Make Naval More Important

[pat4]

Hi,

I just think that a civs navy needs to be important. Like Britain didn't create it's giant empire because of great military leaders or superior technology (compared to other colonial powers). It did it because of an outstanding and large navy.

I think that the way trade in cities is done needs to be revamped so that it is manageable and bigger. Like the random way it is done in civ 4 is terrible. The player just looks at the city screen to see where his cities are trading. The gold from trade is small when you think of the the huge amount of money in port cities from trade in the real world.

I propose that,

What cities trade with other cities be defined by what resources are being traded with by civilizations. For example if I am trading corn to another leader for gems, then my city which produces the corn should see the trade gold and if it is not a coastal city (and the trade is) then the gold from the trade should be split with the nearest coastal city (or possibly the nearest one with a harbour/port).

I think my idea is good even if the way i have thought about executing it is poorly thought out. This idea could be refined and expanded. As you can guess from the title this would make a civs navy vastly more important as is a bigger proportion of a civs income came from trade and that trade was cut off it would be a big blow as it would be in real life.

Thanks, Pat

 

[Camikaze]

I agree that the navy needs to be improved. Perhaps one problem with your suggestion is that you would have no trade if you have no resources, and very minimal trade if you only had a few resources, or were only trading a few resources. However, in reality, trade can take place with general agricultural products, like what every farm would produce, and also what makes up cottages' commerce could be exported. Maybe the trade could be more dependent on a mix between the production/food surplus/commerce of a city, and the geographical position. Also, maybe population could be taken into account, i.e. more service exports?

As for the navy itself, I think it should be greatly expanded to more accurately reflect the massive maritime economies of much of history, i.e. Britain, America, Spain. Perhaps more upgrades for naval ships, options like naval blockade (to destroy an economy in wartime, both through stopping domestic sea trade, and stopping international trade, possibly souring relations), and increased importance of naval combat on the results of war. Currently it just seems to me that a failed naval campaign, i.e. bombarding a coastline and getting sunk, has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a war. Although in reality it isn't paramount, it does have some significance.

So, yeah, good idea.

 

[pat4]

Hi,

Another thing is trade in cities can happen with cities from civs that you are often on bad terms with but because you have never gone to war the trade flourishes.

Thanks, Pat.

 

[Tholish]

What would be a lot more fun would be to literally have merchant ships moving from city to city sort of like Great Merchants, making you money and conveying resources, but having to be protected. Maybe you should have to make a trip betwen two cities to establish a trade route, and they expire after a number of turns so you have to keep doing it.

On a vaguely related topic, a lot of mods include future eras, to a lesser or greater degree, but one thing that could clearly exist in the future is underwater or floating cities. Yet, while it is pretty easy to mod in the ability to found cities on water ( a single word in Python and a few lines in XML) the AI will not use or deal with this correctly so it is unbalancing and must be left out. Sea cities were a big part of Alpha Centauri, and should be possible in a future version of Civ.

I think one good way to do this is to simply make water terrains just another kind of terrain, like land, with Terrain Impassables to prevent battle ships in the desert and such. What I'm saying is get rid of Domains. The other effects of sea could be produced also by other mechanisms, and of course the graphical look would have to be produced.

 

[pat4]

Hi,

What would be a lot more fun would be to literally have merchant ships moving from city to city sort of like Great Merchants, making you money and conveying resources, but having to be protected. Maybe you should have to make a trip betwen two cities to establish a trade route, and they expire after a number of turns so you have to keep doing it.

On a vaguely related topic, a lot of mods include future eras, to a lesser or greater degree, but one thing that could clearly exist in the future is underwater or floating cities. Yet, while it is pretty easy to mod in the ability to found cities on water ( a single word in Python and a few lines in XML) the AI will not use or deal with this correctly so it is unbalancing and must be left out. Sea cities were a big part of Alpha Centauri, and should be possible in a future version of Civ.

I think one good way to do this is to simply make water terrains just another kind of terrain, like land, with Terrain Impassables to prevent battle ships in the desert and such. What I'm saying is get rid of Domains. The other effects of sea could be produced also by other mechanisms, and of course the graphical look would have to be produced.

I think your idea on sea tiles is intersting but i doubt it'll be put in civ. Sounds more like a mod thing.

