Trade

[Ralf]

Basically, i think the caravan/freight unit should be replaced with a trade-screen:

(Below is a remake of then older post, but because there so many new visitors here, i might as well post it again).

"Building those caravans was pretty strenuous, but they really DID force the civilized/perfectionist player amongst us, out of our self-absorbed isolation, into actively exploring the rest of the world.
I must admit that i missed that economical drive-to-explore somewhat in SMAC. If i remember it correctly one only had to establish peaceful contacts with one single city from each of the forreign factions - there after everything was handled automatically. Often, not even that was needed - you traded trade-contacts (!) with any faction more quickly.

Pretty lame.

But why does it necessarily *have* to be the camel/freight unit that initiates the trade-contact? As far as im concerned ANY unit could automatically initiate (only initiate, however) such a trade-contacts.

If you for example, have discovered 3 foreign cities early on, busy uncovering the map with your triremes, warrior-scouts or explorers; then these 3 forreign cities is automatically available on a trade-screen "back home" so to speak. You could then choose to select any your own marketplace-equipped cities in the left-pane of your trade-screen, and permanently "establish" the route by selecting one of the 3 newly discovered forreign cities in the right pane. No need for camels/frights moving in ships. The bright idea about this solution is that you can rearrange your growing trade-route list to more profitable ones later on in the game, simply by point-and-click.

This way one *still* have that economical drive to explore the whole map (that was so sadly missing in SMAC) - yet, avoiding that strenuous work of navigating perhaps 15 cities x 3 camels = 45 camels around the world.

The camel/freight unit itself should be reduced to internal speed-building and food-emergensys, if anything".

[Uncle Sparky]

I didn't see an active thread so I started one. Many have commented over the years that trade isn't portraid realistically. I have a few suggestions.

Units

Caravan : One of the most common complaints has been that it is difficult to establish early trade routes. Even if you know where a city is, you have to build a unit, then spend (sometimes) dozens of turns (which in game play time may be hundreds of years) moving the unit to the city you want to trade with. I find that this is somewhat realistic for inter civilization trade routes. Europe & China were aware of each others' existance for hundreds of years before any regular trade routes were established, and even all of the early trade routes were done through intermediaries (eg - Persians). There are always challanges to establishing early trade routes. If I made any changes to the Caravan unit, I would give it all terrain movement (explorer, Alpine) - caravans by nature travelled dangerous terrain with apparent ease. I would also drop the cost of building a caravan to 20.

Freight : This unit would be changed completely. It would become available at the time of the Magnetism Advance. This is the age of exploration, where galleons plowed the sea. Trade routes wear being established between distant ports around the world. I would suggest a sea based unit, with a very large number of movement points - 14-20. This unit would not replace the caravan. It should cost about the same as a Galleon - 40. - Possible name - Merchant Navy.

"New" Freight : This unit should become available with the RailRoad Advance. By this point in history, most civilizations were crisscrossed with roads. Messages could be sent great distances in relatively short order. I suggest it remains a Freight unit, with 4 movement points and all-terain movement. This unit would replace the Caravan and cost 50 to build.

Air Freight - This unit would become available very late in the game (Flight), and acknowledges the fact that instant communications now exists in the world. It would be an air bases trade unit with as many movement points as you can give it. It must have the "Fighter flaw" (return to base or be destroyed) to avoid it becoming a tactical weeapon. This would replace the Merchant Navy unit and cost 50 to build.

Later, I'll tell you my thoughts on other trade topics.

------------------
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Sparky (edited November 19, 2000).]

[UltraSonix]

I think this is another realism vs gameplay issue. I'm personally in favour of having a trading screen - albeit a sophisticated one. The screen would allow things like trade routes to be established and trade wars to be declared.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

[airdrik]

You could even add trade embargos and trade taxes and all that fun stuff that keeps the price of gas in America so high.

[Tical_2000]

In the real world, trade is the most important operation of any country. In civ games, it is the least important. I don't want to get into specifics but trade needs WAY more attention and significance in civ games to come!

[Tiberius]

quote: In the real world, trade is the most important operation of any country. In civ games, it is the least important...trade needs WAY more attention and significance in civ games to come!

I coudn't agree more.
Income from trade should have a more important role than in Civ2, thus making the trade-embargos a powerful weapon. Actually, trade should bring you not only money, but also materials you can't gather. This way small civs with rich resources would have a greater, strategical importance(and we could see oil-wars, for ex.). This could, however, easily become a pain in the @#$ for non-micromanagers.

