Trade routes broken?

Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
605
I set up trade routes in my cities and they never seem to give anything in return. They just take from other civs.

Am I doing wrong? or it it just another thing that needs fixed?
 
Internal trading (for the production bonus) should always done by trading from small city back to the big city, usually the capital. The capital itself should only trade with the second biggest city. It sounds like you are setting up trade routes from your capital to your small cities, which will benefit your capital a tiny bit and your small cities not at all. Am I right there?
 
My Capital is the second biggest city. lol. And I usually trade with my larger city Antium. My trades go from different cities, but I only recently noticed the no trade to the other city.

I just built a new Trader and in a small town (Ostia) and no matter what city or city state I select to trade with, they all say, "No Benefit from Route."
 
Trade routes allow smaller cities to benefit from the infrastructure of your more developed cities. I will often move trade routes around as the game goes on the concentrate the production in certain spots.

Unfortunately, there seems to be very little reason to use international trade routes. If you are going for a cultural victory, setting one to each other civilization seems like enough, but I haven't found much incentive otherwise. The production bonuses from internal routes are too good to ignore.
 
See the screenshot below:
Spoiler :

upload_2016-10-31_19-38-34.png



The Trader is Starting in New York (small city) and going to Washington (big city). Washington will get nothing from this deal but New York will receive 6 Food, 7 Production, 12 Gold and 1 Faith per turn while the trade route lasts. Not bad for a city just settled last turn!

So use internal trade routes primarily to build production in your new cities, although big cities trading between themselves works also.
 
Yeah, that's the same thing that happens to me. If that's intended, then it is a broken mechanic isn't it? I mean trade means just that, each trade for a small benefit at the least. I mean they even put it in. Most of my trading is of equal sized cities, and still no benefit. Heck, even trading to larger or smaller cities are always one sided.

In what case does both sides get something?
 
There is no case, by default. I think Egypt has an ability though.

And this is by design. I personally like it since it is very easy to keep track of once you understand it.
 
Certain policies such as "Arsenal of Democracy" do it. Not actually aware of any others off the top of my head mind. Bound to be a full list on a wiki somewhere. Suffice to say that 99% of trading is one sided by design. You can argue the point as you wish but better to just play it that way and use it to boost cities as best you can which means that unless you are building roads you should always be targeting the biggest city (ie city with the biggest bonus) when you can.
 
Yeah, that's the same thing that happens to me. If that's intended, then it is a broken mechanic isn't it? I mean trade means just that, each trade for a small benefit at the least. I mean they even put it in. Most of my trading is of equal sized cities, and still no benefit. Heck, even trading to larger or smaller cities are always one sided.

In what case does both sides get something?

Never (usually...Egypts UA, Arsenal of Democracy, some GP effects can work that, but it is never domestic routes)

Trade gives benefits to the Sending city based on the districts in the Receiving city.

so all domestic routes to Washington would give that exact same yield....and Washington will never get anything out of those.
All Foreign routes to City X will give the exact same yield. (for a given civ...since policies and CS affect it)
 
This is not broken as it is by design (not to say the design could not be changed). If they allowed something like both cities get a benefit, it would probably make internal trade routes even more OP than they arguably already are. Internal vs External Trade route comparison:

Internal:

Pros: Safer in the event of a war - Provide more reliable sources of production - Provide food - Build roads between your cities
Cons: Less raw gold - No extra intel or foreign roads being built - No foreign trade posts built

External: reverse everything above

Personally, I usually keep about 1/4-1/2 my trade routes international for diplo reasons and gold. The rest are internal
 
I have to say it does seem strange that trade routes are more often a mostly one-way street.

I understand internals being lop-sided, if they're a means to primarily help one city, but the whole point of legitimate international trade is to give both parties a reasonable benefit from the whole deal.

But then I suppose that your traders get your benefits: for the other side of the deal there's the other civ's traders. I guess that makes some sense.
 
I tried to go from Rome to Ostia and again Ostia to Rome. But it won't let me. I thought maybe they would both show on the trade, but it won't let me even try.

As for OP, things can be adjusted for that simple task. I mean it's already OP anyway, right?
 
Perhaps you are out of range?

You could increase the range by trading to nearby cities and then establishing a trading post there, and then LeapFrog further out.
 
Perhaps you are out of range?

You could increase the range by trading to nearby cities and then establishing a trading post there, and then LeapFrog further out.

I'm next door. I'm also getting it from Rome to Ostia already, but Ostia to Rome doesn't since there is a route established already, I guess.
 
Top Bottom