Post patch Detailed Trade Route Discussion

[Monthar]

One thing about the trade route changes that annoys me, is the removal of the sea trade route bonus, but not reducing the costs (production and energy) of the trade vessels to match the trade convoys. After all if there's no difference in what you get from each type of trade unit's route, there shouldn't be a difference in their costs.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One thing about the trade route changes that annoys me, is the removal of the sea trade route bonus, but not reducing the costs (production and energy) of the trade vessels to match the trade convoys. After all if there's no difference in what you get from each type of trade unit's route, there shouldn't be a difference in their costs.

sea routes are easier to get (no miasma in water)

 

[Monthar]

Miasma is easy to get rid of, especially now that workers can do it earlier, so you can escort one out to clear the path if need be. Besides in most games, I haven't had to worry about miasma blocking a route.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Miasma is easy to get rid of, especially now that workers can do it earlier, so you can escort one out to clear the path if need be. Besides in most games, I haven't had to worry about miasma blocking a route.

There's also no mountains/craters/canyons in water either.

 

[Gorbles]

Hand removal of Miasma is useful (I prefer it being available earlier), but not exactly easy, or even fast. It's very tedious and you can't just rely on one, especially if aliens are nearby.

 

[Gort]

Are internal trade route yields backwards? It makes more sense to me that the less productive city would gain more from the route than the more productive city - it doesn't make much sense that a size 1 city "feeds" a size 20 city.

External trade routes, on the other hand, benefit the less productive city, so if you trade with a science powerhouse city you get a lot of science back, while they don't get much.

Did they get a variable the wrong way round on internal routes?

 

[Roxlimn]

Gameplay and fun trumps versimilitude, IMO. Having the routes portray a variety of viable options trumps making them arrangeable in only one way, regardless of which way "makes sense."

That is, it's an abstraction of a very complex phenomenon. You can make it make it sense however and whatever you want. The more important thing is to make it fun and to offer a good game experience.

 

[Gort]

Gameplay and fun trumps versimilitude, IMO. Having the routes portray a variety of viable options trumps making them arrangeable in only one way, regardless of which way "makes sense."

That is, it's an abstraction of a very complex phenomenon. You can make it make it sense however and whatever you want. The more important thing is to make it fun and to offer a good game experience.

Does having internal trade routes like this lead to funner gameplay?

 

[parts]

Does having internal trade routes like this lead to funner gameplay?

I'm going to back this up since I played a game "blind" without knowing the changes in the latest patch and was surprised as all hell when I had to figure out this mechanism by reverse-engineering it.

See, there actually is a precedent for what Firaxis are going for here: colonialism and the quest for new markets to export to. Settle a new colony in Goa or wherever, have a new place to ship calico to, have your calico production jump. Simple.

Obviously, that only works because you were settling colonies on pre-existing markets. That doesn't apply at all in the BE universe. My household supply of food does not magically increase when I send my son to stay in the Sahara desert and trade with him.

I'm not seeing the gameplay advantage, either. It's potentially exploitable, by grinding, which is inherently not-fun.

$0.02.

 

[Roxlimn]

Gort:

I believe that I have made it plain that I dislike the implementation of TRs after the patch, and suggested many modifications be made to the prepatch ones, too. I have never said that the post-patch implementation was to my liking in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Gort]

Gort:

I believe that I have made it plain that I dislike the implementation of TRs after the patch, and suggested many modifications be made to the prepatch ones, too. I have never said that the post-patch implementation was to my liking in any way, shape, or form.

OK, so what did your last post actually mean, then?

Saying "gameplay and fun trumps making sense" while quoting my post saying that the way trade routes are now doesn't make sense implies that you think the way trade routes are now is better gameplay and more fun than if it was the other way around, and I'd like you to justify that implication.

 

[Roxlimn]

I didn't quote your post. I am under no obligation to justify anything to anyone; and least of all to justify implications I had no idea I was even making.

 

[Gort]

I didn't quote your post. I am under no obligation to justify anything to anyone; and least of all to justify implications I had no idea I was even making.

Ah yeah, I forgot that you don't use the quote function. Nevertheless, it was clearly a reply to my post.

Sorry that being asked to explain what you post upsets you.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ah yeah, I forgot that you don't use the quote function. Nevertheless, it was clearly a reply to my post.

Sorry that being asked to explain what you post upsets you.

Without the implication I wasn't making, the post is clear, simple, and direct. I do not know how to make it simpler than I how I already posted it. It requires no further explanation.

Furthermore, I do use the quote function when I'm specifically replying to particular points. I intentionally did not do so here because my post was not a direct reply to you. I am not upset, but this tangent is unproductive.

 

[Gort]

Without the implication I wasn't making, the post is clear, simple, and direct. I do not know how to make it simpler than I how I already posted it. It requires no further explanation.

Thank you very much for your useful contributions to the discussion.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Stop bickering. Nothing in the last several posts has contributed anything to the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gort]

Did we ever work out the formula for the returns on trade routes? All I can find in the code is these variables:

-<Row Name="TRADE_ROUTE_YIELD_CURVE_SCALAR_INTERNAL">

<Value>3</Value>

</Row>


-<Row Name="TRADE_ROUTE_YIELD_CURVE_SCALAR_INTERNATIONAL_LESSER">

<Value>1</Value>

</Row>


-<Row Name="TRADE_ROUTE_YIELD_CURVE_SCALAR_INTERNATIONAL_GREATER">

<Value>2</Value>

"Curve scalar" seems to refer to some pretty complex mathematics. These values seem to be new after Civ 5 - they don't appear in the same file in the Civ 5 code.

