Poll: Do you want CtP-like Trade Routes?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,
I know this has been mentioned before, but I'd like to see how many people like this idea! Basically, what I'd like to see is 3 things-both of which first appeared in CtP and CtP2

1) For every trade deal you want to make, you have to build a "caravan".

2) When you negotiate a trade deal, a line is created joining the capitals of the trading nations by the shortest route!

3) You can build varying strength "caravans". Stronger ones need higher techs and a longer time to build than weaker ones, but stronger ones are less susceptible to being broken or pirated!

Trade routes would, normally, be invisible to all Civs except those who are involved in the trade. If another civ brings a unit close enough, they will be able to see the part of the trade route which lies within it's range of sight! A unit can then choose to either break the trade route or pirate it! The chance of success would be based on the strength of the "caravan", though certain units (Privateers and subs for example) would have a better chance than normal. A broken trade route would simply cease to exist, wheras a Pirated one would only have a small chance of being broken, but would give the pirating unit a cash reward! A single unit could only pirate a trade-route once/turn (as this action would use up it's movement!)
Anyway, this is how I see it. I'd like to know what you guys think!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Robert]

No, in fact I love the trade-system of civ3.
The only addition I would like to made is that you can negotiate the number of turns the trade will be active.

I voted the 'no' option, but I don't hate everything on CtP. I just prefer the civ3 trade system above the ctp system.

[Coracle]

The trade system in Civ 3 is Number Three on my list of things that are most stupid and lame, right behind Culture Flipping and Settler Diarrhea. The trade system even in Civ 2 was better.

Now, the trade system is a simplified, tedious abstraction. There is no strategy or drama in maintaining trade routes, or delivering by caravan goods to a foreign port - or intercepting an enemy's transport. That was also fun in Civ 2.

In Civ 3, naval warfare is especially lame and boring. One of the main reasons is that privateers and subs cannot attack merchant shipping on trade routes - their historic purpose. They were never designed to attack enemy warships. I could have dozens of privateers on a rival's trade route and it would accomplish nothing.

BTW, blockades and coastal fortresses are also lame.

So you bet I'm for a change. And we'll get it only with Civ 4 if some company other than Firaxis does it.

[Adagio]

I don't hate everything about ctp, but I hate their trade system...

[Saurus]

Naah, what I would like to see in CIV III is the terrain improvement system from CTP series. It reduces micromanagement excecially during lategame.

-s

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Saurus
Naah, what I would like to see in CIV III is the terrain improvement system from CTP series.

If you are thinking "public works" then: NO NO NO, please no! The workers are the last civilian (or non-military) unit left in the game. I love my engineers ...err, workers. Micromanaging them in the early turns is fun, while automating them to avoid lategame micromanagement works quite well. Furthermore, they can be captured. It's like protecting your peasants from barbarians or other invaders.

BTW, caravans: what's the point in building caravans if you don't use them physically ? (btw: moving caravans was fun in civ2, only way too much micromanagement). With trade abstracted to trade treaties, it's an unnecessary step.

The only advantage of the CTP2's trade system was the fact that you could pirate the trade lines. Exactly that advantage turned out to be the most annoying as the AI continuously pirated my trade routes. No, thanks.

[Galvatron]

Yes I like the idea very much especially the different traders because in reality merchants often were slight armed and had the ability to defend themselves against raiders this should be included in the game too. Caravans with a medium defence factor so it should be able to defend against weaker attacks but when the heavy-hitter came there's only one option left: RUN

[Robert]

Originally posted by Saurus
Naah, what I would like to see in CIV III is the terrain improvement system from CTP series. It reduces micromanagement excecially during lategame.

-s

I really can't see how th pw system reduces micromanagement. You have to tell each tyle what it has to become. rather put your workers on auto than that.

Coracle: civ3's trade system isn't broken or half-finished or rushed, it's different! Different than in civ2.

civ2's trade system only brought you money. This trade system really improves the game. And trade is about negotiation, not about transfering caravans.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Saurus
Naah, what I would like to see in CIV III is the terrain improvement system from CTP series. It reduces micromanagement excecially during lategame.

-s

Reduces micromanagement? You're kidding right?

[Level]

I did not like having to build caravans for that system, I did like the lines and the ability to pirate them.

I allways forgot to turn up public works and I like civilian units, it would be neat to be able to set what you want on a tile and a aoutomated unit makes it.

[Hagbart]

If you want this, play CtP!
If they were to improve trade in Civ3, they should improve the hole trade system.

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Saurus
Naah, what I would like to see in CIV III is the terrain improvement system from CTP series. It reduces micromanagement excecially during lategame.

I agree
I hate workers, even if they are automated.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Coracle
The trade system in Civ 3 is Number Three on my list of things that are most stupid and lame, right behind Culture Flipping and Settler Diarrhea. The trade system even in Civ 2 was better.

Are you mad???
The trade system in civ2 sucked lightyears. It was the most tedious thing to move those caravans around, only to find out that right before the goal the caravan was expelled.

now the trade system is a simplified, tedious abstraction. There is no strategy or drama in maintaining trade routes, or delivering by caravan goods to a foreign port - or intercepting an enemy's transport. That was also fun in Civ 2.

Strategy? Drama? You mean there is less tedious work now. You can under no circumstances describe the current trade system as tedious. It is the least tedious thing because it works very very fast. A combination of the civ2 trade system and the civ3 resource system would be the lamest possible thing. It would take TURNS, YEARS,... before your caravan reaches its target. One thing that may be historically accurate in ancient times, but would never halt for later periods.

In Civ 3, naval warfare is especially lame and boring. One of the main reasons is that privateers and subs cannot attack merchant shipping on trade routes - their historic purpose. They were never designed to attack enemy warships. I could have dozens of privateers on a rival's trade route and it would accomplish nothing.

You are right on this one, however it was way too easy in CTP to destroy your opponents trade lines (and for the opponent to destroy yours) and with a privateer it would be even easier. And trade lines did not have the importance to guard them with lots of ships. The bonus from trade lines would have vanished if you had to take care so much for them (besides it would only be tedious, what thrill is there in guarding a trade line? a Fast enemy ship appears from out of the blue (you cannot react because it isnt your turn) and woopiie your fancy trade line is history)

Btw, modern nuclear submarines are well capable of targeting enemy warships, but you are right if you are talking about WWII type subs.

BTW, blockades and coastal fortresses are also lame.

true

[Martinus Magnificus]

What I would like to see is the possibility to somehow affect trade with privateers and subs. However, the way it was in CtP 2, was just to frustrating. There is no fun in constantly having to protect your trade routes by moving dozens of units across the map every turn.

My idea is to make trade routes visible a la CtP 2 (for example by a moving merchant vessel), with a slider bar in the trade menu where you can set the level of protection for your trade vessels/wagons. The idea is to make you pay more for better protection (gold/shields per turn). This way, you wouldn't have to move units across the map to protect your trade routes, while on the other hand your subs and privateers can actually start hunting for enemy (or friendly!) merchant vessels, and finally have the role they should have.

Now how about that?

[Didymus]

The way piracy work in CtP2was awful ... build caravans, get money for 2 turns, then hand it all over to the strongest sea power. Not my cup of tea.
Come to think of it, trade in CtP2 sucked, period.