Trade routes(Roads) for Trading resources

[tamyrlin]

So in Civilization 3,4 we had to connect roads,harbors between capitals to be able to trade resources. Civilization V had this system of magical trade routes for resources if you just had 2 scouts have line of sight to each other.

In Civilization VI with traders forming roads very early in the game,will we return back to the system of connection between capitals to trade resources?

 

[dragon653]

we don't know

 

[Human Crouton]

I kind of hope so because it would be fun to have the power to cut off certain resource trades that cross through my territory, or just to take out some resource trade routes started by someone I'm at war with.

Would be fun, but I'm not taking any points off the game if the resource trading is just imaginary lines.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I would guess that we'll need to at least make a connection, if not have an active trade route, in order to trade resources based on what we've seen. It's clear that they're trying to incentivize connecting empires, and requiring those connections in order to trade tangible items would certainly help with that.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I would guess that we'll need to at least make a connection, if not have an active trade route, in order to trade resources based on what we've seen. It's clear that they're trying to incentivize connecting empires, and requiring those connections in order to trade tangible items would certainly help with that.

It'd be wise, and I think it would make sense, but so far I have failed to noticed anything, in the E3 video, you were able to trade Cotton for Marble or whatever with Teddy without I believe a road (but they could've just made it somewhere else).

In addition, it also appears that Bonus resources cannot be traded so here's hoping for an expansion pack.

 

[AriochIV]

In Civilization VI with traders forming roads very early in the game,will we return back to the system of connection between capitals to trade resources?

Almost certainly not. For one thing, the only way to build roads in the early game is with Traders, and Traders only move between cities. There doesn't seem to be any way to build a road to a resource tile if it doesn't happen to be directly between two cities.

For another, you can see from the videos that resource become instantly available (appearing in the resource list at the top bar) the moment that a Builder plops the appropriate improvement on them.

I like the concept of trade routes being linked with trading resources, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't suck. Your ability to trade with other civilizations would be limited by the number of available trade routes, and you'd have to keep Traders idle and waiting for a possible trade, which doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of limited trade route slots.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Almost certainly not. For one thing, the only way to build roads in the early game is with Traders, and Traders only move between cities. There doesn't seem to be any way to build a road to a resource tile if it doesn't happen to be directly between two cities.

For another, you can see from the videos that resource become instantly available (appearing in the resource list at the top bar) the moment that a Builder plops the appropriate improvement on them.

I like the concept of trade routes being linked with trading resources, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't suck. Your ability to trade with other civilizations would be limited by the number of available trade routes, and you'd have to keep Traders idle and waiting for a possible trade, which doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of limited trade route slots.

You could always have it this way.

The bonus is divided between each city that are connected for your emprie, requiring roads between each city to gain benefit of each.

if one of your cities is connected via road to another foreign city, then you have established a trading network with said nation/their city.

 

[tamyrlin]

Almost certainly not. For one thing, the only way to build roads in the early game is with Traders, and Traders only move between cities. There doesn't seem to be any way to build a road to a resource tile if it doesn't happen to be directly between two cities.

For another, you can see from the videos that resource become instantly available (appearing in the resource list at the top bar) the moment that a Builder plops the appropriate improvement on them.

I like the concept of trade routes being linked with trading resources, but I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't suck. Your ability to trade with other civilizations would be limited by the number of available trade routes, and you'd have to keep Traders idle and waiting for a possible trade, which doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of limited trade route slots.

I didn't mean using trade caravans for trading resources. I meant you can use a early trade caravan to get roads built between your capitals. Once you have the road , you can trade any amount of resources with the other empire.

Like you can't trade resources with other civilizations , if you don't have road between your capitals. And an early trade caravans is how you create the road.

Civilization v felt bad that you could start selling all your bonus resources straight away without any setup.

Also if connection is required , you can go to war with an empire , cut its connections to other empires so it can no longer trade for horses,irons,luxury resources and once its empire is unhappy and its military suffering strategic penalty ,seige is easier.

 

[AriochIV]

I didn't mean using trade caravans for trading resources. I meant you can use a early trade caravan to get roads built between your capitals. Once you have the road , you can trade any amount of resources with the other empire.

I see. That's possible, but I think it could be problematic given that you don't have direct control over road construction early. It would mean that I could terminate a trade deal just by pillaging one road tile, and the owner may not have any way to repair it if his Traders are all engaged elsewhere.

 

[m15a]

Since roads and trade units are intertwined, what if instead of requiring roads to have a deal, you need an active trade unit with that civ? So, then, pillaging a road tile wouldn't make a difference (or even be possible), but you could still go to war to either capture an enemies traders or completely block off the trade route (if, say, traders weren't allowed to go through enemy territory).

 

[Cyon]

It could be enough of there was indirect trade: to buy iron from civ X you need a road/trade route with civ X or civ Y that also has one with civ X or civ Z if the have one with Y that has one with X.

Civ Y and Z should get some gold from this as well. And if traderoutes pass your territory you should get gold from it if you place a trading post nearby (it could boost the range for nearby trade routes as well)

This could be interesting mechanics for a Silk road /Sahel trade civ.

