Morocco

Now that I think about it, being forced to toss your trade-routes at less profitable locations just to satisfy your UA is kinda silly.
Any chance we could change the UA to act more like the Egyptian UA in civ6? Where their trade-routes are just in general more profitable, both ways.

Portugal and Germany have that too (and Ottomans, in a different sense). Haven't played with Morocco but I'd rather that stays in, it seems like the only real part of their UA that requires thought to use. Just bonus yields from trade routes is even more boring.
 
Portugal and Germany have that too (and Ottomans, in a different sense). Haven't played with Morocco but I'd rather that stays in, it seems like the only real part of their UA that requires thought to use. Just bonus yields from trade routes is even more boring.
I meant more in line with Lowering the yields provided and removing the 1 per civ cap. So you'd still get bonuses from other civs trade-routes and you could throw your trade-routes wherever you want.
 
I'm with Galbias here, I don't know how that doesn't just make the UA less involved. The yields aren't the thing people have a problem with
 
Yeah, the problem is not the yield, it's how outright boring and non-representative Morocco is compared to every other amazing Civ.
 
I think Morocco if fine really. If you think it is not played different enough from other civs you probably play it wrong. Morocco should maximize value of its own cities so that other civs will start trading with them. At the same time Morocco itself should trade with different city-states so that incoming trade routes from other civs will trigger Morocco's UA. This leads to the fact that Morocco is most-suited for Statecraft play, especially with the latest changes to Statecraft. Probably Morocco's uniqueness is that Morocco should be played Tradition into Statecraft with small number of highly productive cities (Kasbah can fix Tradition's lack of hammers), which is quite unusual
 
I think Morocco if fine really. If you think it is not played different enough from other civs you probably play it wrong. Morocco should maximize value of its own cities so that other civs will start trading with them. At the same time Morocco itself should trade with different city-states so that incoming trade routes from other civs will trigger Morocco's UA. This leads to the fact that Morocco is most-suited for Statecraft play, especially with the latest changes to Statecraft. Probably Morocco's uniqueness is that Morocco should be played Tradition into Statecraft with small number of highly productive cities (Kasbah can fix Tradition's lack of hammers), which is quite unusual
Maximizing how? I still never see the AI sending trade-routes to developed cities, they're always picking the ones with the least amount of markets, caravansaries and custom-houses
 
Maximizing how? I still never see the AI sending trade-routes to developed cities, they're always picking the ones with the least amount of markets, caravansaries and custom-houses
Well that depends on a distance, most developed cities are usually those that are far away from them. And once longer trade routes become available - AI already has more developed cities than you (do you ever build Caravanserais? and Custom Houses are also not a highest priority building at all). And for Morocco those buildings are much more important as well as everything else (don't remember how trade route value is calculated, but you can find it in civilopedia)
 
Well that depends on a distance, most developed cities are usually those that are far away from them. And once longer trade routes become available - AI already has more developed cities than you (do you ever build Caravanserais? and Custom Houses are also not a highest priority building at all). And for Morocco those buildings are much more important as well as everything else (don't remember how trade route value is calculated, but you can find it in civilopedia)
I'm saying that the only trade-routes I ever see the AI doing to me are to newly settled or underdeveloped cities without any of the trade-buildings. As soon as those cities gets their trade-buildings up the trade-routes stop coming all together.
 
I do build Caravanserais... once I've unlocked Banks.
I used to actually build this building, especially as tradition it could be worth a lot of gold in the capital.

But with recent changes, the best strategy for trade routes is generally to ally 1-2 city states, then send all the trade routes there (from different cities). It makes the building difficult to use, and its really bad for morrocco. Just as an example, in my current game (I'm Iroquois) I maximixe my culture, science and gold earned from trade by sending all routes to just one city state. Even if I was morrocco, this would still be true. That will eventually change when the scaling bonus gets high enough, but in the current game morocco's UA has a really high opportunity cost
 
I used to actually build this building, especially as tradition it could be worth a lot of gold in the capital.

But with recent changes, the best strategy for trade routes is generally to ally 1-2 city states, then send all the trade routes there (from different cities). It makes the building difficult to use, and its really bad for morrocco. Just as an example, in my current game (I'm Iroquois) I maximixe my culture, science and gold earned from trade by sending all routes to just one city state. Even if I was morrocco, this would still be true. That will eventually change when the scaling bonus gets high enough, but in the current game morocco's UA has a really high opportunity cost
WEll recent changes to difficulty should change it a bit (though i'm just about to try them), but in my experience i was not trading with CS cause trading with neighbour was by far more profitable in terms of Science/Culture. It was not unusual for me to get 20 science and culture from traderoute in Medeival
 
I used to actually build this building, especially as tradition it could be worth a lot of gold in the capital.

