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

[Alextheglorious]

I'd like to see more options with regards to trade. As leader you could allow your people to choose which cities they trade with (internally or externally). They'd pick on several factors - how similar in values/government/policies other civilizations are, exoticness of resources other civilisations have, distance to them, how friendly the civilisations are, how long you've traded with them up to that point. As you become more technologically advanced the distance of trade routes should expand.

This might not however select the optimum trade routes selected so you might chose to overrule their decisions and chose trade routes yourselves, but incurring a happiness penalty for doing so. Or you could put in tactical blocks for trading with certain nations, which could lead to diplomacy issues.

Similarly if you declare war on a civilisation with which your people have a long standing trade history with not only do you lose the trade benefits but your people will suffer unhappiness and your soldiers may even fight less effectively against their former friends.

And I agree with the previous comments suggesting saying that luxury trading and trade routes shouldn't be separated. However, possibly make it that luxuries can only be acquired by trade routes once you've build up to a certain trade level with other civilisations.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The first major 'improvement' to Trade Routes from Civ VI is simple:

ONE trade system.
Not one for trading strategic and luxury resources and one for Everything Else.
Not one that has no limits in range or number and one limited in number of routes and their range.
Not one set up solely by diplomatic action and one by economic action
Not one that automatically builds roads and one that apparently moves goods by Magic.

The second improvement would be to realize that Trade predates Start of Game. There is solid archeological evidence of the trading of Obsidian and sea-based resources like shells and 'jewelry' (abalone, pearls) clear across the Mediterranean before 4000 BCE, which implies that trade in more perishable goods was also going on. Also, there is no discernable difference between the earliest river boats (like the earliest Egyptian Nile boats) and coastal craft (like the boats plying the Red Sea and Persian Gulf out of Egypt and Mesopotamia).

That means in-game Improvements in trade route length and capacity can start from a pretty solid base: the earliest land routes will be pack animals or people, carrying at most 30 - 100 kg each, but able to traverse land without requiring road-building. Sea routes using the earliest galley or sail technologies could carry up to 15 tons each (30 tons and more by Late Ancient (Bronze Age), which shows the major distinction between land and sea-based trade: to move Bulk Goods like raw materials (timber, stone, brick, Food) you need a water route - which should be possible using a combination of rivers and coasts.

Speaking of rivers, the lack of importance given to them as travel enhancers in Civ so far is positively criminal. I suggest that Navigable Rivers ('big ones') should practically be required to build any large city away from the coast: without water-borne Food imports, no city can draw from more than about 100 kilometers away even with wheeled transport, whereas river/sea transport can draw from a 1000 km or more (examples are legion, but note that every major ancient to Renaissance (early modern) city was on a coast or navigable river or both: Rome, Athens, Paris, London, Moscow, Antioch, Byzantium/Constantinopolis, etc.) - and China built the Grand Canal system partly to make sure that goods could be transported around the Empire by water to feed cities like Beijing.

Finally, as others have noted, most trade routes were not established by The State, they were efforts by individuals, individual families, groups, 'companies', etc. Classical Athens already had Shipping Insurance and 'consortiums' where several rich men would cooperate to put up the cost of building a trade ship and hiring an experienced captain to sail her, and then split the profits - 'capitalism' and Sea Trade go very much hand-in-hand, since boats were relatively expensive in time, resources and labor to build - 'captal investment' in other words.

So, a better Trade System will start earlier, be definitely divided in what it can carry between Water and Land routes, and not only generate Wealth by carrying needed goods like Luxuries and food and building materials, but also will affect (especially Sea Trade) the economy and economic technologies and techniques available to the Civ.

Oh, and if Civ VII includes any kind of Diffusion mechanic, Technologies, Peoples, Religious, Civic and Social influences and Plagues will also move by Trade along with the 'normal' goods.

As cumbersome as it was, even civ2’s building Caravans mechanic was loads better than whatever the hell Civ6 is trying to do

It’s worth it just to be able to stockpile caravans and not get wonders sniped

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As cumbersome as it was, even civ2’s building Caravans mechanic was loads better than whatever the hell Civ6 is trying to do

It’s worth it just to be able to stockpile caravans and not get wonders sniped

To be honest, 'stockpiling caravans' to rush Wonders was a major game kluge that I hated even as I used it frequently!

