Bring back caravans?

[kailhun]

I was looking through the possible avatars when I saw ... the Camel. I miss the camel-caravan. I say bring it back. Leaders can lead armies and darn socks (or something). I want the camel-caravan back!

Robert

[SpencerH]

I'd like to see it as a choice, caravans on or caravans off. Caravans in CIV2 could be a pain because of the micromanagement of finding cities that had the right demand etc, but they were occasionally satisfying (when you snuck one into an enemy civ you were at war with). I found that mid to late game when they converted to trucks they were a bit of a bore (though important for cash).

[Pius Popprasch]

There could be an EMM Edition(extended micromanagement) to please you and other micromanagers. Otherwise I consider the lack of Caravans an improvement. Trade still requires too much micromanagement.

[ahenobarb]

I would like them back, though with a few modifications.

I think they should run automatically (like workers on Shift-A - hmm a new metaphor?) since governments (a least non-communist ones) don't decide to make "incense". Your caravans/merchant ships sail around the world conducting buisness (which gies you revenue) and you protect this commerce by defending your sea lanes and trade routes.

A good way to make money would be to find your opponents sea lanes and trade routes and prey on them with "privateers" and "bandits" (or something). Each caravan or merchant ship you get is worth 50 gold.

They should be produced automatically, say 1 every 20 turns for size 1 cities, 1 every 10 turns for towns (size 2 cities), 1 every 5 turns for size 3 cities.

[kailhun]

I was thinking more along the lines of building wonders and buildings, and transporting food so city's don't hop between growing and starving.
I'd forgotten you also build trade routes with them. That part I don't miss.

Robert

[Harovan]

A definite no from me. I used, but never liked them in Civ2 (even as wonder rushers), I liked that they were made "virtual" in CtP2 and was glad they eliminated them in Civ3. Don't bring them back.

[SpencerH]

The virtual caravans in Ctp2 were a reasonable midground that even allowed piracy.

[jabroni154]

I like the virtual caravan idea. It would definitely add another dimension to the game to be able to hose over another empire by indirect means (privateers, mercenaries). Plus, it would add quite a bit to sea power I would think.

[Sinapus]

Caravan units shouldn't be brought back, but some sort of trade between cities (within a civ and from outside civs) that results in added commerce is one thing I do miss from Civ2.

[Arrian]

I voted no. I never liked the micromanagement involved in using them properly. I would, however, have liked a "share production" option which would've allowed you to send a city's production (with a good chunk lost to "waste") to help another city build something, like a wonder. That, and maybe food trade between cities, but that would be complicated (pre-railroads, just how far could the food go before it started to rot?).

-Arrian

[ahenobarb]

I guess part of the problem is determining what is meant by "Bring back the Caravan", the way they were in Civ 2 was pretty close to useless because they required so much (i.e., too much) management. But having a caravan as a vulnerable unit (like workers) that yeild gold if attacked, would be fun.

Rushing wonder with them never made any logical sense to me, but I did it anyway if I needed to (usually it was just easier to over produce on a useless wonder and switch).

[Steve Clark]

This is a good example of what I referred to as an ill-advised suggestion that is detrimental to the context of the game. Now, I don't mean to pick on this one because I like caravans, but it's a new thread that can prove my point.

Okay, let's say Firaxis caves in and brings back caravans in their traditional role (they won't so this is hypothetical). In Civ2 they were primarily used for trading between cities and for wonders building. So what do you to the existing trading system that's in the Diplomatic Screen? Do you eliminate it? Reduce it so you can't trade goods - only techs? Keep it but you have to physically move the good (making the trade moot since it could take centuries to complete a track)? You bring back caravans in their traditional role and you have just messed up one of the fundamental designs of Civ3.

IMO, this is true with other suggestions regarding the tech tree, combat, AI trading and others I can't think of. Many of these suggestions, while fine in itself, do not consider the context of the game and its impact on such. Civ can only work well if every element works together at the same scale (like in Civ2 and SMAC). What I have seen in the new features of Civ3 are things that do not belong because they took a simple, yet deep model and made it needlessly complex where it doesn't work together well (that's our fault, imo, since we demanded those things to be added and wanted Civ3, not Civ2.5; but I digress). And as witnessed in the constant tweaking in the patches and mods, you can further upset the balance by fixing/changing one thing but now causes two new problems. One (including Firaxis) has to look at Civ3 as a single system, not as individual parts. Unfortunately, I see suggestions that are focused at a part and patches that tweak parts.

[korn469]

well i could see them bringing back caravans, but not in the traditional role of trading resources, because that wouldn't be a good idea at all

as it is right now wealth is useless, even after economics, so instead of wealth you could build caravans, and when they arrived at other cities you'd get some cash for your trouble, this could make naval units slightly more important, because caravans delivered over seas could be worth more gold

to your cites: 8 shields to 1 gold 4 after economics
to other civ's cities on your contient who you aren't at war with: 4 shields per 1 gold 2 after economics
to other civ's cities on another contient who you aren't at war with: 2 shields per 1 gold 1 after economics

but then again this could be too much micromanagement

[Jawa Jocky]

Hell No!

