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 Plomp]

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 Plomp]

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.

[Mannamagnus]

Yes, Great Idea!

[candybo]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
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?

Sounds doable, if in need of refinement. And how would that affect YOU attacking AI routes? How would you know how much strength to bring? How would it work with MP? Sounds like a good concept, though..

[Oerdin]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Tiberius
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. [/quote[

The public works idea is ten times better then Civ3's tedious worker micromanagement. Time saving improvements such as this is why CTP2 makes a great MP game while Civ3 will be handycapped from the get go. There is so much more micromanagement in Civ3 compared to CTP2 that each turn will be much longer. Who wants to sit around waiting for seven other players to click and move twenty different workers? Automating helps some what but you still have to sit and wait for each one to move individually and you have less control of what is built where then in CTP2.

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.

Like in real life you have to go out and stop pirates from attacking shipping. With the Apolyton pack you can often get the AI to stop by threatening them with war if they don't stop their piracy.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by 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.

You could always try to use diplomacy to stop the piracy and if that didn't work then you can go to war. If you don't bother to build a strong military then yes the AI will pimp you like a cheap whore but then that would be the player's fault and not the AI.

[hzm]

I want trade routes. I want SMAC style trade relations. I don't want caravans. I want a domestic and foriegn food and sheild trade system. I want to trade resources with the ai (not 2000 gold per turn and 2 resources for the other guys 1 resource, a fair 1 resource for 1 resource). I want trade to make up a serious % of a civs income.

But perhaps there could be some sort of automatic resource trade (I would want this to depend on a civs economic system but asking for social engineering is sort of off-topic) and you could impose tariffs which would boost your industrial capacity but make other civs angry.

[AlecTrevylan00]

this is my view. For two cities to be in contact, you have little boats move between them. They can be destroyed by regular units to starts a war, or destroyed by privateers and subs to get their goods and no war

When a boat arrives, it leaves enough supplies for X time (based on city size) and your port cities connected to your capital will automatically send new ones out often enough so that there will be a large overlap.

That way, if you block off a small body of water, trade cannot be conducted.

And in war or peace you can go and destroy trade routes to control goods (uranium in late game)

And these little units are automated, nobody controls them. They try to avoid privateers, but cant see submarines

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by hzm
I want trade routes. I want SMAC style trade relations. I don't want caravans. I want a domestic and foriegn food and sheild trade system.

This is close to what I'd like to see in civ3. (XP2?)
I don't remember exactly, was it in SMAC or MOO where after you signed a trade treaty a few gold per turn started to flow automatically.
This is how I see it:
- first, there must be a Peace Treaty in order to do anything else, that's obvious
- then, you could sign a Trade Treaty, which would give you a steady income every turn (but not too high). After all, trading means trading a lot of things, not only raw materials and jewelry. The better the ralations, the more gold would flow.
- when you had the Trade Treaty, you could trade for additional resources/luxuries

Some kind of naval blocade would be nice, too. However I'm not sure about the mechanism that should be used.

I want to trade resources with the ai (not 2000 gold per turn and 2 resources for the other guys 1 resource, a fair 1 resource for 1 resource). I want trade to make up a serious % of a civs income.

This is indeed quite annoying. I tried to obtain one time a luxury and offered in exchange 2 other luxuries and a horse, and the AI civ was insulted! They wanted also some high-tech a had. As if!

[Adagio]

I just got another idea:

This idea changes some of the aspects in the game...

There's 3 different types of harbors:

Harbor
Advanced Harbor (Couldn't find a better name )
Mordern Harbor (Still couldn't find a better name )

Harbor:
-ALL coastal cities can build it
-Adds ONE food per water square

Advanced Harbor:
-1 out of 4 coastal cities can build it
-Requires Harbor
-Adds one more food per water square (+2 food in all, because of the Harbor)
-Makes it possible to trade luxuries, etc. (Gives ONE trade line*)

Modern Harbor:
-1 out of 3 coastal cities w/ Advanced Harbor can build it
Requires Harbor and Advanced Harbor
-Adds one more food per water square (+3 food in all, because of the Harbor and advanced Harbor)
-Makes it possible to trade luxuries, etc. (Gives FIVE trade lines*)


*Trade Line: To be able to recieve/send luxuries, etc, you need a free trade line PER luxury/strategic recurce. When an advanced habors tradeline is used, it can't be used again, until the other trade agreement has been stopped. No trade line is required for trading between your own cities

To make it more strategic, there should be some "trade lines" (Ala CtP1/2, but they can't be pirated**). The computer automaticly finds the shortest line for the trade line (Between the two cities that is trading). The person who makes the deal, has to pay 1 gold/turn for each 5 squares the trade line is. That gold just dissapears (The other player doesn't get the gold)

**If it should be possible to pirate, then pirating should be an act of war (Which makes privateers more usefull)

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi ADG,

You make some very good points! I guess though, that I should clarify a few things!

1) There should be some way of limiting the total number of trades you can have going at one time. Perhaps if you have harbours for trade across seas and oceans, and "trading posts" (or even marketplaces!) for trades which are limited to the same land mass (like your harbour idea, ADG, perhaps you can have 3 levels of trading posts).

2) I do agree with the "trade-lines" idea, and I do think that CtP got at least THIS PART right!

3) I believe that trade-lines should be invisible to all civs but the trading partners, but that it should become visible if it comes within "visual range" of another civs unit(s)

4) Privateers and Subs should get a bonus to their "Visual range" for seeing a trade route (should be a flag, so you can potentially add it to ground units!)

5) Should be two seperate actions: Pirating and blockade. Pirating does not break a trade route, but blockading does! (alternatively, pirating should have a chance of breaking a trade route, if done on conecutive turns)

6) Both of the actions in 5) should use up all the remaining movement a unit has, so that the unit can only perform one such attempt/turn.

7) "trade lines" should have a strength, which determines the chance of a successful blockade/pirating attempt. If such an attempt fails, then the unit half it's current hit points, making an attempt dangerous! The strength of a "trade-line" could be determined by either tech level (each new naval tech increases the strength of new and existing trade-lines) or by the slide bar method suggested by Martinus.

8) A pirating or blockade attempt (successful or not) will provoke a war, unless performed by any unit with a "hidden nationality" flag.

Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify my own position.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.