It doesn't need to return.

As posted, Trade Routes and their associated caravans/trading vessels need to be largely 'auto-generated' by the Civ, not the gamer. As I see it, the Grand Poobah of Slobbovia, which appears to be what people think they are playing as the Slobbovia Civ, should set the conditions and improve the conditions for trade, but the actual trade itself (routes) is done by Lower-Than-Grand Poobah groups within the Civ. So, as the gamer/Poobah I can build caravanseries, harbors, lighthouses, set up forts and patrols to keep routes safe, but shouldn't usually have to build 'caravans' or traders themselves.

And part of the interaction among systems that should be far more modeled in Civ VII than it was(n't) in Civ VI, the amount of Gold you get from Trade can go up dramatically if you have a more efficient customs/tax collection system, but a really rigorous tax system may also discourage more people from investing in trade and so ****** your overall trade system. And having a bunch of unhappy people means some of them (in Trade) will start smuggling instead of legally trading, so your Civ still gets the Resources from trade, but you don't get as much of the Gold. Finding the balance between Law-Abiding Traders and Fed Up With The Gummint Smugglers/Tax Evaders should be another of the gamer's set of choices . . .

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Then comes mesoamerican cities like Teotihuacan that at its zenith was bigger than any European city (except Constantinople that was already in the literal edge of Europe) despite have no navigable rivers, being 2300 meters AMSL and > 200 km from the coast, with not pack animals neither practical transport use for the wheel (only in toys). Other nice example was Tenochtitlan (also bigger than anything in Europe apart from Constantinople) that certainly had a big lake but the amount of long distance goods traded in Tlatelolco market should have been something when it was described like this:

This comes under the heading of Resource Efficiency. The yield per acre of Maize, even when later compared to more efficient European farming methods of the 18th century, was still up to 6 Times greater than the European Grain types. That changed the 'distance equation' from which the Mesoamerican cities could be supplied dramatically compared to Europe.

A similar comparison could be made with the Song Dynasty and later south China cities and the Japanese cities (which could plant crops on only abut 10% of Japanese land area because of its mountainous nature), fed from multiple crops per year of intensively-cultivated rice that provided far more yield per acre per year than anything planted in Europe.

Another little potential addition for Civ VII: the type of Food resource makes a potentially huge difference in how easy it is for you to supply a larger city or cities. And changing the type of Food Resource available can make a huge difference in your potential population totals. As M. Mann pointed out, "- any history of Europe in the 17th - 18th centuries that does not mention the potato is not worth reading." The increase in Food/acre from planting potatoes across northern Europe was one major factor in the rise of population totals in that area and the consequent ability of Sweden and Prussia to (briefly, in Sweden's case) compete with the Big Boys like France and Austria and Russia.

Food resources and the details about them have both population and potential political, military, and diplomatic consequences.

 

[aieeegrunt]

To be honest, 'stockpiling caravans' to rush Wonders was a major game kluge that I hated even as I used it frequently!

It doesn't need to return.

As posted, Trade Routes and their associated caravans/trading vessels need to be largely 'auto-generated' by the Civ, not the gamer. As I see it, the Grand Poobah of Slobbovia, which appears to be what people think they are playing as the Slobbovia Civ, should set the conditions and improve the conditions for trade, but the actual trade itself (routes) is done by Lower-Than-Grand Poobah groups within the Civ. So, as the gamer/Poobah I can build caravanseries, harbors, lighthouses, set up forts and patrols to keep routes safe, but shouldn't usually have to build 'caravans' or traders themselves.

And part of the interaction among systems that should be far more modeled in Civ VII than it was(n't) in Civ VI, the amount of Gold you get from Trade can go up dramatically if you have a more efficient customs/tax collection system, but a really rigorous tax system may also discourage more people from investing in trade and so ****** your overall trade system. And having a bunch of unhappy people means some of them (in Trade) will start smuggling instead of legally trading, so your Civ still gets the Resources from trade, but you don't get as much of the Gold. Finding the balance between Law-Abiding Traders and Fed Up With The Gummint Smugglers/Tax Evaders should be another of the gamer's set of choices . . .