However I love your idea on the merchant ships, but if i can tweak it a bit it could be done like in Rise of Nations where a merchant unit automatically moves from one city to the next and as long as that unit exists you get the gold, however if the unit is destroyed the civ that destroys it gets gold and the trade obviously stops.

I love this idea because it means the player can easily decide which cities to trade with. It can also be changed for land units but maybe you get less gold because it takes longer (in earlier ages) and is more expensive to conduct.

Thanks, Pat.

 

[exhile]

If only I could see the lines of trade routes of those cargo vessels or junk ships using a toggle on a civ map. In addition I could have warships protect these trading sea lines of a certain distance. Or else blockade or warfare would distrupt these trading lines.

Same applies to air trade routes where these lines can be disrupted by warfare and the restricted use of airspace. A toggle on the civ world map would show the air trade routes from an airport of a major city to another airport of a major city.

In International waters, anything goes but under the juristiciton of the UN ocean law treaty.

 

[Camikaze]

What would be a lot more fun would be to literally have merchant ships moving from city to city sort of like Great Merchants, making you money and conveying resources, but having to be protected. Maybe you should have to make a trip betwen two cities to establish a trade route, and they expire after a number of turns so you have to keep doing it.

Good idea, IMO, but it would probably chew up a lot of production, and require a lot of micromanagement. To operate a successful empire, you would have to have many of these ships active, and this would require a long time on the user's part to move from city to city. Plus, the production of such merchant ships would perhaps be troublesome and place too much importance on trade. So, while I agree that it is a good idea, maybe it should have a slightly lesser impact. And perhaps these merchant ships could be produced similarly to great people (with a much greater frequency), with each coastal city having 'merchant ship points', leading to the occasional merchant ship appearing in a city. Also, if this much importance was placed on intercontinental trade, there would also have to be something similar for domestic and intracontinental (if that is a word) trade.

 

[rysmiel]

Good idea, IMO, but it would probably chew up a lot of production, and require a lot of micromanagement. To operate a successful empire, you would have to have many of these ships active, and this would require a long time on the user's part to move from city to city. Plus, the production of such merchant ships would perhaps be troublesome and place too much importance on trade.

These reasons are pretty much entirely why I support it; micromanagement is fun, and more importance on trade means less importance on war which is a thing I am always looking for more means to.

 

[exhile]

Here's an oil trad route & an international air route I'd like to see on Civ 5

 

[Antilogic]

The simple solution is to show the trade routes between cities on the map (as an overlay, so you could turn it on and off like the resource locator). Then, moving on the trade route during war or with privateers lets you steal the cash along that route. Right now, you have to literally be at the city to steal income. With this system, you could raid in the middle of the ocean.

Now, you need to make frigates to patrol your trade lanes and find privateers to sink.

 

[pat4]

@ exhile

Hi,

I love your screenies. They are perfect for what I was thinking, Obviously longer routes means less gold from the route (unless the trade is of higher quantity/quality.

@ Antilogic

Hi,

I think you're right except I would suggest less gold if your privateers are in the middle of an ocean (harder to intercept then if you were outside their port!).

 

[Antilogic]

The idea is to suggest a doggone simple solution to an issue that gets complicated beyond belief in the I&S Forums. It's a common problem on this sub-forum in particular.

Thus, if balancing is needed, we could patch the feature later to have reduced effect. Right now, leave it as-is and see whether or not you are inspired to build more ships.

 

[Walkin]

To improve the water-component of the game I would include such great ideas others have had as natural trade-winds and currents (giving bonuses/negatives in movement based on which way you are going). And I would also add in reefs etc around coasts; which have a % chance of damaging ships. In this way then, you could trade sea maps alone. Sunken ships could be salvaged, or later used as tourist attractions (scuba diving). They could also pose a hazard to ships - this introduces some cheeky game play i.e. I take all my antiquated old ships and scuttle them right in my enemies harbor - meaning they are going to have a big problem trying to successfully get out of their harbor.

 

[exhile]

They are perfect for what I was thinking, Obviously longer routes means less gold from the route (unless the trade is of higher quantity/quality.

As in the high quality and low quantity resources of aluminum or uranium available in the world map of Civ4. I'd like the return of freighter concept in Civ2 where the tonnage of resources is specified when delivered from one city to another. Ocean container ships carrying luxury goods such as jems or diamonds would really make a civilization's population happier.

