Idea: Remove Trading Posts

[Johan de Witt]

I had this idea while going through a thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384280).

I think trading posts look horrible and they are prone to abuse. So my idea is, remove trading posts and give farms +1 on top of their normal yield. This way you would really have to think about whether to build production improvements or food improvements instead of just building a few farms to start growth and then just add trading posts. The +1 isn't enough to trump the production gained from mines and lumbermills, but it is enough to make the removal of trading posts hurt not too much.

Please let me know what you guys think.

 

[Cyberian]

I would agree because of the importance of gold and the impact it haves opposing production. When upgrading units and rushbuying them with Commercial/BigBen Discounts is way better then producing them there is something wrong.
Then you would also need to reduce building maintenance of course.

Or you could let them the way they are and just improve production and nerf buying/upgrading as well as maritime city states.

 

[Newti]

The problem is not the trading post. The problem are Maritime City States. Nerf them, half the yield at least.

 

[Johan de Witt]

The problem is not the trading post. The problem are Maritime City States. Nerf them, half the yield at least.

That's if you only look at the "abuse" through tradingposts in terms of money earned and how useful it is compared to production (rushing) or food income (maritime city states).

The other point was that trading posts are ugly. This might not be a valid point for a lot of players, but I think the game would look more beautiful if those tradingposts are replaced with farms. Sometimes the AI does it, flowing farms on hills look pretty.

A third point is: You would also really have to consider what to do with your forests. Because trading posts can be built on forests, players don't regularly remove forests and there is a lot of rugged terrain left even after many years of worker action. Look at any map... If there's a lot of population, most of the forests have disappeared. This could really change warfare within borders too when the only rugged terrain left are hills. Cavalry anyone?

 

[Tomice]

While I totally agree that TP spam is ugly and silly (realismwise), maybe we should wait a few more days before judging. But your idea seems to be right.

Firaxis will not change the balance before we have mature and proven strategies, that's for sure. Don't expect any major official change earlier than in a few weeks. They would be stupid hastily change stuff now, just to have overpowered farms in a week.

 

[Dishonor]

So my idea is, remove trading posts and give farms +1 on top of their normal yield.

I must say, that you are a genius.

I'm going to change it in CIV5Improvements.xml.
Also changing in CIV5Terrains.xml:
grassland from 2 to 1 and 1
river bonus for grassland from 1 to 2 (grassland is now best terrain but it is close to plains)
desert hill from 2 to 3

There would be less food and gold and more production. It would be more balanced for starting positions (except tundra and desert without river).

 

[PTM]

The other point was that trading posts are ugly. This might not be a valid point for a lot of players, but I think the game would look more beautiful if those tradingposts are replaced with farms. Sometimes the AI does it, flowing farms on hills look pretty.

The better solution to this issue - and I agree, it is an aesthetic annoyance - is to replace the trading post with something more believably spammable and less garish in design, i.e., with towns, if only in name and appearance. For added cool points, update the name and graphics of said towns to reflect the era: trading post (ancient and classical), hamlet (medieval), village (renaissance), town (industrial+).

 

[bruntfca]

Trading posts have got to go...

Most of the graphics in Civ5 are good. The units look cool, however, place *anything* on top of a "trading post", and it becomes almost invisible. The grid like design merges with the grid of units, and to make it worse in the endgame the map is spammed with ridiculous looking "tents"?

The trading posts basically make my eyes bleed looking at them, and games last for hours. They can keep the TP mechanic, just give us a decent graphic!

 

[Sodavich]

I had this idea while going through a thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384280).

So my idea is, remove trading posts and give farms +1 on top of their normal yield.

I think this is a terrible idea. You're condensing the 3-choice system food/gold/hammer down to a 2-choice system foodgold/hammer. If you were to do this, I guarantee you that I will farm everything and run a specialist economy in every single city.

 

[TowerWizard]

I have another idea. Why not have just one improvement possible on every tile? So, on a river grassland tile, you always build a farm. On a hill you always build a mine. On flatland without river access or fresh water, you always build a trading post. You have no choise.

The end.

No wait. I have another idea. Why not have THE SAME IMPROVEMENTS AS IN CIV IV?

 

[Onionsoilder]

I must say, that you are a genius.

I'm going to change it in CIV5Improvements.xml.
Also changing in CIV5Terrains.xml:
grassland from 2 to 1 and 1
river bonus for grassland from 1 to 2 (grassland is now best terrain but it is close to plains)
desert hill from 2 to 3

There would be less food and gold and more production. It would be more balanced for starting positions (except tundra and desert without river).

It depends on taste I guess. Personally, I would go with:

Grassland: 2 1
Plains: 1 2
Tundra: 1 1
Desert: 1 (Think cacti and such - alternatively, there could be a 'desert forest' called scrubs that added this.)
Snow: 1


Farm: 1 1
Mine: 2
Lumbermill: 1 1
No trading posts.

 

[Johan de Witt]

I think this is a terrible idea. You're condensing the 3-choice system food/gold/hammer down to a 2-choice system foodgold/hammer. If you were to do this, I guarantee you that I will farm everything and run a specialist economy in every single city.

I'm not advocating making the game simpler. I was trying to find a solution to a two-fold problem of people abusing the posibilities of gold where they don't even build farms anymore and the way trading post spam looks on the map.

During Civ 4 I had an idea that I hoped they would implement in Civ 5, but unfortunatly they moved away from it. I loved the way the cottages worked (them growing over time) and I would've loved to see this expanded into all fields. Instead of building improvements, they evolve themselves. Whenever your city puts someone to work on a tile, you choose whether to produce food, production or gold. A small farm, workshop or town forms and starts to evolve. The yield of these squares would just increase over time and could be subject to technologies.

But that's something different altogether.

In real life, there are two categories of things to grow on your land... Food crop and money crop. Ofcourse, a farmer grew grain or had cows to make money once he had fed his family, but things like grapes, barley etc. are mainly for money (you can't feed your family with wine, you need to sell it to buy bread). During medieval history, you see many people who grow money crops switch back to food crop when the price of food rose (money croppers are sensible to economic change, food croppers much less since if they have some yield, they could still feed their family).

So you could perhaps change the trading posts in fields of barley when grown on plains and into sheep when on hills? Perhaps even completely redo the way cows/sheep/grapes etc. on the map work?

Perhaps a good idea for a mod.

 

[Siggy_23]

I think if you changed the trading post to a town cottage thing, and made it clear forests, possibly increase the time to build too, I think that would be sufficient balance