15-20 turns, possibly regardless of game pace settings. Or, more than "renewable"; I want them to have a decision to make on that timeline. (I want it such that) you should have to 'stay on top' of trade to get opportunities.
I think I'd also like it if you did have to have a 'trade network' somehow to trade goods with other civs. What form that takes I don't know. I worry that restricting by nearness would make most of the decisions automatic.

 

[civviefan]

Early trade and later corporate power is the area with most room for innovation in game mechanics. I would gladly take all of Civ6’s features with a radical reworking of trade, religion and ability for tall play as a legit Civ 7 that will engage me.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Interesting thread. First, there should be a big difference between having one or several trade routes rather than none. I mean, the gold output should be higher, and thus the difference between different levels of trade bigger.
Historically though, I think that trade has been beneficial to a small amount of persons, aka merchants. The benefits would go to them majorly, so maybe Civ6 didn't do it badly when giving so few (occasionnally) gold to the state. (us)
I would therefore think, along with the "virtuous circle" that is claimed by the capitalists, that trade routes should give happiness too. (and that would make sense if luxuries get involved into it somehow)

But for a true power of economy, I think we should introduce mechanics of economic war. Trade routes alone should not give too much gold, it's a vast ensemble of actions that should make a country rich. Like corporations, monopolies, luxury or strategic resources, etc. The sum of all economic actions should exceed the addition of them.

Additionnally we could rule a group of peoples, not a single people. So that we could still make profitable profits from trades from a part of our empire, and make wars with another. We could do both in the same time with/against the same player. But now I think it's too much change for the sake of 'trade routes'. (I don't tell it couldn't be interesting though)

 

[aieeegrunt]

Once you discover the earliest boat tech

(1). Rivers should automatically connect all adjacent cities with trade routes

(2). Rivers reduce move coasts to all adjacent tiles as if they had roads

The nextiest boat tech shoukd extend that benefit to coastal tiles

 

[Marla_Singer]

Once you discover the earliest boat tech

(1). Rivers should automatically connect all adjacent cities with trade routes

(2). Rivers reduce move coasts to all adjacent tiles as if they had roads

The nextiest boat tech shoukd extend that benefit to coastal tiles

I like that idea. There's a limit though regarding coasts, as some of them are impossible to sail through because of strong streams. That is the reason why we weren't able to sail along the Atlantic African coast before high seas navigation. Even though that would certainly bring excessive complexity to implement that in the game, I'm still disturbed by the idea that distances between harbours wouldn't be taken into account. As if already at the Ancient age, anyone having sea access in Afro-Eurasia could have access to all harbours of Afro-Eurasia. I would like the game to be more progressive.

Hence why I believe that it would considerably increase the interest of the game if trade routes would physically appear on the map. Keeping simple Civ series logic, let's assume that you sign a deal with an AI to import copper. Then rather than having copper arriving by magic, a trade route would appear on the map. Just to help imagining it, let's assume it would be pictured by a dotted line with little boats moving on it from the location of the ressource in the AI empire to your capital.

If there's an empty area in between uncontrolled by any of both Empires, then those could be raided by pirates from all other civs, therefore cutting out your access to copper. As such, in order to secure your access to copper, you would need to send patrolling boats along the trade route, or even build military outposts, making you able to claim lands without building an actual city, and therefore allowing to secure the trade route.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I like that idea. There's a limit though regarding coasts, as some of them are impossible to sail through because of strong streams. That is the reason why we weren't able to sail along the Atlantic African coast before high seas navigation. Even though that would certainly bring excessive complexity to implement that in the game, I'm still disturbed by the idea that distances between harbours wouldn't be taken into account. As if already at the Ancient age, anyone having sea access in Afro-Eurasia could have access to all harbours of Afro-Eurasia. I would like the game to be more progressive.

Hence why I believe that it would considerably increase the interest of the game if trade routes would physically appear on the map. Keeping simple Civ series logic, let's assume that you sign a deal with an AI to import copper. Then rather than having copper arriving by magic, a trade route would appear on the map. Just to help imagining it, let's assume it would be pictured by a dotted line with little boats moving on it from the location of the ressource in the AI empire to your capital.

