To caravan, or...

[Cyclotron]

...something else?

I would have asked this in the latest resource thread, but it is going on four pages and so I thought I'd start a fresh new one.

With new screenshots and reports on the trade system, our vision of "the caravan question" in Civ3 is getting a bit more focused. But since we have not come down to it yet, and since I am a sucker for hearing other people's opinions, let's have at it!

There are actually more choices than just caravan/no caravan. Observe:

Unit: The Civ1&2 style of trading, using a fully mobile unit that only forms a trade route when it reaches another city.
Features: You have more physical control over the caravans, which in turn allows your enemies more control. In other words, with a unit system your enemy can prevent a trade route from ever occuring by blocking your caravan. The downside is that there is a potentially long wait until your route is established, causing some people frustration and slightly discouraging trade.

Improvement (sort of): The CTP style of trading. The CTP caravans still require shields, but are build in the city and remain as abstractions past that point.
Features: Caravans cannot be waylayed by enemies, but you can still be proactive and stop enemy trade from happening by disrupting or occupying the production of enemy cities. This version eliminates downtime apart from building the unit.

Abstraction: A theory, so far. There would be NO caravan unit or improvement, but instead your cities would trade automatically when they worked that good.
Features: Suprisingly, Civ3 seems to be leaning here. The idea of goods automatically travelling to other cities has been mentioned, so this could be the method of choice. The possible downside is that you have less personal control (some like that, some don't) and it is impossible to stop routes before they happen short of taking the enemy goods (and thus the cities) yourself.

Me? I like the improvement idea. What about you?

And as a footnote, I happen to like the "flying squid" graphical representation of trade routes in CTP. Why do some people not?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

I like the abstraction idea, its simple, in Civ trade was always annoying, this way it gets done and penalizes civs that don't build infrastructure, an anit-ICS strategy and more realistic Civing, without making it less fun.

I think its already been established that caravans aren't returning. The preview in CGW says trade occurs between cities connected by roads or harbors, so infrastructure is important to trade, not caravans.

A city with a special resource in its borders then trades it with all cities with whom its connected by road or harbor. Again no caravans, I'm real happy about that.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 25, 2001).]

[Stuff2]

I think it's a pain in the ass moving around hordes of units, especially non-combat ones. Still, the most important in my opinion about trade is that you can control it through embargos, blockades and tariffs.

I'd like to see 'non specified' trade routes. Trade routes between cities (or provinces). Between these two places any kind of goods can be traded. Maybe a city can have about three or four traderoutes (unless it's a capital it should contain a few more possible traderoutes). Maybe some improvements could increase the number of possible traderoutes. These traderoutes will eventually appear of it's own if you don't bother yourself with it. But the option to prevent or establish new traderoutes bye the government should be included no matter type of system.

Improvements for increasing trade: (just suggestions)

- Palace (capital city usually get to be trade center)
- Market place (no need for explanation)
- Bank
- Seaport
- Airport

[Lord_Davinator]

ya I think you got a point there Stuff2. Initially the capital only should have the ability to trade... the other cities need a marketplace... and the city improvements improve the trade.

I think the automatic one will be the best...its kinda boring making caravans and moving them all over the world.

[belusa]

I also like the abstraction idea better, so all your cities can profit from the goods and you don't have to bother about making trade routes yourself. You have a good idea there Stuff2, increase the number of trade routes with some improvements ... I like it!

[Father Beast]

Excuse me, but doesn't the trade system in Alpha Centauri count as an abstraction?

you agree to trade with another civ, and trade is automatically set up. at least that's how it was when I played it. kind of like in Master Of Orion.

I'm afraid I wasn't impressed. it seemed boring and out of my control. I haven't played CTP, but this improvement (sort of) system seems the best compromise, if I can control where they go. it would really bother me to build a caravan and spend 50 years moving it to where it's going, only to have it wiped by a wandering unit 2 moves before its destination. and after it gets there, to be innvulnerable. weird.

[Father Beast]

Hey! Where's matthew the camel master? I thought he would make some comment.

[samurai]

I think that the trade should be something that you personally do in one way or another, like in CTP you had to build them, and establish them.
It should take rescources to build them, so if you want to trade, you cannot build an army instead.

Another great feature about the trade system in CTP was that you had to build cities nearby the rescources, and the more rescources of the same kind made the income of trade bigger. And if you built marketplaces, banks etc it makes the income even bigger.
This way I always placed some cities fare from the "main trading city" to gain the extra gold. This cities bacame the outscirts of my empire.

[N35t0r]

I would like to be able to create new routes...

