Trade is *not* essential!

[DaveV]

I finally snapped after reading one too many "you have to set up trade routes to win" posts. Not so! It's easy to beat the AI with many different strategies, but I've also won MP games without establishing a single trade route. We are doing a disservice to people seeking "wisdom from the experts" by herding them down the trade path.

I don't disagree that trade routes will pay off over time. But profitable trade routes require cities with lots of trade arrows. This means a medium to large city, which will require lots of improvements and infrastructure to support. Let's say you have a temple, marketplace, library, and three trade routes in your typical city. That's 350 shields! If your neighbor is building 7 dragoons with those shields, how long can your super trade city hold out? Your neighbor's other alternative is to build a ship and 10 diplomats and sabotage all those improvements, pillage your irrigation and roads, and steal all those techs you've researched.

I started playing without trade routes a long time ago because I hate the trade interface. Eventually, I discovered I could win the game faster by building military units, diplos, and settlers instead of caravans.

Disclaimer: I have little experience with 2x production. Maybe trade routes are more valuable there, but I think most people in this forum are playing single-player against the AI.

[kcbob]

I'm probably in the middle of the to-trade or not-to-trade issue. Here are a few thoughts on this topic.

"It's easy to beat the AI"

This dependos on what level are you playing and what version of the game you have. If you're playing Deity/raging hordes and have MGE as I do, "easy to beat the AI" is the last way I would describe the game.

"you have a temple, marketplace, library, and three trade routes in your typical city. That's 350 shields! If your neighbor is building 7 dragoons with those shields"

The jump from initial improvements such as temple, etc. to dragoons is a huge one. By the time your neighbor is building dragoons, I'd hope you've picked up enough technology to have more than a warrior or phalanx with which to defend your city. And if your opponent is building 10 diplos, he's not doing much else, is he?

"I hate the trade interface"

Why? It's not that bad is it?

Now, having said all that, let me put on my devil's advocate costume.

I primarily play OCC these days. (That might be another factor to consider) I build my first three trade routes as soon as I can and then forego trade routes for awhile. Again, with MGE, I can't afford to ignore defense.

BTW. Back to pro-trade-route. To say that you have to build trade routes in medium to large cities is not quite correct. True, you'll miss out on the initial large bonus if you send out from a small city. And the per turn benefit is INITIALLY small. But, the per turn bonus grows throughout the game. Why not send one early, sit back, and reap in game long benefits?

Bottom line, it's all based on personal preference, style of play, and version of the game. If you don't want to trade, more power to you. But trade routes DO help.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[SCG]

very true DaveV. there isn't any one single aspect of the game that is essential to winning. As i pointed out in one of the "high score" threads, I was quite surprised to see that the #4 diety score had a grand total of 3 trade routes established, and not one science wonder in any of the cities with routes. This forum is filled with examples of people winning without "essential" game elements, including several people who have won without ever having even owned a city (kind of goes without saying no trade routes there ) The whole reason for that is the ineptitude of the AI in so many situations.

That being said, I find trade to be the one factor that most greatly simplified the game for me. Trade affects so many other aspects of the game that understanding it will help you more than any other 'single' aspect. You don't have to use it, and you certainly can win without it, but it _is_ a powerful part of the game.

------------------
April Cantor: Sire, in order to expand further we must first gain favor of the King

SCG: darn, I've never really got the hang of that tribute thing, guess it will be a long time until i make prince

*goes off and starts gifting gold and techs*

[Tom DeMille]

I agree with DaveV that the interface is a pain. I hate having to look at the demand list and figuring out what city to send a caravan to, only to have the city's demand change just befor emy caravan's arrival.

If I were to play an ICS conquest game, I doubt very much I would ever bother forming a trade route.

Trade is pretty useful for spaceship games though, especially OCC .

[Ming]

Against the AI, nothing really matters.
Granted, many would consider Deity with raging hordes difficult, but for many of us that have been playing the game for years, the AI is just not a worthy opponent at any settings... (OCC proves that point )

However, in MP, trade is essential unless the game ends quickly. I hope my enemy is building dragoons while I'm building caravans. His dragoons will die against my defense, while my caravans will be helping me research the weapons needed to blow him off the face of the earth, or help me launch a space ship.

