Gyra Solune
King
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 942
I was wondering if making trade routes more of a local entity rather than a global variable would balance them out some, and remove the silliness of how they're primarily dependent on technology rather than actual land and viable trading outposts. Basically, for every city you own, you get a base 1 trade route. A Caravanasary would add another, and a Harbor one more. The Great Lighthouse would...hm, either add one trade route for each coastal city, or more simply increase sea route distance, while Petra would do the same but for non-coastal cities specifically. Exploration and Commerce would each provide one more trade route per city each as well, and maybe one mid-to-late-game tech would add a last one.
However, this entails two limitations as a base: first off, those trade routes would not be global, and must be based from each city. You don't have a total 15 trade routes overall, you have a certain amount for that one city. You cannot move every last one of your Caravans and Cargo Ships to one location, as every city would have an amount based on what facilities are present and what Wonders/SP finishers you've gotten. You can still build a trade unit in any city, but if there is no room for it in that city, you must transfer it elsewhere. Secondly, the actual trade route type depends on the building used to acquire it. If you build a Harbor, that trade route must be with a Cargo Ship, or a Caravan if it's from a Caravanasary. Same with Petra and the Great Lighthouse, along with Exploration and Commerce's finishers. However, the base 1 trade route per city, and the one for whatever appropriate tech would be allowed for either type. So with the base of 3 trade routes per city, providing it has a Harbor and Caravansary but no Exploration/Commerce or appropriate Wonders, one would have to be land-based, one would need to be sea-based, and one could be either, with the tech-based one being allowed for either variety too. Petra and Commerce would add a land route for those cities, and the GL and Exploration would add a sea route, however, these would be mutually exclusive: a single city will not receive all four of those bonus trade routes, as Petra and Commerce would only apply to inland cities, while GL and Exploration would only apply to ocean cities. So, at the absolute most, a single city will have six trade routes stationed in it, and that's providing you've obtained two very desirable wonders and totally filled out an appropriate SP tree.
These changes would indicate that the best UI way to do this would involve a similar system to Great Works, where, under your Harbor or Caravanasary, there would be a number of slots where Trade Routes are placed. This is where the Wonder/SP trade routes would be based too - GL and Exploration would give an additional slot to each Harbor, Petra and Commerce would give an additional slot to each Caravanasary provided it is not in a coastal city. Not sure entirely how the neutral trade routes would work, maybe they'd be placed under those buildings too, but they'd be marked in a different fashion somehow, and placing them there grays out the other slots. Of course, this would entail that to utilize trade routes, a city would require a Caravanasary or Harbor, and...hm, I wonder if that's a good thing, that one actually needs the infrastructure in place to start trades going. At the very least, it makes those two VERY desirable buildings early on, as it means for your first city, a Caravanasary gives two whole land trade routes in one shot, right from the first tech.
Under the current techs that increase number of trade routes, I guess they could instead pump up distance or gold from them or something. With that kind of system, it seems like trade routes would follow a bit more historical logic: the raw horsepower of your trade economy is largely based on your actual territory and how many hubs of commerce you actually own, while its refined performance in terms of distance available and income is based on how advanced and developed your empire is, and how those achievements apply to the safety and profitability of trading networks. From a gameplay perspective, this gives a little more incentive to raw expansion, encouraging people to claim as much territory as possible if they want better economic opportunities, and offering a critical choice: do you hamper scientific and cultural advancement for the sake of the almighty dollar, or sacrifice economic strength for the longer-term health of your empire? Choices choices, always delicious. And of course, this could easily translate to AIs being a bit more threatening, because there is a direct advantage to fighting for even the most resource-bare city in that it could offer a decent trading hub and get you even more money. Of course, with the potential for larger empires to get way more trade routes, possibly in the realm of the 50s or even 100s by end-game (they'd apply to puppets and annexed cities with no problem, all you need are the appropriate buildings), this obviously needs to be tweaked so that gold doesn't just shoot through the roof. Likely the base income from trade routes would be lessened by an appropriate percentage, and of course, since there's more of them available, the appropriate trade units should be a touch less production-intensive.
