Is Current System of Trade Realistic?

[Trade-peror]

I am just curious--does anyone think the current system of trade used by Civ III is realistic?

The changes I would instigate are already found in the Civ4 Ideas Thread, but for your convenience (maybe?) I have included it here:



As someone very interested in economics, I have long found it somewhat odd how the Civ series has made the road the basis of trade. How does a road standing in the middle of nowhere miraculously generate trade? I do know that roads facilitate trade and all that, but fundamentally, the road itself should not be responsible for generating commerce. Trade basically involves an exchange of assets!

When I first heard about Civ III, I heard about its new methods of trading. After I got it, it turns out that the new style of trading merely involves the exchange of "luxuries" and "strategic resources." Strangely, neither directly involves money!

However, it does suggest an interesting idea--how about making all resources tradable and basing the entire system of trade on such a concept? Real world examples abound of global markets for cattle, gold, wheat, and all the other "bonus" resources.

Roads will still play a critical role--just as they do in transportation of luxuries and strategic resources. They should also generate trade themselves, but only if they are on active routes transporting other goods. This simulates the variety of industries that cater to travelers and also the transportation industries themselves. Such effects should also be cumulative; a route used to transport many goods should generate more trade than a less active route. To prevent possible exploits, of course the routes will be determined the way “go-to” orders are determined—only the shortest route will be used.

The way such trade in products works it this: a city has certain resources in its city radius that can be sold. If such products are connected to the city square through roads, the products can then be sold to other cities connected to the city square. Each product sold to another city will generate 1 commerce for the city that sold the product. Generally, every city will sell one unit to itself as well, and sell one unit to as many other accessible cities as possible (city improvements can modify the total number of units produced and the number of units sold per city). Usually (but not always) two cities producing the same good will not need to buy from each other.

Existing Civ trade improvements (Marketplace, Bank, Stock Exchange, Superhighways from Civ II, Commercial Docks, etc.) can easily fit into this new system. A Marketplace can allow a city to buy more than one unit of a particular good (due to improved access to the city’s market). Banks and Stock Exchanges increase the total number of units a city can sell of a resource it has (increased investment capital allows for expansions and production boosts). Superhighways might boost commerce generated by roads or make the city’s roads and railroads a faster section of the larger transportation network the city is part of.

That brings up the issue of transportation limits. Early in the game, trade should be limited by the fact that goods cannot be practically transported a great distance; therefore if a city had five units of cattle to sell, for example, it might only be able to sell two because only two cities are close enough to receive the cattle. Of course, certain technologies can increase this range—the wheel, horseback riding, map making, engineering, navigation, magnetism, steam engine, etc.
Next, I should introduce the second part of the new trading system—products not only generating income for the seller, but provide food and shields to the buyer (gold is the exception; it generates trade for both the buyer and the seller). That is, a city that buys a lot of cattle will have a lot of food, for example.

I would expect that luxuries and strategic resources would be treated in the same way as any product, generating commerce for the seller and providing food or shields, except that strategic resources would be required for units and luxuries do not provide food or shields but happy faces.

Implementing such a system would make Civ a lot more realistic, for wars now can be as devastating (or helpful) to economies as they are in real life, and it will be possible to act as “neutral suppliers” with warring parties to great effect. Finally those trade embargoes will become more potent weapons than ever before!



What do you think? Such an extensive revision means I might have forgotten parts here and there; if anything seems unexplained, please ask.

-- Trade-peror

 

[Goober]

I believe that Firaxis changed the trade system from Civ2 was because players were annoyed at having to constantly build those annoying caravans. I think the trade system works rather well. I really don't want to have to play a game of Civ with a more complex trading system.

 

[saintly_saint]

I think Civ III's trade system is all-around OK but I would make food a tradeable resource, at least locally so as to be able to have cities with surpluses feed the ones with insufficiency

 

[Trade-peror]

Thanks to anyone that bothered to read my long article!

@RealGoober: You mentioned that Civ II caravans annoy most people--I agree, but at least that method of trading involved money, which I would think is the essential purpose of trading, in a measurable sense. In any case, perhaps you slightly misread some parts of my article, because it does not advocate the return of caravans but instead utilizes the current "automatic" system of transferring goods. But thank you for pointing that out so I could clarify!

If you can find more gray zones, then please ask me!

 

[kb2tvl]

I think the trading system is ok for civ 3 but a more complex system of goods and shipping those goods might be better.

I would also like to see the way a good could be shipped added to civ 3. When I make a trade, I want to know whose land it crosses and whose port it would flow through.

 

[Padma]

I haven't read your original post in depth, but have skimmed through it.

But I wanted to point out that trade is Civ3 has been greatly "abstracted". The reason roads (and rivers) generate "gold" isn't because they "exist" out in the middle of nowhere, but as an abstraction for all the small communities that spring up near them. Remember, the scale of the map is such that "Cities" only represent the major population locii. The rest of the area is assumed to be gradually filled with farms and small communities (where the Citizens work in the city screen ). This level of abstraction was intentional, and designed into the game, just like the abstractions of Diplomacy, and Warfare. The idea is to let the players enjoy the Strategic issues of the game, without having to get too bogged down in "details".

 

[Trade-peror]

I agree with Padma that roads generate trade as part of an abstraction of local commerce, but I find it somewhat contradictory how that can be blended with the more specific exchanges involving luxury and strategic resources. As a result, I thought perhaps going with mostly one system would be better. However, my article does mention roads generating trade--but only roads that are part of active trade routes. I think this perhaps more realistically reflects real-world situations. But Padma does make a good point though.

By the way, Padma mentioned the "Strategic issues of the game" being more important than "details." What exactly might this mean? What might the "strategic issues" be, exactly?

 

[Salte]

I read your post Trade-peror, and i think your suggestion would make trade a little more realistic (though still way too simple to reflect the real thing). The question is, does it have to be more realistic? I dont care for realsim if it doesnt make the game better. I just like to play the game, and i hardly ever care to micromanage cities (ok, i do make a build-order, but thats it mostly). To me, your suggestion sounds like something that would quite a bit more time than todays system, and also would benefit the micromanagers.

But regarding food, i absolutely think this should be tradeable. Also i think that at some point in time your food-production should go into some kind of national pool and then distributet to the cities (so that every city doesnt produce its own food). And city growth should not be entirely dependent on food availability in the modern age.

 

[Trade-peror]

Salte points out that realism is not necessarily the purpose of Civ and fun is the bigger factor. I do agree, and I also dislike micromanagement. However, I actually think, in a sense, that micromanagement may be reduced by the fact that it is no longer necessary to build roads on every single spot; simply connecting cities and resources is enough. In other words, if the current system of luxuries and strategic resources is micromanagement, then I admit that my new idea would be micromanagement. But I trust that it isn't the case, right?

Also, I think realism is the biggest factor in making Civ fun for many people, right?

But thanks, Salte, for bringing up this issue.

 

[Trade-peror]

I just thought of how such a trade system would affect various governments. First, however, I should discuss how I imagine the order in which products are distributed:

1. Any cities on a "Priority List" will receive all products first, or the "Priority List" will specify which.
2. Food/Shields: Starving cities and then cities with less surplus or production than other cities will have a priority.
Luxuries: Cities in disorder and then with more unhappy citizens will have a priority.
Strategic: Cities producing units that require certain resources will have a priority.
3. The biggest cities will have a bigger priority (because they provide larger markets for the producer).
4. Cities closer to the producer will have a bigger priority.

Does that seem like it would be reasonable?

 

[Selous]

anything to get rid of the road/rail networks (uggly) ... i like food as a tradeable resource, the old food=growth is a bit old

 

[Trade-peror]

Ah, Selous, my new idea in fact WOULD reduce road/railroad networks only to their bare miniumum--as soon as cities and resources are connected, trade is taken care of...no more putting roads on every spot and clogging the landscape!

I also notice that many think food should be a tradable resource. I agree, but also would think making shields (along with luxuries and strategics, basically everything) a tradable resource quite interesting.

 

[troytheface]

never played civ2 with "caravans" and I have no problem with the current system, however i do think that the initial negative reaction to "roads" creating commerce has merit. Rivers need to be implemented more in this game, both for travel and commerce. I think that if there were canoes as a unit and rivers were fattened up a bit it would add much to the historical importance of these waterways. Rome and Paris- to name 2 - were located near rivers...
Alot of people write of ways to improve the game but i suggest that instead of new civs ect. Terrain improvments would go a long way in so far as ones enjoyment of the game. Like the original post implied...cattle and wheat should be tradeable, as they were and are very important trade commodities. I mean , Gem trade is nothing compared to Beef trade. (of course u don't have to worry about "mad gem" disease ruining your market share.)

 

[Bamspeedy]

No thanks. There is too much micromanagement as there is. I don't want to have to deal with having 100 cities trading things between each other (and trying to find the best/most efficient trades would end up taking me days!). You want your own cities trading with each other, then play CTP.

