[R&F] Trade

[acluewithout]

So, I like the trade system. I like how you earn trade route capacity through districts and a few other things, I like how trade routes give you roads and trading posts and tourism and religion and diplomacy and visibility, I like how trade routes are vulnerable, and I like the tension between internal and external trade routes.

I could take or leave actually building traders and I’d like a way to just buy roads between two destinations on top of just using traders. But yeah, like it.

But hey, I wouldn’t be posting if I didn’t have a gripe. And here it is: I think the current systems only really makes sense up to the medieval or renaissance era. After that, the focus on specific trade routes and traders seems a little silly. You go from sort of imaging you’ve built the silk route or something, to suddenly being underwhelmed that you super powerful space empire is, what, making do with a bunch of UPS vans?

I have no real solution here. Perhaps there should be some way to create permanent and powerful trade routes or maybe trade nodes, that boost trade but also create potential for conflict. Maybe you could then stack traders into “corps” or “armies”. No idea really.

As a total aside, I also don’t think you should be able to trade with other Civ Leaders until you’ve established a trade route. Not a big thing, but “traders” and “trade” are a little too separate at the moment.

Anyway. I know there are people who hate traders and those that like them. I was wondering if there were many who were more inbetweem with it? If there are, I’d love to hear their thoughts on the trade system.

 

[TomKQT]

What you wrote actually sound reasonable. But there are many systems in the game that don't really make sense (either completely or in some eras or situations), this is just one of them. Anyway:

I think the current systems only really makes sense up to the medieval or renaissance era. After that, the focus on specific trade routes and traders seems a little silly. You go from sort of imaging you’ve built the silk route or something, to suddenly being underwhelmed that you super powerful space empire is, what, making do with a bunch of UPS vans?

It's true. The whole idea of traders being the pioneers who make routs and travel through dangerous wilderness is a great idea IMHO, but as you said - it makes sense only in the earlier eras. I can even imagine a convoy of horses/camels/mules/donkeys travelling all together with the trading items and being destroyed by barbarians, thus completely stopping the route. But in modern ages, wouldn't the representation of such a trade route be rather something like hundrets of independent vans, thus destroying some of them wouldn't really make a huge difference? And roads are obviously build in a different way.
Maybe the game could swap to a different system in later eras, with traders being more similar to Civ5 (not an actual unit on the map) and a new system of route building (more charges for the engineer unit etc.). But you know what, I think this is the case where realism should go aside, because wouldn't this just complicate the system too much? Wouldn't it become confusing if such a core system changed so much during the game?

As a total aside, I also don’t think you should be able to trade with other Civ Leaders until you’ve established a trade route. Not a big thing, but “traders” and “trade” are a little too separate at the moment.

I also agree on this one, this doesn't make sense at all. I always was wondering how is this "second trade" actually working, how are the civilisations swapping their silk for iron with no trade routes between them, even with barbarians between them and unexplored terrain
But again - I cannot image a way how to fix it without making the game too complicated. The current trader system is not suitable for your solution, IMHO.

 

[acluewithout]

Yeah. I’m stumped too. Also, wasn’t trying to make an ideas thread, although perhaps my opening post was a bit close to that.

My real point is just that - rather than the trade system not being good - I think it really is great, but only for the first half or so of the game. Indeed, I’d be sad to lose the current system for the early game.

I think being able to stack traders, perhaps coupled with trades routes no longer being capable of being pillaged by barbarians, would get part of the way there without massively changing the game. Indeed, maybe stacked traders wouldn’t actually give any improved yield - the benefit of stacking could just be that stacked traders can’t be pillaged.

I don’t expect they’ll be any real changes to trading in the next expansion. It’s now thoroughly baked into alliances and other systems. And, frankly, I don’t think it’s at the top of anyone’s list for more work (including mine).

 

[MrRadar]

As a total aside, I also don’t think you should be able to trade with other Civ Leaders until you’ve established a trade route. Not a big thing, but “traders” and “trade” are a little too separate at the moment..

I also agree on this one, this doesn't make sense at all. I always was wondering how is this "second trade" actually working, how are the civilisations swapping their silk for iron with no trade routes between them, even with barbarians between them and unexplored terrain
But again - I cannot image a way how to fix it without making the game too complicated.