Trade routes offer way too many advantages... continued source of revenue and science, instant cash, and the ability to sustain WLYD's. With equal level of skill, trade routes will make the difference.
[This message has been edited by Ming (edited August 15, 2000).]

[DaveV]

kcbob - I hate the trade interface because it seems like I'm always clicking through the menus for supply and demand. To optimize trading, you really need to know, for *every* city you'd consider trading with:

* number of trade arrows
* commodities demanded
* commodities supplied
- distance to each of your cities
(edit: * caravans being delivered to that city)

The parameters marked with a "*" change dynamically, so any list would have to be continually updated. This is the kind of bookkeeping the computer should do for you. The rest of the game is so well designed, it's painful to me to have to negotiate such a clunky system, that has the look of a hastily-implemented afterthought.

As to the AI's capabilities, all you have to do is play a little multiplayer to realize how inept the AI is. When I play deity/raging, I worry a little about the barbarians and not at all about the AI civs.

Finally, I stand corrected on my seven dragoons statement. Substitute seven (edit: eight and three quarters) Crusaders, and I'll still lay my money on the attacker.
[This message has been edited by DaveV (edited August 15, 2000).]

[Ming]

Being a person who just LOVES VET CRUSADERS, I hear you. Against somebody who isn't well defended, vet crusaders will just blow them away. But a question? Why can't you do both?
Now granted, the trade system does suck. I find myself with a pad of paper in front of me so I can keep track of where caravans are supposed to be going so I don't slow down MP games by constantly looking them up again... but the value of trade routes is just too good to pass up when you are playing with people of equal level

[Carolus Rex]

I think it really depends on the type of game you're playing. No kidding!!!

In my games with DaveV trade has played a infinitely small role in his strategy. I've not adjusted to the ICSing and have literally been outnumbered and more importantly (for this thread) outscienced...

Now, this have mostly been small map duels and they are IMHO biased in favour of non-trade strategies. Who to trade with in a duel? Horses are out fast and it's not like you have plenty of time to set up multiple continents trade between your own cities. These games are supposed to end fast! And they usually do...

Even so I'm certain that more skilled players than me would fare better than I have done in my encounters with a "shields first"-strategy.

But in games on larger maps things are different. I'm currently in another game where there has been no fighting at all. Instead there has been a tacit agreement to get first to AC.

This of course does not mean we have agreed on no wars, the game has just developed that way. I could easily ( ) have attacked my neighbours succesfully (and I certainly will if one of them launch first ), it's just that all players concentrated on the space race. In this game trade has been important.

In another (uncompleted) game with Oedo and Dave, I believe the "shields first"-strategy has been the least successful (possibly due to barb problems initially). In this game trade could easily have become important if we all started focusing on a space race.

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited August 15, 2000).]

[Caesar]

Trade routes are incredibly valuable. For all the reasons mentioned before, instant cash/research long term trade bonus etc. But it also depends on your style of play. If you rarely play by building caravans and you are relatively successful, there is really no need to add the complication of caravans into your style of play. But if your play is lacking then correct use of caravans can be a noticable improvement.

Not to mention caravans are great for building wonders up fast...

[debeest]

Well, I'm not one of the strong players on this forum, and I have never done multiplayer, but I've wiped out the AI in my last five deity SP games, and I almost never establish a trade route. Caravans are important -- for building wonders. Trade is important -- but for me at least, most of it comes from cities, not from trade routes. I think DaveV is right. This forum has given me a better appreciation of trade, but I think a lot of people go overboard. Trade routes are one way to go, but those same shields will pay off if spent in many other ways too.

[jpk]

As SCG and Ming point out, against the AI trade is not essential to winning. If the goal is to win at the earliest possible date, trade may even be detremental. Personally I like to build lots of big cities. If it means that a game will take more turns so be it. One thing I like to do is see how early in the game I can have all the top five cities. This has absolutely nothing to do with conquering the world or going to Alpha Centuri.

If someone is building a temple, a marketplace, a library, and three trade routes then the trade routes will have brought in money so that units and other improvements can be purchased. My experience is that by the time the AI civilizations get dragoons, I've got veteran riflemen or mechanized infantry behind city walls. If I have not had to fight early wars I may even have stealth fighters. Dragoons, even veteran dragoons, do not fair well in this situation. The nature of most games is that once the AI starts attacking the AI keeps on attacking in the same way. Build mobile unit of some type and scout the surroundings every turn. The dragoons will rarely get near the city.

