Civilization 4 - Abstract Trade and Commerce Models

[Fosse]

I know that many people here want detailed and incredibly functional trade and commerce models. Civ has, however, been a game of many high level abstractions, and it stands to reason we might not get to (or have to, depending on your perspective) control every last coin of currency or ignot of iron that trades hands.

Since that possibilty exists, I think it might be fun to discuss how we would like trade and commerce represented in Civ 4 assuming we will have little or no more control of it than we have in the past.

I'll get things started by submitting for discussion a little system I thought about on the way home from work today. One clarification: I am using the word trade to mean exchange of resources, gold, technology, and other valuables as we currently see in Civ games. I use commerce to mean the money generated by your empire that you get to use (ie, trade arrows).


Fosse's Commerce Proposal

I would like to see the ridiculous-when-you-think-about-it system of worked tiles generating commerce done away with. To Civ 3, people find gold on the ground, and can find more of it when someone builds a road.

I propose that no commerce be generated by tiles. Insead, the number of citizens in each city will help to determine that city's "commerce potential." This potential would represent the exportable goods the city generates as its people go about their life.

My next step is to make every city engage in commerce with every other city by default. This means that the Romans are ALWAYS trading with Carthage. The citizens of Athens are constantly bringing Greek goods to Persia, etc. This constant activity generates gold for the player based on the commerce potential of the two cities, and that gold represents the government's cut (tarriffs and taxes and whatever else).

Basically, this means that SMAC's system of bases engaging in commerce with bases when under treaties or pacts would always be in place. You can think of your empire as having constant trade routes with everyone else. But what is the player's role in increasing commerce? And how will roads help?


I think that the amount of commerce generated for each party should be increased for the distance between the two cities, and decreased by the travel time ( in movement points) to get from one to the other.

That means that, until roads are build, you can only enage in commerce with near neighbors. Building roads to those neighbors makes the trading more lucrative for both parties. Undertaking huge road building efforts to connect, say, Europe and China, will result in lucrative routes.

I think that this would simulate goods from distant lands being rarer, and thus more valuable, while accounting for the costs of transportation. Some cities will be so distant from each other that the travel penalty will negate the commercial potential until rails and fast ships, and so on.



That's it, in a nutshell. I haven't touched on trading resources or techs, or what have you, and I wouldn't even know where to begin coming up with functional formulae for all of the results. This just struck me as a neat way to model trade.

Some miscellaneous points:
Civs could embargoe other civs, reducing commerce both ways. This, and smuggling of goods, could be representd by using a double movement point cost. So it's easier to effectivly stop commerce between more distant Civs, and harder to shut out your neighbor.

Civs could possibly enact tarriffs on other Civs, so that they earn 150% of the commercial revenue from a trade route than they should. This would anger the other Civ and generally reduce the amount of commerce the route produces (again, increasing the "movement cost" by some percentage).

I have no idea about programming and calculatio time, and how possible it is to have trade rates calulated between every city. My guess is that it would take a lot of resources. It could work like SMAC, where each Civ's cities are ranked by size and then matched up for trade, or the system could be abstracted so that each Civ constantly trades with each Civ, and only the average distance of all cities from Civ to Civ are calculated... something. Maybe the more programming knowledgable have suggestions?

Anybody have a different idea, or comments on mine?

[lajzar]

I had a lot of free time at work yesterday, and wrote up quite a detailed model for gold income. I divide gold income into two distinct areas. Internal trade is the classic trade arrows on the tiles (which probably does need a revamp). External trade is the area I detailed, and followed a model similar to yours.

I scrapped it when I realised that once rails, and especially air, are discovered, the trade income would get ridiculous. You'd suddenly find yourself in a situation where you have near-instantaneous (in game time) travel between every city on the map/continent. The other reason I dropped this idea is that it gives you nothing to intercept in a trade model vis a vis piracy.

Another thought I had was for civ2 style caravans. the catch is that the only benefit is in luxuries, spread evenly over all your cities over a 20 turn period. This would make it reasonably easy to avoid unhappiness - possibly too easy. otoh, you wouldn't get ridiculous amounts of gold and science from those, removing the silly tactics common to civ2.

[Fosse]

I certainly see the need for diminishing returns on the travel time factor in order to prevent rails and airports from simply bringing in tons of commerce. But that is something that I think can be balanced.