A similar concept was already implemented in Civ 3. To be able to trade luxuries with another AI, you had to have a trade route between your capitals, meaning, there had to be a connection via a land road or water. Trade couldn't go over sea tiles until Astronomy, and couldn't cross ocean tiles until Navigation or Magnetism.

I imagine, a similar system could be easily adapted to Civ 6: wanna trade luxes with AI? Have an unbroken connection via land through roads or sea through harbours between your capitals (or cities having a CH with a marketplace, or have a trading centre there). Oceans opening for navigation with Cartography would also open lux trade with overseas AI's. Like this it would be more logical, it would probably push player to be more "outgoing" earlier with their trade routes. This would add some complication, of course, and the developers probably decided it was excessive, when they ditched this system altogether already in Civ 5.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't think traders should ever become immune to barbarians. Even in the 21st century we've had Somalian pirates disrupting trade. In Civ terms they're barbarians.
If roadbuilding was cheaper for military engineers that would help. Maybe 1 charge could set up a road between 2 of your cities. Roads to foreign cities would still require traders.
Having trade with other civs for luxury and strategic resources back would be good IMO.

 

[acluewithout]

A similar concept was already implemented in Civ 3. To be able to trade luxuries with another AI, you had to have a trade route between your capitals, meaning, there had to be a connection via a land road or water. Trade couldn't go over sea tiles until Astronomy, and couldn't cross ocean tiles until Navigation or Magnetism.

I imagine, a similar system could be easily adapted to Civ 6: wanna trade luxes with AI? Have an unbroken connection via land through roads or sea through harbours between your capitals (or cities having a CH with a marketplace, or have a trading centre there). Oceans opening for navigation with Cartography would also open lux trade with overseas AI's. Like this it would be more logical, it would probably push player to be more "outgoing" earlier with their trade routes. This would add some complication, of course, and the developers probably decided it was excessive, when they ditched this system altogether already in Civ 5.

Pity. Because that sounds really cool.

I don't think traders should ever become immune to barbarians. Even in the 21st century we've had Somalian pirates disrupting trade. In Civ terms they're barbarians.
If roadbuilding was cheaper for military engineers that would help. Maybe 1 charge could set up a road between 2 of your cities. Roads to foreign cities would still require traders.
Having trade with other civs for luxury and strategic resources back would be good IMO.

Yeah, but I'm not sure piracy is still as big of a risk...

I sort of agree. But sea barbs late game do really discourage international trade. Having pirate ship in the modern era might be somewhat realistic at one level, but no ocean going trade is definitely not.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Pity. Because that sounds really cool.



Yeah, but I'm not sure piracy is still as big of a risk...

I sort of agree. But sea barbs late game do really discourage international trade. Having pirate ship in the modern era might be somewhat realistic at one level, but no ocean going trade is definitely not.

Probably not but isn't that because piracy was routed out in the 18-19th centuries. The Somalian pirates resulted in considerable military activity. 3 international task forces, over 20 countries involved, China proposing to build a base to support anti-piracy operations in the area. If players just ignore barbarian camps it seems right to me that they suffer for it.

The sheer number of camps in tundra/ice regions is ridiculous though.

 

[acluewithout]

Probably not but isn't that because piracy was routed out in the 18-19th centuries. The Somalian pirates resulted in considerable military activity. 3 international task forces, over 20 countries involved, China proposing to build a base to support anti-piracy operations in the area. If players just ignore barbarian camps it seems right to me that they suffer for it.

I did not know that. That's (sort of) awesome.

 

[ezzlar]

Well, I dont like the fact that you cant stop traders from specific civs without declaring war. At least available at say, mercantilism.

 

[Cedbird77]

Well, I dont like the fact that you cant stop traders from specific civs without declaring war. At least available at say, mercantilism.

What do you mean by stopping them without going to war? If you attack a civilian trade route or market activity in real life. That surely means war

 

[ezzlar]

Missed the debate about trade wars?

