[GS] Updating and reworking Vanilla and RnF Civ

[SammyKhalifa]

I think I'm missing something about how GS trade route changes buff civs with trade route ability.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I think I'm missing something about how GS trade route changes buff civs with trade route ability.

Trade routes now get a multiplier to their gold output based on the efficiency of the route they are taking.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Trade routes now get a multiplier to their gold output based on the efficiency of the route they are taking.

Yeah, but that's mostly sea vs. land routes, right? (and later railroads). Getting trading posts or having a bonus per route doesn't do that. I'd say it makes habor better; but the typical +x per trade route, not so sure. I probably don't understand it well enough.

 

[pgm123]

Yeah, but that's mostly sea vs. land routes, right? (and later railroads). Getting trading posts or having a bonus per route doesn't do that. I'd say it makes habor better; but the typical +x per trade route, not so sure. I probably don't understand it well enough.

I think you're basically right. Also tunnels.

It buffs harbors and/or coastal cities (though a coastal city should build a harbor).

 

[anandus]

Yeah, but that's mostly sea vs. land routes, right? (and later railroads).

Also through or over canals, I believe. And tunnels.

 

[thecrazyscot]

We don't know if more advanced roads (which are more efficient than early roads) give a similar multiplier, but it would make sense if they did. We also don't know if a trade route over an existing road is more efficient than one that's blazing the trail, but that would also make sense.

However, that all kind of assumes that movement cost is the basis of the multiplier, when FXS could have (and may very well have) done something completely arbitrary. We also don't know if it's an actual multiplier (I certainly hope so) or just a flat increase...if it's a multiplier than any civ which grants a flat increase is getting a nice indirect buff (like Spain).

Regardless though, any civ with more traders now has increased potential for additional gold, and free trading posts are also better since they extend the range of the trade routes, increasing potential yields further.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, I can certainly see the point that better TRs are going to benefit people that were trying to maximize trade route use anyhow . . .

 

[thecrazyscot]

Well, I can certainly see the point that better TRs are going to benefit people that were trying to maximize trade route use anyhow . . .

Exactly

 

[kryat]

Rome and Persia do not get a buff. Trade routes definitionally create roads, so it’s not like there’s such a thing as a land route without a road. From what I can tell, the formula refers to efficient tiles, which include:

Water (any over sea or coastline)
Railroads
Tunnels
Canals

For a more thorough speculation:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/posts/15295367/

 

[thecrazyscot]

Rome and Persia do not get a buff. Trade routes definitionally create roads, so it’s not like there’s such a thing as a land route without a road. From what I can tell, the formula refers to efficient tiles, which include:

Water (any over sea or coastline)
Railroads
Tunnels
Canals

For a more thorough speculation:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/posts/15295367/

Assuming you are correct, both Rome and Persia still get buffs. Trading Posts allow for longer routes, permitting optimization for the most lucrative routes, and Persia straight up gets a free trade slot.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Assuming you are correct, both Rome and Persia still get buffs. Trading Posts allow for longer routes, permitting optimization for the most lucrative routes, and Persia straight up gets a free trade slot.

But they already did. So it's not like they are improved out of proportion to the rest of the civs.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Assuming you are correct, both Rome and Persia still get buffs. Trading Posts allow for longer routes, permitting optimization for the most lucrative routes, and Persia straight up gets a free trade slot.

But they did those things before too. So I don't know. It's not like Persian trade routes are better because of the new rules. If anything their buffs are less of a big deal because everyone gets the new better routes, and proportionally their benefit isn't as big of a thing.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I never claimed the buffs were significant

But for Rome - instant trading posts means the potential (however minor) for longer, more lucrative trade routes faster relative to other civs

But for Persia - extra early trade route slot. So their routes may not be better, but they get 1 more than (almost) all other civs, ergo they have the potential for 1 extra lucrative good source that other civs don't have - plus they get it in the ancient era, when a single extra trade route can have an outsized effect. However, they may never see an increased advantage of they simply use it domestically as Persia is wont to do.

Basically, with (potentially) more lucrative trade routes, anyone who has an even ancillary bonus to international trade gets an indirect buff relative to the existing significance of their bonus.

 

[Al Bundy]

If the devs don't update every single vanilla civ, it would be a huge disappointment. GS changed the game vastly and right now most of the old civs look obsolete or simply underdogs.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Rome gets an indirect buff to trade routes because the instant roads mean more lucrative routes.

Trade routes now get a multiplier to their gold output based on the efficiency of the route they are taking.

Have we seen that? I thought the change was that for every tile that the trader passes through that is either (a) water, (b) railroad, (c) tunnel, or (d) canal, there is a boost to the trade yield. There's no change to yield other than in these four special instances.

Gold yield is then: base yield x (1 + (boosted tiles travelled)/(all tiles travelled))

 

[Sagax]

People keep thinking of the typhoons when considering Japan... Has anyone considered the Electronics Factory changes, with all those changes to the IZ?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Have we seen that? I thought the change was that for every tile that the trader passes through that is either (a) water, (b) railroad, (c) tunnel, or (d) canal, there is a boost to the trade yield. There's no change to yield other than in these four special instances.

Gold yield is then: base yield x (1 + (boosted tiles travelled)/(all tiles travelled))

Please see my latest reply a few posts up.

 

[Josephias]

China gets a bonus towards Canal district (can build it earlier?)

Egypt supposedly gets greater food bonus from flooding.

I’d say China will be able to speed-up canals (and dams?) with regular workers

 

[Josephias]

Yeah, but that's mostly sea vs. land routes, right? (and later railroads). Getting trading posts or having a bonus per route doesn't do that. I'd say it makes habor better; but the typical +x per trade route, not so sure. I probably don't understand it well enough.

I’d keep this as a potential relevant indirect boost to Spain if (and the if part is important) the multiplier is applied after the +6 gold...
that would be actually Treasure fleets.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I’d keep this as a potential relevant indirect boost to Spain if (and the if part is important) the multiplier is applied after the +6 gold...
that would be actually Treasure fleets.

That's an excellent point.