 

[Mutineer]

There is a question, is trade route yield static and assign on start of route or dynamic and recalculated every turn?

 

[FaceUnderMask]

Did a few tests with food TR yield. One may (or may not) find it useful.

Spoiler :

Format is [total food generated/food yield]

Experiment #1

12/6 +2 -> 25/9
12/6 +1 -> 21/13
12/6 +5 -> 14/0
12/6 +5 -> 15/1
12/6 +1 -> 40/16 +1

25/9 -> 21/13 +2
25/9 -> 40/16 +3
25/9 -> 12/6 +2

First one sounds reasonable. Second - you get 1 food less from bigger difference in surpluses than in first line.
Third and Fourth - you get +5 food from a city, that has much less food surplus and not really different amount of food total.
Fifth line is the weirdest case.
So, a city with lesser amount of food causes a surplus in a sending city, and city with greater amount causes a surplus too.
But before saying 'Hey! So food only goes to the sending city!' check the second block, especially the last line. It's the inverse one of the first.

So basically two conclusions here
1) Trade routes were designed to be 'symmetrical' (no difference if you swap the sender and the target)
2) Either something else is taken into account, or the opposite - some part of yield is not taken into account. Otherwise it's not possible to explain why both high-food and low-food cities provide a surplus in a medium-food city.

Experiment #2
28/10 -> 22/14 +1
27/9 -> 22/14 +2
26/8 -> 22/14 +3
25/7 -> 22/14 +4
24/6 -> 22/14 +4
21/3 -> 22/14 +4
19/1 -> 22/14 +4
16/-2 -> 22/14 +4 (?!)
14/-4 -> 22/14 +4 (?!)

Makes little sense.
Changing the food surplus affected every TR available in the same way, although numbers deviated a bit. Two other cities were 40/16 and 13/5. If the 40/16 city is almost the same as 22/14 for the purpose of experiment, in the case of 13/5 city I've at least passed the point where my surplus became less than 5, so logically speaking TR should've inverted food direction, but that's not happened.

Experiment #3

28/10 -> 22/14 +1
28/10 +1 -> 21/13 +1 (!!)
28/10 +1 -> 20/12 (!!!)
28/10 +2 -> 19/11
28/10 +4 -> 18/10 (?!)
28/10 +4 -> 15/7

Inversion happened here.
Actually, that's kinda makes sense. Probably if I could've improved my food over the 28/10 in an experiment #2, I believe I would've seen this behavior.
Weird +1/+1 case seems like a roundup effect. No other possible explanation.

Experiment #4
28/10 +2 -> 19/11
27/9 +1 -> 19/11
26/8 -> 19/11 (!!!)
25/7 -> 19/11 +2 (!!!)

So yes, an inversion of direction happens whether you change yield in one city or in the other one. Note that +1/+1 TR magically changed into +0/+0, and the next step became +2 instead of +1. Really smells like a roundup.

Experiment #5.
Whether TR yields are counted into calculation.
Let's take this piece:
28/10 -> 13/5 +1
28/10 +1 -> 12/4 +1
28/10 +1 -> 11/3
28/10 +2 -> 10/2

So I sent an auxilliary TR from other city, which pushed a city on the right side from 10/2 to 12/4. But the effect of test TR was still +2 to the sending city. Therefore, TR yields are not taken into account. This explains why both sending a TR to city with high food yield and low food yield can induce a similar result

Experiment #6.
Similar to #5, but about buildings that give food. Buildings are counted into TR yield calculation.

Experiment #7.
Review of #2 and #3 results
City on the left side had +6 from TR's, and city on the right side had +9.

22/4 -> 13/5 +1
21/3 -> 13/5 +2
20/2 -> 13/5 +3
19/1 -> 13/5 +4
18/0 -> 13/5 +4
15/-3 -> 13/5 +4
13/-5 -> 13/5 +4
10/-8 -> 13/5 +4
8/-10 -> 13/5 +4

22/4 -> 13/5 +1
22/4 +1 -> 12/4 +1
22/4 +1 -> 11/3
22/4 +2 -> 10/2
22/4 +4 -> 9/1
22/4 +4 -> 6/-2

Eureka.
1) Food TR yield depends on difference in yields
2) Other TR's are not taken into account (snowballing protection)
3) TR yield is given to the city with bigger yield
4) Negative yields are truncated.

Experiment #8.
There is still unclear stuff. Food TR yield doesn't seem to be linear function of difference of yields.
e.g.
22/4 +2 -> 10/2
22/4 +4 -> 9/1

1 point of yield difference is converted into 2 points of TR yield.
Another issue is the nature of those roundup effects.
All of that implies that TR gain may be non-linear.

Consider this:
37/13 +7 -> 18/0 13
37/13 +7 -> 19/1 12
37/13 +6 -> 20/2 11
37/13 +5 -> 21/3 10
37/13 +4 -> 22/4 9
37/13 +4 -> 23/5 8
37/13 +3 -> 24/6 7
37/13 +3 -> 25/7 6
37/13 +3 -> 26/8 5

Weird, right?
So, the more potential yield difference is, the less steep the curve becomes.
Why it's like that and how it works I'm not sure yet. I'm afraid I have to start a new game to check that. The current one had a terrible hill terrain and was pretty much ruined by my tests.

There is a question, is trade route yield static and assign on start of route or dynamic and recalculated every turn?

IIRC, they are dynamic.

 

[Ribannah]

If they were static, then you ould simply adjust tiles worked for a moment to maximize the result for ages.