Protecting Naval Trade Routes

[HeraldtheGreat]

I'm getting the feeling that protecting naval trade routes could be quite important early game, depending on the production cost. If high enough, maauding barbarians or an agressive neighbour (screenshots show potential for unrestricted naval blockades) could be a serious nuisance, so it might be worth fogbusting along coasts, and later even founding cities along trade routes to ensure they're existence. Of curse, I could be making a fire out of a candle, and this won't matter much, just an idea. So, what do you think?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't think maritime trade is going to be the "so awesome, why would you bother with anything else" option. But if you go all-in on it, you will definitely want to protect the heck out of your routes.

Incidentally, does the 25% river trade route bonus stack with the 2x sea trade bonus?

 

[nokmirt]

I think we needed a more important reason to keep a fleet around. Even on pangea maps chances are, we'll need some ships. What I wonder is will the AI be able to protect their own trade routes? I certainly hope so.

 

[Gali]

Yeah it will be an interesting decision. I am worried if you want to use late game sprawling sea routes you just won't be able to protect them. Even 4 or so routes going a long way and that's a lot of ground to cover. You could have a naval escort but with no escort function or patrol that is a LOT of tedious micro.

I can easily see people using internal routes on the sea. Much easier to defend and all investment protects your home too. At PAX we saw sea routes give 9 or that is really powerful and could really boost a city. Now all numbers are not final but sea routes will be 2x land routes and the internal routes can't be that weak.

A big question for me is how do land units and cities affect cargo ships. We know naval units can plunder them, but have no idea if they can be attacked like a civilian. If land units can attack any coastal route past a hostile civ or CS is out. Even if they can't maintaining an escort in enemy territory might not be worth it. So sea routes are powerful but harder to defend and can't help your inland cities. Land routes are weaker but far easier to patrol. Sounds like it could be an interesting dilemma. And I agree with nokmirt, it is nice to actually have a consistent use for a navy. Even on Pangaea you could easily want a sea route or two. Might help Naval civs have a bonus on Pangaea. They can use that advantage more and the guarantee of not being landlocked could be really useful.

 

[Cedbird]

Yeah it will be an interesting decision. I am worried if you want to use late game sprawling sea routes you just won't be able to protect them. Even 4 or so routes going a long way and that's a lot of ground to cover. You could have a naval escort but with no escort function or patrol that is a LOT of tedious micro
.

I think Civ have done another great job of simulation real life . Whether it is Pirartes , Barbarians or another Civ . The best way to stop meddeling with your money ,resources , land , and yes trade routes is to smash them and make them pay . So yes for a while it will be a pain . But if that nation is willing to go to war for a few chunks of change and lose alot more than bring it on .

 

[Cyanfunk]

It increases the need for a navy, that's for sure.

Now Suleiman has a use for the thousands of ships he's been collecting since before the discovery of horses.

 

[Crafty Bison]

it might be worth fogbusting along coasts, and later even founding cities along trade routes to ensure they're existence.

I'm not sure how the mechanics work yet but it might be that the revenue generated is dependant on distance to empire as well/rather than distance to trading city, in which case founding these cities would reduce your gold from the route. Seems like bad mechanics, but the portugal wlakthrough left doubt in my mind.

I think we needed a more important reason to keep a fleet around. Even on pangea maps chances are, we'll need some ships. What I wonder is will the AI be able to protect their own trade routes? I certainly hope so.

I doubt it. AI is rubbish at most things. I do hope warring ones will try to destroy their enemies ones, though I doubt this too.

Yeah it will be an interesting decision. I am worried if you want to use late game sprawling sea routes you just won't be able to protect them. Even 4 or so routes going a long way and that's a lot of ground to cover. You could have a naval escort but with no escort function or patrol that is a LOT of tedious micro.

Unless you're England. Or the Ottomans. They were both made stronger by this feature.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

I'm not sure how the mechanics work yet but it might be that the revenue generated is dependant on distance to empire as well/rather than distance to trading city, in which case founding these cities would reduce your gold from the route. Seems like bad mechanics, but the portugal wlakthrough left doubt in my mind.


I doubt it. AI is rubbish at most things. I do hope warring ones will try to destroy their enemies ones, though I doubt this too.


Unless you're England. Or the Ottomans. They were both made stronger by this feature.

I think it's city to city, because it makes more sense, though I guess we can't be sure.

Hopefully the developers gave the AI at least some capacity for naval warfare.

Or Carthage. Or Byzantium (dromons) . Really, it could be anybody with a naval UU, UB or UA.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Or Carthage. Or Byzantium (dromons) . Really, it could be anybody with a naval UU, UB or UA.

Ya others get some benefits for this, but England and the Ottomans benefits are strong and more direct - England doesn't need so many ships to cover their routes, and Ottomans can get and afford to keep more ships. Carthage's bonus is about economy and expansion, which in turn may result in more ships, but this is more indirect, and they still need to be paid for. The UUs of both of these civs lose their benefit outside their era (which is before trade routes really get going in earnest, by the looks of things), whereas the UA's of the English and Ottomans are directly relevant all game.

 

[The Saharan Spy]

I'm getting the feeling that protecting naval trade routes could be quite important early game, depending on the production cost. If high enough, maauding barbarians or an agressive neighbour (screenshots show potential for unrestricted naval blockades) could be a serious nuisance, so it might be worth fogbusting along coasts, and later even founding cities along trade routes to ensure they're existence. Of curse, I could be making a fire out of a candle, and this won't matter much, just an idea. So, what do you think?

IF u are so worried, than try building forts along the coastal routes of trade ships. Do what the portuguese did back during 1500s. They built forts to support and protect ships.
Although we have feitoria, that applies to CS, do it too. Put some troops over there to ensure that no one threatens ur route. There no need to build/found cities because that a waste of policy points and space. IT also makes ur empire strech far and prone to be divided and conquer.

@Cyanfunk: I agree. It creates a need for navy. SO if a empire wants to prosper through trade and money through sea, than a navy is needed. If the BNW team DID upgrade/update/fixed the AI. Than we could see some epic battle for the seas