Post patch Detailed Trade Route Discussion
- Thread starter Roxlimn
- Start date
You're right, when talking very specifically about gimping cities for the purposes of sending a whole bunch of ITRs to them. You understand we're now discussing something else entirely, yes? Or are you just ignoring posts so you can get around to arguing sooner? Given posts like this:
after I post a screenshot with titanium next to my capital I'm starting to wonder.
Edit: and now that I think about it, to a certain degree you probably can ignore the dirt and make your capital a "production center" even in a very poor production location for at least a little while. When even just a couple of production or food makes all the difference in how ITR yields seem to be determined it wouldn't take much to still give your new city a nice food boost and your capital a nice production boost while building a colonist. Again, wouldn't be as stupidly high a yield as you could potentially have with appropriate dirt, but it should still be possible.
after I post a screenshot with titanium next to my capital I'm starting to wonder.
Edit: and now that I think about it, to a certain degree you probably can ignore the dirt and make your capital a "production center" even in a very poor production location for at least a little while. When even just a couple of production or food makes all the difference in how ITR yields seem to be determined it wouldn't take much to still give your new city a nice food boost and your capital a nice production boost while building a colonist. Again, wouldn't be as stupidly high a yield as you could potentially have with appropriate dirt, but it should still be possible.
It's related. As I said before, it is not necessary to gimp your cities in order to gain great routes. It is not necessary for them to be small nor have poor tile outputs. I mean, you CAN, if you want to. You can also never improve any tiles, never make any military, research random technology every turn, or whatever the heck you fancy that shoots you in the foot.
No, it is not related, except in that they are examples of how the current mechanic for ITRs isn't very good. Again, I don't think you actually read posts before posting, as you're now talking about shooting yourself in the foot when this:
was posted right above you by the guy who first mentioned the idea of sending ITRs to gimped cities in the first place.
was posted right above you by the guy who first mentioned the idea of sending ITRs to gimped cities in the first place.
Actually, you can have a couple of good cities and a bunch of smaller, but not garbage cities that harvest non-food, non-hammer outputs. You can have even have those cities in the context of decent ITRs between the good cities, too. It's the magic of logarithmic scaling.
That's why I said that intentionally gimping your smaller cities is completely pointless. You're trading something like 60 to 80 bpt (Academies were nerfed) for - well, nothing, since the sensible alternative gets as much stuff.
Yup - mistake. It turns out that in most cases, the production of the TR is getting rounded to zero. Either (a) the new city's production is too low to get an appreciable fraction of the route yield, and/or (b) the route is not worth enough total production for the new city's share to be greater than 1p.
It appears that rush-buying a recycler overcomes this, in part by increasing the new city's production, and also by giving a +1p to the TR.
It would be helpful to know what the base yields for each city were, so we can start to figure out the function. We need to know Base Production, and "Base" Food minus Food from TR (not simply "Base Food" as reported in the tooltip).
As for the conceptual issue, that's a textbook example of Comparative Advantage and marginal productivity. Saudi Arabia makes oil, Argentina grows wheat. They trade, which lets SA get better at extracting oil and Argentina get better at growing wheat. The net result is that there is more oil and wheat in the world than if each took it's profits from the exchange and then tried to encourage domestic production of the other's good. Your understanding of trade is faulty, not the game's.
When it feels like your food cities will never get better production from trade routes, and your production cities will never get more food, that's a real thing. It happens to developing economies all over the world when they get trapped by one large sector of the export economy that tends to displace all the others. It's usually oil or other extractive resources, and sometimes refered to as "Dutch Disease" because of the effects that North Sea oil development had on the rest of the Dutch economy int he 60's and 70's. Moving away from these industries and into more lucrative or prestigious economic sectors is VERY hard.
