Tangible Trade-Routes

[Chandrasekhar]

This is more of a continuation of the short, off-topic disussion on page 4 of the bugs thread, but it seems interesting enough to have its own thread.

How about this (for future consideration): trade routes are automatically mapped out according to the quickest possible path from one city to another. Perhaps they would only be made if there was no land route connecting the two cities. These routes would be invisible to most units, but privateers (and maybe all Lanun craft) can see them. Not sure if they would all show up when a privateer is selected (like settlers can see yields) or if they could only be seen if a privateer had a line of sight to it (like recon units see spiders). In any case, the privateer should be able to pillage any point along the trade route, on a turn-by-turn basis.

It might even be a good idea for the routes to be pillageable regardless of the war/peace status of the privateer owner (though diplomatic modifiers might come into play). Of course, another naval unit being on its tile (or even in sight of the tile) could either (a) make it so that it can't be pillaged, or (b) make it so that it can be pillaged, but there's a chance of the privateer being destroyed (like with spies). Still, this isn't exactly something that needs to be implemented immediately. More of a nice extra that could be added.

Also, land trade routes might be made, too, and be visible/pillageable by some bandit unit.

 

[Sureshot]

well lands routes are already in i would think (via roads and pillagin roads ruins the trade route if they can no longer access the city), but getting some gold for cutting off a cities trade route might be interesting (seems like it should be doable, though i have no idea how exactly)

for sea routes itd be interesting and also seems doable (since you can already make roads in ocean) and it serve atleast to allow resource access (to say, island resources).
it might be easier to rely on the coast-trading and ocean-trading that already exist and utilized via techs, and then simply make privateers capable of siphoning the gold from trade routes of the cities they are blocking (i cant remember who brought that up, it was a few days or a week or so ago).

the idea of visible trade routes in the water (that could be displayed like roads and only visible to privateers) is interesting, and im sure it could be handled by the existing methods used to decide trade routes in the first place (though i cant say how involved that would be). and theres some weirdness with it, like if you pillaged a part of the route, how would it regenerate itself? what if two trade routes coincide at one point, how do you target to raid only one of them? though that part would actually be interesting, like finding hot spots where many trades pass through and raiding it for lots of gold.

 

[Bad Player]

I think the port blockade is probably simpler and easier and fairer to do...


Maybe they should take a leaf out of Colonisation's book and make privateers/pirates display no nationality so you can attack your friends if you want! Of course Colonisation had cargo in the ships so that you could get stuff which is different to FFH2.

 

[Sureshot]

itd be neat if some ships could attack land to get slaves and pillaged goods which they could bring back to their cities

 

[strategyonly]

itd be neat if some ships could attack land to get slaves and pillaged goods which they could bring back to their cities

I have talked to alot of modders on this and they like that idea also, just like in CIV3, there are some out there right now that have this in the mod, but not to many yet. I used to love the conceipt of bombarding the coast line and some cities making it difficult for the workers to keep up then gratually take over their land. But the range has to be at least a minimum of two.

 

[Sureshot]

give Fishing Boats the ability to make water roads (though if possible change their color to aqua or teal so they look better) and then call them sea lanes, or shipping lanes. itd be great to have a use for fishing boats besides being consumed for resources. one could send speed their boats along (something that i think is needed given the speed of land units has been increased) and get access to previously unaccessible resources.

i posted that in bug thread but realize its prolly better here

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Yes, it's currently better to give a unit a couple of movement promotions and send him to his destination than it is to put him on a galley. Perhaps they should only be available at a mid game tech. This would certainly add an opertunity to have the seafaring tech tree extend into the late-game.

 

[AndrewDJ]

The original idea sounds a lot like the way trade routes worked in Civilization: Call To Power. You could park a privateer on someone else's trade route and skim profits. I think in the late game, you could do something similar with Corporation units.

It's certainly an interesting idea, but a) would it be fun, and b) could the AI deal with it?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

It's certainly an interesting idea, but a) would it be fun, and b) could the AI deal with it?

(a) Yes, of course!

(b)...

...

(a) Yes, of course!

 

[Maian]

I like the overall idea. Could make Lanun a much more interesting civ to play

I don't like the "build sea road" or "pillage sea road" ideas. Not only is it not realistic, I'd find it a hassle to build those "roads" and otherwise don't see much fun value.

Instead, how about taking GalCiv2's trader model? In that game, you produce a trade ship and send it to some planet to establish a trade route (similar to great merchants, the farther away and better the planet, the more trade income). The trade route is visible as a path between the two planets. Then a trade convoy appears at the planet the trade ship was built at and moves toward the destination planet at a certain rate. Once it reaches the destination planet, it turns around and heads back to the original planet. And on and on it cycles. These convoys could be destroyed, and if enough of the convoys in a trade route are destroyed, the trade route collapses.