 

[PeterChu]

In modern era, trade routes could be separated from the road systems, and just as in CIV 4, could be automatically assigned by the game. Also, in CIV 4, you do have some kind of trade war with some economic policies. But I guess as a whole it is not a good idea for a 'digital board game'.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

At least there should be a diplomatic possibilty to prevent trade routes going trough your lands for a specific civ.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What do you mean by stopping them without going to war? If you attack a civilian trade route or market activity in real life. That surely means war

Protectionism ala Trump

 

[Scaramanga]

Trade war would just be not accepting deals for other civs' luxuries ie. the EU banning blue jeans.

 

[Sostratus]

So, I like the trade system. 1 I like how you earn trade route capacity through districts and a few other things, 2 I like how trade routes give you roads and trading posts and tourism and religion and diplomacy and visibility, 3 I like how trade routes are vulnerable, and 4 I like the tension between internal and external trade routes.

1. I'm not entirely sold on the implementation we have now where a market or lighthouse is what gets you the trade route. I think this contributes other balance issues for the game. I might rather see something a little more a la Beyond Earth where you had to create a "trade depot" building (we could call it a caravansery or whatever we wanted) to get the route. Make it a city center building. Trade routes as they stand are so valuable that it all but necessitates having one of these two districts - usually the CH- present. This in turn means everyone has way too more gold than intended (the same way having a campus in every city lets you tech much faster than the design intended.) We could even toss in a tier2 trade building for later, or make it a split choice, to spice up what our routes do. My real beef here is that no civ can actually "specialize" in trade at the cost of something else. You just get your 1 route per city and be done with it. There's no way for a focused civ to get extra trade route capacity beyond the colossus and some GMs, for example. Not even a card!

2. This was pretty genius, although I agree with others who think the military engineer or a similar unit should not only be more useful, but grant some method of replicating the road building without a trade route. This would be very handy if they wanted to add railroads later.

3. this is the brilliance of having discrete trader units on the map.

4. This is the gaping hole right now. Late game, external routes or ally routes can be better, but for a host of reasons, including the road building and the fact the can be pillaged, it's just way easier and better the have them almost entirely domestic. International routes should inherently be the default option, constrained by geography and geopolitics. Int'l routes are there really just for gold, which anyone with routes to send has plenty of because they built all those markets to unlock the traders in the first place. Food and production is just going to be better than gold almost all the time. The token science and culture just isn't enough. On that note, i think they missed an opportunity with city states: city states should provide serious trade route bonuses by type. Roughly, as the eras progress, a scientific city state should be having larger and larger science bonus attached to their routes. Etc. Military and industrial can both give production. Or perhaps this bonus is modulated by suzerain status. Either way, i think it was a missed chance.

It's an interesting choice that they all but removed the mutual aspect of trade routes from civ5- admittedly it was easy to have trade routes where the target got much more gold than the sender- so there is little reason to even want neighbors to send their cargo ships to your harbors. And there's a diplomacy side missing- you need only be not at war to send a route. Perhaps trade should be a little more woven in.

Just some thoughts. I think the trade system is nice, it's just on the precipice of true greatness- i want it over the line!

 

[MarigoldRan]

As it turns out, in real life we DO need UPS vans or their equivalent to keep everything working.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Some interesting ideas here, but if I may, refer to:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-next-expansion-a-few-suggestions.634489/

Posts Two and Three there are what I would consider the least we should hold out for in a revised Trade System.

 

[acluewithout]

1. I'm not entirely sold on the implementation we have now where a market or lighthouse is what gets you the trade route. I think this contributes other balance issues for the game. I might rather see something a little more a la Beyond Earth where you had to create a "trade depot" building (we could call it a caravansery or whatever we wanted) to get the route. Make it a city center building. Trade routes as they stand are so valuable that it all but necessitates having one of these two districts - usually the CH- present. This in turn means everyone has way too more gold than intended (the same way having a campus in every city lets you tech much faster than the design intended.) We could even toss in a tier2 trade building for later, or make it a split choice, to spice up what our routes do. My real beef here is that no civ can actually "specialize" in trade at the cost of something else. You just get your 1 route per city and be done with it. There's no way for a focused civ to get extra trade route capacity beyond the colossus and some GMs, for example. Not even a card!

2. This was pretty genius, although I agree with others who think the military engineer or a similar unit should not only be more useful, but grant some method of replicating the road building without a trade route. This would be very handy if they wanted to add railroads later.

3. this is the brilliance of having discrete trader units on the map.