The dynamic is reversed in-game for external routes, which seems counter-intuitive. In our world, the most scientifically advanced cities and economies attract MORE research and technology. Every mayor wants to make a Silicon Mudpit in their podunk city, but it's very hard to do it. Young startups move to Silicon Valley (or are brought there by buy-outs). Students and researchers want to go to where the action is, and doing so increases their productivity. The most technologically advanced parts of the world today are the same as 50 and 100 years ago, because the exchange of scientific information has tended to keep the leaders leading.
It's not just science. Directors and actors move to Hollywood. Bankers from all over Europe end up in London. Fashion designers, regardless of where they start, migrate to Paris and Milan. Money attracts money - exactly the opposite of the trade routes in the game.
Lots of countries want to be the Next Wall Street, but the global financial capitals of today are basically the same as they were 50 years ago and 100 years ago. You might add Dubai and Shanghai, if you were really charitable, but look at all the money they had to spend to make that happen! All the oil profits of a very oil rich emirate, for the last 20 years? 30 years of rapid industrialization and urbanization of the most populous country on Earth, at growth rates unprecedented in human history, taking place under massive capital and investment controls - specifically to prevent migration of the financial activities to offshore locations like Hong Kong, Tokyo, and New York?
Sorry for the long rant, but there's a lot of people saying "this doesn't make any sense," but in fact it can make a great deal of sense. Civ games have just never been clear about what the "trade" actually represents.
show us a screen shot from your game where two large cities are trading, and one of those cities is getting 5 food and 10 production per turn... That is what you do get from a city of 10 to 12 pop, that is trading with a 1 pop city. And that 1 pop city will naturally stay that way for the duration of the first trade route. By then I have another city, 1 pop to take its place, and grow the other city... Not hard to understand,..................
Also, lets see your math that shows it is logarithmic scaling.
It is not.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16402314/Scaled Down Photos/2014-12-16_00001.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16402314/Scaled Down Photos/2014-12-16_00002.jpg
The trade route from Ayaan to Masego is worth +4/+8. It is less by +1/+2 from your size 1 city. However, the output of the size 5 city is considerably greater by more than +1/+2 compared to a size 1 city that doesn't have anything, and it's more Health Neutral. You can clearly see that most of the routes are worth +4 or +5 food to +6 to +8 hammers. This is fairly consistent. +10 and above are possible, but the difference in outputs would have be really large, and it's not worth losing the +4 hammers when you're sacrificing much more than that to get that result.
The least valuable route is from Bongani to Xirsi - Bongani is at an awkward stage where it's not a new city, but it has quite settled into a specialization yet, because I haven't been able to spare the worker time. Pesky Hutama up north bothered me with a backstab that set me back quite a bit.
A 1 pop city doesn't "naturally" stay that way. If it's settled near a lot of food resources and improved aggressively, it will grow rather quickly. It'll grow even faster with Refugees. I'm thinking that with a good source, a city can be something like size 3-5 before the first route needs to be renewed.
The relevant Trade Route information can be viewed in the related info-thread with data collated by alpaca. It is not clear that the information is applicable to the new patch, but very large differences in production and food still aren't being reflected in commensurately large route values - relatively small differences create values quickly, and higher values are progressively harder to squeeze out.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16402314/Scaled Down Photos/2014-12-16_00002.jpg
The trade route from Ayaan to Masego is worth +4/+8. It is less by +1/+2 from your size 1 city. However, the output of the size 5 city is considerably greater by more than +1/+2 compared to a size 1 city that doesn't have anything, and it's more Health Neutral. You can clearly see that most of the routes are worth +4 or +5 food to +6 to +8 hammers. This is fairly consistent. +10 and above are possible, but the difference in outputs would have be really large, and it's not worth losing the +4 hammers when you're sacrificing much more than that to get that result.
The least valuable route is from Bongani to Xirsi - Bongani is at an awkward stage where it's not a new city, but it has quite settled into a specialization yet, because I haven't been able to spare the worker time. Pesky Hutama up north bothered me with a backstab that set me back quite a bit.
