Your rule of thumb for evaluating trade yields

[UWHabs]

Districts should scale by the total number of districts you have, not by science/culture progress. Make districts of the same time as the one you are building count x3, and city centre districts x5, and you've solved a big chunk of the game's problems

If I was redesigning the cost, I think I would plan for something like 60 + 20 * (# of that type of district placed in empire) + 30 * (number of districts placed in city) (give or take the actual). That way, if you have 3 campuses in your empire, they'll now cost twice as much as a district you don't have any of. And with the costs locking in when the district is placed, you can't cheat the system. Maybe the costs lock in at the start of the turn, so the most that you can "cheat" the system is by placing the campus for each city on the same turn. But with a cost structure like this, essentially you're saying that any empire with 4 campuses has spent the same cost to build those campuses, whether they were complete in the ancient era or the modern era.

 

[Darac]

If I was redesigning the cost, I think I would plan for something like 60 + 20 * (# of that type of district placed in empire) + 30 * (number of districts placed in city) (give or take the actual). That way, if you have 3 campuses in your empire, they'll now cost twice as much as a district you don't have any of. And with the costs locking in when the district is placed, you can't cheat the system. Maybe the costs lock in at the start of the turn, so the most that you can "cheat" the system is by placing the campus for each city on the same turn. But with a cost structure like this, essentially you're saying that any empire with 4 campuses has spent the same cost to build those campuses, whether they were complete in the ancient era or the modern era.

I understand your thought process but i think what the original design is trying to accomplish is
a) a rubber-banding effect on civs that blitz tech early, and more importantly
b) The longer you take to change the direction of your strategy, the more expensive it becomes to change your strategy. I kind of like that as it makes decisions early on more meaningful, rather than just maxing hammers and deciding on a strategy/victory later. but I agree that the way it's implemented at the moment is not ideal.

With an implementation like the one you suggest you get neither a rubber banding effect (desired or not is up for debate) and it also means that i can focus on hammers and then catch up to all the other types without penalty giving me an advantage over someone who chose early science for example.

 

[Goliht]

Must admit I never really think about the more micro managerment side of civ, I place cities to landgrab specific locations or resources, I send traders to whatever is available usually to make route for warmongering or to support wonder creation. Or because I need a road over that way.

 

[Ondolindë]

I must say this has been illuminating and I have learned a lot. It definitely will inform my game playing, but there is also something about enjoying the game, the aesthetics and building a beautiful empire in harmony with its surroundings; taking time to smell the roses, so to speak. I do think winning is overrated as @Victoria said it. But winning can mean something else for each player. You can try things out in a game and although you might not necessarily "win", you tried something new and discovered something new. That is a win. Or you were tired and had time to play and well, you got Gilgamesh good by getting one of his cities. That was fun, I am sure. Or getting out of a dire situation, including a challenging map you wanted to re-roll, but chose not to because you either felt guilty, were too tired to do or just fastened your seatbelt and wanted to try to overcome the odds with whatever level of mastery you got. Maybe on the way you were grateful that a Barbarian Settler was unattended. Well, they had to pay sometime. Maybe you saw that China was building that wonder you really want, so you chop some woods as much as you hate it because you are an environmentalist at heart, and yes even on a game. But I often spend a long time stopping and designing where to place things, not only for the adjacency bonuses you might get, but because I may research some strategy, watch FL videos of the Civ I am playing, a YouTube video or read things in the Civlopedia or in this forum, or if using a mod, I want to see how that will enrich my game with its peculiar offerings.

I dislike the cheating and exploiting aspect that we can find in the game and for me it is very clear when one is getting something with little effort and it is just snowballing. But I guess there are multiple ways people do enjoy the game. Some ways are orthodox and strict value based, others are spontaneous and without much thought. To each its own as many have said, but I do value the efforts of many players in keeping the game honest and in keeping the tradition of such a strategy game intact and unblemished, if only for the love of the game and for its survival. I often wonder why people play the game and there are as many answers there that one can think of, but a true Civ fan does indeed play, and I venture to say it, for more than just winning. It is the journey we are interested in and the challenge it does bring, and yes true civ fans do stop once in a while, and probably more than that, to smell the roses. This is evident in recent posts about the art in Civ VI in the
R&F Cultural Styles Preview in Asset Editor? thread and others where people do share their love for the art in the game. It is beautiful if only in how detailed the buildings are, or how the sun shines over a lake or how dawn looks. The units and certainly the maps with its wonders, natural or not, add to the enjoyment of the game for me. That is not even mentioning the sounds and the music which many of us value so.