I don't see the need for piracy when we are talking about the gold generating commerce of trade between two civs in my proposal - remember that this is something out of the player's hands and that resources are not being traded. My idea is compatible with resource trade routes on the map, like CtP or GalCiv, which could be intercepted.

What model did you come up with? I'd be interested in the details, and maybe someone on these forums has an idea to make it compatible with "near instantaneous" travel of the modern age.

[Switch]

I really like that model. I've never liked that building roads increases the commerce from that tile...especially since it really looks ugly to have roads, and more so railroads, all around your nation.

Perhaps a way to make rr not be a problem for income is just to make distance an inverse multiple, ie 1/x ,x= turns to reach...and to negate the rr problem (since you can't have 1/0), just make the function, say, 1/(x+y), where x is the number of turns and y is some fraction of the distance between the cities. Obviously a more complex and realistic formula could be made, but this is simply a basic idea so that travel time doesn't make trades overly lucrative.

[lajzar]

ok, the model I made (from memory, so details might differ from my original).

Each city has internal trade and external trade. The internal trade component is much the same as the current tiles = arrows system. I wasn't working on that area.

For external trade, there is nothing until you gain the "trade" technology. Certain technologies (trade, corporation) and city structures (rail depot, commercial dock, airport) give extra trade routes.

For each trade route that you have, the computer calculates an income between the city and the neighbouring cities. Foreign cities are only considered if you have a trade diplomatic agreement with that civ. Beyond that, cities are chosen against to the nearest linear (not travel) distance.

The actual trade income for each route increases with population and decreases with travel time. The actual travel time had some detailed rules involved, depending on whether both cities had certain improvements (don't use the air calculation unless both have airports etc).

Of course, this system didn't allow for intelligent selection of cities, and overseas (ie over water, not necessarily foreign) trade would be effectively zero.

One modification I also considered is that the total number of trade routes is capped as above (instead of civ2 capping at 3), and you need caravans to create a route. Caravans give NO initial boost when they arrive. Instead, their normal income is spread over 20 turns or so, gradually diminishing. Repeatedly trading with the same city also gives diminishing returns, and because teh value of an established route diminishes over time, eventually reaching zero, there will always be a reason to build more caravans.

[chrispieX]

I really like fosse's idea. Taking trade out of the players hands and making it part of the reality of civilizations I think is very clever and realistic. Obviously it would be good as said, if players can influence it, maybe try to kill it or demand more of the profits from it.

I also think it would be good if individual cities have a 'commerce level', which is built up over time by the flow of luxury goods into the city and perhaps other things. It's this commerce level that is used to decide how much trade can go out of this city. This encourages people to not only collect luxuries, but to then create and encourage trade based on them.

It always seemed a lot more logical to me that luxury goods would be a way to generate money, rather than happiness, this money can then be used to do many things, including increase happiness.

[Xorbon]

I don't mind Civ 3's system of resource trading for the purposes of trading important (i.e. strategic and luxury) resources. I think it's important to be able to control whether you want certain civs to have access to these resources. Fosse's idea would then only apply to the trade of 'other' resources, like sugar, salt, timber, etc.

As far as caravans go, I don't want to see them brought back. They're a micromanagement pain in the ass.

I thought up an idea at one point that would bring back caravans, but not as units. A city would build caravans like they would any improvement or unit. However, once it is built, instead of a unit appearing, a screen would pop up prompting the player to choose among various options. Options would include destination city, and commodity to be carried. Once the player makes the necessary choices, a trade route would be automatically created (after several turns) between the player's city and the destination city. The number of turns it would take would depend on travel time and tech level.

Having said that, I think I'd prefer an abstract system (like Fosse's).

[Trifna]

I agree with what Fosse wrote, but I think that you also need to consider other factors such as:
- Transport technology of the civs which change everything
- The level they're at in term of production and technology (more production and better products -> you export more)
- Which ressources they each have on their territory
- Else?

So a simple meter of commercial balance could be done ("You receive X, You send Y")

[Fosse]

I don't think that strategic resources (ie, with military usefulness) should be traded "automatically." Luxuries, perhaps, since it's really the money from the commerce of luxuries that make more people happy (a country that has a lot of incense doesn't riot when they run out because their homes don't smell as nice, they get mad because they no longer have a product to sell).

Lajzar's proposal is interesting, and certainly less processor heavy than mine would be (trade for nearest cities, rather than all cities).