The best solution to the nonsense that is Wonders in Civ I’ve seen is a mod for Civ5 that would alert you it someone started a wonder, and would also alert you if someone else was building the same wonder you were faster

I like your idea for automating a lot of the micro of trading. I can see interesting potential for having it interact with diplomacy; the flag follows trade after all. For example having Open Borders with another civ means trade networks start being built between your civs.

This comes under the heading of Resource Efficiency. The yield per acre of Maize, even when later compared to more efficient European farming methods of the 18th century, was still up to 6 Times greater than the European Grain types. That changed the 'distance equation' from which the Mesoamerican cities could be supplied dramatically compared to Europe.

A similar comparison could be made with the Song Dynasty and later south China cities and the Japanese cities (which could plant crops on only abut 10% of Japanese land area because of its mountainous nature), fed from multiple crops per year of intensively-cultivated rice that provided far more yield per acre per year than anything planted in Europe.

Another little potential addition for Civ VII: the type of Food resource makes a potentially huge difference in how easy it is for you to supply a larger city or cities. And changing the type of Food Resource available can make a huge difference in your potential population totals. As M. Mann pointed out, "- any history of Europe in the 17th - 18th centuries that does not mention the potato is not worth reading." The increase in Food/acre from planting potatoes across northern Europe was one major factor in the rise of population totals in that area and the consequent ability of Sweden and Prussia to (briefly, in Sweden's case) compete with the Big Boys like France and Austria and Russia.

Food resources and the details about them have both population and potential political, military, and diplomatic consequences.

The potatoe had a big impact on Frederick the Great’s later campaigns against Austria, to the point where one of those wars was literally called The Potatoe War

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The potatoe had a big impact on Frederick the Great’s later campaigns against Austria, to the point where one of those wars was literally called The Potatoe War

There's a direct relationship between the fact that the Great Elector's army in 1675 was less than 25,000 men and Frederick the Great's army in 1740 was 83,000: the 65 years between saw a dramatic expansion of Prussia's population, which was directly reflected in the size of its army. That potato-fueled expansion continued right into the early 19th century, after which the expansion of food supplies became more and more dependent on Imports (Canada and USA were both major wheat exporters to Europe) and artificial fertilizers from South American guano.

Another argument for directly connecting Building Units with Population in some way, as well as reflecting in-game the dramatic differences in Food Supplies (and population growth and maintenance) based on types of crops as well as basic terrain.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

One thought I've had is there could be a second build queue to dedicate production to trade related items. For example you could make large amphora for trading food or liquids, house hold pottery, or luxury items. Are you exporting ivory, or art made of ivory? I don't have a implementation in mind but there are a lot of interesting possibilities.

 

[AffineConstant]

As posted, Trade Routes and their associated caravans/trading vessels need to be largely 'auto-generated' by the Civ, not the gamer. As I see it, the Grand Poobah of Slobbovia, which appears to be what people think they are playing as the Slobbovia Civ, should set the conditions and improve the conditions for trade, but the actual trade itself (routes) is done by Lower-Than-Grand Poobah groups within the Civ. So, as the gamer/Poobah I can build caravanseries, harbors, lighthouses, set up forts and patrols to keep routes safe, but shouldn't usually have to build 'caravans' or traders themselves.

And part of the interaction among systems that should be far more modeled in Civ VII than it was(n't) in Civ VI, the amount of Gold you get from Trade can go up dramatically if you have a more efficient customs/tax collection system, but a really rigorous tax system may also discourage more people from investing in trade and so ****** your overall trade system. And having a bunch of unhappy people means some of them (in Trade) will start smuggling instead of legally trading, so your Civ still gets the Resources from trade, but you don't get as much of the Gold. Finding the balance between Law-Abiding Traders and Fed Up With The Gummint Smugglers/Tax Evaders should be another of the gamer's set of choices . . .

This is the opposite of Sid Meier's, the man himself, game design philosophy. "Games are a series of interesting decisions" taking the decision to build a trade route/caravan/whatever away from the player directly, in any way, is a direct contradiction of this.

