Morocco

[Funak]

Unless they get an extension to TR length...as the modifier would be based on TR length v. max length....

G

What I'm saying is that you have no choice where to throw your trade-routes as morocco, so adding a system where some trade-routes are more valuable than others hurts them.

 

[ElliotS]

I just don't know why out of all the civilizations they could have chosen to make into peaceful traders they went with Morocco. It would be like Attila's powers being bonuses when not at war and a debuff for how many units he kills.

Then again regardless I think people will always complain about morocco or whoever because their powers are super boring.

Even if we're going to keep a trade route theme isn't there anything more interesting we could do with a few small tweaks?

I really like something pirate-y that could make it a better idea to trade with Morroco than other people. Like siphoning yields from nearby trade routes or ability to kill trade routes without going to war.

(Diplo debuffs would lead to it eventually like IRL if they're greedy.)

 

[Funak]

I just don't know why out of all the civilizations they could have chosen to make into peaceful traders they went with Morocco. It would be like Attila's powers being bonuses when not at war and a debuff for how many units he kills.

Then again regardless I think people will always complain about morocco or whoever because their powers are super boring.

Even if we're going to keep a trade route theme isn't there anything more interesting we could do with a few small tweaks?

I really like something pirate-y that could make it a better idea to trade with Morroco than other people. Like siphoning yields from nearby trade routes or ability to kill trade routes without going to war.

(Diplo debuffs would lead to it eventually like IRL if they're greedy.)

Because they're focused on Al-Mansur and he had nothing to do with piracy, he was pretty much known for trade, religion, gold and for conquering the songhai, but having him be a military leader would clash with Askia so they went with the trade-aspect.
Not really sure why they didn't just go for Mali instead if they necessarily wanted to do gold and trade, but here we are.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Just because al-Mansur's piracy was committed across land rather than ocean, it didn't make him any less piratical (in the sense of: shootin' and lootin'). The 'conquest' of Songhai was no conquest in the proper sense of the word, it was lost very shortly afterwards and there was little attempt to integrate the taken lands. It was an enormous and stupendous plunder of gold and wealth. During al-Mansur's reign, actual sea piracy of the Spanish redoubled, as well, partly because of the alliance with the English on such conditions.

Morocco right now benefits from peaceful trading relations and non-coastal cities, it's just so wrong!

 

[Gazebo]

Since I am a benevolent ruler, I pounded out some AI-friendly changes to Morocco. The AI seems to enjoy this.

New UA: +1 to all Yields in Capital for each Trade Route per trade partner, scaling with Era. Trade Route yields are not affected by distance. May plunder Trade Units without being at war, unless you are the recipient.

Instead of making it a financial benefit for other players to trade with Morocco, it is more of a threat: trade with me, or your trade routes are open season for pillaging! Stick more fun than carrot. The first part frees Morocco up to run a smaller/taller empire, and - since the yields now actually go to the capital - the bonus is a little more noticeable.

Distance scaling is something that I'm adding in the next version - in essence, shorter TRs will be worth less, and TRs at your max range will be worth 100% of the TRs potential amount. Should shake up some of the utility of 'safe' trade routes in terms of yields (and also bring TR yields down in total, which is a good thing).

Also, the Kasbah is getting a small buff for coastal/fishing boat tiles adjacent to it (+2g for fishing, +1c for coastal tiles) - similar to the feitoria. Yes, it overlaps a bit, but Morocco is nothing if not a coastal nation, and losing Kasbah spots to coast tiles hurts.

G

 

[Blue Ghost]

Nice! So the AI knows how to avoid getting their trade routes eaten by Morocco? Would Morocco get diplomatic penalties for plundering trade routes?

 

[CrazyG]

TRs at your max range will be worth 100% of the TRs potential amount

Does this mean I'll lose yields if I do something that extends my range?

 

[Funak]

May plunder Trade Units without being at war, unless you are the recipient.

Please don't, this is just such an incredibly stupid mechanic.

Plundering a trade-route means war, and it's not as if you don't know exactly who did it, being that Morocco is the only civ who can do it. It's also yet another bash against the Ottoman UA.

 

[matlajs]

shouldn't be there some limit on plunder action for them? cooldown per civ or something. it already seems to me exploitative, where i will rush few horsemen/ scout camping just for ton of gold.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

So don't give Morocco open boarders. Watch the AI do it and have a stray Unit do so.

It does seem like an nuisance if it some random Unit comes around and pillages it. Or would Morocco respect your neutrality?

 

[Txurce]

Please don't, this is just such an incredibly stupid mechanic.

Plundering a trade-route means war, and it's not as if you don't know exactly who did it, being that Morocco is the only civ who can do it. It's also yet another bash against the Ottoman UA.

I'm okay with Morocco being the Ottomans' kryptonite, but...

