{The List-} Economics/Trade

[Kuciwalker]

I just remembered an idea from the C3 list that I think may work well and satisfy everyone (for strategic resources). Make it so that you don't need a resource to build a unit that "requires" that resource. Rather, you can allocate each instance of each resource you have to a city, and it provides some number of extra shields (a lot) per turn towards the production of something that requires that resource.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Fosse
I seldom like this argument because we accept so much in this game as happening on a weird time scale. Warriors take 1000 years to walk a few hundred miles in the early game, trade deals last for no less than 20 years, and possibly thousands if made early enough.

The city management, military, and diplomatic models all seem to function at their own pace... so a month of time in one is close to a day in another and a year in another. What we need to look for is fun and good features for the game, and not worry overly much about if they make sense according to 1 year = 1 turn.

I too, think that stockpiling could be good for gameplay, and that is enough to get it a thumbs up from me.

yes, we all accept the timescale not being linear. Usually this argument is usually discussed concerning naval movement. Usually it goes like "Magellan circumnavigated the entire world in a few years, but even on a tiny map it will take me a minimum of twenty years to go around the civ planet"

I think we all have just sighed...and accepted it in the name of gameplay.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
I just remembered an idea from the C3 list that I think may work well and satisfy everyone (for strategic resources). Make it so that you don't need a resource to build a unit that "requires" that resource. Rather, you can allocate each instance of each resource you have to a city, and it provides some number of extra shields (a lot) per turn towards the production of something that requires that resource.

This sounds like a great deal of micromanging to me, though, and it kind of cripples the idea of resources at all. Sure, you can build nukes without uranium, but if you have it you can click on every city that is building a nuke and asssign uranium to it, thus building it maybe 30% faster.

If that's the approach, why not just leave required resources for building things out entirely and go back to the Civ 2 model where every bonus tile was just that - a production bonus tile?

If the "resource allocation" happens automatically - which it should and I am not suggesting to know if you want it to or not - it would be better... but again would really defeat (to me) the idea of having resources in the first place.


Shogun gunner:
Yeah, the navy is where the time being out of synch really rears its head (and could stand to be tinkered with)!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Not really. The trade route follows the shortest route, so if you have roads between your cities they follow those roads. So, I often have a couple of warriors or legions in the early game going along the trade route making sue it isn't pirated. Same for the seas (with longboats & fire triremes)
I actually rarely have my trade routes pirated

As long as you have a compact empire, or you do not have land spurs of rival civs that jut into you area of control, then piracy is not a problem, because the routes did not pass through enemy territory. And if you have some cities overseas from your main civ, then piracy was soooo easy - especially since piracy was not considered to be an act of war in CTP2.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
And if you have some cities overseas from your main civ, then piracy was soooo easy - especially since piracy was not considered to be an act of war in CTP2.

That's one of the major annoyances in CtP2. Even if you patrol your routes, it won't prevent piracy. They will steal in front of your eyes, and if you try to make an anti-piracy agreement with the now know pirate civ, they won't agree unless you add a bribe. But if you are so dumb to bribe them to cease piracy, they will do it anyway, because deals are never honored in CtP2. So you have three choices. a) you can live with the piracy, b) you can cease oversea trade or c) you can start a war. Makes for a fun game.

[Fosse]

This might stray slightly into the off topic zone, but it is meant to address the piracy problems you guys are discussing...


I think that making a new category of questionable actions might be a good solution here.

Right now we have "Acts of War" or "Not." Having another type, "Incitements to War" might help out. If I pirate the AI, it may not cause war... but if I insist on doing it over and over then I'm asking for it, take harsher diplomatic penalties, and can guarantee that action will eventually be taken.

This is also why I support making fighting possible without being at war. If a civ I am not at war with keeps sinking my merchant marines, then I can blast them out of the waters, and possibly not have to go to war to do so. It would just be a REALLY stern warning.

This would add more to MP than to SP, I think, but can go a long way to making the single player game a better time to.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by skywalker
I think it would be cool if we used C3's resource system (with a few bonuses for multiples of the same resource) but had Galciv-esque trade routes (with the little freighter carrying oil, etc).

this is what I like

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse
This might stray slightly into the off topic zone, but it is meant to address the piracy problems you guys are discussing...


I think that making a new category of questionable actions might be a good solution here.