If there's an empty area in between uncontrolled by any of both Empires, then those could be raided by pirates from all other civs, therefore cutting out your access to copper. As such, in order to secure your access to copper, you would need to send patrolling boats along the trade route, or even build military outposts, making you able to claim lands without building an actual city, and therefore allowing to secure the trade route.

You could easily attach a range limit to coast/sea trade routes depending on which techs you have.

I like your ideas. It does seem pretty silly that “trade screen” resources and luxuries can magically teleport around

 

[mitsho]

Water tiles need to be more complex, I agree (currents, winds, reefs, cliffs, treacherous waters etc).

But for trade:

- Trade routes spring up automatically without the players action. They connect important cities and ressources based on the need of the industry/population/etc.
- If you want to you can set up a manual trade route. But that is costly. You will do that 1-6 times per game max.
- Trade routes transport Stuff! You can only get the benefits of a resource if it actually reaches the destination.
- Trade routes give gold (and maybe the resources) when the little figurine actually reaches the destination city (and back). So raiding that figurine is important, not the trade route itself. Which also doesn‘t collapse just from one raid. Only if there are no figurines on a trade route for x turns, the route vanishes or reroutes. So you better police the pirates along the way.
- The trade action the player actually does is to a) provide infrastructure to facilitate trade, b) enact laws to facilitate trade and c) to block these in wars or conflicts. Or any variation of „facilitate“ (i.e. only allow Christian traders).

That would be my ideal thing. I don‘t like micromanagement.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I have a preference for automated trade routes in the manner of Civ IV, with progressively more routes and greater value of trade. The basic model would be one trade route for a land connection, a river, and coast each. River delta starts would have a significant trade advantage, but every city participates.

At the same time, I seem to recall some river bias overshadowing a much greater history of long-distance land-based trade or movement of objects. A bonus (depending on one's perspective) of Civ IV's automation is the ambiguity of how a trade route actually threads between locations.

Trade should definitely be important and integrated with other systems. For example, trade routes should act as channels for cultural exchange, innovation, and population movement. I like the idea of policies around them and a geopolitical dimension. I want defined trade routes and trade centers to work somehow, but like many aspects of trade it probably depends on resolution of wealth balancing. A financial reward for possession of trade centers and trade routes would be undermined by the AI bonus to yields under the current model.

Another advantage of Civ IV's automated trade is a stark difference between a more integrated world and one without trade that does not seem as noticeable in Civ VI. Ideally, a world with open markets and free-flowing trade would carry prosperity and geopolitical consequences, whereas a set of autarkic powers would reflect deep and bleak sacrifices.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I have a preference for automated trade routes in the manner of Civ IV, with progressively more routes and greater value of trade. The basic model would be one trade route for a land connection, a river, and coast each. River delta starts would have a significant trade advantage, but every city participates.

At the same time, I seem to recall some river bias overshadowing a much greater history of long-distance land-based trade or movement of objects. A bonus (depending on one's perspective) of Civ IV's automation is the ambiguity of how a trade route actually threads between locations.

Trade should definitely be important and integrated with other systems. For example, trade routes should act as channels for cultural exchange, innovation, and population movement. I like the idea of policies around them and a geopolitical dimension. I want defined trade routes and trade centers to work somehow, but like many aspects of trade it probably depends on resolution of wealth balancing. A financial reward for possession of trade centers and trade routes would be undermined by the AI bonus to yields under the current model.

Another advantage of Civ IV's automated trade is a stark difference between a more integrated world and one without trade that does not seem as noticeable in Civ VI. Ideally, a world with open markets and free-flowing trade would carry prosperity and geopolitical consequences, whereas a set of autarkic powers would reflect deep and bleak sacrifices.

Seems like the default answer to making Civ6 better is making it more like Civ4

Screw workers though, builder charges is so much better

 

[reddishrecue]

Builder charges with no costs for repairs for pillaging are particularly awesome particularly when being invaded by barbarians. Its not bad to keep a worker or militaries saved up in areas where barbarians can come in and pillage.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Seems like the default answer to making Civ6 better is making it more like Civ4

Screw workers though, builder charges is so much better

But with charges, why not just put a builder action as something with a hammer cost in the build queue ? Why the extra step?

 

[aieeegrunt]

But with charges, why not just put a builder action as something with a hammer cost in the build queue ? Why the extra step?

Do you mean putting improvements on the map in the build que, or possibly buying them with faith/gold?

Because that would be even better honestly