Now in Civ4, I'm not sure if the establishing trade route concept would work out well, since Civ4 already has its own trade income model. But I do like the idea of automatically generated ship units travelling back and forth between port cities, which opposing nations can "pillage". If enough of these trade convoys are destroyed, the two cities that were trading with each other lose that trade route for around 10 turns before it is reestablished.

 

[Maniac]

I don't like the "build sea road" or "pillage sea road" ideas. Not only is it not realistic, I'd find it a hassle to build those "roads" and otherwise don't see much fun value.

Why not realistic?
As for the hassle, not if every ship could build a trade route on a tile in a single turn, not just work boats. That way any trade route which is surprise-attacked & pillaged by a privateer could be quickly restored as long as you safeguard your trade route with sufficient ships of your own => increased value of your navy.
Re fun, that's a matter of opinion I guess.
Anyway, while trade routes automatically running over the map would of course be better, the road as trade route idea is much simplier to implement.

 

[Maian]

Actually, automatic trade routes may be easier to implement. Civ4 already can generate paths between two arbitrary points. No need to manually build one.

It's unrealistic because you can't "pillage" a plot in a sea route. There's nothing to pillage there. If you're trying to simulate the destroying of trade ships this way, once a plot is pillaged and the pillager leaves, why can't the trade ships just return to that plot?

The "building" of sea routes also doesn't make sense. There's nothing to build. If you're trying to simulate the boats "securing" an area, that's still unrealistic, since where's the security when those boats leave (or first of all, how do you secure water in the first place)?

 

[Sureshot]

you'd secure it by building sea roads. the whole sytem would actually work automatically if you turned off the sea and coast based trading and allowed boats to make roads (since then all trade routes would be decided by roads and the sea roads would create the routes in many cases).

im not certain i like that, but i think it would automatically work if you turned off the sea/coast trading abilities and gave work boats the ability to make roads (the AI would know how to use them as well, and would likely build sea roads automatically with no help).

personally i favour the siphoning gold for any trade routes blocked idea. since it can easily be applied to land routes as well. if you block the only road into a city with a special Bandit/Pirate unit [either hippus or lanun would get them i think] then you would siphon gold off all its land reached trade routes. itd be fun since you wouldnt just go in and destroy all roads, you'd benefit from keeping their routes intact and just using banditry to take all their trade.

 

[Maniac]

Actually, automatic trade routes may be easier to implement. Civ4 already can generate paths between two arbitrary points. No need to manually build one.

I hope so.

It's unrealistic because you can't "pillage" a plot in a sea route. There's nothing to pillage there. If you're trying to simulate the destroying of trade ships this way, once a plot is pillaged and the pillager leaves, why can't the trade ships just return to that plot?

They can. Just get a ship in the area and reconnect the route.

The "building" of sea routes also doesn't make sense. There's nothing to build. If you're trying to simulate the boats "securing" an area, that's still unrealistic, since where's the security when those boats leave (or first of all, how do you secure water in the first place)?

The security is gone when an enemy or barbarian ship arrives and pillages the route. So you'd constantly need to keep ships nearby to secure the area. Of course barbarians would have to be taught to pillage improvements outside cultural borders.

 

[Maniac]

personally i favour the siphoning gold for any trade routes blocked idea. since it can easily be applied to land routes as well. if you block the only road into a city with a special Bandit/Pirate unit [either hippus or lanun would get them i think]

Or give the ability to all civs, but extra profit from the Raider trait.

 

[Sureshot]

that too, though i think there should be a pirate ship benefit to it, and a bandit unit or pirate land unit that also is better at it.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind at all the Lanun being more specialized at this. Heck, maybe even make it so that the Lanun can pillage these water trade routes with any water unit, while everyone else has to use privateers. Then again, I haven't seen barbarian privateers yet...

I'm leaning toward the automatically generated trade route that can be pillaged and regenerated each turn.

 

[Maian]

They can. Just get a ship in the area and reconnect the route.

Which is exactly my point. Why can't trade ships just travel just return to the plot? Why does it require some other ship to build some "sea road" for them?

The security is gone when an enemy or barbarian ship arrives and pillages the route. So you'd constantly need to keep ships nearby to secure the area. Of course barbarians would have to be taught to pillage improvements outside cultural borders.

Not only is that unrealistic historically speaking, it's inconsistent with worker boats. How can worker boats travel to "unsecured" plots while trade ships can't? And another quirk: in RL, you can't "secure" a plot of water unless you have a warship stationed there that's securing it. Once it leaves, it's no longer secured - that's how naval warfare is like. So according to this "sea road" logic, trade ships shouldn't be able to travel to any plot that doesn't have warships.

To me, this whole idea is unrealistic and doesn't introduce anything significant to gameplay to offset the unrealism (even considering gameplay > realism).

 

[Maniac]

Which is exactly my point. Why can't trade ships just travel just return to the plot? Why does it require some other ship to build some "sea road" for them?