Historical context is very, very much a secondary consideration to game design, and here game design dictates that trade is a thing, so the first interesting decision is that trade itself is a tradeoff (building trade versus something else). Then the next decision is who to trade with. These two decisions could easily be made more interesting, but should in no way be taken away from the player directly. Civ isn't a Grand Strategy game in the Paradox sense, and for anyone that does want that they have a ton of Grand Strategy Paradox series of games to go pick from that keep getting new sequels and DLC.

Same reasoning goes for stacking not making a comeback at all, or any battlefield being separated from the map. There are games that do that, and players can go play that game, but that's not Civ and pressing for Civ to be so is pressing for Civ to not be its own distinct thing and for it to be a very different series altogether.

 

[Phrozen]

The first major 'improvement' to Trade Routes from Civ VI is simple:

ONE trade system.
Not one for trading strategic and luxury resources and one for Everything Else.
Not one that has no limits in range or number and one limited in number of routes and their range.
Not one set up solely by diplomatic action and one by economic action
Not one that automatically builds roads and one that apparently moves goods by Magic.

The second improvement would be to realize that Trade predates Start of Game. There is solid archeological evidence of the trading of Obsidian and sea-based resources like shells and 'jewelry' (abalone, pearls) clear across the Mediterranean before 4000 BCE, which implies that trade in more perishable goods was also going on. Also, there is no discernable difference between the earliest river boats (like the earliest Egyptian Nile boats) and coastal craft (like the boats plying the Red Sea and Persian Gulf out of Egypt and Mesopotamia).

That means in-game Improvements in trade route length and capacity can start from a pretty solid base: the earliest land routes will be pack animals or people, carrying at most 30 - 100 kg each, but able to traverse land without requiring road-building. Sea routes using the earliest galley or sail technologies could carry up to 15 tons each (30 tons and more by Late Ancient (Bronze Age), which shows the major distinction between land and sea-based trade: to move Bulk Goods like raw materials (timber, stone, brick, Food) you need a water route - which should be possible using a combination of rivers and coasts.

Speaking of rivers, the lack of importance given to them as travel enhancers in Civ so far is positively criminal. I suggest that Navigable Rivers ('big ones') should practically be required to build any large city away from the coast: without water-borne Food imports, no city can draw from more than about 100 kilometers away even with wheeled transport, whereas river/sea transport can draw from a 1000 km or more (examples are legion, but note that every major ancient to Renaissance (early modern) city was on a coast or navigable river or both: Rome, Athens, Paris, London, Moscow, Antioch, Byzantium/Constantinopolis, etc.) - and China built the Grand Canal system partly to make sure that goods could be transported around the Empire by water to feed cities like Beijing.

Finally, as others have noted, most trade routes were not established by The State, they were efforts by individuals, individual families, groups, 'companies', etc. Classical Athens already had Shipping Insurance and 'consortiums' where several rich men would cooperate to put up the cost of building a trade ship and hiring an experienced captain to sail her, and then split the profits - 'capitalism' and Sea Trade go very much hand-in-hand, since boats were relatively expensive in time, resources and labor to build - 'captal investment' in other words.

So, a better Trade System will start earlier, be definitely divided in what it can carry between Water and Land routes, and not only generate Wealth by carrying needed goods like Luxuries and food and building materials, but also will affect (especially Sea Trade) the economy and economic technologies and techniques available to the Civ.

Oh, and if Civ VII includes any kind of Diffusion mechanic, Technologies, Peoples, Religious, Civic and Social influences and Plagues will also move by Trade along with the 'normal' goods.

In addition to naval technology increasing trade routes and length there should also be other technologies: coopering, containerization, cartography, river locks, etc.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

This is the opposite of Sid Meier's, the man himself, game design philosophy. "Games are a series of interesting decisions" taking the decision to build a trade route/caravan/whatever away from the player directly, in any way, is a direct contradiction of this.

The qualifier in that quote is "interesting". I think it's possible to replace the decision of when to slot a trader in the build queue with a more interesting one. For example if I send a trader with furs from Wambamastan to Slobbovia I create a market for furs. Now a trader is going to be generated that comes for my furs in exchange for Slobboivian silver tea sets.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In addition to naval technology increasing trade routes and length there should also be other technologies: coopering, containerization, cartography, river locks, etc.

