Trade route profit

[MeteorPunch]

When 2 civs use your roads or waterways to trade, you should recieve a small profit as compensation. I don't know how to implement this, but it would more accurately simulate real trade.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have considered that idea myself many times.
First, the direction a trade route will take will depend on your access to the other country. Any city through which a trade route passes SHOULD recieve a bonus to its income.
Obviously, if you have a nation in-between yourself and your trade partner, then you will need a RoP agreement with the third-party nation in order to get a direct route to your trading partner. Otherwise, you will have to find an alternative-and most likely longer-route to your trading partner. Of course, though such a route might earn more money, it is FAR more susceptible to harm, and will also probably cost each nation more money to maintain.
This factor, of course, will give great leverage to a third party nation who wants to negotiate a RoP agreement between two trading nation. Said nation not only gets any initial benefits from allowing the trade route to run through their nation, they also get a boost in the income of any city through which the trade route runs.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I actually think the simplest, most effective way to impliment profit from having a trade route is this:

When trade passes through another civs territory (either by land or sea) you have to negotiate a "right of trade" agreement. That way you can use their roads for trading with a civ that has no connection to your lands otherwise. The civ in the middle will also make money, just because he isn't likely to give up this right of trade agreement without compensation. Or you could always invade and get rid of the middle man

 

[Colonel]

Would give a new value to a city like Istabul

 

[dh_epic]

I think tangible trade routes are an excellent idea. I think that was one thing that was lost when we abandoned caravans. I think we can have tangible trade routes without having to micromanagement of dozens of little units or routes.

To me, you need to put an emphasis on just how important open travel was for growth and prosperity. War directly interferes with this -- that's how Europe was cut off from India and China for the longest time, and may have even motivated the discovery of America.

 

[crimson238]

I kind've liekd the way it was in CTP where the trade route was shown on the map with a unit representing to goods moving along a blue line. I think if this was implemented (with civ specific colouring.. the route would be a mix of the 2 civ's trading colours, and owudl take the fastest route between 2 capitals.) we coudl bring back piracy (you don't destory the route, but oyu can capture the commodity as though it was a worker (you coudl either get the commodity for one turn.. of gold for it, something as such.)
Also, the right of trade agreement is a great idea louis

 

[Kosez]

I agree, CTP had pretty good trade system. But it should be adjusted a bit, as in CTP there was to much work with it. And new aspect should be added, mediation. So civilization could have profit without having resource or buying it.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I kind've liekd the way it was in CTP where the trade route was shown on the map with a unit representing to goods moving along a blue line. I think if this was implemented (with civ specific colouring.. the route would be a mix of the 2 civ's trading colours, and owudl take the fastest route between 2 capitals.) we coudl bring back piracy (you don't destory the route, but oyu can capture the commodity as though it was a worker (you coudl either get the commodity for one turn.. of gold for it, something as such.)
Also, the right of trade agreement is a great idea louis

I would like the CTP way as a visible option you could turn on/off. I hated the fact though that there were invisible units who could plunder your route every turn and get away with it (no war) - you had to manually set up the route again...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, a couple of important points related to this issue.
First of all, you are completely right, DH_Epic. The Discovery of the Americas occured as a result of an attempt to find a more 'direct' route to Japan, China and India-hence the naming of the Carribean islands as the 'West Indies'.
As for visible trade routes, I don't think that piracy or breaking of a trade route should be automatic. Instead a trade route should have a base speed and strength-according to the tech level of the civ starting it. The faster the trade route, the more money you make from it-but the lower its strength and, therefore, the more vulnerable to attack it is-and vice versa obviously. You could adjust speed and strength-at a cost-via the trade screen, where you could also adjust the route of the trade-link.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

Trade routes comparable to the ones as of CTP would be a good addition.
One could make their revenues being dependant on their length:
for the shortest possible route between the two capitals (or between provincial capitals) you would gain 100% of the possible revenue. For any additional tile you would be deducted a small percentage (let's say 1% - numbers are just for display purposes). For any town crossed and not being a town of the two trading parties, there could be another deduction (2%?)
In case of enemy units / terrain blocking the trade route, it would automatically be re-adjusted, but a pop-up would show where the re-adustment took place. In case of a complete blockade, the trade would be put on hold, but wouldn't be "broken" as it currently is.

 

[Heat Miser]

Visible trade routes would be useful. As far as trade route protection, I think that you should be able to designate one of your units for trade protection. It would no longer be visible or useful for other matters unless released from "convoy duty". It should still be accountable for unit upkeep costs. Additional units could also be designated per trade route. Routes that entail land and sea would need both sea and land units for complete protection.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, this is how I could see trade-as a whole-occuring in Civ4. Credit goes to both DH_Epic AND Commander Bello for some of the ideas I present here !

1) You have 2 fairly similar ways to set up a trade deal: 'one on one' bilateral trade or an 'Open Trade'.

2) In the former, you approach a nation with whom you have both communications and a 'Friendship Agreement' (a friendship agreement that allows for trade deals to be done) and offer to buy, sell or trade a resource/commodity.

3) You set up the INITIAL trade deal in much the same way as you would in Civ3, but the base gpt value of the trade is automatically calculated based on the resource and the distance between your two nations (either distance between capitals OR the distance between the two nearest cities).

4) You can add or subtract items from the trade table, or convert the gpt into a lump sum, and the computer will recalculate the base price accordingly.

5) When you have settled on a total deal, you can then 'negotiate' the final price. You click on the gpt or lump sum gold figure, make any change to it you want in the pop-up, then press the 'haggle' button just underneath.

6) The other nation will either 'accept' the offer, or give a 'counter-offer'. This you can either 'accept', or type in a new number and press the haggle button again.

7) This process can be repeated X times before the deal will ultimately collapse, and if you do it too often, then your reputation with that nation will drop (how much depends on how 'fair' you were truly being in your negotiations)-further still if the negotiations fail completely.

8) If a final price is agreed on, then the most efficient trade route will appear on the mini-map at the bottom of the negotiation screen, with the cost of the trade-route also being highlighted (cost being based on the base speed/strength of the route, its distance, and the # of third party cities it travels through). The player can click on the trade-route, in the map, and drag it into any conformation he wishes-though 'impossible' trade-routes will appear in red, and 'prohibitive' trade routes will appear in yellow.

9) Each city, belonging to either of the trading partners, the trade route passes through will gain an income benefit from the trade route based on the city's wealth AND the value of the trade route.

10) Trade routes will be invisible to all accept the two trading partners AND any third party nations the trade route passes through (and even third parties can only see the part which effects them directly). Other nations will only see it via successful espionage or by having a unit within sufficient range of where the trade route runs.

11) Trade routes can be disrupted/pillaged directly-via units-or indirectly via commercial sabotage. The chance of directly attacking a trade route will depend on the units attack strength and the strength of the trade route. Some units will get an AS bonus to disrupting and/or pillaging a trade route.

12) A trade routes speed and/or strength can be adjusted and/or upgraded-for a cost. Upgrading a trade route can be done as you achieve the appropriate techs, and is done in almost exactly the same way as upgrading units (i.e. a one off cost which increases the strength and/or speed of the route(s)) Adjusting a trade-route has an 'indirect cost'. If you lock either the speed or the defense of the route, then adjust the other setting, then the cost of the trade route will increase. For instance, lets say you had a trade route with a strength of 4, and a speed of 3. You want to speed up the route (thus boosting its gpt value), but don't wish to sacrifice its strength. Therefore, you LOCK the strength of the trade route, then adjust the speed from 3 to, say, 5. This gives a minor boost to your per turn income, but will add to the cost of the trade route. If neither setting is locked, then adjusting one will have the opposite effect on the other (so increasing speed reduces strength, and vice versa).

13) Lastly, if you place a resource on the 'Open Market'-via your trade screen', you choose the resource, the # of units, and your asking price in the 'Open Market' screen. Then, at the start of your next movement phase, you will recieve messages telling you how many civs-that you have communications with-have responded to your offer, and how much they are offering. You then accept a particular nations offer, at which point the standard negotiating screen pops-up. Here you can fine tune your offer, and haggle as normal-though you will be severely limited on how many haggles you can make (and pay a higher rep penalty if you do !)