Consider the other ship the military escort which just got rid of the pirate infestation and resecured the area.

You could of course create a special Trading Vessel unit which builds sea routes if you consider that more realistic, but I don't see the added value in that.

Not only is that unrealistic historically speaking, it's inconsistent with worker boats.

For the record, personally I'd give the ability to "secure shipping lanes" to all ships, not just worker boats. Giving it to worker boats would create too much hassle. By giving it to all ships, the route can be reconnected immediately after the enemy ships are destroyed and the threat is gone.

And another quirk: in RL, you can't "secure" a plot of water unless you have a warship stationed there that's securing it. Once it leaves, it's no longer secured - that's how naval warfare is like. So according to this "sea road" logic, trade ships shouldn't be able to travel to any plot that doesn't have warships.

In real life, empires didn't have ships on every square kilometer of water. They have strategically placed naval bases from which they can secure a large area. Eg Carthago, lots of Greek and Phoenician colonies and trading posts, Hongkong, Singapore, Bombay, Cape Town, Gibraltar... Currently in Civ such locations have little added value.

To me, this whole idea is unrealistic and doesn't introduce anything significant to gameplay to offset the unrealism (even considering gameplay > realism).

That's like saying land roads don't add anything significant to gameplay and are unrealistic. Eg:


"It's unrealistic because you can't "pillage" a road. There's nothing to pillage there. If you're trying to simulate the destroying of caravans this way, once a road is pillaged and the pillager leaves, why can't the traders just return to that plot?

Which is exactly my point. Why can't traders just travel just return to the plot? Why does it require some "worker" to build some road for them? Eg see the Silk Route or cross-Saharan caravan trade.

Not only is that unrealistic historically speaking, it's inconsistent with workers. How can workers travel to "unsecured" plots while traders can't? And another quirk: in RL, you can't "secure" land unless you have an army stationed there that's securing it. Once it leaves, it's no longer secured - that's how land warfare is like. So according to this "road" logic, traders shouldn't be able to travel to any plot that doesn't have armies."



PS: I would also be in favour of automatically generated land trade routes à la CtP, would that be possible. I just think my proposed second best solution is much easier to implement. As far as I can see, the only two things that would really need to be added are:
1. The ability to get gold from pillaging routes.
2. Tell barbarians to also pillage improvements outside cultural borders.

 

[Maian]

Roads can be destroyed. Destroying a road really does have an impact on trade, since roads are necessary to get large goods across in a timely matter. It has nothing to do with security.

Water, on the other hand, cannot be destroyed. Perhaps sea lanes can be "destroyed" in the sense that trade ships no longer want to travel on it due todanger. But sea lanes aren't tangible objects.

Roads also contribute significantly to gameplay. They may be a hassle to create, but they both provide trade and increase movement. The increase movement part is a biggy too - land units are generally slower than naval units, so increasing movement for land units is more potent than doing so for naval units (law of diminishing returns).

Sea lanes, on the other hand, just provide trade. Even if they provided increased movement (which also wouldn't make that much sense), it wouldn't provide a large benefit, since ships are already pretty fast.

Consider the other ship the military escort which just got rid of the pirate infestation and resecured the area.

If the pirate ships aren't there, there is no pirate infestation. Hence, there's no need for military escorts to get rid of this "infestation".

For the record, personally I'd give the ability to "secure shipping lanes" to all ships, not just worker boats. Giving it to worker boats would create too much hassle. By giving it to all ships, the route can be reconnected immediately after the enemy ships are destroyed and the threat is gone.

You missed my point. Worker boats are not a military vessel (they can't fight). Trade ships also aren't military vessels. So why can worker boats secure water while trade ships can't. And by "trade ship", I don't mean an actual trade ship unit; I mean the line of trade ships that the trade route represents.

In real life, empires didn't have ships on every square kilometer of water. They have strategically placed naval bases from which they can secure a large area. Eg Carthago, lots of Greek and Phoenician colonies and trading posts, Hongkong, Singapore, Bombay, Cape Town, Gibraltar... Currently in Civ such locations have little added value.

My point is that you don't need to secure a water plot by sending a warship there, because of the very reason you just gave - a trade route is generally secured not by being filled with warships, but by the threat of warships in the area retaliating.

My other point: Suppose we have the "build sea lane" idea in the game. Then a ship can be sent to "secure" a plot of water. But once it leaves, how is that plot still secure? It doesn't make sense.

Okay enough on this matter. I'm pretty sure the automatic sea trade route thing is possible. Take a city (denote as A). Look at its sea trade routes. Get a city that it's trading with (denote as B). Calculate the path and add roads to the plots in the path. Now the tricky part: create an uncontrollable trade ship at A and have it start moving toward the B. The uncontrollable aspect is the tricky part, though I think it can be done. Once ship reaches B, make it move toward A. Repeat. Also make sure ships don't get movement bonuses from roads.