I think one reason Civ3 is such a good game is that you don't need a 100 page manual to understand the very basics of the game or to play the game. Sure, if you want to go very in-depth into the game (like figuring the corruption formula), then it probably would take a gigantic manual, but to just get started on playing the game, all of the game concepts are pretty easy to figure out and understand.

I never did fully comprehend CTPs trading system (I gave up on it, I probably could figure it out if I took another look at it now).

 

[Trade-peror]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what's CTP?

 

[Selous]

Call To Power

terrible game but had some very exiting concepts

 

[Trade-peror]

Thanks for clarifying. By the way, I have never played CTP, so maybe I should look into that some time...

Anyway, I see that many people (perhaps by the length of my original post) see this new concept as perhaps very complicated, but actually that's not the case. In effect, all actual trading and distribution is automatic; the only thing the player has to actually do is build roads to connect all cities and resources, and maybe add important cities to a "Priority List." In fact, micromanaging such a trade system is actually difficult, unless the player makes extensive use of the Priority List, which is not intended anyway.

In other words, the original post took a long time to explain an essentially automatic process, because it goes into how it works. It is like, for example, corruption. There is not very much you could really, concretely do about corruption ( ), but there are many pages as to how it works.

By the way, I recall the Civ III manual being over 200 pages long...

 

[jorde]

Well, I think it wouldnt be such a bad idea.. but what I'd do would be to represent tiles worked by citizens with very tiny villages (that could turn later into tiny towns, as the city gets bigger), and then when a Civ has ANY bonus resource (cattle or wheat for example), if that square is worked it'd produce trade, and with the addition of roads it could make other squares produce trade as well...

And then is when the shortest route concept would come to work... those squares with roads that form the shortest road to the city would produce 2 or more commerce units (depending on how many resources pass thorugh it), while the rest would produce just one (unless they are connected to another city forming another route, in which case they would produce more commerce)

 

[Bamspeedy]

By the way, I recall the Civ III manual being over 200 pages long...

But you didn't need to read it to get started on playing the game, or figuring out how 95%+ of the stuff works, did you?

Anyway, I see that many people (perhaps by the length of my original post) see this new concept as perhaps very complicated, but actually that's not the case. In effect, all actual trading and distribution is automatic; the only thing the player has to actually do is build roads to connect all cities and resources, and maybe add important cities to a "Priority List.

Please clarify. If 1 city has just 1 resource it can either just use it itself or send it to another city, right? In that case, I would have to search to find the most useful place to send that resource. Sure, there could be an automating process to it, but automated processes are generally terribly inefficient (workers, governors). Players who play competitively don't use any of the automated processes. This trading idea gives them one more thing to 'nit-pick' about and make turns alot longer than they should be. Plus the AI would have to asses these things, which would also slow down the turns even more (huge maps would be even more unplayable than they are now------'unplayable' is a debatable term and depends on your individual preference, but the length of turns on huge maps is a common complaint).

Great idea, but I don't want all that extra work. Civ3 is about the basics of operating an empire, not the extreme details. You do a little bit of city management, empire management, worker tasking, warfare, diplomacy and trade, research, etc. but not going into the extreme details of each of those areas.

Just keep it simple.

 

[Trade-peror]

I agree with Bamspeedy that reading the Civ III manual is irrelevant to learning how to play Civ III , but I just couldn't resist...

Anyway, I am glad that Bamspeedy has pointed out something I was afraid might have been unclear.

For the example of 1 city having 1 resource, it in fact MUST use it itself AND automatically transfer to all available cities, just like no city chooses whether to take a certain luxury or strategic resource. Therefore, there is no searching for "the best place" to send a resource to. Have you read my 4 rules concerning product distribution, included somewhere in this thread? That takes care of everything. The only manual distribution of any sort is the "Priority List," which is intended only for special cases.

I also agree that automating workers and such are very inefficient methods of management; I never use them and would never try to devise one myself!

Also, the AI will not be affected any more than humans since there are NO manual ways of directly controlling product distribution except through the fairly vague "Priority List," which the AI probably won't even know how to use anyway.

Finally, I would say that my system may actually reduce turn times, because no longer is there much point in building roads and railroads in every single square (that means less worker management)! Connecting all cities and resources will be quite enough.

I guess that was a pretty long post, but believe or not, I am indeed trying to add more to Civ and still "Keep it simple"!

And thanks, Bamspeedy, for allowing me to clarify. Please point out any more ambiguities!