Anyway, I know thats a LOT of information, but I hope it all makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I am not a fan of 'capital-to-capital' trade defining the amount of commerce. Instead I would like to think trade commerce is trade between cities and cities, cities and regions, or regions and regions. That means that Timbuktu and Morrocco generate commerce from trade just as Timbuktu and Valencia. Here is a basic formula showing how that commerce is calculatted:

Trade Commerce for Trade A to B = Trade Value for Goods - Transportation Costs

Trade Value for Goods :: This is modified by necessity, quality, and exotic nature of the goods. Those goods common in Timbuktu might be exotic and desired in Valenica, fetching a higher trade value.

Transportation Costs :: The more ways and longer and more dangerous, the higher this is. Technology really lowers this, making long distance trade much more important.

I never liked the idea that you negotiated the volume of trade. Economics and trade markets are complicated, a fact which leads itself against volume specific ability. Any partners in trade, whether they be nations or merchants, set policies that influence prices. Nations set tariffs and quotas on goods from and to various sources.

The policies you set are quotas and tariffs. To be simple, you can specify the percentage(in 5% or 10%) on tariffs. The amount of international trade travelling into a city would have that %tariff taken out, and half that % turned into gold. The original country would not get trade commerce that was tariffed. Tariffs seem like a good way to make tons of money, however raising your tariffs will often result in similair moves by others. Since tariffed earnings are only in gold, and only half the trade otherwise, tariffs are a losing proposition over time.

However this would allow you to have an interesting economic dominance over weaker parties. You could demand, as part of their tribute or peace or whatever, that they keep tariffs at a certain level. You could levy your tariffs on their imports really high, but they give you really low tariffs.

 

[Commander Bello]

@Aussie_lurker:
pt 13) I would prefer to have a list of all incoming messages to your proposal, rather than have messages pop up. You would receive an answer from all nations, and you could sort it by name, by value, by length of trade and so on... in principle, it would be a list similar to the current city status screen. So, you could easily check which nation gives you the most benefit, whether it is a big player or not, and so on

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Commander Bello

Sorry, that was actually what I meant. I was thinking of a 'turn summary screen', where you see all the 'results' of your last turn summarised in a group of screens (a general screen, then organised according to subject).
In one of these screens, you would see a list of all offers made that turn-and you could double click on the one which interested you.

@Sir Schwick.

I am tempted to agree with you that the trade should go from the nearest viable points within your respective nations-with the player having the power to alter the start-point, end point and direction. I do strongly support a basic 'unit-based' supply system though.
An interesting thought, for me, is that your position on the 'Free Market' vs 'Planned Economy' axis would determine the strength of your private sector which-in turn-would effect the sectors ability to find and control resources/commodities, and the # of trade routes it could form outside of your direct control.
As for tarriffs, each seperate 'import' trade route could have a 'tarriff' button beside it, which you could adjust up and down. This would make the trade route cost more for the other side, whilst earning you a bit of extra revenue. It could be a way of pushing a civ to end a trade deal (or reduce its scope) without you having to break the deal yourself. This could be useful if situations change, but you don't want the rep hit from breaking a deal.
IMHO, setting a tarriff of 10% would grant your nation 10% of the value of the import, but increase the cost for the importer by a similar amount. So, for instance, if an import was costing your nation 150 gpt for 5 units of a resource, then a 10% tarriff will give you 15gpt, and add 15gpt to the cost of the trade route. Alternatively, you could impose a 'negative tarriff' to your private sector trade routes-essentially subsidizing them with your own money-allowing them to send more goods overseas (and possibly flooding another nations markets with goods for below normal cost).
Anyway, just some additional thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Professor-Gamer]

I do agree with the most of your suggestions.

Here are some tweaks:

When trading through the territory of a third-party civ, it should gain some profit of having the trade route through it's territory. The trade routes COULD be laid out manually, or just give this task to the CPU.