Cooperage and Containerization would both increase efficiency of Trade generally, on both land and sea (and Air and Rail for Containerization). And the nice thing is the two Techs come in completely different Eras: Cooperage appears in northern Europe (various Roman sources put it in northern Gaul or Germany) in the Classical, Containerization in the Atomic (early 1950s). In between could be and or sea-specific Trade increase technologies like Cartography or Astronomy for sea and Macadam-process Roads for land trade routes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The qualifier in that quote is "interesting". I think it's possible to replace the decision of when to slot a trader in the build queue with a more interesting one. For example if I send a trader with furs from Wambamastan to Slobbovia I create a market for furs. Now a trader is going to be generated that comes for my furs in exchange for Slobboivian silver tea sets.

While we are playing as the Omniscient and Near-Omnipotent Grand Poobah of the Civ, there's no reason for us to be involved with every falling sparrow, because we all have limitations on our time, interest, and attention-span.

I do not want to have to make every decision in regards to Trade, especially when there is no compelling reason to do so: there is evidence of trade before there is evidence of governments or any other Decision-Making above the local town or community level, so why impose one just to keep the gamer busy?

I do not want to move every miserable unit on the map because the game design assumes that armies have the same complete lack of structure in 2020 CE that they had in 2020 BCE: in fact, they had Chain of Command already in 2020 BCE (it is evident from virtually as soon as people started writing things down and counting spearpoints) and so NOT having to give orders to every Marduk and Globwick trailing a spear is normal for any game attempting to represent Human armies. By the esy, changes and limitations in the ability to organize units also provides another 'layer' of differentiation among Civs and their militaries which has to be only marinally represented now by changes to the units themselves. The best example is the continuing inability to show the real and massive advantage of Chingus Khan's Mongol forces, which was their extremely well-organized and commanded and well-disciplined forces compared to everyone they faced, a 'force-multiplier' in modern terms, which making changes to the individual units does not adequately represent at all (has anyone ever managed a late Medieval Era Mongol Keshik Horde conquest in Civ VI?)

Let's give the gamer intelligent and meaningful decisions to make instead of piling on trivial decisions just to keep him busy: any game, like Civ, that attempts to represent 6000 years of human existence should keep the gamer busy without adding meaningless mouse-clicks.

 

[AffineConstant]

While we are playing as the Omniscient and Near-Omnipotent Grand Poobah of the Civ, there's no reason for us to be involved with every falling sparrow, because we all have limitations on our time, interest, and attention-span.

I do not want to have to make every decision in regards to Trade, especially when there is no compelling reason to do so: there is evidence of trade before there is evidence of governments or any other Decision-Making above the local town or community level, so why impose one just to keep the gamer busy?

I do not want to move every miserable unit on the map because the game design assumes that armies have the same complete lack of structure in 2020 CE that they had in 2020 BCE: in fact, they had Chain of Command already in 2020 BCE (it is evident from virtually as soon as people started writing things down and counting spearpoints) and so NOT having to give orders to every Marduk and Globwick trailing a spear is normal for any game attempting to represent Human armies. By the esy, changes and limitations in the ability to organize units also provides another 'layer' of differentiation among Civs and their militaries which has to be only marinally represented now by changes to the units themselves. The best example is the continuing inability to show the real and massive advantage of Chingus Khan's Mongol forces, which was their extremely well-organized and commanded and well-disciplined forces compared to everyone they faced, a 'force-multiplier' in modern terms, which making changes to the individual units does not adequately represent at all (has anyone ever managed a late Medieval Era Mongol Keshik Horde conquest in Civ VI?)

Let's give the gamer intelligent and meaningful decisions to make instead of piling on trivial decisions just to keep him busy: any game, like Civ, that attempts to represent 6000 years of human existence should keep the gamer busy without adding meaningless mouse-clicks.

Except being "the grand poobah" isn't what civ is about. Civ is a game, not a simulation. In a game you need to have players understand what their actions are as immediately and obviously as possible unless you are somehow deliberately building an obfuscated and frustrating experience. So in this game trade is a unit, because that's easy to understand, and you decide what to do with it. And if it's a "useless mouse click" then that's because deciding what to do with it isn't interesting enough, and could be made more interesting.