Right now we have "Acts of War" or "Not." Having another type, "Incitements to War" might help out. If I pirate the AI, it may not cause war... but if I insist on doing it over and over then I'm asking for it, take harsher diplomatic penalties, and can guarantee that action will eventually be taken.

This is also why I support making fighting possible without being at war. If a civ I am not at war with keeps sinking my merchant marines, then I can blast them out of the waters, and possibly not have to go to war to do so. It would just be a REALLY stern warning.

This would add more to MP than to SP, I think, but can go a long way to making the single player game a better time to.

I like this idea. I want a popup as soon as the AI does something that qualifies, and I face no diplomatic penalties for saying "declare war".

[Harovan]

Naval piracy should be not an act of war. Neither should be attacking pirates an act of war. I would be fine with seeing CtP2-like piracy, but restricted to Civ3-like privateers, i.e. units with hidden nationality, which can be sunk without having to start a war or even to take a diplomatic penalty.

[Jon Miller]

see I don't think that there should be CTP like piracy

but something similiar, like a noncontrolable unit moving back and forth (apparently like Gal Civ)

Jon Miller

[ixnay]

How's this for an idea: Use CtP-style trade routes - that is, visible routes on the map that can be interfered with by other nations. However, to actually pirate or disrupt trade, a unit would need to stay in one place on the route for a fixed number of turns - like, 5 or so.

With a delay like this, it would give players the ability to patrol their routes and stop problems before they happen, but someone that's sneaky enough can still get units in to wreak havoc if they play it right.

[Kuciwalker]

GalCiv-style piracy - just blow up their freighters, driving up costs or destroying the trade routes altogether.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by ixnay
How's this for an idea: Use CtP-style trade routes - that is, visible routes on the map that can be interfered with by other nations. However, to actually pirate or disrupt trade, a unit would need to stay in one place on the route for a fixed number of turns - like, 5 or so.

With a delay like this, it would give players the ability to patrol their routes and stop problems before they happen, but someone that's sneaky enough can still get units in to wreak havoc if they play it right.

I love this idea. How about having two options: One is destroy the trade route, another is raid. Raid gives you some gold, keeps the trade route in tact and increases anger with the nation.

(One thing about CtP some people forget is that sometimes their were survivors of the piracy who saw your flag. In other cases, there were none, so you got away free without the civ knowing that it was your civ who pirated them),

Destroying, on the other hand, takes more gold, eliminates the route and is an act of war.

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
see I don't think that there should be CTP like piracy

but something similiar, like a noncontrolable unit moving back and forth (apparently like Gal Civ)

Jon Miller

So you've said, many times

[wrylachlan]

So I was thinking about trade routes, and the ability to "pirate" trade routes, and how that isn't really well modeled in Civ.

To make trade piratable you need to have units carrying the goods. But if you do that, who decides what goods are carried where? If you have the computer decide, there will be someone saying, "I don't want THAT city to be an exporter". If you let the player decide, you're into micromanagement.

What if you simply abstract all trade to the commerce bonus and turn it into gold?

If I build a road between city A and city B, I get a percentage commerce bonus at both cities. The mechanism for the bonus to get there is a trade caravan loaded with gold that travels from A to B, and another that travels from B to A. When the caravans arrives, the gold is converted to commerce at a standard rate.

But to accurately model trade, what happens when 1 city trades with 50 other cities? Do they send out a fleet of caravans? That would get messy quick. Instead they consolidate, and only send 1 caravan to each of the cities they're connected to. From there the trade branches out and continues.

Example:
Panama City, and Mexico City are close to each other on an isthmus. Dallas, Houston, and Austin are behind Mexico City with relation to Panama City. If Dallas, Houston, and Austin want to trade with Panama they each send a caravan to Mexico. Mexico then consolidates their gold into one caravan and sends one caravan on to Panama. Similarly Panam sends one caravan to Mexico with all the gold for Mexico, Dallas, Houston, and Austin. When that caravan arrives at Mexico, it is broken out into three caravans that complete the trades.

The nice thing about this mechanism is that you only end up with 1 caravan for every pair of adjacent cities, yet your trade network can grow exponentially with the growth of your nation.

Additionally, you have trade forming natural choke points. So its more important to defend Mexico and Panama from privateers than it is to defend Houston.

Caravans should be able to travel on rivers, roads, RR, Oceans (if you have a harbor), and Airplanes(if you have airports). Maybe Airplanes can only carry a fixed amount of gold, so that the invention of the airplane doesn't totally replace Ocean trade.

[Skanky Burns]

Updated.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by filix


I think hundreds of caravans are good, where is the problem? The abstract caravan is just something that carrys goods not an animal

And i think there is no need to have the option to explore with a caravan, you have other units for that work. Like i said i like the old trading system

Hundreds of caravans is bad, if its a unit you control - too much micromanagement - no problem if its just eye candy, i suppose, but thats not what i had in mind.

Yes you have other units to explore with, but why should i have to build with another when ive got a caravan? Historically explorer/trader/diplomat werent such seperate functions - explorers carried trade goods with them, as late as Henry Stanley and the scramble for Africa in the late 19thc. (see Thomas Packenham "The Scramble for Africa")

[Skanky Burns]

One way to do this, I suppose, is to have an explorer unit that acts as a caravan initially as well as explorer. Then after the discovery of a certain technology (trade or whatever) the explorer becomes obsolete. As a replacement, automatic trade routes are started, GalCiv or SMAC style.

Its an option, anyway.

[polypheus]

It's been mentioned by others many times but I really would want something akin to the model in the game "Colonization". There you had qualifiable resources which you could trade, also prices for goods. More importantly, you had "FINISHED GOODS"!

Like in Colonization, I would really like to add FINISHED GOODS to the economic/trade system of Civ 4. This would be great and would allow greater depth & realism. Then you could export/import these finished goods based on supply/demand prices, etc to increase happiness, money, etc. Military Units could also need finished goods to function just like Dragoons needed Horses & Muskets in Colonization. This would also mean that the game is better balanced between miilitary and economic as currently it is mostly a military game.

Finally, I would like to be able to import/export military hardware! If we did that, we could now have the ability to help an ally by providing him with tanks, planes, ships, etc. This is good b/c you could provide a backwards civ with advanced units without providing him the techs to build it himself (or you could find yourself in that situation). This would also lend itself to proxy wars or Vietnam/Afganistan Wars! The big bad "Russians" invade poor/backwards "Arabia" to get more oil but don't wan't to fight Russia itself (for war wariness and other reasons? Export a bunch of mech infantry to them!

Or perhaps you and another super-power could sponsor some low-level proxy war instead of duking it out between yourselves, etc. etc.

[ThePlagueRat]

Here is my ripoff-idea about trade:

I think it should work neatly in both SP and MP games. A World Market (WM) including all civs connected in the trade network(e.g. by ports AND abstract caravans) and in conjunction with the city trade output, should be the core of the economic system.

In a WM using resource pools from suppliers, relations between civs would seem to be irrelvant to the market. That's often the way it is IRL, so then we must introduce boycots. Then we would have to base the WM-possibilities on reputation and perhaps government. That's why resources should be quantified, so that your prices per.item will drop according to the different transparent factors. (this could in fact include a mathemathical model determining the price out of foreign relations and supply/demand calculation)


Quantifying them with an output per resource-tile, would seem more realistic too. Then, tile-impr. could enhance that output as well. If your output is too low and you cannot get more from the WM, then your production of certain units would be limited. In this system resouce-tiles cannot be as scarce as with Civ3, but rather output limited for each tile so ther would be realistic competition. Ok, I admit: A bit Victoria-inspired this as well, but wouldn't it be great?

[ThePlagueRat]

For instance:
- Democracy trait: better prices on the WM.
- Despotism trait: poor prices on the WM.
- Communist trait: boycot more effective against democracy.

Boycot from democratic X and Y against democratic Z:
- Z's export price for a resource that X and Y buys on WM would fall due to no demand from X and Y regarding Z, and then modified due to democracy, making it fall just slightly.
- Import prices for Z on resources in which X and Y are bidding, would rise due to no supply from X and Y on the resource, and modified due to democracy, making it rise just slightly.

Boycot from commie X against democratic Z:
- Z's export price for a resource that X buys on WM would fall due to no demand from X regarding Z, then modified by democracy, countered by communist trait, making it fall...
- Import prices for Z on resources in which X are bidding, would rise due to no supply from X on the resource, and modified by democracy, countered by communist trait, making it rise...

Or perhaps we can swap the traits, what would be most realistic?

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

hundreds of caravans in late games clearly bad.

A few caravans in early game, exploring, suddenly coming upon a previously unknown city and selling goods there - good.

Dont know how they might do this, though.

How about allowing to move units in stacks, won't that reduce the "many caravans/freights" tedium?

The lack thereof is a major nuisance to me in Civ 2. I'm currently chasing the conquest record as the Turks in the WWII scenario and moving one howie at a time across the Russian steps is really frustrating...

If an option existed that allowed me to move as many as I like, much of the boring mechanics would vanish... Let's say that you gather all the howies in one square, right-click and get several options including "Move as stack"... Same thing with camels/freights...

Carolus

[Skanky Burns]

Caravans would all have different destinations though, leaving stack movement as a sub-optimal solution for this problem. For military though, it is great. And probably already suggested in the appropriate thread.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ok, but it was also mentioned that caravans should not be a unit type but a transparent function. I second that motion, and in conjunction with a WM, each caravan could expand your access to the WM, by adding a new trade (buy or sell) on a resource you choose, the price could be determined as I mentioned above. Then there had to be many more and new resources in the game.

[khai]

Defending caravans

How's this for an idea: Use CtP-style trade routes - that is, visible routes on the map that can be interfered with by other nations. However, to actually pirate or disrupt trade, a unit would need to stay in one place on the route for a fixed number of turns - like, 5 or so.

Yup! That's good. To improve it a little bit: imagine you could build caravans with different strentght of escort!?

Caravans with no escort shall be cheap, but also easy to pirate!

Caravans with some escort shall take a little time to pirate.

And so on.
You can send a caravan of horses unguarded to a nearby city, and also send an escorted caravan of diamonds to a far city.

The turns required to pirate a route would depend on how much guarded is the caravan.

[CiverDan]

In modern times, do not let distance factor into corruption. Hawaii is no more corrupt than New York. modern communication should eliminate distance based corruption. It should be averaged based on # of courthouses etc.

Rework science so you dont waste beakers. Go back to civ 2 style, but with limits on sci rate and make if harder to get to <4 turns in late game.

Same with shields, allow excess shields to go to next project. If I have enough to build a tank and a coastal fortress, I should be able to select the tank, then next turn select coastal fortress and get it immediately.

RESOURCE DEPLETION

I think the resource scarcity in C3C is the wrong way to go. I would rather see more resources, but have depletion rates that occur with building units, building, improvements. No more random disappearances. Depletion rates should slow with tech discovery. For example. Building Swords will deplete iron, but researching construction cuts the depletion rate. Building rails would deplete Iron and coal. This would discourage railing everything. Also, bring back farmland for food bonus. If you deplete your resource it is gone and doesnt reapper until you discover a tech that might reveal more i.e. better processing or upon mining a square.

Horses: No depletion, cannot "lose your horse source", though opponent can gain horses in this manner. I hate it when I "lose my horses"..grrrrr Did I really keep them all where the enemy could take them.

Iron: decent depletion rate early, become much less later, esp. with modern techs, like miniaturization.

Rubber: fairly fast depletion rate early, esp. for tanks, etc. resource not required after tech allowing sythetic rubber is researched, maybe Synthetic Fibers. have resource not appear on jungle/forest cut down to grass/plains. This may make u think twice before you cut those trees.

Put Oil on Coast/Sea: requiring city with resource in its working radius with offshore platform too gain the resource This plarform would appear on the map and could be pillaged. Better have a good navy...

Also make number of resources dependant on map size and well # of civs. Bigger map mean more resources, but those resources are more likely to deplete as amount of depletion per unit/building will deplete will remain the same.

[Pedrunn]

Trade Routes
Line in the map (CTP2 like)
Piracy only by Privateers and Raiders
Others units can pirate but it is a Act of War
Piracy do not break route
Pirates get what was in the Route + Gold need to buy it

[Brent]

Have your Foreign Minister automatically tell you how much gold a rival would want in addition to what else you are offering, and how much gold they would give you for what you are tentatively offering.

[Kramsib]

FROM THE SPANISH COMMUNITY LIST

27. The ability to bring food to other cities.

[lajzar]

I don't like the idea of trading food. The food which actually affects total population tends to be staples, such as grains or potatoes. Certainly, food does get traded long distances, but those tend to be luxury goods in the main.