1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[R&F] Why the trade exclusion of markets vs. lighthouses?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by qadams, Oct 8, 2018.

  1. qadams

    qadams Bohemian

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Ruritania
    I don't understand why a strong, well-positioned city can't build both a market (in a Commercial Hub) and a lighthouse (in a Harbor) and thereby produce two trade routes instead of just one. That's certainly realistic, right?

    Is there some kind of balance issue I'm not seeing? It just seems so arbitrary, and unnecessarily limiting to me. I'd love to hear a logical explanation for why the game is set up this way.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  2. _hero_

    _hero_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    623
    Originally you could get double trade routes, but they patched it out after it became apparent that trade routes were so powerful.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  3. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    Failing to account for it only offsetting the disadvantage "normal" coastal cities suffer from.

    I'm defining "normal" rather narrowly, though. In addition to excluding Indonesian cities, it excludes cities that can place a Harbour in the third ring. Cities that can still work two full rings and place a Harbour in a third tier ring would probably be pretty good. Not overwhelmingly good, though, especially since the second trade route also takes up a second district slot.

    Mind, some would argue the City-Harbour-Commercial Hub triangle is already a pretty profitable combination. Giving the opportunity to also build two trade routes out of a triangle would make a strong play even stronger. Again, though, I'm not sure having a place for a triangle does anything more than equalize a coastal spot with an inland city spot. It dominates pretty much any other coastal city spot, but doesn't necessarily make the site better than a typical inland site.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Zaarin and acluewithout like this.
  4. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,611
    Gender:
    Male
    Cries in Victorian

    But yea they probably thought it would be overpowered but it really isn't. They seemed to have wanted trade routes to be stronger individually.

    In reality building these districts is a huge opportunity cost.

    Maybe commercial cs' s should Work with harbors too.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  5. Zdarg

    Zdarg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    332
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Well, you definitely can build both market and lighthouse in same city. You just don't get additional route.
     
  6. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    732
    It's also quite a hassle to manage so many traderoutes (without mod assistance).
     
  7. criZp

    criZp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    717
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    Yeah, for me even one trader from each city becomes a chore to manage.
     
  8. Sostratus

    Sostratus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    254
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Other things being equal, you can pretty easily get an internal trade route to be worth ~5-10 resources depending on who you are and where you send it; in almost any era worth at least a couple tiles' output. That sort of implies that having a TR in a city is kind of like giving it extra population. They are really strong. I get why they scale internal routes with districts, but it makes international routes pretty worthless. Anyways, the power behind trade routes is that not only are they themselves good (if these gold heavy districts didn't give trade routes they would be much, much weaker than alternatives) but that you can move them anywhere. So yeah, having double routes makes city spam incredibly powerful since you can not only rack up empire wide yields faster (campus, theatre squares) - but TRs uniquely let you boost your other cities' local yields too.

    Can you imagine how powerful it would be if you could run a city center project to just send production and food to another city? That's what trade routes let you do. Double trade routes was really amplifying the issue.

    Side gripe: As nice as it is that TRs come from districts, it would be nice if there were some more 'free slots' sprinkled throughout the civics tree/wonders/policy cards. Just a bone to help out smaller empires not be so woefully outmatched, and help make trade route economy a more distinct thing.
     
    Socrates99 and qadams like this.
  9. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,258
    I’ve grown to like the no double traderoute and moving them to tier 1 buildings. Amongst other things, I think it made me focus more on the intrinsic value of Harbours and Commercial Hubs. And less Trade Routes across the board is no bad thing. It also buffs those Civs that get free or extra trade routes like Persia, and the Cree, and ... oh yeah. Not England. Bother.

    I actually think FXS should go further - let Lighthouses still give a Trade Route but Commercial Hubs only get you one if you build a Bank. Maybe grant a few extra Trade Routes via the Civics Tree or by having Cities on foreign continents (maybe one per continent).

    That would be a easy way to buff Harbours, buff Colonial Cities, and encourage Coastal Cities, without actually making anything OP. It would also help capture the idea that landlocked countries actually tend to be less wealthy.

    Are internal trades more powerful that international ones? I don’t know. Production and Food are good, but Science and Culture are very valuable. And Gold is not a bad substitute for Hammers. And then there are the more indirect benefits, like visibility and diplomacy. And what are you going to do with all these hammers anyway?
     
  10. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree with this. You get Science and Culture (and of course Gold) from international routes, which I think is far more valuable than Food and Production.


    The civics tree was how Civ 5 had trade routes assigned (technically tech tree for Civ 5). Doubt the development team would bring that back, but it's not a bad idea. Colossus does add a Trade Route. I agree having a Policy card for more trade routes would make sense. People have also commented that cities should get additional Trade Routes as their Population increases, and that makes the most sense of all from my perspective.
     
