I want my camels back...

Smash · November 13, 2001, 17:36

This trade system is good but it is kinda boring just roading to this or trading for that.I want to build my caravans and trek them to other nations.I think they really missed the boat here(Firaxis).A caravan of camels would need protection and escort...could have been subject to raids and whatnot.
Everything cost a fortune in this game.Why not give the player another way to gain some bucks.
Trade routes shouldn't just happen.You should have to do the process for some stuff anyways.Not just have the potential like in civ3.

anyone else miss their camels?...unless I am conquering,there isn't all that much to do with units.I want to load up boats of goods and set sail.I want to use privateers to raid other civs ships...not just try to sink ancient ships(they lose against everything other than the trireme equivalent)

...and dips... the price of espionage alone is argument for caravans and dips/spys.

narmox · November 13, 2001, 17:50

nope, I don't miss them at all. I love the new trade system. even more than the CTP one.

Kc7mxo · November 13, 2001, 17:57

The only thing I don't like about the current trading system is the lack of trade income, you only get trade if you're activley in a deal. I would like a sort of mutualy beneficial trade income similiar to MOO2 as well.

Zylka · November 13, 2001, 17:59

Agreed Smash, trade routes don't just happen. The new system is ok, but a bit too dumbed down, fire and forget. I wish for a combination of the two...

Skanky Burns · November 13, 2001, 19:58

Die Camel, Die!!

Hoek · November 13, 2001, 20:01

They say that their goal was to "streamline" the game, and I guess that they figured that it was one less thing to worry about. I can't say I disagree.

Venger · November 13, 2001, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Zylka
Agreed Smash, trade routes don't just happen. The new system is ok, but a bit too dumbed down, fire and forget. I wish for a combination of the two...

Me too. I think they each have benefits - I like trading resources between Civs for strategic resource unit building. But I liked sending a caravan across the map and making a trade route with having to have a road between the Civs - the caravan was kind of a trade trailblazer.

A combination would be great...

Venger

Monoriu · November 13, 2001, 20:19

NO NO NO. The new trade system is a lot better than camels.

-making deals with a civ is a lot simpler and faster than moving tons of camels around, worrying if a city has already built 3 camels etc.

-camels unbalance the game. In civ 2 I just packed tons of camels at my cities in anticipation of a wonder, and I got almost every wonder on deity, except the ancient ones.

-camels are too easy, once you got there its permanent. Trade deals can be cancelled by another civ and you have to re-negotiate the deal every now and then. In civ 2 they automatically accept the camels. Too easy.

-in civ 3 you actually have to have that resource to trade it, and the other civs actually need the resource or else they won't buy it. No negotiation process existed in civ 2.

-Trading resources actually has an effect in the game: cut off his luxury supplies and you see his cities go up in flames. Cut off his oil supply by embargoes, bombing etc will cut off his supply of modern units. In civ 2 you just get more science and gold. Too linear.

dexters · November 13, 2001, 20:22

I agree with 90% of the people out there who see this new trade system to be superior to the older one.

The previous trade system was hell to manage, and i was worried i would get carpel tunnels syndrone moving all those caravans around. It was also very very difficult to manage efficiently.

Venger · November 13, 2001, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Monoriu
NO NO NO. The new trade system is a lot better than camels.

-making deals with a civ is a lot simpler and faster than moving tons of camels around, worrying if a city has already built 3 camels etc.

Not always - no need to have a sea or land road route with a camel caravan.

Quote:

-camels unbalance the game. In civ 2 I just packed tons of camels at my cities in anticipation of a wonder, and I got almost every wonder on deity, except the ancient ones.

That's a separate issue. You cannot rush build Wonders anymore without a great leader, so that is a moot point...

Quote:

-camels are too easy, once you got there its permanent. Trade deals can be cancelled by another civ and you have to re-negotiate the deal every now and then. In civ 2 they automatically accept the camels. Too easy.

I agree - let's make the camel trade route expire after say 30 turns and also allow a Civilization at war to cancel it's trade routes with you.

Quote:

-in civ 3 you actually have to have that resource to trade it, and the other civs actually need the resource or else they won't buy it. No negotiation process existed in civ 2.

I think the caravan could carry raw trade arrows instead of just strategic resources. Most caravan's didn't carry coal or iron or steel, it was mostly luxuries - silk, pepper, etc.

Quote:

-Trading resources actually has an effect in the game: cut off his luxury supplies and you see his cities go up in flames. Cut off his oil supply by embargoes, bombing etc will cut off his supply of modern units. In civ 2 you just get more science and gold. Too linear.

He'll just get it from somebody else.

I think a combination of the two systems would be absolutely incredible.

Venger

PMLF · November 13, 2001, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
The only thing I don't like about the current trading system is the lack of trade income, you only get trade if you're activley in a deal. I would like a sort of mutualy beneficial trade income similiar to MOO2 as well.

Yes, this MOO2 system is very well-done. I always did many agreements with other races.

joey703 · November 13, 2001, 22:07

I think the new trade system is vastly improved over the civ2 trade system, but I think there needs to be a way to model commerce between civs. This could be done just like the way trade is handled in smac on top of the current trade system.

dexters · November 13, 2001, 22:16

The trade system was a last minute addition to Civ 2, and it showed. If you look at it, Civilization leaves a lot of the workings of a city to your imagination.

It doesn't go Sim City on you. Just make sure they have food, and it will grow automatically, no worries about building residential zones and industrial zones in your city.

Trade is the same idea, and should always have been like Civ 3. You build the roads and the trade flows.

The idea of micromanaging your trade like your playing Sim Capitalist is ridiculous. Besides, the system they had in Civ 2 was clunky and time consuming. Trying to connect all the cities with three trade routes is a headache of a chore, and a boring task at that.

And Joey, the resources/luxuries you trade in your own civ and with other civ are the trade you see --they add to your GNP. But the trade you don't see increase also your GNP (in the demographics screen) and it increases the amount of gold you get from the cities each turn.

fanatic civver · November 13, 2001, 22:45

>I want to load up boats of goods and set sail.I want to use
>privateers to raid other civs ships...

then play Colonization

I dont think bringing Colonization to civ is a good idea. Not abstracting trade would make the game too complex and it would become micromanagement hell.

I didnt mind caravans. However trade in civ 3 adds more depth to diplomacy. Since the diplomacy in the entire civ series has always been its weak point then this can only make it better.