 

[Antilogic]

To improve the water-component of the game I would include such great ideas others have had as natural trade-winds and currents (giving bonuses/negatives in movement based on which way you are going). And I would also add in reefs etc around coasts; which have a % chance of damaging ships. In this way then, you could trade sea maps alone. Sunken ships could be salvaged, or later used as tourist attractions (scuba diving). They could also pose a hazard to ships - this introduces some cheeky game play i.e. I take all my antiquated old ships and scuttle them right in my enemies harbor - meaning they are going to have a big problem trying to successfully get out of their harbor.

While trade winds and currents would be a great addition (especially in my opinion--that's one thing I hate about sailing ships in Civ right now), I can forsee dozens of little kids with no nautical knowledge wondering why their boats are traveling funny. Hopefully it will be educational. But they are just too smart for that.

I would just leave the reefs and tourist attractions as random events--that is already programmable in the events mode already.

 

[Camikaze]

Does anyone have suggestions on how 'trade wars' could be put into Civ? Trade, of course, includes negative side effects, being the reason behind protection. I think that in Civ, you should be able to implement tariffs on particular goods, and on particular civilizations, with the advantage being that local industries could flourish. Maybe cottages could be replaced with industries, that grow when not faced with competition, or something. This way, you would have to weigh up whether tariffs would be, overall, beneficial to your civ (by promoting infant industries), or detrimental (by decreasing trade). Trade wars could then be incorporated, through dumping or discriminating in tariffs, weakening an opposition economy. Any other ideas?

 

[pat4]

Hi,

Well if you dumped food in your market then population could grow huge. Although the inability to transport food from one city to another especially in the modern era really bugs me so maybe thats a completely different subject. Also if you're a small civ who is importing large amount of goods then your industries will fall but on the other hand your people will be happy with all the cheap goods available, and you'll be on better terms with the other civ. Hmm interesting stuff but it would be hard to balance all this stuff while not making the economics of the game even more complicated for beginners.

Thanks, Pat.

 

[Camikaze]

Well if you dumped food in your market then population could grow huge.

The idea with dumping is that it is excess supply from one country that is dumped in another country, to the detriment of the second country's economy. The excess supply decreases the price of the good, forcing profits from local producers down. Essentially, dumping = less gold.

Although the inability to transport food from one city to another especially in the modern era really bugs me so maybe thats a completely different subject. Also if you're a small civ who is importing large amount of goods then your industries will fall but on the other hand your people will be happy with all the cheap goods available, and you'll be on better terms with the other civ.

And this would be the main choice to make if this was introduced into Civ- to protect or to trade.

Hmm interesting stuff but it would be hard to balance all this stuff while not making the economics of the game even more complicated for beginners.

Yes, this is the idea's main problem. When I play a game, I don't necessarily want to be thinking about my trade policy in such detail. I suppose it would be nice, but it would be even better if you could not completely screw your economy by not doing much about trade, i.e. the player should be able to either ignore their trade and let it manage itself, or intervene in trade with the suggestions that have been made, and reap extra benefits.

 

[pat4]

Hi,

Yeah maybe it could be a players decision like to have a trade economy or not just like you have the option of a cottage economy or a se. Still it might just annoy people more than anything.

Thanks, Pat.

 

[Antilogic]

Does anyone have suggestions on how 'trade wars' could be put into Civ? Trade, of course, includes negative side effects, being the reason behind protection. I think that in Civ, you should be able to implement tariffs on particular goods, and on particular civilizations, with the advantage being that local industries could flourish. Maybe cottages could be replaced with industries, that grow when not faced with competition, or something. This way, you would have to weigh up whether tariffs would be, overall, beneficial to your civ (by promoting infant industries), or detrimental (by decreasing trade). Trade wars could then be incorporated, through dumping or discriminating in tariffs, weakening an opposition economy. Any other ideas?

How about this: you have an option to "impose tariffs" that gives you a +25% income from the trade routes with a particular Civ, but causes a relations penalty. The code for selecting which cities are linked up to which through trade routes would penalize your cities by 25% when your opponent was selecting cities, so the profitable trade routes may go to other Civs if you abuse the feature.