4. This is the gaping hole right now. Late game, external routes or ally routes can be better, but for a host of reasons, including the road building and the fact the can be pillaged, it's just way easier and better the have them almost entirely domestic. International routes should inherently be the default option, constrained by geography and geopolitics. Int'l routes are there really just for gold, which anyone with routes to send has plenty of because they built all those markets to unlock the traders in the first place. Food and production is just going to be better than gold almost all the time. The token science and culture just isn't enough. On that note, i think they missed an opportunity with city states: city states should provide serious trade route bonuses by type. Roughly, as the eras progress, a scientific city state should be having larger and larger science bonus attached to their routes. Etc. Military and industrial can both give production. Or perhaps this bonus is modulated by suzerain status. Either way, i think it was a missed chance.

It's an interesting choice that they all but removed the mutual aspect of trade routes from civ5- admittedly it was easy to have trade routes where the target got much more gold than the sender- so there is little reason to even want neighbors to send their cargo ships to your harbors. And there's a diplomacy side missing- you need only be not at war to send a route. Perhaps trade should be a little more woven in.

Just some thoughts. I think the trade system is nice, it's just on the precipice of true greatness- i want it over the line!

Wow. I agree with all of that. I think we need to get you a job at FXS or at least on their radar.

I think the TR for a light house or market is overall an improvement on the Vanilla approach, but having a City Center building would be much better. You could then maybe have a lighthouse, market or perhaps even a workshop modifying or enhancing trade routes in some way. Cities could also have some base project linked to that building - maybe just generating gold but no great people.

Linking trade routes to a city centre building would also get at a gripe I have generally about how cities aren’t useful unless they have at least one district. It’s very bland having districts in every city - it would be more fun having an empire with a few big core cities, and few more with just commercial hubs and harbours, and some proper satellite cities with no districts but playing some more general role in your empire.

“I think the trade system is nice, it's just on the precipice of true greatness- i want it over the line!”

So much this. So much.

FXS need to really look not just at stuff that “doesn’t work” but also the stuff that does. There are currently too many systems in the game that are “great”... but with a bit more development would be just amazing. Trade Routes is defiantly one of those.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm going to have to take exception to some of the views here, because my view of the Trade System is similar to Ambrose Bierce's comment on the Brick Airplane:
"The only problems are Basic and Fundamental: all the details are correct."

- except I'm not so certain they even got the details correct.

The Fundamental Problem with the Trade System is that neither Civ 5 nor Civ 6 has A Trade System, they have Two:
1. A system of Diplomatic Trade for gold and resources between Civs only which is completely unlimited in range and number of trades and routes, and can be started with any Civ anywhere on the map as soon as you have anything to trade.
2. A system of General Trade which does not involve any explicit resources, just changes in the Gold/Production/Food traded based on those resources, which can be between either Civs or City States but is extremely limited as to range and number of routes.

IF I am trading specific Strategic or Amenity Resources, what I get depends on the Diplomatic Relationship between the Civs, but the trade can include Open Borders, Relics, Gold, and other considerations besides Resources.

IF I am trading with a specific 'Trade Route', I can trade regardless of any Diplomatic Relationship short of War, I can trade with Civs or City States, but I cannot trade for specific Resources, Relics, or other considerations.

To which I can only add WTF?!

We need a single Trade System, based on Trade Routes, which includes trade in resources, Gold, Relics, Production, Food, etc. and takes into consideration the Diplomatic Relationship between the trading partners. If I want a Resource from someone, I should have to have a Physical; Way of getting that resource from them via a Trade Route, not wave a magic Diplomatic Wand and have the Resource appear.

That means, to be able to get resources, especially Strategic Resources that may be critical to survival, we need more Traders available early, and the ability to trade for specific Resources held by City States while Civs are Out of Range temporarily - and maybe even be able to trade with 'Barbarians' which was very common historically but always impossible in Civ games.

Part of Revising Trade should also include Separating trade by Sea, which all the way back to the Ancient Era was longer ranged and carried more than trade by land. This would have the added bonus of making cities on the coast much more valuable than they are now, since they might (as they were historically) be your Gateway to Resources too far off to get any other way.

Accomplish all that, and the Trade System might be 'great'. Right now it's 'amazing' all right, but it amazes with its weak design and poor execution.