  11. CPWimmer

    CPWimmer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Another possibility, although I have no idea how to indicate this in the UI, and it breaks with the rest of their design, would be to allow a second Trade Route, but require that it always include the city with the extra trade district. Conceptually I like that it would reward coastal cities, but represent the unique fact that harbors allow for SEA GOING trade. The more I think about it though, the more in game problems I keep coming up with on how to actually implement and represent it.
     
  12. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    The One way to do it would be to distinguish between Land Traders and Sea Traders. The former from Markets and able to connect cities by land routes only, the latter from Lighthouses and able to connect cities by sea routes only (and therefore not creating roads).
     
  13. MrRadar

    MrRadar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    435
    That would be taking a page from the BERT book. It could provide some more incentives to grow bigger cities. But... how about giving more ground than just arbitrary selection of a pop size which allows next trade route?

    In order to trade, goods for trade need to be produced and they are produced... in factories and other II Tier buildings. How about allowing cities with a CH and Market to have a second trade route if they have an IZ with a Factory as well?
    And then, cities having a CH with a Market and IZ with a Factory would get yet another trade route if they build a Harbour with a Shipyard or an Encampment with an Armoury or an Aerodrome with a Hangar.

    Like this, IZs and factories would regain some value and more reason would be given to growing bigger cities as well.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  14. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    732
    What annoys me the most about the trade route system is that it's not a trade system. With trading you give the other guy something and he gives you something in return, that is the very foundation of trading. This is not what happens in Civ 6: you send a trader to another city and you conjure up gold or food&production out of thin air.
     
    aggri1, Zaarin, ezzlar and 1 other person like this.
  15. BarbarianHunter

    BarbarianHunter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    496
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I agree with Trav'ling Canuck's disagreement. You also get faith, which can quite often translate into hammers. I haven't run a cost analysis but with 2 trade routes @ +2 faith and 2 trade routes @ +1 faith, you could bank 6 faith per turn fairly easily as the AI loves holy sites and religious city states are not uncommon. Early game monumentality builders cost what, 120 faith? You could also use the extra gold, what 5 to 7 per turn to buy a builder. This, combined with the extra science and culture is why I choose international trade routes 99% of the time until the late game.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  16. criZp

    criZp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    717
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    Did all of this in the trade mod I made. Maybe someone will like it. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1341067461
     
  17. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,703
    Hmm, I've been going internal for the first few eras before switching over to INT almost completely.
     
  18. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    To be fair, I think representing the benefits of trade via "free" gold to both parties is a reasonable representation of the economic efficiencies of trade. And as a game mechanic, one party having to invest hammers into a Trader unit makes it challenging to then give both parties equal benefit from the subsequent trade conducted.

    Back to harping on too many separate mechanics that aren't well integrated: why do we have two completely separate trading mechanics, one for which goods magically move from one empire to the other without any range restriction or risk of interference, another where a trader unit crosses the map? A rethink of this wouldn't require simplifying the strategic depth of the game.


    I used to do this, but I've since decided I prefer even small amounts of extra science and culture (and faith and gold) as soon as possible. In theory I can see situations where boosting the population and production of an early city would pay off down the road, but in practice it seems like just getting up the civis/tech tree as fast as possible is even better. No conclusive numbers to confirm that impression, just a sense after playing the game a bit.

    Even my first trade route, which I used to send internally to get a cross empire road, I now prefer to send on an international route from the far end of my empire, getting the cross empire road that way instead. I never attack AI cities or else laying a road to those cities would be even better, I suppose.
     
  19. BarbarianHunter

    BarbarianHunter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    496
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I am just far too gold challenged in the first few eras to even think on an internal route. Actually, even when I'm not gold challenged, I prefer the extra gold to population and production. Population has been widely discussed and found to be next to useless. That leaves me with production versus the gold, science, culture, and/or faith from an international route. I almost always choose the later. Roads are overrated and double-edged. The enemy can use them to travel about as well.

    In the late game I concentrate trade routes in a single city and run internal routes for the added production to expedite big ticket items like the Rhur Valley, Estadio do Marcana, the various nuclear projects, and/or space race parts.

    I have read over the rationale for the popular early game internal routes, and none of it made much sense to me. I suppose to each their own, shrug.
     
  20. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,703
    Oh, I didn't say I was right, just that that's what I typically do. :D

    Something just doesn't feel "right" if my cities aren't all hooked up with roads, heh. And even if isn't numerically sound, in my mind I want to get my cities jump started with some infrastructure and growth. I feel safer about not losing my traders. Yeah, science and gold are better, but at least in my games the early routes are for very minimal returns.

    Then Wisselbanken comes along, and if I can get a close alliance (I play relatively peacefully after the first era or so) then it's really hard for even me to ignore how good those are.
     
    CPWimmer likes this.

Share This Page