What would have been interestng in Civ 2 would have been to be able to give the trading flag to a ship and it working...

[Cyclotron]

Father Beast: In CTP you could control the destination of each route.

The reason I like the imporovement idea is because it makes it easier to trade, but still leaves you some control... a good compromise, IMO.

Features like monopolies come into play with improvements, where every city would be such in a global abstraction system. In addition, an improvement based system would allow you to be at least somewhat proactive against enemy trade, giving more strategic possibilities to conduct trade. And finally, with an abstraction you need no production at all... and I think some production should be spent to build a trade infastructure, rather than one popping up for you.

I like the variety of ideas here... any supporters of caravans?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Mokael]

I personally like the third option. Probably the only thing that annoyed me in Civs is, as somebody already mentioned, hordes of non-combatant units that you had to move around. mannualy.

CTP systems kinda blows to -- if you manage your eceonomy right, spending time on finding the best trade route (or who's the idiot that pirates it) is not worth your time.


Trade should be automatic, dictated by supply of resources and demand for goods.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Heres my model.

Your city needs a Marketplace in order to start trade routs. It also needs by land, a road or rail connection. By sea, a seaport/harbor improvement or tile improvement. To export, there are people call merchants who visit your town. They start coming as soon as you have a marketplace. You give them the goods you want to export, a sum of money, and they go deliver the goods to the city you want them to. But the city has to be connected by road or rail or have a seaport/harbor and amarketplace. Theres always a chance that they will not make it. The further the distance, the bigger the chance, the bigger the benefits when you succesfully establish a trade rout. You dont have to know exactly where the city that your trading is on the map (ie. you dont have to discover it) This simulates that the merchants know the whole world. Merchants arent a unit.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now
[This message has been edited by Lawrence of Arabia (edited April 25, 2001).]

[Gammaray fan]

I think we are all agreed that the Civ1+2 style caravan system is out.
That leaves the CTP style system - which I personally liked, and the abstract system. Since we don't need another CTP, or another CIV2, CIV3 should go for an untried system - the abstract system. However, the challenge and the fun of civ comes from personally managing your empire, whether it be building military units or anything else. Trade should be part of the challenge even in an abstract system. The reason why trade was neglected in previous civ games, was because 1. it was pretty inconsequencial, and 2. there was no fun challenge
Thus the abstract system should address these two points...
1. make the gold from trade significant, so that cities MUST trade if they are to become a major power. (FIRAXIS decision to make military units supported by gold addresses the other significance problem, namely that gold is useless because they are only needed for the upkeep of buildings)
2. Make trade one of the ongoing challenges throughout the game. Since moving caravans is a VERY boring challenge, we need a new one. The challenge should come from building roads to link your empire and other empires, buildings railroads to link all your cities and to other civs cities, building marketplaces, banks, harbour's, and airports, and finally by use of a 'trade rate' (like tax rate, science rate, and luxury rate)which determines the amount of money you devote to encouraging trade in your empire. Thus this creates a new challenge in the game - building infrastructure, which would be an alternative to the 'science rush' or the 'military rush'. This would create an entirely new breed of civ player, not simply militarist or scientist, but trader! Furthermore, to emphasise this new third element in the game, there should be a victory condition linked with trade...

[Ecthy]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-25-2001 12:29 AM Abstraction: A theory, so far. There would be NO caravan unit or improvement, but instead your cities would trade automatically when they worked that good. Features: Suprisingly, Civ3 seems to be leaning here. The idea of goods automatically travelling to other cities has been mentioned, so this could be the method of choice. The possible downside is that you have less personal control (some like that, some don't) and it is impossible to stop routes before they happen short of taking the enemy goods (and thus the cities) yourself.

I liked this idea the most, although the improvement one is also nice... but then, we have to consider that we want to build improvements without disturbing our circles for trade... trade coming on its own (abstraction), that's actually a very nice idea!

[Cyclotron]

About routes:

The second big query I have is about the graphical representation of routes. The aim of route graphics is to make a route easily acessed, but not "in the way" graphically.

City Screen routes: Civ2 style. Routes are not graphically represented, only noted as such in the city screen.
Features: Although this way never clutters the screen, routes are hard to access and trace, and it is almost impossible to look at trade in the big picture.

Main Map "Flying Squid" routes: CTP style, and my personal favorite. Routes are shown as lines, with/without moving icons of the good traveling down that line.
Features: Easy to see and trace, but you have to go to a different screen to show the results of those routes and it interferes a bit graphically. One noticable bonus is that the concept of piracy as it stands can only be implemented by a main map route, since only these have a definite and visible path.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited April 26, 2001).]