However, this entails two limitations as a base: first off, those trade routes would not be global, and must be based from each city. You don't have a total 15 trade routes overall, you have a certain amount for that one city. You cannot move every last one of your Caravans and Cargo Ships to one location, as every city would have an amount based on what facilities are present and what Wonders/SP finishers you've gotten. You can still build a trade unit in any city, but if there is no room for it in that city, you must transfer it elsewhere. Secondly, the actual trade route type depends on the building used to acquire it. If you build a Harbor, that trade route must be with a Cargo Ship, or a Caravan if it's from a Caravanasary. Same with Petra and the Great Lighthouse, along with Exploration and Commerce's finishers. However, the base 1 trade route per city, and the one for whatever appropriate tech would be allowed for either type. So with the base of 3 trade routes per city, providing it has a Harbor and Caravansary but no Exploration/Commerce or appropriate Wonders, one would have to be land-based, one would need to be sea-based, and one could be either, with the tech-based one being allowed for either variety too. Petra and Commerce would add a land route for those cities, and the GL and Exploration would add a sea route, however, these would be mutually exclusive: a single city will not receive all four of those bonus trade routes, as Petra and Commerce would only apply to inland cities, while GL and Exploration would only apply to ocean cities. So, at the absolute most, a single city will have six trade routes stationed in it, and that's providing you've obtained two very desirable wonders and totally filled out an appropriate SP tree.
These changes would indicate that the best UI way to do this would involve a similar system to Great Works, where, under your Harbor or Caravanasary, there would be a number of slots where Trade Routes are placed. This is where the Wonder/SP trade routes would be based too - GL and Exploration would give an additional slot to each Harbor, Petra and Commerce would give an additional slot to each Caravanasary provided it is not in a coastal city. Not sure entirely how the neutral trade routes would work, maybe they'd be placed under those buildings too, but they'd be marked in a different fashion somehow, and placing them there grays out the other slots. Of course, this would entail that to utilize trade routes, a city would require a Caravanasary or Harbor, and...hm, I wonder if that's a good thing, that one actually needs the infrastructure in place to start trades going. At the very least, it makes those two VERY desirable buildings early on, as it means for your first city, a Caravanasary gives two whole land trade routes in one shot, right from the first tech.
Under the current techs that increase number of trade routes, I guess they could instead pump up distance or gold from them or something. With that kind of system, it seems like trade routes would follow a bit more historical logic: the raw horsepower of your trade economy is largely based on your actual territory and how many hubs of commerce you actually own, while its refined performance in terms of distance available and income is based on how advanced and developed your empire is, and how those achievements apply to the safety and profitability of trading networks. From a gameplay perspective, this gives a little more incentive to raw expansion, encouraging people to claim as much territory as possible if they want better economic opportunities, and offering a critical choice: do you hamper scientific and cultural advancement for the sake of the almighty dollar, or sacrifice economic strength for the longer-term health of your empire? Choices choices, always delicious. And of course, this could easily translate to AIs being a bit more threatening, because there is a direct advantage to fighting for even the most resource-bare city in that it could offer a decent trading hub and get you even more money. Of course, with the potential for larger empires to get way more trade routes, possibly in the realm of the 50s or even 100s by end-game (they'd apply to puppets and annexed cities with no problem, all you need are the appropriate buildings), this obviously needs to be tweaked so that gold doesn't just shoot through the roof. Likely the base income from trade routes would be lessened by an appropriate percentage, and of course, since there's more of them available, the appropriate trade units should be a touch less production-intensive.
), but the biggest problem with this is that it completely unbalances tall vs. wide play. Under this scenario, a wide empire could absolutely wipe the floor with a tall one. There's simply too much to gain by expanding under this system. I do think it's an interesting concept, but we shouldn't sacrifice gameplay balance (the current system works very well, I think most would agree) for a bit more historical authenticity.
