Possible disadvantage to roads on every tile

[th0mas]

The same effect can be achieved by restricting maintenance to road tiles that are not worked. That way, the redundant commerce bonus can be avoided while still accomplishing the goal.

I am proposing that the road/Rail network is a net benefit to a civilization. What you suggest above, assumes the cost of maintaining your road network is equivalent to the commerse or wealth generated by the same tile. I propose that if roads, as they are used in CIV, represent population centers and local cottage industry etc then the value generated far exceeds the cost of maintaining the road network.
*edit*
In fact you could take the opposite approach and suggest that there is no maintenance for the road network, but you only get commerse for those tiles with roads that you work, which I think is what we have with Civ 1, 2 & 3.

 

[th0mas]

I haven't seen anybody propose this yet (admittedly I haven't actively searched for it) and it seems like a logical model.
*snip*
... not overly complicated.

The small, local paths that you suggest as your first type of road, I believe, are implicit in terms of working a tile - If a tile is worked there are paths etc there.

So if I understand what you suggest, you are proposing an extra road classification between the roads and the rail tile impovements in the current Civ model.

I am not sure, whether the extra Micromanagement would improve game play, it might, depending on the benefits and costs of the new road type.

 

[frekk]

I have to say that I really never liked enemies not being able to use roads. I mean, really, you have a Prussian army that arrives at the French border and marches in after Napoleon. They can't use the roads because...they march on the wrong side? ...they don't understand how French roads work?...they have to know the secret handshake? ...they have some wierd notion of warfare and think it's 'unfair' to walk on roads within enemy territory?

I know that it seems weird, but I can see in the game that it works out to model the pattern of military movement fairly well. Advancing into enemy territory is much slower than moving in your own territory for a variety of reasons (different reasons at different times, but essentially always logistics - militaries in foreign territories in ancient times slowed to pillage or forage, in both ancient and modern times they advance only at the speed of their supply lines and so on). Also an army advancing is quite a different proposition from an army redeploying, involving alot of different activities which generally slow down the force, regardless of what time period you're discussing. In hostile territory, there are always locals to interact with, rebels or partisans to deal with, encampments need to be fortified nightly, and all sorts of things that aren't a factor in redeployment. Restricting movement on enemy roads models these factors quite well even if it doesn't immediatly make sense. What would make sense is to impose a movement penatly outside your borders (or depending on how you look at it, to grant a movement bonus inside your borders).

I certainly hope that you cannot make use of enemy railroads, as this was historically difficult (due to gauge differences, sabotage, etc).

 

[apatheist]

What you suggest above, assumes the cost of maintaining your road network is equivalent to the commerse or wealth generated by the same tile.

I also considered the case they were not equal. See the post 2 above the one you replied to.

 

[th0mas]

There's no point to having both maintenance and commerce; they'd cancel each other out. Even if they're not equal; suppose maintenance was 2 gpt and commerce 1; you might as well ditch the commerce and make the maintenance 1 gpt. Not that I like maintenance; just making a point.

I also considered the case they were not equal. See the post 2 above the one you replied to.

I am sorry Apatheist, but this is not so, in your example you assume that maintenance is 2gpt vs commerse 1 gpt. What I propose is in fact the opposite weighting, Which I also believe to be a more realistic abstraction. The benefit in real terms to the civilization from commerse in a worked tile is far greater than the cost of maintenance of the road network.
In summary you either keep the existing model for CIV, including commerse for worked and roaded tiles or you included both and the game trade off is the number of non-worked rail/road tiles in your territory is the cost of maintaining a tranport network for moving of units.

For me the latter model would lead to a high density of road networks around cities with interconnecting roads purely for the purposes of maintaining trade, resourse sharing and strategic defence. This could make for a more exciting topology in terms of strategic defence/pillaging/bombing etc in the later game.

 

[apatheist]

I am sorry Apatheist, but this is not so, in your example you assume that maintenance is 2gpt vs commerse 1 gpt. What I propose is in fact the opposite weighting, Which I also believe to be a more realistic abstraction. The benefit in real terms to the civilization from commerse in a worked tile is far greater than the cost of maintenance of the road network.

Note the word suppose in my example. Those were arbitrary choices to illustrate the point. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. If maintenance is 2 gpt and commerce 1 gpt, it's the same thing has having maintenance of 1 gpt and there's no point in having the commerce. If the numbers are reversed, it's the same thing as having commerce of 1 gpt and no maintenance. If the numbers are equal, that's the same thing as having no commerce and no maintenance. In other words, no matter how you slice it, there's no point in having both maintenance and commerce for roads.