If you want some sort of simulation thing, and I'm not trying to be condescending here this is an honest suggestion, I'd go check out Hearts of Iron or Victoria or one of these Paradox Grand Simulations where the enjoyment is simply from watching the whole thing run with or without your input in a similar manner to real history and poking it here and there in a manner you think would be interesting and impactful to see what would happen.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Except being "the grand poobah" isn't what civ is about. Civ is a game, not a simulation. In a game you need to have players understand what their actions are as immediately and obviously as possible unless you are somehow deliberately building an obfuscated and frustrating experience. So in this game trade is a unit, because that's easy to understand, and you decide what to do with it. And if it's a "useless mouse click" then that's because deciding what to do with it isn't interesting enough, and could be made more interesting.

If you want some sort of simulation thing, and I'm not trying to be condescending here this is an honest suggestion, I'd go check out Hearts of Iron or Victoria or one of these Paradox Grand Simulations where the enjoyment is simply from watching the whole thing run with or without your input in a similar manner to real history and poking it here and there in a manner you think would be interesting and impactful to see what would happen.

Being the Grand Poobah is precisely what Civ is all about, and always has been. Or did you think the company provides all the resource-intensive Leader animations and graphics just for eye-candy?

It is because the gamers identify with those Leaders, something that nobody does in a simulation unless you are in a role-play.

And to use the trade mechanic in Civ as an example of 'decision-making', I would point out that the current system allows only certain decisions and not the right ones: you cannot choose to change or modify the trade route and what is carried except at timed intervals (every 30 turns in Civ VI), you cannot modify or change where the trade route goes, and therefore where your roads go (which has received more than a little complaint from gamers over the years since the game was released).
And using a single icon to represent the entire trade route provides a totally inaccurate picture of what is actually happening in the game - it is a single discrete unit movement trying to represent an on-going and continuous action of many caravans and trade groups along the route, represented in the game by continuous addition of resources to the Civs involved every turn the trade route exists. Consequently, when a barbarian or enemy unit intercepts the single icon, the entire route is destroyed at once - something that never, ever happened IRL, so they introduce Fantasy to the trade system - but only part of the trade system, since there is no way short of declaring war on the other Civ to stop a diplomatic trade route moving Resources.

You, the gamer, then, whatever hat you choose to wear or not wear, are given a bunch of false decisions and prevented from making the decisions you want to make about where and how and how much your trade routes carry, and for how long. The decisions the game gives you now aren't 'immediate and obvious', they are simplified, simple-minded and have inaccurate parameters. If that's what you prefer, go for it: the game should attract as many different gamers as possible. I happen to think they can do better, and I hope they do in Civ VII.

 

[GeneralZIft]

people are discussing a load of different things at once so ill give my 2p:

workers > builders
because you don't need to keep rebuilding them; you get a deeper sense of progression while your guy literally builds stuff instead of getting instantly (which slows down the speed at which cities grow without throttling the city itself)

rivers
im not sure how you could put a river on a tile, i think the reason they are in between titles is so you can have that combat effect: "Crossing a River penalty"
if it was on a tile, then i think the map might start to feel weird, but im not totally against it.

trading
as for the actual trader units - i'm not sure what's wrong with Civ V or Civ VI's approach? it seems to work fine.
i know 6 has some changes to the system but i dont think it needs a total rework. unless for some reason a totally new economy system is the focus of the next Civ.
i see both sides to 5's land and water trader split and 6's adjustable generic 'trader' unit.

diplomatic trading
trading with AI (or other people) should have enough items to be interesting but not cluttered.
most importantly the trade interface needs to be easy to look at; this is where 5 >>> 6
AIs mindless trading algorithm does feel contrived and stupid so thats where they could make the biggest improvement

wonders
the wonder rat race is a Civilisation speciality, it creates drama, it creates intrigue, it creates mystery, it creates a mind numbing wait to find out if you've built it in time and most importantly! It adds RISK to the REWARD.
There's no way on earth they could or should change this in my opinion

 

[BuchiTaton]

people are discussing a load of different things at once so ill give my 2p:

workers > builders
because you don't need to keep rebuilding them; you get a deeper sense of progression while your guy literally builds stuff instead of getting instantly (which slows down the speed at which cities grow without throttling the city itself)

Settlers > Workers
In a population centered design where every on map unit and specialist represent an elemental population unit (Denizen) with their own identitarian parameters (Heritage, Belief and Class) the idea of "builder charges" make sense as part of a group of Settlers that found villages, districts and cities.
Basically Villages are the replacement of Improvements (mining villages, farming villages, pastorial villages, etc.), Districts already represent workplaces that in many cases even housed their specialists, while Cities (City Center) could spend all the foundation "charges" of the Settler.
Even more in this system a district or village could turn again into a Settler in certain circumstances (like refugees), included "barbarians" camps that are also replaced by "barbarian" villages. The Settler "charges" can be also used to populate an already founded village/district upgrading them.

