Will civ5 allow civilizations to derive their wealth from trade, not land?

[lumpthing]

Civ is supposed to be about replaying history but, as much as I love the game, its economic model means that it is unable to simulate the way that control of trade is often more important than control of land.

In Civ there can never be a 16th Century Venice, a 17th Century Netherlands or a 20th Century Japan, Hong Kong or Singapore. In civ it all comes down to the land you control. Manufacturing power or control over trade routes or financial systems are all ultimately dependent on land-controlled in civ. The more land you have the more cities you can have and the more cities you have the more trade routes, factories and stock exchanges you can have. In history, there is no magic "three trade routes per city" rule. It just doesn't work like that.

In civ you can't even have cities which burgeon and thrive because they are the centre of trade networks. In civ, cities grow because they have a bunch of nice resources a stone's throw away. In history, cities grow because they are at the centre of networks – the resources come to them from far away.

It means a lot of historical scenarios just can't be simulated, because they ignore the crucial role of trade routes.

Sid Meier's Colonization does give trade and manufacturing it's central position, so I've alway been hankering after some kind of synthesis of Civilization and Colonization. I wonder if Civ5 makes this more possible. I know that the number of units you field which need a certain resource is now dependent on the number of resources of that type you control, so I'm wondering whether this system could be taken further, via modding, to better represent the power of trade in Civ.

This issue has long been my biggest gripe with civ; I wonder if anyone else feels the same.

 

[Tee Kay]

Ditto. The power of a civilization in the game typically depends on its size, requiring a strong military and being at war with other people. There's too little room in civ for peaceful civilization building.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wonder if anyone else feels the same.

You can't emulate everything. Some things fit gameplay, some don't.

I suggest allied city states will be very close to Hong Kong. And Japan could be seen as several very high-level cities on small territory with large controlled water space.

 

[lumpthing]

You can't emulate everything. Some things fit gameplay, some don't.

Of course. I'm not someone who wants everything to be realistic. I'm excited about the one-unit-per tile feature because, although it has no basis in reality, it will make war much more tactical and interesting. I care about a vaguely plausible economic model because you just can't even vaguely simulate history without it. Also I think Colonization and 100s of other games (Settlers, Age of Empires, Caesar and many others) show that you can have an economic system which is based on the control of moveable resources, and still have great gameplay. In fact I'd argue that the economic systems in those are games are more engaging and satisfying than Civ's.

I suggest allied city states will be very close to Hong Kong. And Japan could be seen as several very high-level cities on small territory with large controlled water space.

City-states will get their wealth and from the surrounding tiles just like every other city. Hong Kong and Japan have wealth wildly out of proportion to the surrounding land or water tiles. Japan is actually resource-poor, but it's an economic powerhouse because it takes resources from all over the world and sells them on as high-quality goods.

 

[CurseUppl]

Well, I suppose it would be as simple as teaching the game to recognise the shortest/easiest routes through a continent, as well as shortest/easiest routes through the ocean/sea. Every map would have a set of these routes and it'll be the player's job to recognise these routes. The routes would be dynamic, as in they'd change according to road networks, terrain (jungle, desert, etc), and as for the ocean, they'd change according to coastal access as well as when civs learn astrononomy and so on.

The game *could* calculates how much commerce is made from trade every turn, from every civ, and then those cities that are located close/on the routes around the world recieve a percentage of that total trade, depending on how many civs it has open borders with. There could be certain penalities like the larger the civ, the less that trade bonus the city gets, encouraging small civs to turn their cities into enourmous trade centres by strategically placing them around the map and encouraging diplomatic relations with all the bots.

The idea is, perhaps, that you could get a civilisation that isn't coherent. Instead it has cities spread across the world, located on locations that the player figures are the best for trade. Note these locations don't even have to have any resources. The city could be placed in desert and still allow to thrive and grow big due to influx of trade (through being located next a fresh water source would be ideal).

The cities themselves will get huge bonuses to their commerce and city growth (since trade attracts people, then the city should grow faster, and there should also be a happiness and health bonus for literally being the centre of the world and for bringing in so many goods from afar).

Anyway, my thoughts on how it would work. Anyone who has taken history on a higher level would have a better idea of how these things work.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Though nothing has been revealed, I'm hoping that-now that trade routes will no longer generate Commerce-they will generate other things instead (& *not* just gold). Like it or not, trade routes are a source of wealth (gold), knowledge (science), luxuries (culture) & commodities (food & hammers). Hopefully Civ5 will reflect this!

Aussie.

 

[aziantuntija]

I totally agree with lumpthing here, this really is the area that Civ needs to improve in.

 

[Ahriman]

Well, it seems from screenshots that we still have an economy driven by citizens working tiles.

Which is largely fine with me, since this is a pretty decent representation of most of human history (especially anything pre-modern).

 

[aziantuntija]

Well, it seems from screenshots that we still have an economy driven by citizens working tiles.

Which is largely fine with me, since this is a pretty decent representation of most of human history (especially anything pre-modern).

Well it sure is "fine" and it certainly is "pretty decent", but still, it could be better.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, it seems from screenshots that we still have an economy driven by citizens working tiles.

Which is largely fine with me, since this is a pretty decent representation of most of human history (especially anything pre-modern).

Remember though, Ahriman, that we've seen no screenshots depicting trade, so we have no idea yet what impact trade will have on the economy-beyond providing wealth (instead of commerce).

Aussie.

 

[spyroware]

I totally agree. Even the recent total war games managed to pull off a nice trade system.