About the caravans:
I think caravans represent the commitment of players for trade. Make it screen-based and perhaps automated, and everybody will made a lot of trade routes, even the warmongers, making trade unimportant again. If everybody can make money from trade without effort, than what's the point? Give us the money instead and forget the trade! No, I don't think removing caravans is a sollution.
I agree instead with Uncle Sparky: make caravans quicker, easier to move, more diverse (I like the merchant ship idea) and give them a bigger importance, along with trade treaties and other trade related diplomatic tools.

[N35t0r]

i tried trading ships in civ 2, but it won't work.

[Biddles]

Ralf: I agree, scrap the caravan. It's annoying and time consuming. That's why I loved the labrynth in CTP. I don't think I ever used caravans in civ, they're more annoying then anything.

I thought that SMAC was an improvement in that you didn't have to deal with caravans. I think that civ3 should include specialty items. The regular cash trade should be dealt with SMAC style, but the specialty goods would be dealt with from a special trade screen. If you need oil, all the civs that have oil available would appear. You would then have to send a proposal to the civ of yopur choice to buy X units of oil for X units of gold per turn. These specialty goods would be used in production and support. Say that you were building a tank, it might cost 100 gold, plus 50 iron units. Then it would require 2 units of oil each turn for support. If you can't pay the support cost then the unit just sits there (you can't move it) and it becomes useless as a defender.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by El hidalgo on 11-25-2000 12:28 PM That way trade is more realistic and less tedious.

Realistic, maybe.

Less tedious, you have got be kidding me.

In your proposal, you double the number of units needed for trade, one to carry and another one representing the specific trade good. Actually you more than double it, because you think there should be trade ships, 18-wheelers and trade airplanes!!!

There are a lot of people on this forum calling for a trade screen to do away with all units and micromanagement relating to trade. I'm not sure if I'm for the trade screen, I kinda like that dumb, slow camel... but I don't think I'm for keeping track of so many units just to establish trade routes.

[El hidalgo]

I like this idea, and also the use of trade units in general, as opposed to some other means of generating trade. But I would like to see some modifications to the trade units themselves.

The camel is called 'the ship of the desert' -- and caravans should be that in Civ 3. You should be able to build trade bundles (of whatever good your city can produce) and load these onto a caravan to trade with the cities of the world. If your city can produce, say, wine, then you build wine bundles rather than wine caravans. You build a caravan to carry the bundles. The caravan does not disappear (unless killed), but simply proceeds to the next city and the next, until it runs out of bundles to trade. That way trade is more realistic and less tedious.

I agree that caravans should cost less to produce and have higher movement rates, but I don't think they should be alpine. I don't think ANY unit should be alpine, but that's my pet peeve. No-one is going to be able to zip accross the Himalayas. I would support additional terrain types, such as mountains with passes, which would require fewer movement points to cross than mountains without passes -- but I hate alpine units.

When you have developed sufficiently advanced naval units, naturally ships will begin to replace caravans (though trade will still be conducted over land as well, as it is even today; the big rig trucks are modern caravans). Eventually air units will (or should) be used as trade units, though they will only supplement the other units (much cargo is still transported on larger and larger ships).

What happens when you want to trade with an inland city and your trade bundles are transported via ship? Do you move the little bundles around to the city you want to trade with? No, they are dropped off at the nearest port city, which then handles further trading via internal trade routes. The bonus system may have to be adjusted to accommodate this. But basically the port city gets a cut of the trade action. Thus port cities will tend to be richer than inland cities, just as in the real world (capital cities and port cities will tend to be the richest). Inland cities that have been rich, such as Samarkand, often have really served as 'land ports'. Other rich inland cities tend to be located on navigable rivers, which is another feature Civ 3 should have.

Another feature that would add realism and usefulness to trade would be the ability to trade resources -- food and shields. You could have an option to 'produce food bundles' -- then any food your city produces would go into trade bundles rather than be consumed (in other words, your city wouldn't grow while you do this). Then you can trade food just like any other commodity or finished good your city produces. Same with shields -- you produce shied bundles rather than units.

[Uncle Sparky]

How about this -

Using the first 3 units I previously described (to reflect historic realities)and having a trade screen appear upon the discovery of flight (to reflect the "global village" brought about by flight) ?

------------------
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

[The Commodore]

How about trade units being independent of anyone's control?It often worked that way.

[Tical_2000]

quote: Originally posted by The Commodore on 12-03-2000 04:40 PM How about trade units being independent of anyone's control?It often worked that way.

No. Because thats when Civ crosses the line separating game from history class. I want to control my economic affairs under the guise of a democracy.

[raingoon]

quote: How about trade units being independent of anyone's control?It often worked that way.

Yes, actually. This might add to the game if it were a default status for certain early government types -- separate from historical reality, though, just talking gameplay here -- The player would thus be motivated to advance to the point that he could take control of trade himself. Government states like anarchy could take your control of trade away again, making government changing a much more strategic and careful consideration. Interesting thought.