Finally, I do appreciate the passion and the things being shared here and in another threads. I love reading it and being part of this community.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

1 Science=1 Culture=2 prod=3 Gold/Faith

This is my rule.

 

[agonistes]

For me, there are just way too many variables. If you need food, you need food. If you need gold, you need gold. I never comparison shop - I know what I need and where, so I take it.

I will say, though, that priority #1 is being able to defend what's yours, and roads mean faster repositioning of troops. Of course, sloppy road placement could also assist an invasion, so I'm exceedingly particular about where my roads end up, but until I have a decent defensive infrastructure, the majority of my caravans are used for strategic purposes.

The majority. If I can grab an envoy, of course I will. If I foresee a wonder in a particular city, I start buffing it in advance. And if its going to take me several tradeposts to reach an important destination, best get started on it.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Restarting the game can't be considered cheating, because it is basically conceding.

My idea of "cheating".

Everything that is acceptable to be done when playing with other humans are not cheating.

Everything that is unacceptable to be done when playing with other human players are cheating.

Public transportation is designed to give gold, and it works. It is nothing exploit since in real world apartments are sold before built, too.

Chopping trees are done in real world, too. The only thing is that the numbers are badly designed, it's nothing exploit and the developer shall fix the number.

Fix district costs are not exploit. They have their cons that you have to use a tile, also your option is limited to the first few tiles if you want to fix the cost. In real world there are builders who get land when lands price are low but build things later when the lands price goes up.

All the above are also acceptable in MP games.

Restarting or save/loading is definitely unreasonable in real world, these are exploits, since in real world there's no treatment of regret. It is also unacceptable in MP games.

 

[Disgustipated]

ha, old thread. Anyone doing their trading differently with Rise and Fall?

I find myself going to international trade routes earlier than I used to be. And running the Wisselbanken occasionally when I have the slots open. With that policy you are getting the food and production of domestic trade routes, so you have nothing to lose (other than a policy slot). But the real winner is Arsenal of Democracy, what's even better is you usually have more room available in a Democracy to accommodate this policy.

 

[liv]

Playing as Mongolia my units had 12 intel strength when attacking summaria
Pretty powerful stuff
So yes international trade routes it is

 

[dunkleosteus]

I don't really use a rule of thumb for evaluating trade yields because I think all trade yields are incredibly situational. 1 science at the beginning of the game can be worth a huge amount (if your total science is +6 per turn, that's like 16% more science). If we're talking about a city that's just been founded, any production is huge. When I'm making +120 faith per turn, I really don't care about faith trade routes at all, it's just another drop in the bucket. I use international trade routes for 90% of my trading. I maximize gold output usually and try to get as many trade routes as I can. When I need to build a wonder or get a new city running, I'll divert some trade routes to internal to boost production. I run the policy cards that increase science and culture from international trade routes once I get Merchant Republic.

The only time I actually factor science, culture or faith into my decision is by looking at my current objective. If I'm making twice the science per turn as I do culture, I'll go for the culture trade route to prevent my civics from lagging too far behind. The only time I really go after faith is if I need a pantheon or something. I find faith to be mostly superfluous as a yield from trade. You don't get it in significant enough quantities to justify sacrificing other yields for it.

As a side note, I almost never build theatre districts of my own accord. My culture generation tends to lag behind for the first couple of eras until I conquer a neighbour (who has habitually built a lot of them) and then my culture production is back on track and I've prioritized more important districts (for maximizing trade routes) in my capital.

 

[Archon_Wing]

My idea of "cheating".

Everything that is acceptable to be done when playing with other humans are not cheating.

Everything that is unacceptable to be done when playing with other human players are cheating.

Public transportation is designed to give gold, and it works. It is nothing exploit since in real world apartments are sold before built, too.

Chopping trees are done in real world, too. The only thing is that the numbers are badly designed, it's nothing exploit and the developer shall fix the number.

Fix district costs are not exploit. They have their cons that you have to use a tile, also your option is limited to the first few tiles if you want to fix the cost. In real world there are builders who get land when lands price are low but build things later when the lands price goes up.

All the above are also acceptable in MP games.

Restarting or save/loading is definitely unreasonable in real world, these are exploits, since in real world there's no treatment of regret. It is also unacceptable in MP games.

This is a game though. I mean I'm glad you're making profit due to your housing schemes which are possible in game but this is neither here nor there.

Also I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted. I said conceding. I wasn't aware you can't resign a multiplayer game via conceding to join another lol.

BTW you are probably right that it's really just about the numbers and not about the action.