A 1 pop city doesn't "naturally" stay that way. If it's settled near a lot of food resources and improved aggressively, it will grow rather quickly. It'll grow even faster with Refugees. I'm thinking that with a good source, a city can be something like size 3-5 before the first route needs to be renewed.
The relevant Trade Route information can be viewed in the related info-thread with data collated by alpaca. It is not clear that the information is applicable to the new patch, but very large differences in production and food still aren't being reflected in commensurately large route values - relatively small differences create values quickly, and higher values are progressively harder to squeeze out.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
And that's the problem with the logarithmic scaling, it is Incredibly difficult to plan and predict (even if you had the chart there)
If it was simpler
eg, TR yield=10% of the yield difference (capped at 10)
then it would be much easier to tell how the strategy Should play out (seriously gimp the food+production of cities #11-13 so all other cities can send them trade routes)
KrikkitTwo:
It's actually not that hard to plan and predict in an overarching non-specific manner. It's a pain to manage it right down to each hammer and turn, but the overall management is very easy and manageable.
Broadly, you have to create "breakpoints" at which your cities naturally jump to in terms of hammer and food output. Of course, the basic strategy is to specialize food and hammers. The more advanced planning takes the scaling into account.
Very high Prod cities can productively trade with mid-production/mid food cities. Mid/mid cities can productively trade with high food/low prod cities, and of course, High Food to High Prod cities are natural partners. This occurs in the mid game when you can push per-city base production and per-city surplus food extremely high, creating a mid-ground where cities can migrate or evolve depending on situational need. Of course, this requires a coordinated plan of tile improvement for the city, in the context of its role empire-wide.
I do not consider that overly complex; nor difficult to predict. If it's that hard, you can just turn on Tile Yields in the overlay and count the colored shapes.
It's actually not that hard to plan and predict in an overarching non-specific manner. It's a pain to manage it right down to each hammer and turn, but the overall management is very easy and manageable.
Broadly, you have to create "breakpoints" at which your cities naturally jump to in terms of hammer and food output. Of course, the basic strategy is to specialize food and hammers. The more advanced planning takes the scaling into account.
Very high Prod cities can productively trade with mid-production/mid food cities. Mid/mid cities can productively trade with high food/low prod cities, and of course, High Food to High Prod cities are natural partners. This occurs in the mid game when you can push per-city base production and per-city surplus food extremely high, creating a mid-ground where cities can migrate or evolve depending on situational need. Of course, this requires a coordinated plan of tile improvement for the city, in the context of its role empire-wide.
I do not consider that overly complex; nor difficult to predict. If it's that hard, you can just turn on Tile Yields in the overlay and count the colored shapes.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
That's kind of how it worked pre patch since sending food out from a food city did give the food city more food too.
Anyway this macro economies abstract trade was easier to accept in civ 4 and early civ 5 where trade was automatic but BNW's resources based trade where one city has citrus and the other has spice so they trade makes sense in a strategy game resource management mindset rather than a financial market model.
This is not a great example since its international and not domestic. Anyway, it's not unreasonable to think that a city with surplus wheat trading with a city with surplus oil would exchange those two commodities. It would still ultimately result in better production of their native resource like you said because oil city could reduce local food production, likely less efficient than the wheat focused city, and produce more oil, or grow population for the same affect. The wheat city could build more infrastructure and be a better wheat producer.
Right now it's cutting out the middle part where you build up the cities and just giving you the end result. And since this is a building game we shouldn't skip the building part.
Agreed. They should think about international trade in terms of who would be the best foreign city to trade with. If you want money trade with the rich. They have the most to spend. If you want get smarter, trade with the smartest. They have the most to teach. Also it gives reason to build up a tall city that produces a lot of energy or science. It will attract outside trade. It would be interesting to have good trade not just be what routes you send out but what you can bring in.
I still have a problem with the current implementation seeing food as, well literally food; and then depicting economic principles directly through the routes. It's cute, I guess, but it's not as flexible as it was before. I'd need to rejigger every tile in every city to manage the routes effectively, whereas I could, before, just reverse the route sending.