 

[th0mas]

Note the word suppose in my example. Those were arbitrary choices to illustrate the point. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. If maintenance is 2 gpt and commerce 1 gpt, it's the same thing has having maintenance of 1 gpt and there's no point in having the commerce. If the numbers are reversed, it's the same thing as having commerce of 1 gpt and no maintenance. If the numbers are equal, that's the same thing as having no commerce and no maintenance. In other words, no matter how you slice it, there's no point in having both maintenance and commerce for roads.

I am in danger of repeating myself...

My point is NOT whether one removes the other, because in classic CIV, your comment is absolutely on the mark - There is no need to have a maintenance cost as it has been rolled up into the resulting low commerse value you make on worked road tiles.

I was trying point out that in fact maintenance can add an extra game element by forcing the player to recognise the cost of maintaining a rail/road network purely for the purposes of strategic defence, trade and resource shareing. This would reduce road sprawl in areas where the tiles cannot be worked, and leave the map with a road/rail network more representative of the local population. In civ III, you would set your workers to autoroad everything, with maintenance in CIV4, this would not happen.

 

[apatheist]

Hence my comment that maintenance should only apply to roads on unworked tiles. Or, to be a little more flexible, to roads not in a city's radius. But then, you'll probably not have much road outside of cities, so putting maintenance on that would be pointless.

 

[th0mas]

Yes, that makes sense, although from a purest point of view you should apply the same rule of maintenance to all tiles whether or not they sit within a city's radius ... and keep commerce .

 

[apatheist]

I think roads generating commerce is a bad idea because it is a poor representation of real trade. Roads are merely a conduit; the trade should depend on what it connects, not the road itself. Being able to build a road to nowhere and generate commerce is stupid. So is random coastal tiles generating commerce.

Another issue with maintenance is determining who pays for roads that are not in anyone's territory. It's not fair to say nobody pays, but it's also not fair to say the builder pays.

 

[th0mas]

I think roads generating commerce is a bad idea because it is a poor representation of real trade. Roads are merely a conduit; the trade should depend on what it connects, not the road itself. Being able to build a road to nowhere and generate commerce is stupid. So is random coastal tiles generating commerce.

It depends on your point of view, for me the roads are an abstraction of rural population centres. Commerse is only generated if you work the tile in the city screen using a free population unit. Given the scale we are talking about here (time and geography) I think this abstraction is quite intuitive. There are no roads to nowhere, there is something there, else it would not generate commerse.

Another issue with maintenance is determining who pays for roads that are not in anyone's territory. It's not fair to say nobody pays, but it's also not fair to say the builder pays.

I agree it is not perfect, but I prefer the former option, that nobody pays. The builder has already payed, in lost opportunity costs with their worker.

 

[evil_linus]

I think back on the many places in the USA and Europe I've been. All but the most remote areas have roads and rail in them.

Yeah, well maybe not rails but some type of roads exist almost everywhere. BUT, you think you can drive a tank or a really heavy truck on a small muddy road? No you can't, the minor roads will not be able to bare the weight and will eventually crack.

Therefor I believe the roads you build in Civgames represents bigger and more durable roads. And that kind of roads does not exist almost everywhere.

 

[apatheist]

It depends on your point of view, for me the roads are an abstraction of rural population centres. Commerse is only generated if you work the tile in the city screen using a free population unit. Given the scale we are talking about here (time and geography) I think this abstraction is quite intuitive. There are no roads to nowhere, there is something there, else it would not generate commerse.

The trade is a function of the population, though, not of the land.

I agree it is not perfect, but I prefer the former option, that nobody pays. The builder has already payed, in lost opportunity costs with their worker.

Why isn't that sufficient cost for roads in your own territory then?

 

[th0mas]

The trade is a function of the population, though, not of the land.?

Trade is the function of the population and the land. The goods which are traded, both unrefined and refined, are a product of the people on the land with commerse being the product of people trading the goods. So both people and the land are required.

Given it's scale there is an expected lack of granualrity when modelling local Socioeconomic activity. I have no problem with the current commerse abstraction as I think it fits this scale.

Why isn't that sufficient cost for roads in your own territory then?

A rail line or road outside of anyone's territory by definition is not in use. If your territory expands to cover the line then you start paying maintenance. A rail line inside your territory is in use all the time and becomes part of the rail network.

 

[apatheist]

Trade is the function of the population and the land. The goods which are traded, both unrefined and refined, are a product of the people on the land with commerse being the product of people trading the goods. So both people and the land are required.

Goods and commodities are a function of people and land. Commerce is not a function of land but of commodities, people, and distance. The commodities in Civ are strategic resources, luxuries, and food. However, you can have a tile that produces only a little food, but lots of trade. Conversely, you can have a tile produce massive amounts of food but limited trade. That's counter-intuitive. What are they trading? And with whom?

