Should Internal Trade Routes Drain Resources from Origin City?

[Seek]

Internal trade routes in BNW will grant food or production from one city to another. What wasn't clear until yesterday was whether this was a zero sum game or a positive sum game - ie, whether the food or production gets siphoned from the origin city or is automagically created - and it's the latter. The 4/12/13 escapist article says that trade routes "produc[e] these resources, rather than draining them from the city of origin".

How does the community feel about this?
Should we be encouraged to make strong production- or food-specialized cities?
Sea routes grant double the resources than land routes, but other than that, does the origin city matter at all? Should it?

 

[DaNuke]

I Don't think so... because if was to drain the resources,it will be prejudicial.

 

[wilbeard]

I'm quite disappointed with the news that they don't drain. It would have added a very interesting game mechanic for city specialization, which is currently lacking. It's historically accurate to have certain bread-basket or industrial cities, as well.

 

[Txurce]

How much of a boost is there?

I had assumed it came from one or more cities, in which case even with draining, was still a major boost for the human.

If it's a small, standard boost based on having a trade route, then there's less reason. But this doesn't make much sense to me. Why wouldn't you always leave the tap on then? And it would an additional, permanent bonus on top of the gold, etc.

 

[Seek]

I Don't think so... because if was to drain the resources,it will be prejudicial.

Can you elaborate? Not sure what you mean here.

I voted yes. I think it would make for more interesting city placement decision-making (a good reason to settle high-food/low production cities) and provide more immersion (bread baskets, industrial centers, etc).

 

[Zet]

Non-drain is the right choice for several reasons.

I don't see how non-drain disincentivizes city specialization like some here are saying. Internal trade route hammer/food yield will presumably depend on the city's output, so you want to specialize.

The main argument for non-drain is flexibility. There are going to be many situations where trading with a neighbor just isn't possible or viable and with zero-sum internal trade routes (that are strictly inferior to external trade routes) you're screwed in that situation. Plus the game is more interesting when the player actually has a real choice between internal and external trade routes.

 

[Txurce]

I voted yes. I think it would make for more interesting city placement decision-making (a good reason to settle high-food/low production cities) and provide more immersion (bread baskets, industrial centers, etc).

I voted the same way, for the same reasons. I almost can't believe it's not the case. Is it possible that the Escapist didn't get it quite right?

 

[Seek]

How much of a boost is there?

I had assumed it came from one or more cities, in which case even with draining, was still a major boost for the human.

If it's a small, standard boost based on having a trade route, then there's less reason. But this doesn't make much sense to me. Why wouldn't you always leave the tap on then? And it would an additional, permanent bonus on top of the gold, etc.

Hi Txurce! Long time no see!

The reason you wouldn't always leave the tap on is because you may want to use your caravans/cargo ships for international trade, which provides gold (internal TRs only provide food *or* hammers) and religious pressure (and science if you're behind in tech).

From screenshots it appears the TRs provide +4 or by land and +9 by water.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

It shouldn't drain

You're sacraficing gold for food/production.

 

[Seek]

Internal trade route hammer/food yield will presumably depend on the city's output, so you want to specialize.

Except there has been no evidence of that presumption - in fact just the opposite: it appears the TRs are the same from any origin city. Were that not the case I would be less annoyed by the decision to go non-drain.

The main argument for non-drain is flexibility. There are going to be many situations where trading with a neighbor just isn't possible or viable and with zero-sum internal trade routes you're screwed when it happens.

Good point, though there are almost always CSs to trade with.

 

[DaNuke]

Can you elaborate? Not sure what you mean here.

I voted yes. I think it would make for more interesting city placement decision-making (a good reason to settle high-food/low production cities) and provide more immersion (bread baskets, industrial centers, etc).

why should I build this trade route if for sacrificing the food that the city needs to grow and the production to build,that it needs?

 

[Txurce]

It shouldn't drain

You're sacraficing gold for food/production.

I didn't know this was how it worked. If so, then I agree that draining wouldn't make sense. However, shouldn't amount vary based on the origin city, just as it seems to with gold trade?

 

[Zet]

Except there has been no evidence of that presumption - in fact just the opposite: it appears the TRs are the same from any origin city. Were that not the case I would be less annoyed by the decision to go non-drain.

Either way, the argument that draining internal trade routes will incentivize city specialization doesn't make sense. If the yield doesn't depend on the city's output, why specialize? If it depends on the city's output, then you'll want to specialize whether the internal trade routes drain or not.

Personally I'm fairly sure that the yield will depend on the city's output because it just makes more sense for many reasons.

 

[roguesaw]

idk. if my village grows some grain and yours has... i actually have no idea what a naturally occurring leavening agent would be... but if i give you some of mine and you give me some of yours we both get to make bread.

maybe thats a terrible way to express what im thinking. basically why not have it actually generate something? represent some form of resource pooling within the empire. i like that it doesnt drain the city of origin. eager to give that a go. if its broken they can always go back and tweak/change it.

 

[Gamewizard]

I don't think the way they are implementing it will be a problem. With the near confirmed change/removal of trading posts those international trade routes will often be more valuable than those hammers/food. Deciding to go internal/international will create a great pause for many players and it will be interesting to see the many different strategies that will emerge from it.

Edit - From 3:14 of the Rev3 video, for example, you can create 9 food or hammers/turn in one of your satellite cities as well as some religious influence for your own territory, or you can receive 19 gold/turn, possible small amount of science, religious influence spread in foreign territory, and positive diplomatic modifiers with allies. This indirectly boosts religious beliefs that give bonuses for foreign followers, which was needed IMO.

2nd edit - I also realize that foreign trading might just be stronger with Portugal.

 

[Glassmage]

you're sacrificing a trade route so it is fair.

 

[Buccaneer]

I voted yes because there should be a cost for every bonuses - to enhance decision-making and consequences of action.

 

[Haig]

I think they have playtested it and see that this is the best solution.

 

[kaspergm]

I voted yes because there should be a cost for every bonuses - to enhance decision-making and consequences of action.

This, exactly.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think this would have been better if phrased as "move resources rather than create them" because "drain" sounds very negative.

However, you are sacrificing other benefits from these trade routes, so I'm OK with it. My only disappointment is you're not using city specialization, you're just using trade route maximization, which is strategic, but in a different way.