It always bugged me after I'd finish a civ game that I'd get a piss poor 'balance of trade' rating. I mean, there's no real incentive to export your surplus or get involved with any non-vital trading. AI will jump off a cliff before it gives you a strategic resource and the luxury/food resources are too many already. You would usually end up with enough. Corporation changed this abit, but they were too one-way to feel like real trade is happening.

With commerce being somewhat revamped, I hope trade will get more sense, though I doubt we'll get things like trade routes, trade values, trade centres etc. Hopefully in an expansion they'll address this cause really it's the only thing that is sorely missing from this "history simulation" concept.

 

[Mannu]

strongly agree. I'd really like to see city placement and especially city growth based on location for trade routes. The mouth of rivers, river crossings, etc... Trade routes should be a major cause for population growth.

I'd like to see a terrain feature called "Natural Harbor" that would give a bonus.

 

[Abraxis]

I totally agree with OP. I can't imagine how excited I would be for a well thought out, in depth trade system. I really doubt it will happen in CiV though. Civ 4 fleshed out the great people system. CiV is fleshing out the military and culture systems... Hopefully Civ6 will flesh out the trade.

Not to be pessimistic, but a trading system like this would require the entire economy to be remodeled around it. It would be a major centerpiece for the game, probably eclipsing the new military system. I think if they were modeling this, it would be their major publication spearhead, rather than the new combat.

Hopefully they still improve upon it. But man is there ever a lot of room for improvement. It would be so nice to play a Civ like the 17th century Dutch.

 

[Ahriman]

Not to be pessimistic, but a trading system like this would require the entire economy to be remodeled around it.

This is my worry. How are you going to build a trade-oriented system that works both for 500BC and 2000AD? For most of human history, the vast majority of production was local; trade over long distances was limited to a few sea routes, or rare/expensive luxuries. In modern times we have a total shift in the amount of stuff that is traded and the kinds of things we trade (manufactured goods).

How are you going to do it in a way that isn't MM-intensive, and doesn't take over the game?

I just can't see a complex trade system that would be fun and would make sense. I much prefer keeping it relatively abstract.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is my worry. How are you going to build a trade-oriented system that works both for 500BC and 2000AD? For most of human history, the vast majority of production was local; trade over long distances was limited to a few sea routes, or rare/expensive luxuries. In modern times we have a total shift in the amount of stuff that is traded and the kinds of things we trade (manufactured goods).

How are you going to do it in a way that isn't MM-intensive, and doesn't take over the game?

I just can't see a complex trade system that would be fun and would make sense. I much prefer keeping it relatively abstract.

Very simple... Commerce/Gold comes from only two sources
1. Buildings inside the city, ie Palace
2. Trade routes.

In Civ 1-4, the dominant source of gold was tiles

If
1. The Dominant source of Gold was Trade routes
and
2. Trade Routes were modeled slightly better

then you could easily have a good system.

Imagine this...

A Trade Route Network is established automatically in such a way that every city with a connection is connected to it
The Network minimizes # of links and distance of Links
Each Link has a value... based on the smaller # of cities on each side of the link
That value is how much Gold the link gives to the cities directly on its end points
(Circular links should not be permitted)

 

[Ahriman]

Very simple... Commerce/Gold comes from only two sources
1. Buildings inside the city, ie Palace
2. Trade routes.

Trade only happens between large cities? Since when? So a city unconnected to a trade network is unable to produce any gold?

What about all the people living in towns and villages in the countryside - they don't contribute to commerce at all?

How would it be an improvement to have worked tiles only able to produce food and hammers? That would be incredibly boring, and a big step backwards.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Trade only happens between large cities? Since when? So a city unconnected to a trade network is unable to produce any gold?

Well I should probably have said Palace/marketplace/Bank, etc.... and in any case, you Always have a Palace.

Whenever you found another city... well that means you can get a trade route.

How would it be an improvement to have worked tiles only able to produce food and hammers? That would be incredibly boring, and a big step backwards.

It would be Most Worked tiles...

 

[Ahriman]

It would be Most Worked tiles...

Most worked tiles in Civ4 don't produce any commerce; only if they're adjacent to a river, or have a cottage/windmill/waterwheel (late game) on them, or some bonuses (gold, gems).

So what's different?

But more importantly, its just wrong to think of most wealth coming from inter-city trade (particularly when cities in Civ represent only the very largest cities). Exports and imports have always been a relatively small proportion of GDP.

 

[awesome]

you can trade via diplomacy in civ 4.

 

[lumpthing]

This is my worry. How are you going to build a trade-oriented system that works both for 500BC and 2000AD? For most of human history, the vast majority of production was local; trade over long distances was limited to a few sea routes, or rare/expensive luxuries. In modern times we have a total shift in the amount of stuff that is traded and the kinds of things we trade (manufactured goods).

I think that description doesn't do justice to the key role of long-distance trade in pre-modern times. It may have been restricted to luxury or strategic goods, but long-distance trade was disproportionately important. As soon as you have proper cities you have long-distance trade routes as the dominant force on the life of those cities. Large cities just don't happen without the transfer of goods and resources over long distances.

The breadbasket of the Roman Empire was North Africa. Yet it was Rome that swelled to a million+ in population, because so much of Africa's grain found its way to Italy. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed and long-distance trade disappeared, the cities pretty-much disappeared too (Dark Age Rome was essentially a village huddled inside a ruin). When long-distance trade returned, so did the cities. In civ, big urban populations are where the food is. In history, all history, big urban populations are where the trade is.