 

[Morgawr]

So in Civilization 3,4 we had to connect roads,harbors between capitals to be able to trade resources. Civilization V had this system of magical trade routes for resources if you just had 2 scouts have line of sight to each other.

In Civilization VI with traders forming roads very early in the game,will we return back to the system of connection between capitals to trade resources?

I certainly hope so. It is ridiculous how you can trade resources with another continent across the ocean just by revealing them with your vision-upgraded scout, even if neither of you have sailing/astronomy to actually physically travel there...

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I'm with anything that brings some consistency to the trading system. In Civ5 you had the trading via diplomatic screen which "magically" moved stuff around, and you had the trade caravans that had to physically move between cities to trade gold/food..etc. It felt a bit arbitrary what fell into which category.

I think an ongoing trade route is needed to establish trade with another civ. It doesn't matter which city you connect with as long as it is part of the trade network that links back to capital.

I don't think pillaging a road should stop trade, that's just impossible to control. But open borders are necessary to go through other civ lands. It'll make civs situated in the middle of things more important to please.

 

[hugojackson18]

I liked how in Civ 3, you could only build swordsman if you had Iron in your city and had to connect this city to other cities for the empire to share the ressource. I hope this comes back.

 

[skyclad]

I liked how in Civ 3, you could only build swordsman if you had Iron in your city and had to connect this city to other cities for the empire to share the ressource. I hope this comes back.

Yes it was like this in civ4 too. I wish them to bring it back or do something new but please no magic transports

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Yes it was like this in civ4 too. I wish them to bring it back or do something new but please no magic transports

The roads only illustrate the main roads in an empire. So it is not magical transport. But I would like it that having resources connected with roads will give an increase in the quantity provided by that resource, relatively around 25-50% more of that resource.

 

[unpossible251]

I liked how in Civ 3, you could only build swordsman if you had Iron in your city and had to connect this city to other cities for the empire to share the ressource. I hope this comes back.

Yeah... Not a bad idea. You know what? Lots of people are frustrated with civ5 about how hard it is to expand beyond 4 cities mid-late game, because u really need that uranium. But that arctic, uranium mining city penalises your culture, science, NW's...

If playing wide is more viable, i'd definitely be interested in the challenge of not only establishing and defending the little uranium outpost, but also defending the trade route that sends the yellowcake back to the capital.

Make it so! Ty devs

 

[Mustakrakish]

I still think trade routes should be semi on the map. I mean let it be a unit that you send in Washington, OK. BUT, once it reaches Washington, let it stay there (off the map) for the number of turns the trade route is active. You then have a trade route line that can be interrupted. If a barbarian ends a turn on the said line somewhere between cities, you lose the trade route's yield that turn. If a rival civ "interrupts" the trade route, it steals the yield (or rather half of it so it won't be too OP, rest is lost) as long as it's interrupting it. I think it would be more interesting this way than simply catching the physical unit and pillaging. You would need to go out and clear / secure your trade routes.

Much more interesting IMO to go clear the trade route of barbarians without losing the whole trade route and rebuilding it because of one sad barb scout. Plus the fun in being the one to drain a rival civ of their trade, forcing them out of their turtled up positions or suffer the consequences.

 

[tamyrlin]

I see. That's possible, but I think it could be problematic given that you don't have direct control over road construction early. It would mean that I could terminate a trade deal just by pillaging one road tile, and the owner may not have any way to repair it if his Traders are all engaged elsewhere.

I think you are right , pillaging road leads to all sort of cheezy stuff.

Since roads and trade units are intertwined, what if instead of requiring roads to have a deal, you need an active trade unit with that civ? So, then, pillaging a road tile wouldn't make a difference (or even be possible), but you could still go to war to either capture an enemies traders or completely block off the trade route (if, say, traders weren't allowed to go through enemy territory).

I like the idea of trader routes pillaged to stop trades.So I agree trading between empires should be enabled by trade routes than road connection .

. If a rival civ "interrupts" the trade route, it steals the yield (or rather half of it so it won't be too OP, rest is lost) as long as it's interrupting it. I think it would be more interesting this way than simply catching the physical unit and pillaging. You would need to go out and clear / secure your trade routes.

Being able to steal resources/gold/yield of the trade deal by pillaging caravans will be good.

So it should be a good idea if trading between two empires is based on availability of existing trade routes. And pillaging trade caravans will also steal yield of the caravans for that trip . Maybe each trade route/caravan with that empire allows you to trade 2x luxuries/resources. So if you want to trade much more , you need to open more trade routes with that empire.And pillage value of each route could be based on the number of resources/luxuries tied to that trade route.

 

[tamyrlin]

This feature will also allow trade to grow organically. Initially you can trade resources and all only to your neighbours , as your trade routes have very less range. As number of trade routes increase and their range increase you can trade with more empires.

In Civ 5 you could trade to an empire which was so far away , just because your scout met their scout. Ancient era you should be able to trade resources only with your neighbours.