Caravans are too powerfull

[Mercantile]

Yes i think so, and here's why.

1 The initial trade bonus. Sure early trade bonuses are not too huge, but every bit of gold counts in the early game. Mid game, these bonuses increase exponentially. By the late stages, on large maps the money is ludicrous especially with perfecitonist civs on a different continent.

2 The one time science bonus. Ok here is where i have a problem. Why give a science bonus? Is this really necessary. First you fill my coffers with gold coins, now you want to give me a science bonus equivelant to the amount of gold i received, come on now.

IMO , trade routes should have an initial gold bonus, and then an amount that carries over each turn like it does already in civ when you establish a trade route.

However, the one time science payout is by far the single easiest way to research techs, thus making it way too easy to surpass a cheating ai in the conquest of AC.

Now i am sure many of you will come to the defense of the science payout with arguements like trade increses spending , thus increasing development, thus incresing technology/science growth etc.

Maybe that is a realistic way to look at it, i am not fully convinced (this is your job now people) but i still think for civ, it makes the game too easy to win.

*runs off stage to chorus of boos and rotten fruit*

[Ming]

Throws rotten fruit...

"trade increses spending , thus increasing development, thus incresing technology/science growth"

Enough said...

But think about this. When you build caravans, you aren't building something else... other city improvements, and army/navy... you should get some value for your efforts

Plus, considering that the caravan may never make it to it's intended city, and all the shields will be wasted...

Continues Booing

[Mercantile]

wipes peaches off face

The other thing i forgot was caravan disbanding. This makes them even more powerfull. How is a food caravan going to help me build an wonder other than the pyramids even then, the food is not made out of stone. The caravans should allow for 25shields not 50, or whatever the disband equivilent would be in regards to the other units.

Granted there have been many games when i wish one caravan would build me than needed wonder before the rest of the heathens beat me to it but thats my poor leadership not the games fault

Go easy on the fruit guys, it hurts

[Dissident Aggressor]

a few howitzers take care of perfectionist civs. case closed!

[Mercantile]

uh DA how does this have anything to do with caravans?
You dont need howies to take out ai civs, at least i don't.

[drake]

Sorry Merc.......

throws rotten egg.....

Every player has the same exact opportunities and therefore has no excuse if someone takes advantage of trade and they do not. If you're playing the ai.....when has being fair taken any consideration? They sure don't know the first thing about being "fair"!

My civ was considering building a golden calf idol to worship, but I think they changed their mind to worship a golden camel instead.

[Mercantile]

Egg doesn't come off my Armani you know

Seriously though, you don't think its a bit much having the science added to your tech rate? Am i the only one who feels caravancs are too powerfull.

I love to build them, don't get me wrong, i just think they are a bit over the top

[Dissident Aggressor]

my point is which will win in a battle of a howitzer (or substitute any offensiv unit here) and a caravan. The fact is warmongers have the advantage in civ. Perhaps one reason I don't play MGE- the other being I don't own MGE . And yes even the sorry AI can build them, so I fail to see the significance. So I suppose they added the science bonus to help offset the advantage of warmonging nations.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 15, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

DA caravans comeout way before howies. Its not a peacefull vs warmonger issue. The fact remains that caravans IMO are too powerfull. Howies are not.

[Ming]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 11-15-2000 08:19 PM The fact remains that caravans IMO are too powerfull. Howies are not.

If it gets to howies... I'll settle for the howies

[Dissident Aggressor]

no I meant any offensive unit- howies were just an example. It is possible to take over the world using knights. It's not something I do, but many people here do. What good are your caravans if somebody is rushing you with 30 knights combined with dips?

[Scouse Gits]

Early caravans delivered on the same continent yield very little. Most good windfalls in the BC years are the 150's from Barb Kings. Now you might want to argue this guy's ransom is too much ........
--------------
SG (2)

[East Street Trader]

Truth tellers often get pelted (sometimes incinerated too) so we'll just have to go on lobbing the fruit, Merc.

That your point is unarguably right can be demonstarted up and down the threads of Apolyton. "When you've built one caravan, build another"; "And when you've built enough, build more"; "When you have no compelling reason to build anything else - (you've guessed it) build a caravan"; "Long live the camel"; "The camel rules, OK".

Having said all that, I feel a challenge coming on - a simple one. Win the game (blood lust or AC) without ever building a caravan or freight. Now that would certainly drive me to have to invent some new ideas.

[DaveV]

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 11-16-2000 08:26 AM ...I feel a challenge coming on - a simple one. Win the game (blood lust or AC) without ever building a caravan or freight.

Not too tough, especially using several of Xin Yu's size 5 cities to generate science. I hardly ever establish trade routes in a conquest game, and I'm sure I could crank out the wonders I really need by disbanding units if necessary.

A good argument against the caravan being too powerful is that people can win without using and abusing them. Exploiting trade routes takes a good deal of preparation and development. If you're a republic or democracy with large, developed cities, you're vulnerable to improvement sabotage, pillaging, shield and arrow squatting, caravan interception, and a host of other annoying stunts. Not to mention outright military attack against your large (but maybe poorly defended) cities.

[Campo]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 11-15-2000 03:54 PM 2 The one time science bonus. Ok here is where i have a problem. Why give a science bonus?

Not that I'm pretending that Civ is an accurate reflection of the real world, but there is a legitimate historical precedent for this.

Early traders were motivated mostly by profit. But it's also true that they learned a lot by being exposed to different cultures. They not only brought back goods, but they also learned methods of making those goods, and they picked up new ideas as well simply by dealing with another group of people.

Trading goods helped disperse both goods and knowledge. I see this as the rational basis for the science bonus.