The main benefit of trade is that it gives the player a sufficient technological lead so that most AI attacks can be shrugged off. Furthermore the technological lead means the player loses fewer units in battle. The benefit is that the player does not have to move the units in massive armies or navies. Of course some people enjoy that aspect of the game. It is just not my preference.

I agree with your statement about the trade interface. There is way to much fiddling to get the necessary information. At least this is the case on the Macintosh version.

I haven't kept up on these things but at least at one time DaveV had the record for conquering the world at the earliest date. People who are interested in war, war, war rather than trade, trade, trade would do well to read his posts.

[Kitana]

I don't consider myself an expert, I will say that from the start. I have trouble winning past Emperor. But have learned that carvans and freight play a pretty big role as the game enters the Renaissance/Industrial age, especially if you are playing a Democracy. Those extra trade arrows make more happy people and you can enjoy a good rate of growth if you say have your luxuries at 60%, science and tax at 20%. All the We Love the ______ Days greatly increase your population who you can turn into scientists and up your science output to about 150-200 beakers per city. Now this is just my opinion, and it works well for me and I think at this point of the game you need to boost your science to get a good lead over the AI.

In the early game I pick a city or two and just make food caravans (and improvements/units to keep my people happy) and don't let the city grow past 8. All of these caravans make building key wonders A LOT easier.

------------------
Kitana
Shogun of the Japanese

[Scouse Gits]

Dave V - I'm glad you started this thread, as you saved me the job! However, my point of view differs from your argument.

All my comments relate to single player, 2.42/hordes/Deity, playing on a large world with varying degrees of water/land. Conquest is the object - not AC.

I have found my best games are what I call a "Naval-Trade-Sleaze" with a Super Trade City - NOT a science city.

The method of initial ICS is one I pinched from you! Everything to start with is valued in "settlers", with the emphasis on production when the cities reach two citizens. The HG is the first wonder to control happiness. The difference is I expand my capital and buy city improvements there - but few, if any, elsewhere. The Colossus is the next wonder in the capital, then Marco Polo's Embassy.

The tech focus is nothing extraordinary. Monarchy, Democracy, Navigation Feudalism. The next wonders are SoL, Magellan's, Sun Tzu and Leo's, though it depends on the game in which order they arrive. Steam engine and gunpowder are the next goals.

All trade caravans are re-homed to a celebrating capital and then despatched with the greatest possible bonus attached. The capital's size is increased by food caravans. MPE is vital in knowing about the geography of the world from an early stage. Just as important is the identification of a suitable trading partner in early Republic and a backward civ for early conquest.

After SoL the government is Fundamentalist, with a science rate of 10%, if no scientist is available to contribute a token beaker. Luxuries are set to the rate where the capital keeps celebrating. The surplus money each turn goes into rush buying caravans or bribing.

When the flow of caravans is in full swing, techs come at one a turn. Generally, the home continent keeps up caravan production and the newly conquered lands build the ironclads and troops.

Now in this context trade is important! Though I must agree with some of your comments about tiny cities gaining negligible gold and science for 50 shields a time!

Yes, I agree the trade interface is abysmal, but after time it improves if you only set your sights on the commodity demands of one civ.

Using the above method, my best date for conquest is 1670. Does that compare favourably with your non-trade approach?

------------------------
SG (2)

[Carolus Rex]

debeest,

Good points!

jpk,

I think that DaveV (correct me if I'm wrong on this one) favours shields over arrows because in the end it gives you the technological lead! By growing cities ASAP to size two and then max shields you crank out settlers. Each new settler means two new squares being worked as opposed to a pop increase from two to three.

This is a respectable argument in favour of "shields first", but IMHO this is only important in the beginning of the game. As the needed amount of beakers go up a contribution of two new squares must be only marginal.

Problem is, how to endure the early game and when do caravans' bonuses pay off in terms of filling the box instead of using the shields for new settlers?

Carolus

[Carolus Rex]

BTW, finally a thread where (like in the old days) new posts get in between reading it and posting in it!

And contrary to an upcoming column by yours truly, too!

Carolus