I can't stand the old trade system. It was incredible tedious.

1) You had to build a unit that takes a while to build.
2) You had to choose what that unit was trading and with whom.
3) Then you send them off on a journey. They either went to a another one of your cities and with a lousy return on your investment, or they began a long journey to another Civ. If the caravan managed to get there w/o getting killed, that city usually didn't want what you were trading anymore. So you had to wait and develope a railroad network. By this time you have so many cities and units to deal with every turn the last thing you want to deal with is more units.

The new system is much better.
1) It is realistically tied to dipolomacy.
2) You make a deal and forget about it for 20 turns.
3) 20 turns later you offer 3 more gold per turn than before and you're good for another 20 turns.

I could go on a lot longerbut I'll make a long story short. IMO CivIII's trading system is one of the biggest improvements in the game.

[Dis]

caravans were an abomination. although this system isn't that good either.

you should be able to build caravans, and then click on a city to send it to. There should be no unit graphics for this. After a certain amount of time (dependant on transportation availabe at the time) the caravan arrives in the city. There should be multiple options so you can send the caravan to a coastal city and transport it. Not sure how to implement that though- maybe a merchant ship. There should be some random chance that pirated seize the shipment though. But I have no desire to manually move another unit halfway accross the world.

[ahenobarb]

Responding to Steve Clark's questions about how it would affect the current "bargaining table" concept, I think it could work like this (But, like you say, it won't because Firaxis has already scrapped this one):

the bargaining table is for large/politically motivated trade agreements between countries they consist of the strategic and luxury resources.

A second trading tier below that would be a non-player controlled unit (think of it like a business class) that traded the bonus resources (wine, wheat, cattle, bananas, mangos, whatever). They move around by themselves on auto-pilot and bring you gold from their sales (conceptualize it as a tax on their trade).

The advantage would be that you gain more wealth (gold in the game) through this, but also that you can prey on your opponents caravans, or whatever, and get $$.

This would also create a commercial reason for wars and provide a purpose for having a navy (maintaining a trade empire, keeping the sea lanes open) other than "I need to transport tanks across this blue stuff because I want to knock off a neighbor"

I can think of alot of good additions to this idea: you can increase/decrease the amount of taxes on imports/exports, over time you brand of "wine" becomes the quality brand so you are paid more for it (like comparative advantage).

Will they do it, the eight ball says "definitely not". But, I think it's an interesting concept and certainly one that could be done and integrated into the game.

[elfstorm]

I wouldn't want to see a return to the Civ2 system, but I do think trade (and diplomacy) are done really badly by Civ3.

It's a great game, but those two areas are appalling. A VAST improvement for next time please Fireaxis.

[godinex]

no... please

[Cyclotron]

I would love caravans coming back, as long as they gave you some reward for destroying an enemy caravan, and if pathing became good enough so my camel wouldn't go globe-trotting to find the least convenient route to any given point.

[Jonny]

YES!

Bring back caravans! I liked them so much (especially for wonder rushing). I really like it better than the Civ3 system.

[SpencerH]

Responding to Steve Clark's questions about how it would affect the current "bargaining table" concept, I think it could work like this (But, like you say, it won't because Firaxis has already scrapped this one):

the bargaining table is for large/politically motivated trade agreements between countries they consist of the strategic and luxury resources.

A second trading tier below that would be a non-player controlled unit (think of it like a business class) that traded the bonus resources (wine, wheat, cattle, bananas, mangos, whatever). They move around by themselves on auto-pilot and bring you gold from their sales (conceptualize it as a tax on their trade).

The advantage would be that you gain more wealth (gold in the game) through this, but also that you can prey on your opponents caravans, or whatever, and get $$.

This would also create a commercial reason for wars and provide a purpose for having a navy (maintaining a trade empire, keeping the sea lanes open) other than "I need to transport tanks across this blue stuff because I want to knock off a neighbor"

I can think of alot of good additions to this idea: you can increase/decrease the amount of taxes on imports/exports, over time you brand of "wine" becomes the quality brand so you are paid more for it (like comparative advantage).

Will they do it, the eight ball says "definitely not". But, I think it's an interesting concept and certainly one that could be done and integrated into the game.

Some great ideas.

I'd like to mention a thread I started while wondering whether the minimum hardware limitations essentially eliminate the possibility that the types of additions described above ae even possible.

Hardware requirement

I only got 1 or 2 two cogent replies.

For those that are kind enough to have a look, "Its not about map sizes"

[asleepathewheel]

Ugh, no to caravans

why?
In civ2 they made it too easy to steal great wonders from the AI at the last moment

Until an AI can be programmed to take advantage of cheap tactics like that, I think they should be left out

also people complain(ed) about tedium in civ3, to me, the caravan system was the ultimate source of tedium in civ2. setting up trade networks one by one. ugh. how boring