The options may vary:

A) The shortest possible way between capitals("Shortest")
B) The shortest possible way ON the territory of third-party civ(That way the trade route is longer, as it will go in different weird corners, and therefore you will lose gold but NOT give it to third-party civ)("Safest")
C) The middle of the both options("Balanced")

The profits/losses are like 1 gold/tile(very much I assume), or 1 gold every 3 tiles. That way, say the trade route is 40 tiles long, and 22 of these tiles lay on the third-party civ territory. That way the total loss is 40/3=13 gpt, and 7 of these are given to the third civ. That should sound more logical.

Trade routs will be cheaper, because of 2 things: The ships travel usually faster, and it doesn't lay DIRECTLY on the landmass, where mountains or else can be.

Of course, the cheapest should be the air trading system: fast and non-stoppable.

In case the third civ doesn't agree on the trade through it's territory, the trading partners should have to use alternative(and more expensive) ways to trade. This will of course not be very profitable to the third civ, and so (at least with AI) it will be easy to make a "RoT"(Right of Trade)-agreement.

[EDIT]: Sorry for bad English

 

[Kosez]

Professor-Gamer´s idea about calculating profits and third party profits is excellent. I would like to add, that trade routes would be only possible on roads, or sea. In that way you would have less chances to avoid third party if you hadn`t had a sea connection. So it could be an incredible gold boost for civilization with good traffic connections (plenty of roads and ports).

 

[Professor-Gamer]

I still reckon, that after building airports in capitals, the trade routes could avoid the third party land(or still pay, not to get shot down )

[EDIT]: Got an idea(or Idea, like this!):

If the 2 trade partners trade resourses(strategic, more likely) through a third-party civ, that civ should gain an ability to partially use the resourse.

A) If resourses are unlimited, like in Civ3, the third civ can only build DEFENCIVE units or only BUILDINGS that used the resourse.

B) If resourses are (forgot the word), that is trhey have quantities, the profit the lands trade can be in RESOURSE PER TURN.

This solution is very good for those civs that are either small, or large but with a lack of resourses(or a shortage, if you are such a warmonger ). This would spice up a whole game.

Why not luxuries? It would be very very hard to keep track of city mood if you don't know when your lux will deplete. It is even harder if consuption is based on population: It's hard to keep track on growth of 40-50 citys' growth, and predict when your luxury will vanish. Annoying and difficult.

Bonus resourse...hmm...this can vary quite a while. F.ex., you have a wheat field. Then a special icon or a number represents how richful the resourse is, and how much you will gain from working it. F.ex, a wheat with 1 food bonus icon will yield nothing on plains . Even if you irrigate it(in despotism). And a 3 FB wheat tile on plains will not even need irrigating(for some time), as it will gain: 1+3-1=3 FB.

 

[sir_schwick]

To elaborate on my idea, all cities would trade with all other cities. That means if there are 20 cities/regions in the game, then each city/region would trade with the other 19, no matter if they were foreign or domestic. Of course the transportation costs would take most of the trade commerce you would normally earn for a long time. Whenever transportation is cheap and markets plentiful(early industrial ages in real history), then trade commerce could provide most of the research/gold/happiness you use because 200+ trade routes per city with good yields(even 1 cpt is good at these quantities). Now instead of establishing routes, you protect routes and regulate them.

The idea of subsidies is interesting and could use more discussion.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Two things about the proposals that worry me
1. each city trades to all other cities (I'd like this but it is probably the most likely to squash the computer)
(possible solution: give each city a limited number of trade routes to nearby or ocean connected cities, so that each city can connect to all other cities, but usually only through other cities, so the Europeans don't buy silk from China, they buy it from the Middle East that buys it from Central Asia that buys it from China...this has the advantage of naturally incorporating the 'right to trade')

2. Trade agreements made without your control, 1st of all because I don't believe that the Player should lack control of the 'Private Sector' (a 'Free market' should just mean demand for more luxuries and lower 'government' type spending ie courthouses, military units, etc.) 2nd because trade with foreign powers has little to do with the internal economic policy, an isolationist trade policy doesn't necessarily mean a socialist economy. All forms of government /economy should be able to set their trade priorities and let the diplomats+merchants automatically figure it out.