What trade model should be adopted for civ4?

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi guys,

This thread has been motivated by one posters rather unfounded suggestion that the majority of people support a 'unit based' trade model. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to guage the support for one model over another. So, here are the choices:

1) The civ3 way: Abstraction of 'trade routes' which can't be seen, and can only be stopped via placing units in such a way as to block the route OR by destroying trade infrastructure.

2) The civ 2 way: You build a caravan unit, assign it a resource, and then manually move it to the city you wish to trade with.

3) A 'pseudo' civ2 way: You negotiate a trade with another civ, and select a start and destination city, and a caravan unit is automatically created which moves between these points. This model would also allow a player to change the route the unit takes AND assign it an escort. You could view the caravans progess on the map at any time, but would require little or no player intervention.

4) The CtP way: You build a caravan unit but DON'T move it, instead each caravan unit you have allows you to form one trade route. Trade routes are indicated as lines on the map, and can by broken or pirated by passing units.

5) The 'Pseudo' CtP way: You build a caravan unit as in CtP, and assign it a resource as you do in civ2. When you make a successful trade, a trade line forms connecting the two cities involved in the trade (via the shortest route possible). The trade route would have a 'strength' and a 'speed' indicating how difficult it is to attack and how much its base value is increased by.

6) Perhaps you have another model you would like to suggest-please do !

Anyway, I look forward to your replies.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Turner]

The Civ2 way certainly had it's advantages, specifically by being able to assist in wonder completion, and by moving food between cities. However, I did not like the city to city trade routes. In this, I feel Civ3 does a much better job.

I wouldn't mind seeing a fusion of the two. For every x commerce that a city produces, it can create a caravan type unit and send it to another civ as a one time shot. When you're building a wonder, your city should be able to commit all or part of it's production towards the wonder. Now, a big civ with a lot of high production cities means that wonders will be snapped up pretty quick. So perhaps some kind of cap on it. Of course, sending food should be an option too.

But I also like the thought of trading resources too. So work that in someway. I wouldn't mind seeing the Civ3 model for this, with some tweaks. The main point being getting a rep hit for having someone else disrupt your trade. There should be some consequence towards the person who actually broke it (such as by declaring war) and it should be attitude, not reputation, that is affected by this. Now, I'm still for taking a rep hit if you break a trade or an agreement. But I'd also like to see your rep being repaired somehow.

 

[rhialto]

Trade has two specific functions:

- Provide gold benefit to the initiating trader.
- Allow for transfer of strategic resources between civs

In addition, for gameplay, fun, and balance, we generally want:

- A way for caravans (or their equivalent) to help rush wonders.
- A minimal amount of MM.
- A means of breaking enemy routes that pass near your territory.
- Something that can be attacked when you pillage the route. I'm against this one (attacking caravans should be about as challenging as attacking a settler unit), but the advocates for this feature are (is?) vocal.
- The trade route should not provide an instant return; There should be a delay be you see any profits/transferred goods.

I hope I have missed any key features that we want. I'll write up a model once people tell me all about the key features I forgot to list.

 

[plastiqe]

[size=+1]Hooray for caravans combined with resource and uxury pools!!![/size] [size=-2](was that vocal enough?)[/size]

rhialto I would add that it can't have an instant delivery system to your list.

 

[dh_epic]

I like the idea of the pseudo-CTP way just a bit more, but I'm equally as down with the pseudo-Civ2 way. I'm adamantly opposed to both the Civ 2 and Civ 3 way which I thought had little strategic value.

An auto-unit or a line is something that can be broken. And breaking a trade by force is probably one of the most important things to me.

I think demanding more caravans for longer trade routes is kind of a neat idea, if you ask me. Each caravan costs 1 gold to maintain, and X shields to produce. To get a caravan from Detroit to Windsor, it would "cost" one caravan. You'd have spent X sheidls, plus 1 gold every turn to maintain that trade route, which generates gold and resources depending on how lucrative the deal.

But there are more compelling decisions too.

Build a sea-caravan (freight-ship?) from Texas to Colombia. Boats move faster than land units, so you'd need to throw in maybe one or two caravans by sea, as opposed to potentially 4 or 5 caravans by land. Smaller startup cost, and smaller maintainance fee for the same returns.