Given it's scale there is an expected lack of granualrity when modelling local Socioeconomic activity. I have no problem with the current commerse abstraction as I think it fits this scale.

Consider this alternative. A city has population, culture, strategic resources, luxuries, and food. Together, those comprise its local economy. Those are factors that determine what that city has to provide other cities. The population is the market. The culture is for tourism/pilgrimages/etc. Strategic resources, luxuries, and commodities are obviously things other cities want. How effectively cities can meet each other's needs is determined by how easy it is to travel between them.

The actual commerce generated by a city is a function of the quality of its position in the trade network and the quality of other cities in the trade network. The quality of a city's position is how close it is to other cities. The quality of a city is the strength of its local economy. The trade between one city and another is the value that each derives from trading with the other divided by the distance between each one. The commerce (as in double-arrows that get converted into gold/science/luxuries) generated by a city is the sum of its local economy and all of its trade relationships with other cities. The trade for Shanghai would thus be the sum of the following:

Economy(city) = population + culture + resources + luxuries.

Trade(city1, city2) = Economy(city1) + Economy(city2)

Commerce(city0) = Economy(city0) + Trade(city0, city1)/distance(city, city1) + Trade(city0, city2)/distance(city0, city2) + Trade(city0, city3)/distance(city0, city3) + ....

for all cities that can be reached from city0.

An elaboration would be that cities that have the same commodities don't derive any benefit from trading those commodities to each other. Nobody in Newcastle is going to buy coal from somewhere else, so calculations of its trade with other coal cities would have the coal component removed entirely.

The distance between cities would be a function of terrain, technology, and infrastructure. The distance is the number of turns it takes your fastest unit to go from one city to the other (described further in this thread, along with an earlier version of the above). This kind of trade can also cross borders, depending on the situation. A free trade agreement allows trade between your cities and their cities to be just like domestic trade. Having no trade agreement or being at war means there's no trade between cities. Then there are intermediate level agreements that can exist that allow some trade, but not at the same level as domestic (mechanism TBD).

A rail line or road outside of anyone's territory by definition is not in use. If your territory expands to cover the line then you start paying maintenance. A rail line inside your territory is in use all the time and becomes part of the rail network.

Even if you're not working it? Let's take two adjacent rail segments connecting Samarkand with Bokhara. One of them is in your territory. The other is not. Neither is worked by a citizen. You move troops from Samarkand to Bokhara over both tiles. By any measure, they're both in use to the exact same degree. So why should I have to pay maintenance on one but not the other? I believe there is no satisfactory solution to this problem, which is why there is no maintenance at all (as far as we know).

 

[bman003]

I was thinking maybe give some ground units the ability to ambush. For example they would be invisible to the enemy, since they're saying great people can be invisible. Of course the unit would loose the ability to move for an extra turn, or there would be some sorta disadvantage. This could be done by ceratin specialized troops, like marine special forces. For the past this could be done with minute men etc.

I think it would be awsome to have some huge lumbering army just walk apon a huge ambush force they never knew was there.

O and that would balance giving enemy troops the ability to walk through your land. Also, don't give the ability as much to people in enemy land.

 

[th0mas]

Goods and commodities are a function of people and land. Commerce is not a function of land but of commodities, people, and distance. The commodities in Civ are strategic resources, luxuries, and food. However, you can have a tile that produces only a little food, but lots of trade. Conversely, you can have a tile produce massive amounts of food but limited trade. That's counter-intuitive. What are they trading? And with whom?.

I think you make this too complicated. At the scale we play Civ it is not important what is being traded, just that there is 'trade' (as in double-arrows that get converted into gold/science/luxuries) and you can increase the amount of 'trade' by improving the transport network in the tile. Correct me if I'm wrong but trade/commerse on tiles is not determined by connectivity to other civs, it is just a representation of the amount of financial wealth/value generated at the tile.

Consider this alternative. A city has population, culture, strategic resources, luxuries, and food. Together, those comprise its local economy.
*snip*
Those are factors that determine what that city has to provide other cities. The population is the market. The culture is for tourism/pilgrimages/etc. Strategic resources, luxuries, and commodities are obviously things other cities want. How effectively cities can meet each other's needs is determined by how easy it is to travel between them.
*snip*.

Your definition of 'local economy' in civ terms I believe misses commerse generated locally. My view of a city in Civ is a representation of the actual city + the population living in it's local surrounding area with its associated commerse generating activities. The economy of a city is fed by the local economy of the surrounding lands and all the items you state above for intercity connectivity improving trade also apply on a local level.
I think you describe an elegant model in terms of intercity trade, and if you include commerse generation on worked tiles with roads into your definition of the local economy, you have my vote

Even if you're not working it?
*snip*
other? I believe there is no satisfactory solution to this problem, which is why there is no maintenance at all (as far as we know).