 

[Zenstrive]

My rule of thumb now is to trade to whichever has better food yields for up to 10 population, and then switched to whichever has better gold.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Also just because the Devs haven't fixed it yet doesn't make it any less of an exploit. Developers make mistakes and loopholes in the game, they're not perfect and just because they don't fix something doesn't mean it is intended. It just means they have more pressing issues at hand.

Can you explain to me why they have something in the game for more than 6 Versions of Civ?
Perhaps your point is correct when you are talking about one version of Civ.
However, they put the same exact thing in each new version of the game.
That can not be a mistake... that is intended.
Not only did they make chops more OP in Civ VI but they go and implement Harvesting resources.
Try to tell me they didn't intend for players to go on chopping/harvesting sprees?
So they make chops better but that isn't enough!
They decide to make a Governor to give you 100% more production.
They make other Cards to boost production by 50% or 100%.
Even when they see they made a mistake do they take Magnus out of the game??
No they just cut his power by 50%!
Clearly they are intending these things that you consider or call exploits.
You don't keep putting the same thing in the game for 20 years and not intend them.
When you realize how much of a mistake it is you get rid of the mistake you don't nerf it slightly.
Obviously they intend these things in the game.
Overflow has always been a thing in Civ.
Queuing up builds to one turn and switching has been a thing for a very long time.
Many of these things are intended... they aren't even getting rid of chopping.
They are just going to introduce a new mechanic to give choppers some problems.
In my experience in Civ this new mechanic will not slow anyone down.
As always players just find something else to exploit but Exploit is part of a 4X game.
No Dev is fixing Warmongering so it does not matter.
Some players consider Warmongering a Cheat or Exploit but it clearly is intended in the world of Civ.

The Devs have never fixed Trade with the AI completely.
In Civ VI they make it even more lucrative.
Trading Resources for 22GPT is obviously intended if you play Friendly with the AI.
Most players would consider Trading with the AI an exploit but it can't be.
Not the way they keep implementing it into the game and when you only compare Trade from Civ V to Civ VI you see how clear it is intended.
Everyone knows Trading with the AI has always been an issue or broken.
Just the way it is. 20 years of people playing this game and they keep making more versions or expansions.
I hardly doubt anything some players consider exploits or cheating is slowing this Franchise down.

When the Devs made the Harvest Pantheon did they realize how it changes the game?
Obviously they intended Harvest to work the way it does.
Is it my fault that once you secure the Harvest Pantheon the game is over.
Did they intend for you to be able to buy 360 Faith Knights all game long and upgrade them to Tanks with ease?
Faith Buying could easily be considered a Cheat.
The game is littered with them... how could one avoid them baffles me.
Rush Buying anything could be considered a Cheat as well.
Building a bunch of archers and upgrading to Xbows with 50% discount card... Cheater!
I'd like to see the player who plays without any exploits or cheats.
That game is going to have to have 100 rules that were never intended from development.
Should a player be able to use Liang, Pyramids and the Builder Card to get 7 charges?
Should a player be able to faith buy 10 of those?
Why does Faith Buying Builders and Settlers increase cost but Knights stay the same?
Did the Devs realize that you can double your Science or Culture Output with Collective Activism or International Space Agency Policy Cards.
They know their game is completely flawed but they know it is highly addictive with the next turn concept.
If anyone is Exploiting anything it is the Devs Exploiting us little people constantly spoon feeding us incomplete/flawed games.
Don't worry though because we keep buying what they are selling.
No matter how you play the game it is hard to refute that the game is Fun.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

If I’m trying to rush a Wonder I’ll have as many trade routes as possible originating in that city, with production as my priority.

Otherwise I tend to value proximity, especially if I have the dedication for completing trade routes, though to be honest I’m not actually sure if a trade route with a distance of 5 is superior to one with a distance of 20. Could anyone clear this up for me? Is “distance” the number of turns it takes to reap the yields listed, as I’ve been assuming?

 

[Victoria]

“distance” the number of turns it takes to reap the yields listed, as I’ve been assuming?

You reap that value shown each turn
When you set up a trade route it will show you the distance in tiles to the target. this distance is used in a strange formula to decide how long the trade route will take before you have to do another. It is best shown on a graph from the trade routes guide.
So here from a standard speed graph it shows turns on the Y axis ad distance on the X. This means is the trade route is 10 tiles away your route will last for 40 turns before you can change it... BUT if the distance is 11 turns you only have to wait 21 turns.
The guide can be found at https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/trade-routes-guide.25529/#q8

If I’m trying to rush a Wonder

Chop in the wonder rather than wasting all those trade routes.