But an alternative is to negotiate a multi-lateral trade agreement with Mexico. Mexico already has a caravan going to Colombia from its southern parts -- a very short distance. Mexico pays 1 gold in maintainance to trade with Colombia (one caravan in distance). The end result of the deal is America and Mexico paying one gold to maintain the caravan between each other, Mexico and Colombia paying one gold to maintain the caravan between each other... but they key is that America and Colombia pay Mexico a user fee (whatever Mexico wants) -- a right of passage for their trade route through Mexico. The end result is cheaper trade for both America and Colombia, but money in the pocket of Mexico.

This -- right here -- shows why peace would be important in Civ 4. Not that war wouldn't be valuable or important, but if Mexico were to go to war, many trade routes would fall apart and become off limits (such as the one between America and Colombia). Mexico would make less money, and potentially anger people who depended on them -- so they'd have to weigh that against the decision to go to war.

 

[rhialto]

Yes, that multi-lateral idea is what I was trying to approach when I said that in my model caravans would have to go my the shortest travel-time route. If another civ is between you and the most lucrative routes, this will force you to keep the peace more.

Looking back, I think trade routes must be tied to special resources in some way. Otherwise, but the late game you would have every city linked to every other city in a complex spider web.

Perhaps each city can maintain 1 trade route (in OR out) per full 6(?) pop heads, plus 1 per special resource that has a "trade good" flag set? If this restriction is for total routes in and out, then each route must provide equal benefit to both civs. If it is out only, then that limit should be raised a little.

 

[plastiqe]

rhialto I suggest changing initiating trader to both trading civs in your list. Also, another thing to consider is that the trade system has to be easy to understand for someone who has never played a civ game before. Adding a lot of extra rules like how many "caravans" you can build/need per route and how many resources each caravan can carry can get confusing.

 

[rhialto]

Ok, how about saying each city can have one outgoing route for each special resource in its radius? Thats relatively simple to understand.

 

[sir_schwick]

I voted for pseudo-Civ2 model because physical units are one of the biggest representative forces in Civ, that is why the Civ 3 system was faulty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

If figure you could use modified Civ 2 measures for how profitable trade was.

These are factors that increase profit of sender and trade generated overall.
Production
Luxury Resources
Banks, Marketplaces, Harbours, Airports, Mass Transit, Factories, Research Labs, Power Plants, Granaries(in Ancient and Middle)
Distance
Different Continent
Export
Culture

Each city would send caravans each turn to every other city it could trade with in the world. Small cities with no infrastructure and little product to offer may earn 1 or 2 gold and 3 or 4 trade for trading with 200 cities worldwide. Large Coastal metropolises with full upgrades and access to many important resources and a high culture may earn hundreds of gold and trade from the same trade. Trade would be profitable so establishing alliances would be important. War woudl still be profitable, but only if it does not disturb your trade too badly. Any territory caravans pass through takes a cut form the bonus generated.

 

[dh_epic]

I agree with rhialto that limiting the number of trade routes between cities is pretty important. Creating a spider web of trade routes lowers the importance of a good trade network (although with flight it would become much easier, as it should).

 

[sir_schwick]

Consider that most of the trade woudl filter through the same roads and sea lanes, so those would be the important places to protect.

 

[rhialto]

Certain trade goods should not be tradeable by air. Air should only be for high value items like tourists, gold, and gems.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

the civ3 approach because it is needs the least micromanagement.

i'd rather focus on the larger political part of trade than the nitty gritty what goes where.

 

[rhialto]

And I'd rather have a trade route that can be broken by hostile action. That is only a mathematical possibility (ie I haven't seen it, but the rules allow it) in civ 3.

 

[sir_schwick]

If caravans moved independently, it is not much MM. Besides, you should be spedning troops to protect your trade routes. The Romans built a network of fortifications and roads through the Arabian peninsula to protect trade going along the Silk Road. Also, Civ 3 trade was not profitable in the same way Civ 2 trade was, encouraging some level of peaceableness with at least one neighbor. Currently you can go an entire Civ 3 game with little loss without a single friend.

 

[dh_epic]

I think that's key. One is a trade model that makes trade so important that you can't just isolate yourself -- no matter how big your empire is and how many resources you think you have.

Two is a trade model that makes infrastructure, geography, transportation, and maps more important, and a part of this is making it possible for war and hostility to prevent or freeze trade. In Civ 3, while this is possible, it is still too rare.