All I can say here is that it is an abstraction. The rational is a little weak I admit, but a rail network in your territory is used by the people who live in your territory to do there daily business (therefore you pay maintenance). Move a unit down a rail track that is situated in noones territory (and therefore is not maintained), would require a team of engineers to repair the track as unit moved down the track. As most turns in Civ stretch into years, this is not an issue for me!

 

[apatheist]

I think you make this too complicated. At the scale we play Civ it is not important what is being traded, just that there is 'trade' (as in double-arrows that get converted into gold/science/luxuries) and you can increase the amount of 'trade' by improving the transport network in the tile. Correct me if I'm wrong but trade/commerse on tiles is not determined by connectivity to other civs, it is just a representation of the amount of financial wealth/value generated at the tile.

It may be more complicated, but it's realistic. There wouldn't be a substantial learning curve because people know how trade works in the real world. The actions that players take would lead to the results they intuitively expect. "Gee, I want to trade with that city across the sea; maybe I should build a harbor." "Trade between Paris and Lyon is weak; maybe I need to create more stuff." "New York isn't getting much trade from San Francisco's gold; maybe I ought to build a railroad."

Your definition of 'local economy' in civ terms I believe misses commerse generated locally. My view of a city in Civ is a representation of the actual city + the population living in it's local surrounding area with its associated commerse generating activities. The economy of a city is fed by the local economy of the surrounding lands and all the items you state above for intercity connectivity improving trade also apply on a local level.
I think you describe an elegant model in terms of intercity trade, and if you include commerse generation on worked tiles with roads into your definition of the local economy, you have my vote

I think you missed the part where the first term in summing commerce was the city's local economy. That way, even if no other cities are in your trade network, you still have some double-arrow generation.

Also note that this model works for cities that aren't connected by roads, rivers, etc. Goods will travel overland, but since it takes much longer to travel that way, the effective distance is significantly greater and thus the trade between the two cities will be less. Perhaps it should be divided by the distance squared, but that's a refinement; the principle remains the same.

All I can say here is that it is an abstraction. The rational is a little weak I admit, but a rail network in your territory is used by the people who live in your territory to do there daily business (therefore you pay maintenance).

That's why I think it's just simpler to have no maintenance. If you're going to be unrealistic, be unrealistic in the simplest possible way. It's also consistent; irrigation, fortresses, mines, and all those things don't cost maintenance in the suggested scheme either.

 

[th0mas]

It may be more complicated, but it's realistic. There wouldn't be a substantial learning curve because people know how trade works in the real world. The actions that players take would lead to the results they intuitively expect. "Gee, I want to trade with that city across the sea; maybe I should build a harbor." "Trade between Paris and Lyon is weak; maybe I need to create more stuff." "New York isn't getting much trade from San Francisco's gold; maybe I ought to build a railroad."

I'm all for intuitive international trade in Civ. One of my pet peaves with Civ III is that the player (...and I speak for myself here ) does not feel in control of events, does not see the impact his actions have on the game. Diplomacy for example, it was never obvious why Ghandi was annoyed, or Joan pleased....and therefore very difficult to know what actions to take.

...which is why I like the roads & Commerce 'hands-on' commerce model, I build a road, I work the tile, I get Commerce.

Digressing slightly off the point, I think this 'hands on' approach is the essence of why the civilization game is so successful as a concept. In Civ I this applied to neally every aspect of the game. It made for an odd yet fun trading model with caravans, ZOC required the player to make clever unit placement decisions and of course building roads effected your economy . The further the Civ series has moved away from this hands-on concept, the 'less fun' it has become (IMHO). That being said, there have been a lot of improvements since the first game, but I just didn't find Civ III fun

I think you missed the part where the first term in summing commerce was the city's local economy. That way, even if no other cities are in your trade network, you still have some double-arrow generation.

I apologise for being obtuse, but it seems that in your model, the amount of Commerse generated for a lone city is pre-defined by the cities population size etc, and apart from building banks (for example) it does not require any active thought by the player. Did I mention I like the 'hands-on' approach to commerce?

That's why I think it's just simpler to have no maintenance. If you're going to be unrealistic, be unrealistic in the simplest possible way. It's also consistent; irrigation, fortresses, mines, and all those things don't cost maintenance in the suggested scheme either.

I agree with you, for me maintenance on Rail/road was purely for the purposes of improving late/middle game road/rail sprawl, a means to an end.

 

[remconius]

The simple solution to not have roads on every tile and still get extra commerce is to link it to improvements.

For example, every tile you work gets one trade, rivers 2. When you get a marketplace it is +50% for worked tiles, banks +100%.