What about others things like roads? These can be managed as city projects by the city's production queue (that by the way dont need to produce Settlers since denizens come from your population growing, you know like real people are born and not manufactured like machines). So the "workers" are the Labourer class denizens working in your farms, mines, factories, etc. Instead of redundant management consuming units.

 

[pokiehl]

people are discussing a load of different things at once so ill give my 2p:

workers > builders
because you don't need to keep rebuilding them; you get a deeper sense of progression while your guy literally builds stuff instead of getting instantly (which slows down the speed at which cities grow without throttling the city itself)

rivers
im not sure how you could put a river on a tile, i think the reason they are in between titles is so you can have that combat effect: "Crossing a River penalty"
if it was on a tile, then i think the map might start to feel weird, but im not totally against it.

trading
as for the actual trader units - i'm not sure what's wrong with Civ V or Civ VI's approach? it seems to work fine.
i know 6 has some changes to the system but i dont think it needs a total rework. unless for some reason a totally new economy system is the focus of the next Civ.
i see both sides to 5's land and water trader split and 6's adjustable generic 'trader' unit.

diplomatic trading
trading with AI (or other people) should have enough items to be interesting but not cluttered.
most importantly the trade interface needs to be easy to look at; this is where 5 >>> 6
AIs mindless trading algorithm does feel contrived and stupid so thats where they could make the biggest improvement

wonders
the wonder rat race is a Civilisation speciality, it creates drama, it creates intrigue, it creates mystery, it creates a mind numbing wait to find out if you've built it in time and most importantly! It adds RISK to the REWARD.
There's no way on earth they could or should change this in my opinion

I agree with essentially everything you've said. I think a lot of people here have the tendency to think up really overcomplicated ideas for the sake of it, out of a misguided sense of what creates "depth" or realism.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Exactly, overcomplicated ideas. Like have redundant on-map units as we already have:
- Builders/Workers, units that first need to be "build" and then move around and manually put to work in a few types of infrastruture. This is pointless considering that city production queue already can build infrastruture, things like clear tiles, (local) roads, cannals, wonders, etc. make perfect sense as projects that each city can apply its production capacity into.
- Meanwhile Settlers can turn into a more useful and flexible unit taking the function of also found districts and villages(improvements) that already are supposed to provide jobs for denizens(specialists). A separated queue for your population growing where you can assign your denizens to a district/village, militar training or to turn into a settler is common sense since they are people not project to be produced. Also is a more direct way to give value to your population growing.
- Militar units separated at an absurb level of "AT Crew" is not just ridiculous but also gameplay annoying and time and processing consuming. Both "carpets" and "stacks" of "doom" have this problem, a system of limited grouping of units forming armies like TotalWar and Paradox games could turn them into less but more significative militar forces. Visualy armies would show their composition and formation by the units (say max 6 each one) that constitute them.
- Military Engineers are the last straw of overcomplicated units, just allow armies with the proper tech/promotion/units to build militar infrastructure, this would also add real value to militar groups to do something besides of combat.
- Archaeologist, another annoying micromanagement mini-game unit for an exagerated element. Do scientific expeditions could be perfectly added to the research queue done by universities and great scientists.
- Traders, each city's Commercial and Harbor districts could allows to build trade routes (terrestrial and maritime respectively) from their level of value/upgrade. The partner city of trade for each route can be directly selected, also enemy militar units disrupt those units just by be stationed over the route. Still just for eyecandy and visualization small caravans could be seen moving on the map.
- And not make me start with the Rock Bands and all the different kinds of Great Artist, sure devs also like "depth" and "realism" for the sake of it, dont they?