But with recent changes, the best strategy for trade routes is generally to ally 1-2 city states, then send all the trade routes there (from different cities). It makes the building difficult to use, and its really bad for morrocco. Just as an example, in my current game (I'm Iroquois) I maximixe my culture, science and gold earned from trade by sending all routes to just one city state. Even if I was morrocco, this would still be true. That will eventually change when the scaling bonus gets high enough, but in the current game morocco's UA has a really high opportunity cost
Yeah, all caravans to the same city-state if you're in a good position or all of them to the same runaway AI if you're in a bad position. Morocco's inability to do this is kinda what scares me the most.
 
Yeah, all caravans to the same city-state if you're in a good position or all of them to the same runaway AI if you're in a bad position. Morocco's inability to do this is kinda what scares me the most.
Exactly. I really don't like the current position of trade routes, I think it promotes exactly one strategy. Morocco was pretty good a while back, but its UA just contradicts what is by far the most dominant trading strategy
WEll recent changes to difficulty should change it a bit (though i'm just about to try them), but in my experience i was not trading with CS cause trading with neighbour was by far more profitable in terms of Science/Culture. It was not unusual for me to get 20 science and culture from traderoute in Medeival
Well this is going to change. If the AI is modern when you are in medieval, I don't think it really matters what you do with your trade routes
 
I really like that trade routes now gives culture in addition to science. I kind of understand the logic of giving such high values to city states. Considering that sending trade routes to an influenced civ helps with city growth, city states need something cool to compete.

But sending trade routes to an allied close city state is one of the safest trade routes, only behind national trade routes. While sending international trade routes to a major civ is always risky.
I should think that the riskier the better the gains.

Secondly, getting science and culture from civs that are more advanced was intended as a comeback mechanic, but how much does it account for? Even being behind, I don't think that all my trade routes together yield a 5% of my own production, unless I send them to allied city states. Maybe it's different for deity, but in Emperor it doesn't matter.

This is all considering the old AI handicaps. If we tweak handicaps so humans are even with AI, the yields from trade routes to major civs are going to be negligible.
 
I really like that trade routes now gives culture in addition to science. I kind of understand the logic of giving such high values to city states. Considering that sending trade routes to an influenced civ helps with city growth, city states need something cool to compete.

But sending trade routes to an allied close city state is one of the safest trade routes, only behind national trade routes. While sending international trade routes to a major civ is always risky.
I should think that the riskier the better the gains.

Secondly, getting science and culture from civs that are more advanced was intended as a comeback mechanic, but how much does it account for? Even being behind, I don't think that all my trade routes together yield a 5% of my own production, unless I send them to allied city states. Maybe it's different for deity, but in Emperor it doesn't matter.

This is all considering the old AI handicaps. If we tweak handicaps so humans are even with AI, the yields from trade routes to major civs are going to be negligible.

One possibility I've considered adding to the game is scaling trade route yields by distance. So that closer targets are worth substantially less than longer distances.

G
 
One possibility I've considered adding to the game is scaling trade route yields by distance. So that closer targets are worth substantially less than longer distances.

G
Sounds like another mechanic that would hurt Morocco, who has limited choices in where to send their TRs.
 
It would hurt Morocco and the Ottomans, but it would make a great overall addition to the game. I'm in favour of this, it's worth the effort to adjust Morroco and the Ottomans if on the other hand we get a much improved overall trade route system.
 
I fear that it will work for trade routes to city states too and the situation won't change. I hope you are saying that trade routes to cities that are closer will yield more of everything, because if it is the opposite, it could create a weird issue with players refusing to build any building that could extend range.

Shorter trade routes already benefits from more tourism triggers.

The same change you did with CS tech level (they have a tech when 80% of the world knows it), could be made for science and culture yields from trade routes.

Alternatively, you could forbid that the same civ can send more than one trade route to the same city. It will make trading more interesting, but probably needs some coding, so you have the word in this.
 
I fear that it will work for trade routes to city states too and the situation won't change. I hope you are saying that trade routes to cities that are closer will yield more of everything, because if it is the opposite, it could create a weird issue with players refusing to build any building that could extend range.

Shorter trade routes already benefits from more tourism triggers.

The same change you did with CS tech level (they have a tech when 80% of the world knows it), could be made for science and culture yields from trade routes.

Alternatively, you could forbid that the same civ can send more than one trade route to the same city. It will make trading more interesting, but probably needs some coding, so you have the word in this.

The closer something is, the less you would get from it. Buildings that extend your range would make closer targets less valuable because it would open up much more valuable routes further away.

G
 
Top Bottom