Make Naval More Important

[exhile]

Economics & trade is different amongst all civilizations just as the many different currencies are used today. Countries are ranked in terms of their economic and trade capacity and therefore can subsidize or impose tariffs on certain import/export items. For example, high quality/low quanitity supercomputers or thrust-vectoring planes have an export ban yet the low quality/high quantity HD TVs can be imported without tariffs.

Advanced civilizations and their high quality/low quantity items ought to be traded and be massed produced for less advanced civilizations. Otherwise the priority of the advanced civilization will be focused on the production of low quality/high quanity items in which less advanced civilizations can already mass produce. Less advanced civilizations cannot produce high quality/low quantity goods as of yet but the advanced civilization can make both.

Certain industries of advanced civilizations should be minimalized if they are to be protected from less advanced civilizations. For those industries that are not being protected, they should be maximized.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Although I think that there should also be more penalties for having tariffs, as a simple relations penalty would not be enough to stop everyone from increasing their entire trade income by 25%. Maybe, a happiness penalty could be applied to every city with a tariffed trade route, to stop tariffs being applied across the board, and to reflect the fact that tariffs mean people don't have as much access to overseas goods. Also, if my industries idea (replacing cottages) was to take hold, tariffs could mean that they grow quicker, i.e. an extra n%, where n = about 33/number of civs left in the game. So, if there were 16 civs, having tariffs on 3 would mean that your industries grow 6% faster, whereas, in the same game, when 11 civs are left, having tariffs on 3 would mean that your industries grow 9% faster.

 

[Camikaze]

In the light of this thread, I think this one should be resurrected.

I think the general idea for naval improvement, with regards to trade, is the creation of trade routes, which are then protected by your own ships. Privateers and barbarians would try and disrupt these trade routes. However, you wouldn't have to actually control numerous commercial vessels as they plot there way across an ocean, making the use of such a system much easier.

 

[Hail]

i like the implementation of trade in CtP1. it had caravans, trade routes, piracy and such.
i think that civ5 should have something similar. the idea of protecting trade routes can be realized by creating the ability for the player to assign military units or a stack to trade routes, as in CtP1 piracy was easy and highly damaging. so the protecting units will have some chance (100%?) of intercepting pirating units as if the caravans where escorted. should work the same for land and sea trade routes. as a balancing issue, the intercept chance can be less, the longer the trade route is (in tile distance).

 

[Camikaze]

I much prefer the idea of trade routes, supply lines, etc. without caravans, or merchant vessels. You would still have the same control over having to maintain supply and trade routes, but without the tedious micromanagement. Besides, although it may sound odd, having no commercial units is more realistic, than having, say, 1 per turn. In any trade route, there would be more than one ship, or convoy. Representing this with one unit is farfetched. However, not bothering with the representation of such assumes that it is still being done, but merely in an automated fashion.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I much prefer the idea of trade routes, supply lines, etc. without caravans, or merchant vessels. You would still have the same control over having to maintain supply and trade routes, but without the tedious micromanagement. Besides, although it may sound odd, having no commercial units is more realistic, than having, say, 1 per turn. In any trade route, there would be more than one ship, or convoy. Representing this with one unit is farfetched. However, not bothering with the representation of such assumes that it is still being done, but merely in an automated fashion.

I think I agree, although I'd enjoy seeing some automated trade routes... ships, camel caravans, wagon trains, trains ( kind of like Pirates! and Railroads ).... perhaps when a new trade route is established... just to illustrate your commerce.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Another thing that makes navies more important is the presence of barb ships. Things like the pirates mod ( originally by The Lopez? and included in Hist. in the Making.) which provide uprisings with a few later era sailing ships require you to have a navy to keep your trade routes open.

 

[Hail]

I much prefer the idea of trade routes, supply lines, etc. without caravans, or merchant vessels. You would still have the same control over having to maintain supply and trade routes, but without the tedious micromanagement. Besides, although it may sound odd, having no commercial units is more realistic, than having, say, 1 per turn. In any trade route, there would be more than one ship, or convoy. Representing this with one unit is farfetched. However, not bothering with the representation of such assumes that it is still being done, but merely in an automated fashion.

CtP1 does not have caravans as units, but rather just as a number. 1 caravan per trade route. if trade route is pirated, the caravan is lost.

 

[exhile]

So I guess the lines of trade routes whether it be naval or land will be visible on Civ 5 now. I wonder what this is going to look like.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, hopefully, seeing as there is a general consensus about that. It should affect gameplay in that it will increase the importance of trade and the navy in the game, making it vital for you to use your navy to ensure economic survival.

 

[exhile]

Well, hopefully, seeing as there is a general consensus about that. It should affect gameplay in that it will increase the importance of trade and the navy in the game, making it vital for you to use your navy to ensure economic survival.

Sounds like fun. Can't wait....

 

[Argetnyx]

WHAT YOU NEED: You need a merchant fleet which will carry your trading imports and exports from port to port. That way, your navy will always be busy escorting (if you like) and it will never be boring. The importance of the navy will be much more appreciated if it is done this way.

 

[Camikaze]

I suppose, but it would be highly unrealistic, having a trade mission take multiple years to reach its destination. Although it would fit in with the movement of other units in civ, I guess, which isn't realistic. But, I still would prefer just shipping lanes, that you have to protect, under which the assumption would be that you have hundreds of merchant vessels going back and forth.

 

[Argetnyx]

But then you would be protecting a line on the map. People would be going: "Why am I guarding a line?" You need some king of moving unit. Each tile represents miles and miles of land, or sea, and (especially in ancient times) ships would wander and take more time than usual.

 

[Camikaze]

I see what you mean, but I think that people are smart enough to realise that there are meant to be hundreds and hundreds of little vessels travelling across the routes. Perhaps there could even be little graphics showing a steady procession of ships, to make it easier to, firstly, see enemy supply routes, and secondly, allow you to get the feel of the trade routes.

Also, I don't want to be micromanaging several commercial vessels at a time. It would be too tedious.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I see what you mean, but I think that people are smart enough to realise that there are meant to be hundreds and hundreds of little vessels travelling across the routes. Perhaps there could even be little graphics showing a steady procession of ships, to make it easier to, firstly, see enemy supply routes, and secondly, allow you to get the feel of the trade routes.

Also, I don't want to be micromanaging several commercial vessels at a time. It would be too tedious.

Yeah, that's what I had in mind by automated/animated trade routes.

 

[rysmiel]

Also, I don't want to be micromanaging several commercial vessels at a time. It would be too tedious.

Whereas that's one of the things I miss most about Civ 2.

 

[Argetnyx]

They did take too much micromanaging out with civ4. Yes, sometimes it is tedious, but it gives you a feel of control that you can't get when it is automated.

 

[jsweeney]

I would like to see what trade is like in Col. I mean, not the transport and ships needed to trade, but have a trade screen that sends resources from one place to another, forming a triangular trade.
Say I'm america, i'll trade my iron from New York to my overseas city of Los Angeles for Wheat. And Los Angeles has a land route with London, upon which LA trades the Iron to London for some Spices. Also, I feel that the elimination of Naval Borders is needed. Instead, have it so two civ's water units can't go on the same tile without a special open borders agreement, so to say that the nation with a larger navy would actually have control of the seas.

 

[Argetnyx]

Naval units of different countries should not be able to go in the same tile anyway.