Announcement

**korn469** · February 23, 2000, 14:08

Pythagoras

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

so which comes first: trade or diplomacy? how would you deal with cultures that have sealed off their routes? also what effect on gameplay would this have? how unhappy would it make the people to go against their will to trade?

**Matthevv** · February 24, 2000, 09:21

I second this.

**Pythagoras** · February 24, 2000, 14:23

I posted this in Imrans trade forum:
<center><table width=80%><tr><td>quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
Trade routes are automatically set up with citys that supply a comodity and citys that demand a comodity within the explored territory of that caravans home civ (sorta like smac, but with commodities) using autopathfinding (pathfinding in SMAC was superb and up to this task) these routes are displayed as lines on the map, and with blocking such lines with a military unit you could either pirate or block all together. This coupled with new units: sea, air, and land caravans, will make trade more powerful with a lot less micromanagement. There is still a maximum number of trade routes your city can support, but as technology progresses you can support more and more routes. (making trade more important in your economy towards the endgame). Also as in SMAC, your amount of trade is proportional to the relationship with that civ. Another thing, the screen could get messy with this idea, but by default, in my opinion, these trade routes would be off, you could toggle them on and off with a hotkey or in preferences (much like city support lines in SMAC/CivII).
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></td></tr></table></center>

extending it here:
1. More trade routes with a civ, improves your attitudes towards each other.
2. Better diplomatic relations = more lucrative trade.
It doesnt matter really which one starts first (economic or diplomatic relations)- just include the option to send an emmisary once a trade route is established.

**Pythagoras** · February 28, 2000, 02:08

(blatent self promotion)

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 28, 2000, 03:29

Hey, I like this as well. You can see today that the US's relationship with China is better because of trade.

Pythag, I suggest we merge our topics together under the heading of Trade.

**Ekmek** · February 28, 2000, 03:32

I like this, and like you said i can see how sanctions would have an effect.

**Pythagoras** · February 28, 2000, 03:47

yeah, I agree Imran... how would we go about doing that?

**Pythagoras** · March 6, 2000, 02:59

!!PROPOSED!! For Discussion till midnight Tuesday.

FINAL DRAFT

New Trade Model
Trade routes are automatically set up with cities that supply a comodity and cities that demand a comodity within the explored territory of that caravan's home civilization (similar to Alpha Centauri's system, but with commodities) using autopathfinding (pathfinding in Alpha Centauri was superb and up to this task) these routes are displayed as lines on the map, and with blocking such lines with a military unit you could either pirate or block all together. There is still a maximum number of trade routes your city can support, but as technology progresses and/or your city size increases you can support more and more routes. Also as in Alpha Centauri, your amount of trade is proportional to the relationship with that civilization. The screen could get messy with this idea, but by default these trade routes would be off and viewed only in the city view. You could toggle them on and off with a hotkey or in preferences (much like city support lines in SMAC/CivII), or perhaps just show a city's routes one city at a time.

There is a downside to this that I believe can be solved easily. Implementing this in the game could take up a lot of memory if one stores every map location that every trade route goes through. However, simply invoking the auto pathfinding function each time someone wants to view a route (calculating the path of the caravans instead of loading the positions from memory) not only solves this memory problem, but provides more realism. Auto pathfinding should only work on explored territory, so as you explore more and more, your civ will find ways to shorten the travelling distance between two trading cities.

With this model, trade and diplomacy would be interelated. First of all, the more trade routes one has with a civ, the better each's attitudes towards each other. And vice versa, better diplomatic relations would provide for more lucrative trade. It doesnt matter really which one starts first (economic or diplomatic relations). Perhaps the option to allow players to establish trade routes "the old way" could be included, but by default 'auto trading' is on. Also if autopathfiding fails, or if a civilization wants to define its own path to take, a waypoint trade route path defining system would be included.

Argument
This model is prefered because it requires little to no micromanagement and gives trade importance within your economy without having to deal with cumbersome caravans. International trade also becomes more important as time goes along with this model as more technology and more population allows citys to expand into new trading ventures. The so called ICS (infinite city sprawl) problem can also be averted if trade is linked to city size. Large citys become meccas of trade, their income and attitudes with other civs growing exponentially as there population increases. Many small cities become unpreffered since they would not provide these great benefits. Also, since these larger citys become dependant on lucrative trade, pirating and tarrifing trade routes (by putting a unit over the route) becomes a viable options for poorer civs and barbarians. To sum up, this model provides a way for intercity commodity based trade to highly effect diplomacy, warfare and the 'royal coffers' without the cumbersome usage of caravan units and without the unwanted micromanagement of a game like colonization.

Imran seems to like this idea, let me know DaveV/Imran if you want to modify this idea at all. My ICQ# should be up in my profile.

[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 06, 2000).]

**Pythagoras** · March 7, 2000, 20:43

Unless I here from Imran by the end of the night, this is my final draft for my section:
FINAL DRAFT

Idea
The majority of Apolytoners wish for a new trade system that meets the following criteria.
1. Involves a Supply/Demand system like Civ II.
2. Affects/Is Affected either implictly or explicitly by diplomacy.
3. Allows larger citys and more modern (higer tech) citys to become meccas of trade, and maybe even somewhat dependant on it.
4. Allows routes to be blocked/pirated/raided/etc.
5. Requires little/no micromanagement, but still play an important role in gameplay.

Argument
We feel that these requests make trade a much more powerful aspect of gameplay without giving it center stage. Allowing more trade routes for larger and/or more modern citys allows more accurate modeling of history (as seen in miedeval italy and modern day metropolis). Also we feel that
implicit forms of 'alternative warfare' can be integrated into gameplay through being able to block and/or pirate trade routes. This coupled with strong trade routes being complementary to strong diplomacy can make for some interesting gameplay based around trade.

Is this jivn with everyones wants for a new trade system?
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Pythagoras (edited March 07, 2000).]

Announcement

EC3 New Idea #30 - Trade effects diplomacy

EC3 New Idea #30 - Trade effects diplomacy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment