3 Trade routes to one city

[ramses II.]

I usually have three trade routes to one city - normally the biggest one. The first routes will go to one of my own cities, later in the game all my trade routes will go to one (ond only one) AI city.
My question to the Apolyton traders, hawkers and peddlars:
Is it better to have the trade routes to different cities?
What happens if such a city is destroyed? Will the program insert an older trade route? Or will these trade routes disappear?

[Scouse Gits]

IIRC they disappear

SG[1]

[Thoddy]

1) SG [1] is correct
2) Hinsichtlich Handelsrouten werden immer die Handelsrouten mit dem höchstmöglichen Ertrag seitens civ gewählt.
Für den Fall das diese Handelsrouten aus irgendeinem Grund gestört werden, überprüft das Programm ob irgendwelche anderen Stadte weitere Routen mit der betroffenen Stadt haben und ersetzt diese gestörte Linie automatisch durch Routen die mehr Pfeile bringen.


Sorry but I wasnt able to translate this into english.

[Scouse Gits]

Thank you Systrans (at bottom of page)...

Originally posted by Thoddy
Regarding commercial routes the commercial routes with the highest possible yield are always selected on the part of civ. For the case these commercial routes for any reason to be disturbed, the program examines whether any other Stadte further routes with the city concerned to have and replaces this disturbed line by routes more arrows to bring automatically.

SG[1]

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Thank you Systrans (at bottom of page)...

Originally posted by Thoddy
Regarding commercial routes the commercial routes with the highest possible yield are always selected on the part of civ. For the case these commercial routes for any reason to be disturbed, the program examines whether any other Stadte further routes with the city concerned to have and replaces this disturbed line by routes more arrows to bring automatically.

SG[1]

Oh, thank you SG, now everything is clear!

I think I prefer the german version...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Can you imagine how many wars would have been averted if such a translater had been available through the course of history? Diplomats would be ROFL...

Obviously the idea is to set up all your routes with one foreign city, so that you don't help the enemy with more than 3 ongoing trade arrows.

So, all other things being equal, should that city be in your Key Civ?

[Caesar the Great]

oftentimes it is far more valuable to send a caravan to a city than a catapult

oftentimes i am wrong

[War4ever]

always send to a peace full ai civ, egypt, or babs etc....and keep them around all game as you send your bucket of botz to the moon....

i never trade with enemy cities i plan to conquer....well not never, but i like to trade with someone that will be around

brings up an interesting strat though, if you were to raze the city with the trade routes, would your cap bring three more commodities for trading...?

allows more initial bonuses as well as setting up new long term bonuses...i wonder if the trade off is worth it /

[Scouse Gits]

... might be if you had the vans ready to instantly create replacement routes - but that would need van rehoming or something - so the delay would seem inevitable and probably kill you...

Dunno

SG[1]

[rah]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
... might be if you had the vans ready to instantly create replacement routes - but that would need van rehoming or something - so the delay would seem inevitable and probably kill you...

Dunno

SG[1]

It doesn't require rehoming at all. Example (three cities send caravans to your cap. Your cap still has commodities to supply. That and the changes that occur when certain sizes are hit would make it easy to have to have caravans from that city ready or from others to deliver to it.

[War4ever]

i just thought it was an interesting idea......

[Elephant]

For OCC, setting up routes and then wiping the destination city in order to free up more caravans would lead to several turns without the extra trade arrows, seriously harming research. I like to spread out deliveries early on as I am exploring and building relationships with other civs, then investigate which pays best and replace weaker routes with better routes, centralizing to single city if possible. My favorites: Dehli if I'm Supreme (Indians are Rational Perfectionists) or Rome if I'm going OCC...

[War4ever]

yes i wouldn't use this tactic in OCC, i was thinking more for regular games....as a rule i just look for the biggest, friendliest city of the civ i plan to keep around for the entire game and deliver there..unless something else piques my curiousity

[rah]

It really doesn't matter in regular games.
By the time you're ready to destroy that juicy AI city that you've been trading with, you're already in steamroller mode and nothing any AI is going to do will stop the inevitable. This is where I usually make my mistake. I still keep taking the time to develop infrastructure, and it's OVERKILL. Just produce the units and methodically reduce the AI to slag. I've got to remind myself not to waste time in this final phase. And to make it worse, I always find I have about 100 extra attack units than I needed to finish them off. What a time waste.

RAH

[Scouse Gits]

...well I think I would rather have too many units than too few. It can be difficult estimating the correct force for a successful campaign. As Sun Tzu said "Only attack when victory is certain"

-------------------

SG(2)