Trifna, to try to throw out some possible answers to your points:

Transport tech: Perhaps a few benchmark techs would simply adjust the rate at which transport times are calculated. A civ that discovers map making suddenly gets slightly more profitable routes on their end, while their partner's stays the same. A civ that discover's automobiles gets another boost. These changes could be small, since they'd be coupled with other improvments (rails, for example).

Tech and production levels: If a city's (or a civ's) production level is made to be part of the vague "commerce potential" I talked about, then this would seem to solve that. Yes?

Resources: I wouldn't want iron or oil traded this way, but perhaps a bonus for each luxury in your resource that the other guy doesn't have (big for you, small for them, and reversed when they have the resource). Then I could put a tariff on spices if there are none in my territory, and anybody with spices gets their "spice bonus" reduced and mine gets increased.

[Trifna]

Control over trade: I'm not sure the player should have a control over trading. It'd depends on the political system and perhaps other factors. In certain cases like a liberal market democracy, you'd need to make an embargo to block it. Also, depending on the system, the trading could give money to the state (you) and/or boost your production (more money thus more investment).

Tech and production levels: Yes, your commerce potential would do. But having a trade balance would a still be useful


But really, my main concern would be how to bring this in a simple model. I know I would accept the complexified model, but I also know I take more of this than the average...

[Fosse]

What do you mean by having a trade balance Trifna?

I don't think that the model is too complicated as long as direct player interference is left out. If the player has to tweak every variable then my plan is no good. If they can try to influence trade patterns indirectly, then that strikes me as fun.

[Xorbon]

Trifna makes a good point about more advanced technology and better products. I'd like to see civs produce various specific products which would be traded between cities and civs. Tech level would affect which products are available, and which are in demand. Examples of products could include precious metals, salt, textiles, stone, cotton, wool, timber, food, automobiles, machinery, electronics, etc., etc. Some products could require certain city improvements (such as autos requiring factories), and others could require access to specific terrain types (salt could require access to desert terrain). Production and trading of these types of goods would be automatic. Things like embargoes, tariffs, subsidies, and free-trade pacts would be ways for the players to affect trade.

Of course, any system of trade would have to be simple enough and not too 'bulky' for the human and AI to use, even if the computer code itself is complex.

[Trifna]

I think that if we go with subsidies and all that, it's gonna get complicated. We better simplify by puting more or less protectionism, simply. Of course, this can imply treaties where both parties engage each other into less protectionism, embargos...

Fosse: When I say trade balance, I mean the relation between what goes out and what comes in. So if you sell 30M$ to the exterior and buy 35M$, you have a negative trade balance (deficit) equal to 5M$. Just like a household that buys more (outcome of money) than the income.


But we have to be careful with anything to do with this since humans didn't knew economic theories alot before pretty lately. Of course, they still managed to organize some parts like favoring trade by treaties or agreements, blocking others' trade, etc. So we have two general questions to solve here:
1- How could the trading be put simply
2- How could we do this without anachronisms


So, considering these two factors, here's what I'd say:
1- You get something from trade (should it be money or else)
2- You can always try to find new deals
3- You can always block trade (at least TRY to)
4- Favor/deteriorate trade by roads, good diplomacy or else
5- The three above have some options that are added with technology (treaties, greater production...)
6- Exports and imports both have different effects (you benefit from exterior products but also pay for them (how? to be seen), you're paid for your exports and lose the product... which sometimes you don't need anyway). This last point is the tricky one: should it be simplified? How should it be? Everything seems on this last point.

Perhaps we could simplify (6) by considering it as an exchange of products, so each trader gets a different amount of money based on the advantage gained from the exchange (which depends on 1 to 5). To complete the system, a second aspect would be added: the possibility of seeing your economy invaded by the exterior somehow or to invade someone else's (based on some factor, a bit like two person in a bed trying to bring the blanket on their side). Economic vampiricism. So (6) would be highly simplified by cuting it into two pieces instead of trying to bring complete economic laws.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Fosse I would like to see the ridiculous-when-you-think-about-it system of worked tiles generating commerce done away with. To Civ 3, people find gold on the ground, and can find more of it when someone builds a road.

I propose that no commerce be generated by tiles. Instead, the number of citizens in each city will help to determine that city's "commerce potential." This potential would represent the exportable goods the city generates as its people go about their life.

Your proposal is identical to the current model since the tiles worked are equal to the number of citizens. And roads adding trade is a perfectly good abstraction of getting more trade from improved infrastructure.

Originally posted by Fosse I certainly see the need for diminishing returns on the travel time factor in order to prevent rails and airports from simply bringing in tons of commerce.

The total commerce generated by a certain civ after the invention of advanced seafaring, railroad, flight etc. should be significantly higher than the ancient times commerce levels. But there should be a corresponding increase in the "expenses", such as support cost (for both units and city improvements), more money needed for research etc.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Sir Og


Your proposal is identical to the current model since the tiles worked are equal to the number of citizens.

Not quite. What I've asked for is the number of people to be one of several determining factors in how much potential commerce a city generates. Other factors can impact the potential, such as improvments and tech.

The amount of potential commerce is not then simply added to your treasury, as in Civ 3, but instead used to determine actual commerce between cities.

Thus, it is the interplay of various relevant factors between cities that generates commerce. Not worked tiles.

And roads adding trade is a perfectly good abstraction of getting more trade from improved infrastructure.

No it isn't.

It's an unrealistic model (roads in the middle of nowhere make you rich), with unrealistic results (roads, roads, everywhere!). It leads to an ugly map and is micromanagment intensive.

Trade infrastructure simply existing doesn't do anybody a damn lick of good. It needs to make travel from one place to another easier if it's going to have any impact whatsoever.

The total commerce generated by a certain civ after the invention of advanced seafaring, railroad, flight etc. should be significantly higher than the ancient times commerce levels. But there should be a corresponding increase in the "expenses", such as support cost (for both units and city improvements), more money needed for research etc.

That would be a perfectly satisfactory way to balance things in my opinion.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Fosse


Not quite. What I've asked for is the number of people to be one of several determining factors in how much potential commerce a city generates. Other factors can impact the potential, such as improvements and tech.

The amount of potential commerce is not then simply added to your treasury, as in Civ 3, but instead used to determine actual commerce between cities.

All I am saying is that the number of the people is equal to the number of worked tiles. And currently the number of worked tiles is one of the factors that determine the commerce that comes from individual cities. I am not arguing that the potential commerce of the city should not be used for determining the actual commerce between cities.

No it isn't.

It's an unrealistic model (roads in the middle of nowhere make you rich), with unrealistic results (roads, roads, everywhere!). It leads to an ugly map and is micromanagment intensive.

Trade infrastructure simply existing doesn't do anybody a damn lick of good. It needs to make travel from one place to another easier if it's going to have any impact whatsoever.

Roads in the middle of nowhere have no effect whatsoever currently. Only worked tiles with roads, railroads, irrigation etc. have effect on the output of resources. As for the aesthetics of tile improvements in late game, I also don't like how the map looks but I don't think that scrapping the tile improvements is the way to go.

[chrispieX]

I would have to agree with Fosse on this one, of course roads around a city provide a way to move materials, thus generating local trade - but that fact that makes for ugly maps surely is reason enough to think of a different way to get local trade. Those kind of local roads need not be seen as part of the game, I think it would be better to further abstract it into something inside the city (like commerce potential).

Saying that, I'm not convinced that alone will fix the ugly map problem, after all you will still build roads around your cities in order for your units to be able to move in any direction from them anyway!

[Fosse]

Roads could have an upkeep cost, which would solve the ugly map problem and make road building in a given tile a strategic decision instead of a given.

Sir Og, since you're nitpicking my semantics I'd liket point out that the number of tiles worked is equal to the number of citizens in a city plus 1 (city square) and minue specialists.

I still think tiles should generate food and production, but I'm proposing a model in which trade is no longer generated on the map tiles worked. The one I'm suggesting simply doesn't call for that. If there is a similar amount of commerce generated because the number of tiles worked is going to be close to the number of citizens, then that's fine. I don't care. What I care about is the increased realism of a still very abstracted commerce model.... one which I feel the game's AI can handle and still be fun for the player.

Roads in the middle of nowhere have no effect whatsoever currently. Only worked tiles with roads, railroads, irrigation etc. have effect on the output of resources.

Sure, but if I build a road in the middle of nowhere and work that tile... presto! Instant commerce. That's silly.

I don't think that scrapping the tile improvements is the way to go.

Please point out where I have advocated scrapping tile improvments, so I can clarify what I meant. I have never, ever thought that getting rid of tile improvments was a part of my suggestion, lajzar's similar (and very good) suggestion, or what anybody else in this thread has been talking about.

Roads play a vital part in my idea. (though if I got my way then useless stupid roads would have no benefit... as it should be).

[Sir Og]

X Post

[Trifna]

What is "X Post"?...

I REALLY agree on the idea of puting an upkeep for roads. Roads really ask some miantenance. I remember reading a book in one of my courses where a colonization village had some roads going to it but the time it was asking to maintain it made that, in a matter of years, they were not practicable. The cost in man hours was too high and people couldn't make it. They already had enough with farming.

For anyone that disagree, try to maintain roads in the desert Since there still was trading through the desert (Asia -> Arabic deserts -> Europe), it wouldn't cut all trading, but the need to maintain roads certainly has a serious effect.

[lajzar]

Regarding terrain improvement maintenance...

Any tile that is worked has free maintenance; it has no risk of falling into disrepair.

Any tile that is not being worked has a % chance for the tile improvements vanishing. This is checked for each improvement separately. The exact % might vary by terrain type.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Fosse

I still think tiles should generate food and production, but I'm proposing a model in which trade is no longer generated on the map tiles worked. The one I'm suggesting simply doesn't call for that. If there is a similar amount of commerce generated because the number of tiles worked is going to be close to the number of citizens, then that's fine. I don't care. What I care about is the increased realism of a still very abstracted commerce model.... one which I feel the game's AI can handle and still be fun for the player.

The way I see it tiles represent some regions (counties) surrounding the city. Each tile/region has some natural resources represented by the amount of food and production that you can collect from that region. So when you propose a system where the worked tiles don't affect the amount of commerce generated you are breaking the connection between natural resources and income generated by the city. You should agree that two population 3 cities with the same city improvements, outstanding at the same distance from all other cities should have quite different commerce potential if one of them is placed in the middle of a barren dessert and the other is placed in a fertile, mineral rich delta.

About roads. Building a road on a tile means that you create good infrastructure in that region/county. And a county with good infrastructure would generate more commerce. I think that roads should continue to affect commerce generation which also gives a rather realistic and interesting strategic option as "Pillaging".
Perhaps roads should be made to affect adjacent tiles as well as the tile that they are built on, which in combination with introducing support for roads (a very good idea) should lead to fewer roads in the late stages of the game.

Please point out where I have advocated scrapping tile improvements, so I can clarify what I meant. I have never, ever thought that getting rid of tile improvements was a part of my suggestion, lajzar's similar (and very good) suggestion, or what anybody else in this thread has been talking about.

I got the impression that everybody who posted in this thread doesn't like the way the map looks in the late stages of the game because of the roads and RRs. And everybody pointed out that they would support a commerce model that would lead to fewer roads/RRs to a great degree influenced by that dislike. I also don't like how the map looks when fully roaded, irrigated, etc. (although eye candy is my last concern) but I don't think that we should think of way to reduce the use of various tile improvements but rather think of better graphics, etc.

[Sir Og]

I only want to add that I don't think that tiles should be the only basic source of commerce. In fact I agree with Fosse that the population should be tha basic source of commerce but natural resources should be inseparable part of commerce potential. And not all natural resources of a given city but the ones that are being "worked" by the population.

[lajzar]

I think there should be two basic sources of trade income. Internal trade is NOT dependant on having an integrated transport network. External trade benefits greatly from this, and corresponds approximately to the diplomacy in civ3 and caravans in civ2 and ctp.

For the external trade, I think my earlier proposal (structures and techs determine the max number of trade routes) is good. Then you build caravans to stablish a trade route. The caravan does not provide any civ2 style boost when it arrives. In addition, the ongoing income should start a bit higher, but gradually drop to zero over 40 or so turns. Players can choose to replace any existing trade route when a caravan arrives, and must do so if it would exceed the trade route limit for the city. An embargo trade option would immediately cancel any trade routes with the other civ, and a favoured trading partner diplomatic option would boost it (only one favoured trading partner allowed). The value of a trade route increases with distance, population, and special resources held by either city, and drops with travel time. The point behind caravans is that, with a limited number of trade cities, you will want to be able to choose your trade partners, and the caravan demonstrates your ability to get there. I suppose an alternate would be to simply nominate a partner city that has a safe path to it.


For internal trade, this could be primarily population based. However, I think there is a good reason to give an extra boost for working certain tiles, such as grasslands. It represents agricultural (farm-city) trade. Such trade provides an economic boost as well as food. It isn't necessary to do the same for "shields" tiles, as cities always have the option to convert shields to tax through the city construction queue. Of course, having certain special resources in the city could act as a boost. In the MoM system, having special resources acted as a multiplier on the domestic income.

Perhaps we could represent the population part as a tax slider, and the shields->trade construction option as another tax slider. Certain techs and govs will act as multipliers on the value of these sliders.

[Trifna]

lajzar, did you said that roads are not a major factor?... All our thinking about roads doesn't prohibit any trade route, but... did you said that roads are not a proheminent factor?!

About trade routes, well those are created EVERYWHERE where there is a possibility. The Hanseatic League didn't made a trade route because someone came and said "we will decide to trade with them with our trade route". having 2 trade routes doesn't stop from having 6 more if there are 8 possibilities.

And I don't say that because I think trade routes bring nothing (I looove GalCiv) but because it's like this it always worked: trade routes appear by themselves everywhere where there is a possibility. BUT what a government can do is to help these possibilities to happen or from disapearing (diplomacy with another civ, propose to another ruler to favor mutual trading...).

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Sir Og
So when you propose a system where the worked tiles don't affect the amount of commerce generated you are breaking the connection between natural resources and income generated by the city. [/b]

Fair enough. I think that breaking that connection is a step in the right direction. Natural resources are dependant on the land, but commerce is dependant on so many other things.

I think that a neat way to incorporate the old Civ II resourece ssytem (in which cities just HAD resources, and you never knew which ones which city would have) is to use that system of resources for NONSTRATEGIC ones. Then, instead of checking a city's trade with all other cities, you can just look at ones that have an appropriate supply or demand.

This should satisfy your desire to have the commerce come from the land, I think. Does it?

The reason I am against commerce being "generated" by working tiles is that it's silly. People don't go out and find commerce, they go out and make it. It isn't the same as fertile land or ore deposits.

About roads. Building a road on a tile means that you create good infrastructure in that region/county. And a county with good infrastructure would generate more commerce.

Yes, a country will fare better if they have good ifnrastructure... But good infrastructure is a lot different than indiscriminate placing of roads on every available acre of land. If a real country had infrastructure like a Civ country, they would bankrupt themselves placing roads and rails everywhere. Good infrastructure means enough, but not too much.

I think that roads should continue to affect commerce generation which also gives a rather realistic and interesting strategic option as "Pillaging".

It would be more interesting and more strategic if pillaging a road actually cut a trade network, instead of reducing the commerce "generated" by a tile by 1.

Perhaps roads should be made to affect adjacent tiles as well as the tile that they are built on, which in combination with introducing support for roads (a very good idea) should lead to fewer roads in the late stages of the game.

I'm all for maintenence, and the part where a road acts as +1 for adjacent tiles (I think that's what you mean) is good. It doesn't go so far as to make roads facilitate trade (which is what I'm going for), they still just make it magically appear. But it would help with the map's aesthetics, yes.

I got the impression that everybody who posted in this thread doesn't like the way the map looks in the late stages of the game because of the roads and RRs.

Ah, okay. Yes, I dislike the way the map looks with the spaghetti roads and rails everywhere, but I would like to point out that solving this is a happy side effect of my proposed model, not its intended goal (which is better modeling of trade and commerce).

but I don't think that we should think of way to reduce the use of various tile improvements but rather think of better graphics, etc.

I'm not advocating reducing tile improvments on the whole, just at making road building more of a choice and a task that can be done well or poorly. As it is now, you will build roads in every square, no matter what (unless you are playing poorly, of course). That isn't a strategic choice, it's a given. The only strategy is possibly deciding which tiles get roads first.

Cutting down on the number of tiles roaded or railed does not strike me as getting rid of tile improvments... instead it seems to me that it is a better way to use them. Hanging on to roads generating commerce because you don't want to discourage building them is silly. Look at SMAC. Roads don't help commerce, and they still got built.

[okblacke]

Good ideas, Fosse. (Every time I see your name, though, I think "Showtime!")

However, the roads aren't in the middle of nowhere. They're in the suburbs. If your base city were Jerusalem, the surrounding tiles would represent Judea, Bethlehem and so on. Ease of movement between these areas would most certainly generate greater commerce, in terms of available labor, more consumers, easier product flow, etc.

