Should civ attitudes affect trade?

[phunny pharmer]

In Civ2, you only generated a certain amount of arrows from trade. These were based solely on the sizes of the city, and/or whether the city was a member of another empire.

Should the attitude of a civ affect civ3 trade? Should civs that are 'worshipful' generate more trade per turn then civs that have 'icy' relations? Or would this make trade fluxuate too much?

[Franklin]

How about trade embargos? If you don't do this or that, you could refuse to trade!

[Napoleon I]

Phunny Pharmer:

You've really hit a good point there. Actually, I think that you should be able to go even further and state that amount of trade could have an effect on the relations, between nations.

I am currently developing a model for trading in Civ3 that I'll post in a little bit.

------------------
Napoleon I

[Napoleon I]

Well here is the trade system that I promised. If anybody has the patience to read it and give me some feedback I really will appreciate it. Here goes:

A. Background

1. The resource system of Civ2 will be kept. These resources would change as the game progresses, i.e. salt and hides will be replaced by iron and spices which will be replaced by oil and uranium, for example.

B. Interior trade mechanism

2. Each city will have a certain number of these resources. The resources would be assigned on an adjusted random basis that would take into consideration the terrain types surrounding the city. For example, a city that has plains with game next to it would have a much higher chance of getting hides as one of the resources than a city standing on a shore.

3. Trade will exist between each city that does not have identical resources and the amount of trade will depend on the number of different resources that each city has. For example, if two cities have two resources that are the same and one that is different, they will each have two additional trade arrows, while if two cities each has three different resources they would each get six additional trade arrows. This trade would also depend on the city size, that is the amount of trade will rise with the population and with building of certain improvements such as the marketplace or the stock exchange. This trade will be handled automatically.

C. International Trade Mechanism

4. Trade will also exist with any other civilization that you have established diplomatic relations with. This trade will be conducted on a civ to civ basis, and its size will depend on the size of the civ and on the number of economic improvements (marketplace, bank, etc.) that each civ has. This trade will also contain a certain scientific bonus that will depend on the number of scientific improvements (library, university, etc.) and on the number of scientists that the other civ has. For example, if you are trading with a civ that has much more libraries than you do, you will get a greater science bonus than they will. This would even the game out somewhat because it would make civs closer in scientific development. This trade would also be handled automatically.

D. Trade Modifiers

5. Caravans will be able to enhance the automatic trade described above. If a caravan from one of your cities establishes a trade route to one of your cities trade between these cities would be increased. If you send a caravan to another civ you will get a one-time bonus and trade between your two civs will increase.

6. Governments will also influence trade. In domestic trade, governments will simply increase the number of trade arrows that each city generates. In international trade however, government will have two effects. First of all, trade between civs that possess similar governments will be greater than between civs with different governments. For example, a democracy will have the greatest amount of trade with another democracy, less trade with republic, even less with communism, then trade would decrease through monarchy, despotism, and fundamentalism respectively. The second effect of government on international trade would be that trade between governments would slowly improve the relations between the two civs. The greater the amount of trade, the more rapid improvement. This would represent the fact that if you have a massive amount of trade with somebody, you would want to insult them and risk losing the profits.

7. The last modifier to the trade system will be the attitudes of the people involved. For the simplicity of the concept this will only be applied to internal trade. If the people in a certain city are happier than in most they will generate an increased amount of trade with all of the cities that they are trading with. This would simulate increased productivity of the people that are happy in their jobs and would like to support their government.


Whew, that was a lot of typing. Well, tell me what you think of that. Any ideas are apreciated, really .


------------------
Napoleon I

[Evil Capitalist]

Trade doesn't neccessarily improve relationships- look at the EU. Britain and France are still pretty hostile, eg the beef ban despite what the comission says. Also Britain was America's only trading partner (due to legislation) and it didn't keep them loyal.

There would also need to be some way of implementing protectionist policies, and of ejecting foreign traders, perhaps sparking a war.

[OrangeSfwr]

If trade becomes more important, I suggest being able to expel caravans much the same way you can expel a spy or diplomat. This way, you can get the caravan off of your land without assaulting it and starting a war.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
- "Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
- "When man first discovered that milk comes from a cow, what did he THINK he was doing?"
- Women's breasts are like Toys: They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playin' with them.
- Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect...why practice?
- "Oh well oh well so here we stand, but we stand for nothing"
- Webmaster of Apolyton Picture Contest IV
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited July 20, 2000).]