I think Morocco would be really fun to play if you can't prove they did the looting. Could the game say barbarians are responsible, given that seagoing barbarians are basically pirates, and so are the Moroccans doing this stuff?

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I'm PSYCHED for Morocco getting to play pirates!

 

[tu_79]

Does this mean I'll lose yields if I do something that extends my range?

Yes, that's my main worry. You build caravansery, you may gain more gold, but lose culture and science. If I'm interested more in gold or in influencing a far away civ, then I build caravansery, otherwise not.

Also, I don't see how this address the problem of sending all your trade routes to the same city from each of your cities.

For the pillaging thing, I think it's the same as England. Everyone knows it's her, but you can't help it other than declaring war. An annoying civ like America. But with Morocco you have at least her cities to trade with safely.

 

[ElliotS]

Please don't, this is just such an incredibly stupid mechanic.

Plundering a trade-route means war, and it's not as if you don't know exactly who did it, being that Morocco is the only civ who can do it. It's also yet another bash against the Ottoman UA.

Except when it doesn't. You're telling me you've instantly gone to war EVERY time the AI has taken your tile with a great general, stolen your wonder or forward settled your spot?

Plus if it leads to war that's just perfectly realistic. Look at what happened with the Barbary pirates IRL. They were a real menace and would kill whomever wasn't paying protection money.

Eventually everyone got fed up with them and the US, kicked their ass along with a little help from Sweden and Sicily.

This ability gives you the ability to play how you want. You can choose not to use it on people well positioned to war you, or to cripple your neighbors if they refuse to trade with you.

Not to mention how powerful the ability is later, with defensive pacts being a thing. You can ally with a big nation and piss off other people all day long, forcing your opponents into a really bad place.

I think this is a really exciting change that offers a lot of room for interesting play.

 

[Gazebo]

Does this mean I'll lose yields if I do something that extends my range?

It is on a city by city basis, but yes. Further routes are worth more. But they should be. Besides, the bonuses on the harbor and caravansary are worth the offset.

G

 

[Funak]

Except when it doesn't. You're telling me you've instantly gone to war EVERY time the AI has taken your tile with a great general, stolen your wonder or forward settled your spot?

Stolen an actual valuable tile with a general? Yes, every time. The other ones? No, those are just stupid, you're not stealing anything from me by building a wonder or settling a city.

This can function in two different ways, either the AI is too stupid to realize that the only civ in the game that can pillage trade-routes in peace-time is pillaging their trade-routes, at which point a human player can abuse that by pillaging every trade-route in the universe, or it will work just like Washington's UA, an ability that the AI can use indiscreetly while if a player uses it they get a penalty comparable to dropping nuclear missiles.


If you insist on going through with this can you at least restrict it to only be usable inside Moroccan territory.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

If you insist on going through with this can you at least restrict it to only be usable inside Moroccan territory.

That takes a fun-sounding mechanic and makes it incredibly dependent on RNG and will only compound the things you're complaining about. AI won't know to not send routes through Morocco. Humans will.

 

[Legen]

It's also yet another bash against the Ottoman UA.

Maybe the Ottomans should just have some protection vs plunder? There's already a corporation that does that, so the code already exists.

What was the other bash on their UA?

 

[ElliotS]

Stolen an actual valuable tile with a general? Yes, every time. The other ones? No, those are just stupid, you're not stealing anything from me by building a wonder or settling a city.

This can function in two different ways, either the AI is too stupid to realize that the only civ in the game that can pillage trade-routes in peace-time is pillaging their trade-routes, at which point a human player can abuse that by pillaging every trade-route in the universe, or it will work just like Washington's UA, an ability that the AI can use indiscreetly while if a player uses it they get a penalty comparable to dropping nuclear missiles.


If you insist on going through with this can you at least restrict it to only be usable inside Moroccan territory.

Once again sometimes you WANT a diplo penalty comparable to dropping nukes. The ability to make one or two people really annoyed at you is actually really valuable. As for the war: A trade route is like what, 1-3 turns of production in 1 city? You're going to war over a single unit you can instantly replace?

I think that in practice you'll just send the trade route to morocco 80% of the time unless you were already planning on murdering them. (In which case this discussion is invalid.)

 

[matlajs]

i will definetely try it out as soon as it comes out. i can't wait me pillaging all the non-internall traderoutes with horsemen/ scouts of civs far away on huge maps. penalties... pfff . that gold will build my cities. fak the penalties.

don¨t get me wrong. such pro- active abilities are best of the mod, but this can easily make morroco world terrorist no1. not only you can prevent oponents from finishing trs to gain tourism, but also to get franchises, gaining influence with cs etc. it would be really great if you can sack it without actually destroying tr unit, while gain its yields for how long it has been active on that particular path with cool down or something for exploit prevention.