What the model doesn't reflect is inter-city trade and inter-national trade, and I think you have some good thoughts there.

There definitely should be a cap on trade distance, based on technology. That would reduce the required CPU, too, at least until modern days. India and China's effect on trade in Europe was minimal until, what, the pre-industrial age? In the modern age, cities with airports could be considered connected, thus reducing the CPU demands.

As far as spaghetti goes, I don't know of any major city that's not blanketed with roads both inside and in the immediate surrounding areas. In fact, in the eastern US, the narrowness of the roads act as serious chokepoints, where cities in the western US funnel a lot more traffic a lot further distances. (Genghis Farb's urban sprawl graphic looks pretty spot on to me.)

Sort of rambling here, I guess. One big plus about your trade model is that it could increase the impact of war. If trade deficits were represented, it could give another motivation for war, too.

[Fosse]

Okblacke, you're absoltely correct in your points. I think that we are better off leaving out the "simulation" of local commerce in favor of putting in the intercity/international sort that I've talked about above.

Regarding spaghetti... I think that the roads in Civ should be like the rivers in Civ. On Earth rivers are everywhere, but any viable Earth map in Civ will only show the biggest ones. Perhaps only the largest 10 % of rivers would show up on a Civ map. It should be the same with roads. The fact is that while the US interstate system is of concern to the top level leaders, the rural highways are best not thougth too much about with other, more pressing matters at hand.

Caesars probably didn't care about merchat trails linking villages so much as about legion built highways linking major cities and regions, and neither should we.

(Every time I see your name, though, I think "Showtime!")

As you should, my friend. As you should.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse
Caesars probably didn't care about merchat trails linking villages so much as about legion built highways linking major cities and regions, and neither should we.

The best rebuttal I've heard to date on getting rid of spaghetti. Personally, I can't figure out whether workers and such are integral game play or needless micromanagement.

But it would be cool to be influenced by and to influence intercity/international trade.

As you should, my friend. As you should.

One never knows what one's going to find at Apolyton, do one? I don't think I've seen a dance number since he died that didn't just make me roll my eyes.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by Fosse
Okblacke, you're absoltely correct in your points. I think that we are better off leaving out the "simulation" of local commerce in favor of putting in the intercity/international sort that I've talked about above.

Regarding spaghetti... I think that the roads in Civ should be like the rivers in Civ. On Earth rivers are everywhere, but any viable Earth map in Civ will only show the biggest ones. Perhaps only the largest 10 % of rivers would show up on a Civ map. It should be the same with roads. The fact is that while the US interstate system is of concern to the top level leaders, the rural highways are best not thougth too much about with other, more pressing matters at hand.

Caesars probably didn't care about merchat trails linking villages so much as about legion built highways linking major cities and regions, and neither should we.

You know, until now, I had supported teh idea of roads giving trade. I justified it as the roads represent small villages and general development in that area, and when a citizen is assigned to that tile, the trade bonus represents what he would be generating as extra trade from the tile. It doesn't strike me as any more crazy that people should derive trade from working in a given tile as food or industrial production.

However, now that you mention it, a general development doesn't necessarily mean the roads are military-standard in durability or even direct connectivity. Most of rural England would be considered developed enough for that trade bonus, but equally most of it is useless for fast military transport, which is the principal road benefit in Civ.

So, let's drop the trade bonus from roads.

Instead, perhaps farms (and mines?) should give a small trade bonus in addition to their normal benefit. Possibly have some trade-specific tile improvements too. Although I'd want something better than CTP2's trade tile improvements - building out of town shopping malls just seemed stupid. Offhand, I'd suggest...

Suburbs - adds to max population limit, reduces food production, adds trade, adds pollution (longer commutes), ships can enter as if it were a coastal city.

Nature Park - adds trade (tourism), counts as forest/jungle for reducing pollution (if we allow for a detailed pollution model).

On the water improvements side, that oil rig should have been an industry bonus (offshore platform anyone?), although the harbour (can't remember the actual name, my version of CTP2 is Japanese anyway) tile improvement could work as a trade improvement.

Drop the CTP2 shopping malls and trade outposts. That makes the trade explosion in modern times that much more meaningful. Plus those improvements seemed a little silly.

Basically, roads/rails/highways are transport only now, and tile improvements provide the trade bonus. We should definitely allow for an extra trade bonus for river and adjacent-to-water tiles though, to represent extra traffic from small riverboats and coastal shipping.