Primarily, I'd like an overall concept change of food from literal food to population growth, since that is what that represents. The mechanics and symbols can stay exactly the same, but I'd like a way for a small city or minor province to enjoy a population boom if my Colonial government decides that it's a worthwhile place to grow into something other than a colonial resource extraction site.
Primarily, I'd like an overall concept change of food from literal food to population growth, since that is what that represents. The mechanics and symbols can stay exactly the same, but I'd like a way for a small city or minor province to enjoy a population boom if my Colonial government decides that it's a worthwhile place to grow into something other than a colonial resource extraction site.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
Augh, sorry, I have to comment on this.
Comparative advantage would state that Saudi Arabia sends oil (production) to Argentina. I.e. Argentina receives production from the trade route. This production received would be more efficient than diverting population in Argentina to production. So instead, they divert more population to food generation, and rely on the trade for all production. Comparative advantage requires that you get something of what you lack through trading, otherwise you would have to do it yourself.
In Beyond Earth terms then, a city that is completely full of titanium mines trades with a city full of fungus (we'll pretend fungus is the highest food available). The trade generates food for the titanium city, so they can work more titanium and send more hammers to the food city. The food city does the opposite. Thus both gain from trade via comparative advantage.
To put it to numbers (assume 2 workers in each city), the titanium city would work titanium and gain say 7 hammers. They trade 3 of these hammers to food city. Food city can work a mythical 7 food tile and trade 3 of the food to the titanium city. If neither city traded the titanium city would have to work a flat grassland for 2 food and the food city would have to work a flat hill for 2 hammers.
Without trade food city: 7 food, 2 hammers
Without trade titanium city: 2 food, 7 hammers
With trade food city: 11 food, 3 hammers
With trade titanium city: 11 hammers, 3 food
Now, this is all nonsense as far as game design and how it should work in the game... but in reality, comparative advantage means you get what you are not relatively good at from trade, so you can divert domestic resources to producing what you are good at.
Yes. But a "Trade Route" is an abstration of this relationship for gameplay purposes. What should the TR represent then: the physical goods that are being sent, or the follow-on economic effects of the trade - i.e., that trading lets you make more of what you've already specialized in?
And i still say the mechanics for external routes are back-asswords vis. the "real world".
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I and someone else already stated why it doesn't have to be so abstract. We send the physical goods and get the follow-up effect. It still has the same end effect you want where both cities get better at what they are already specialized in:
and
The reason to abstract things in a game is if they would be too complex or would distract from more fun parts of the game. Food producing cities sending food is not too complex. Building up population and infrastructure is part of the fun of building games like this.
Am I on pwoz and sprang's ignore lists, because pwoz said the same thing I did and sprang responded but ignored us both.
I put 208 hours into Railroad Tycoon 3 this summer. Big improvements over 2, Om the surface it seemed the same but the changes to the way trade works made a huge difference. I wish the AI was better though. They ruin themselves all the time by building over a steep hill when the slightest detour would fix everything. However they're better at running companies I abandon because their style of sending routes willy nilly pays off since with a large enough network the abundance of cargo you don't need to be as careful and it is too much for me to set up manually but the AI does it instantly.
Not ignored. Just wasn't sure what to say.
Food != growth. It was true in prior to the modern world, and so is fine for early and mid-game Civ, but makes no sense in BE beyond a starvation level. So being able to grow insane amounts of food has nothing to do with the choices of your people to have more kids. If food was just one of several interchangeable commodities, like minerals and cloth and video games, then it would be fine or even "production" and "energy" or "money".
But food plays a unique roll in Civ games as the population growth driver, and that's where the abstractions really founder. Conceptually, I think the problems with trade come from this dual nature of food: as a trade good and also as Magic Baby Dust.
It's the Magic Baby Dust part that needs abstraction, because there is no real world effect like that. So we have to ask what are the things that would reasonably accelerate population growth (or whatever those numbers mean) and what effects should trade have on them.
Similar threads