 

[Horizons]

Well there is a million different circumstances and probably a million people who understand it better than I do but despite this being the wrong thread here goes an example based on roughly what you should be doing anyway. This makes the assumption

1. You will race to Political Philosophy pushing culture hard at the start (ideally around T50)
2. You will then race to Feudalism pushing culture because you want better builders.

Lets say you end up with 6 cities by T50.... you placed a campus in each 1 at T20, 1 at T25, 1 at T30, 1 at T35, 1 at T40 and one at T50
Lets also assume (wrongly but for example... at these turns you get an extra civic)...6 civic by T50 = Political Philosophy.
When you place your first campus the cost is calculated based on the higher number of techs or civic but as you are pushing civic at the beginning of the game they are normally higher. So the campuses are placed but not being built. The cost to complete these campuses is based on the number of civic you had at the time so the costs are (on standard speed)

City 1 - 70 prod
City 2 - 81 prod
City 3 - 91 prod
City 4 - 102 prod
City 5 - 112 prod
City 6 - 123 prod

So you can see the cost of campuses increases noticeably with increase in civics/techs

If I built a builder at T50 it would be able to chop a jungle for 21 Prod, trees for 41 prod or stone/deer for 51 prod... so I would have to chop 6 jungle to complete my City 6 campus or or 3 trees. My builder would be used up and so roughly 3 normal chops = a campus.

If I wait until Feudalism I get 5 chops out of a builder (6 with pyramids) so a builder is 66%or 100% more efficient because of the builder charges at feudalism.

Better still at Feudalism I am 9 civics in meaning my chops are now worth 51 production not 41. So I have builders that are more powerful and also have more chops if I delay.

If at this stage I chopped that's great but I spent a long time getting to feudalism and in just a few short turns I could pick up maybe 4 more civics (and a few envoys) giving me 65 production per chop...

Lets say I did not get pyramids and only had 5 chops per builder.... My builder could get 325 production while about 20 -25 turns earlier the same builder could get 123 production. That's a huge difference.

Now in this example I am building campuses so surely building them earlier would get me a lot more science than later?.... well campuses get a lot of their science from city states (so do most districts) We tend to place a district not for adjacency but for speed so often it does not get much adjacency... so the campus is only of great value once the science CS have envoys... Remember earlier I highlighted when I get envoys... I get envoys just before my builders get a good chop boost So this is a great time to chop in my campuses.

Now my science skyrockets and the number of techs starts overtaking my number of civics quickly and by T100 I could easily have 30 techs which equals 100 production per chop. Mt first chopping soon after feudalism allowed my science to skyrocket so my second chopping wave can be more powerful as well as having a great tech level.

Now also lets go back to my campus chopping a bit and give you a simple overflow example...
I place my 100% production bonus for building walls (limes) card in place and start building a wall in city 6 where my campus needs 126 production to be built. My builder gets 65 per chop so needs 2 chops to complete my campus. The turn before I finish my wall I have 5 production left to complete it and on this turn my builder chops 1 set of trees..... Because I have a +100% card for walls and am building walls my chop also gets 100% so I suddenly get 130 production... -5 production to finish my wall leaving me 125 production.... I then place my campus in to build (which need 126 production) and next turn (including my paltry city production my campus finishes. My campus took 1 turn and 1 chop to make timing it with a 100% bonus card. If I had Monarchy I would have got an extra 50% for that as well.

Chopping in a settler with a 50% settler build card is a great example of where you would use it early or building 2 galleys quickly off 1 chop with the 100% navy card.

Hopefully these tables are fairly accurate and help you understand the values. If you use builders too quickly they start getting expensive.
If you have a lot of woods late game you can chop a wonder in 1 turn
When you build pyramids all existing builders get an extra charge so people try to leave early builders with 1 charge.

Crabs and copper are double production bonus for chop so once you have all techs or civics every crab you chop is worth 500 gold but only produces a few gold per turn... better to chop crabs and bronze once your game is nearing its end if you have spare builders.

Jungle produces as much food as production when you chop it and wheat/cows/rice as much food as if there were stone for production.

Builder costs escalate slower than chopping costs so it is not really worth chopping a builder in early but it certainly is late.

1 simple rule of thumb.... if I chop a district the same turn I place it... it will be 3 chops. But if i wait and or use bonus cards it can be 2 or 1 chop... so 1 builder can chop in 3 campuses not 1.

View attachment 480955
View attachment 480956

If you applied this kind of dedication and work to studying stocks you'd make good money ...

I'm always amazed at the level of detail people are willing to go into for computer games.

 

[cain3456]

In the early game I trade based on setting up the road network. By midgame I can optimize yields.