[Grier]

quote: Originally posted by Evil Capitalist on 07-20-2000 02:43 AM Trade doesn't neccessarily improve relationships- look at the EU. Britain and France are still pretty hostile, eg the beef ban despite what the comission says. Also Britain was America's only trading partner (due to legislation) and it didn't keep them loyal.

The thing is that trading certainly doesnt harm relationships (unless one side rips off the other) but in general increases cooperation between the civs and in order to broker new trade deals you have to be nice to them, the net effect is that they like you a bit more (or at least pretend to in order to maintain the trade flow). Notice that despite America declaring its independence the level of trade has only grown since that time.

[UltraSonix]

I'm sorry for posting without reading the whole thread like I usually do, but I'm pressed for time and won't be back for a while .

*Like people in other threads keep saying, the caravan unit shold be taken away and replaced by a command creen, so that the computer can better manage the game, and also the reduce micromanagement.

*Also, I think trade wars should somehow be implemented, and have to ability to cripple civs.

*A civ shold also be able to prosper on trade - ie income (and income types) from trade should be significantly increased.

*And like I've said before, civs trading should also generate light-bulbs.

*Finally, the happiness of your civ should definitely affect revenues. After all, if the people are dissatisfied, then they won't buy anything, so how can trade exist?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[gemini]

Ya, Trade is very important, I think especially at the later part of the game. But one critical feature that would be needed in my opinion is the ability to have your trading partners stop trade with certain civs, like your enemies.

------------------
Gemini

[UltraSonix]

Which really is trade wars, once again.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[phunny pharmer]

How do you plan to fight a trade war, UltraSonix? Sounds like a cool idea, though!

[UltraSonix]

Like I said above:

quote: *A civ shold also be able to prosper on trade - ie income (and income types) from trade should be significantly increased. *And like I've said before, civs trading should also generate light-bulbs.

and also in other places, I've said think trading should be made so that a civ with the right SE settings can simply live off well trading with everyone. Trade wars would be when a disgruntled trading partner chooses to stop part/all of the trading, so that the civ that lives off trading would be crippled.
In other words, trading sohould be made important enough so that stopping it would be result in sever problems (ie trade wars).

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Tiberius]

Evil Capitalist
France and Brittain aren't hostile. They are not as worshipful to each other like Britain and US for ex, but they are allies though. Don't judge the relationships based on a dispute or two: look the whole picture.

Trade for sure improves relationships between nations, for two reasons: first, trading means also communication, which leads to better understanding and cultural approaches between the two nation. The second reason is that traders / bussiness men always had a substantial influence on politicians, and trade benefits far less from war than from peace.

Some could bring up counterexamples, I'm sure. But to make a RULE in Civ, we need to use general facts, not singularities. We must use a model, and I think that trade influenced by relationships and relationships influenced by trade is a good idea, which could lead to a good model.

I have some suggestions for that model, but I need some time to make them right. I'll come back later.

BTW, I'm for trade wars (trade embargos, request to your allies/partners to stop trade with an enemy), all this alongside with a more important role of trade in Civ3.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: trade benefits far less from war than from peace.

There are lots of historical example against, especially in the 18th century. Businessmen don't lose out from large orders for firearms, munitions, uniforms, rations etc. The Napoleonic war greatly sped up the Industrial revolution. What does hurt business is modern war.
[This message has been edited by Evil Capitalist (edited July 24, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

quote: If trade becomes more important, I suggest being able to expel caravans much the same way you can expel a spy or diplomat. This way, you can get the caravan off of your land without assaulting it and starting a war.

I suggest to do this a little different. Civs should have a trade agreement in order to exchange goods and send caravans. If you don't have a trade treaty with a certain nation, you wouldn't be able to send caravans there, or maybe you could but with huge penalties or risks; if they attack your caravans it wouldn't be considered act of war ("Hey, we didn't attack your caravans, some barbarian thiefs did!" )

If UN declare a trade embargo on a certain country, we should be able to send caravans there, with huge profits, but if get caught then suffer reputation losses (like in Civ2 when stealing advances or poison water supply or planting nuclear device).

Please don't kill the caravans, they are usefull! Drawing instead some trade-lines across the map is just boring!