Idea for discussion: Trade only with open borders

[ilteroi]

Hello again!

Now much going on here right so now so maybe a good time to start a discussion ... what if trade routes to foreign cities were only possible with open borders once your trade partner has civil service?

Right now, you can trade with anyone unless you are at war, even against their will. Open borders do not affect trade. This seems strange?

With the proposed change, open border become more important. Up to classical era everything works as before, borders are open by default. Once explicit open borders become available, the default must logically be closed borders, preventing trade.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, what's your opinion? Is this worth exploring further? There will be second-order effects for diplomacy, religion etc which need to be considered.

 

[XSamatan]

How about a two layered open borders?

1st level allows for trade routes
2nd level includes troop access

 

[LifeOfBrian]

I like the idea, Ilteroi!

I'd extend the logic to missionaries and great prophets as well -> once the first civilization has researched civil service, all borders become closed by default unless explicitly open, and missionaries&great prophets, like trade units, troops, diplomatic units and other civilian units, shouldn't be able to cross the borders without permission (unless they're at war).

 

[HixBozo]

Since trade routes are the biggest revenue source, consider the possibility of falling into severe budget deficits. Negative gold and that leads to science penalty.

Maybe compensate with revenue from internal TR. Not as lucrative as foreign TRs but still to avoid deficit spiral.

 

[Stalker0]

Open borders are already hard enough to maintain late game when your winning, and people are always trying to sanction you.

i see a lot of downside and little upside to this mechanic

 

[Solic]

Trading with potential enemies already has the drawback that if they do declare war, they can plunder you fairly easily. Would say that'd be enough. This change would otherwise nerf culture victory through trade routes fairly hard.

 

[HixBozo]

Morocco disagrees

They make obscene amounts of money with TRs. Maybe compensate with better trade of luxuries. Instead of currently worth 2-3 gold, make them worth 20-30. Or internal TRs to bring gold alternatively.

Otherwise I suspect budget deficits for a large chunk of the game.

 

[Deljade]

Gameplay wise this makes little sense. International routes do not need a nerf. Runaways can just not open borders with anyone and shut down TR science and culture. Makes CV worse. Would make international TRs impossible on many cases.
Thematically I don't think it holds weight either. Just look at Qing or Japanese trade with the west. Roman trade with Parthia, imperial Russia with western Europe etc etc.

 

[General_Drax]

Agree with most here: gameplay wise makes no sense. CV is already difficult as it is. Beside there will be a lot of UA/UB to rebuild/modify heavily.

 

[pineappledan]

Trade routes to other civs are available in ancient. You don't get open borders until Medieval. What are you supposed to do until then? Only ITRs and City-States?

I like the idea that OBs could enhance TRs somehow. Maybe they remove the distance penalty, o rjust give a flat 2g, scaling with era or something. Or maybe a +25% to all yields if the target civ is giving you OBs.

 

[stii]

Do people really think trade routes are that powerful they need to be nerfed? I still feel like internal routes are better anyway.

 

[Zanteogo]

How about giving trade routes to civs you have an open borders with a bonus? (Actually not sure if they exists already)

I would be open to a new diplomatic option of "close boarders" this would be a somewhat opposite to open borders. If in effect with a civ trade routes are half as effective (removing them seems like too much) and spies take twice as long to establish plus any embassy would be removed and diplomats as well. It would have a minor diplomatic malus and will end friendships and be considered backstabbing if done to a friend.

I would love if the game had more passive aggressive options like this. My only issue is the possible AI over use of it. Right now modern and onward it's normal to have half the globe to continuously denounce you. With the other half randomly doing it occasionally.

 

[Tekamthi]

I like the thought but maybe too restrictive from status quo as some have suggested.. maybe DoF required for trade route instead? Alternatively have these agreements provide a more pronounced multiplier on TR profitability

 

[Zuizgond]

I'm more in favor of additional yields to TR with open borders.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I really like the idea!

I wanted to do an embargo modmod of some sort, but just coulnd't get around it, and this would achieve similiar (+ it'd be AI friendly which really hindered me). One thing to consider is the loss of some gold, but it's so abundant anyway that I think it's more than fine even without any modification.

Btw open borders already give +25% bonus to TRs.

 

[Tekamthi]

I think historically, trade was rather ubiquitous, probably even more than is currently represented in vp -- limiting it further might not be ideal, though I think the op idea of tying it more closely to diplomacy and even military endeavors could be fun and fit well.

I have a mod elsewhere on these forums that allows recon units to move along trade routes in rival territory, even without open borders.. more stuff like this tied to trade routes would be great.. maybe even just more events triggered by these, that give both side some kind of prisoner's dilemma or other interesting gameplay choices with bonus yields/malus etc.

On further reflection from my last post, modifiers do not really add to the fun so much, but the TRs maybe have potential for more interactivity

 

[Stalker0]

Btw open borders already give +25% bonus to TRs.

If we want to bump this more to make OB have more impact on Trade, I am okay with that. But I think the idea here is too radical and impactful on the TR system.

 

[Snipergw]

I really like the idea. I've been sad ever since Japan was reworked and lost Sakoku. Playing an isolationist game shouldn't be good, but I feel like it should be possible. This would bring that back without shoehorning it into an UA like before. It's certainly going to cause a rough patch or two, but I think the increased depth/immersive flavor is worth it. This would make resisting a CV more doable without going straight to a shooting war, which I'm a fan of. Good suggestion imo

 

[ilteroi]

as expected, the picture is relatively mixed ... but here's another idea:

what if "closed borders" increased the movement cost in foreign territory? that would mean you can trade only with their border cities (numbers to be fudged accordingly).

 

[HixBozo]

Sounds like unintuitive exotic mechanics, hard to assimilate. Better not burden the code