Protecting Traders

[skdyer]

Can my traders get captured/killed? I ask because mine disappeared and, unlike with settlers, I didn't see an option to "link" a protective escort unit to it. Am I missing something?

 

[StittsvileJamie]

I saw a couple notifications that barbs had pillaged my trade routes, so ya, they can be killed. I don't think you can escort them, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Browd]

Trade units are killed when their trade route is pillaged, either by barbs or by a civ you are at war with. There is no automated way to protect trade units; you could try putting a military unit on the same tile as a trade unit and move it one tile per turn, in concert with the trade unit, but that would be a manual exercise and would require that you have open borders with any civ whose borders the trade unit crossed. The suzerain bonus for the Lisbon city-state does make your trade units immune from being plundered on water tiles, which can be very helpful.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

I saw a couple notifications that barbs had pillaged my trade routes, so ya, they can be killed. I don't think you can escort them, unless I'm missing something.

You can station units along the route and/or avoid sending them into large stretches of territory outside the vision of anyone.

 

[skdyer]

These all sound like pretty burdensome, imperfect solutions. Why shouldn't traders be escortable like settlers or alternatively invincible?

 

[Browd]

The first alternative raises a host of complications -- should the escorting military units be able to enter foreign territory without open borders and, if so, why does that make sense? Once the escort formation is formed, should the player be able to break the formation mid-route, or not, and however that is answered, how is the formation presented on map? If the escorting military unit crosses paths with another military unit, do they stack, or do they block each other? If Civ A is trying to besiege Civ B's city, and Civ C is sending a trade route to that Civ B city, will Civ C's escorting military units prevent Civ A from surrounding Civ B's city? Also, trade routes can switch between water and land -- if a trade unit has a naval escort, what happens when the trade unit shifts to land (or vis versa for a land escort when the trade route shifts from land to water -- even if the escorting land unit can embark, an embarked land unit is essentially worthless as a protector on water -- in fact, embarked units also need naval protection)?

All of those questions (and more) are probably answerable, but is the mechanic really necessary? if you're worried about plundered trade routes, you can refrain from sending trade units into the wild unknown, or you can station some military units in no-man's land along the route to clear the fog and prevent barbs from spawning near your trade routes. It worked that way in Civ V and I see no reason why it doesn't work in Civ VI.

As for the second alternative, why bother with an invulnerable unit that travels on the map? Just make trade routes "virtual" and not represented on the map. (And that could include "virtual" road creation -- it would kind of fun to watch a road slowly creep its way into existence between two cities without any "unit" making it happen). But trade routes have been vulnerable to highwaymen and bandits throughout history -- shouldn't that be represented in the game?

 

[ExemplarVoss]

These all sound like pretty burdensome, imperfect solutions. Why shouldn't traders be escortable like settlers or alternatively invincible?

Because trading is a tactical decision- the onus should be on you to minimize your risks. Why should they be magically invulnerable?
If you want secure routes, do internal routes only, without a lot of gaps in your borders and troop coverage.