1 The initial trade bonus. Sure early trade bonuses are not too huge, but every bit of gold counts in the early game. Mid game, these bonuses increase exponentially. By the late stages, on large maps the money is ludicrous especially with perfecitonist civs on a different continent.

2 The one time science bonus. Ok here is where i have a problem. Why give a science bonus? Is this really necessary. First you fill my coffers with gold coins, now you want to give me a science bonus equivelant to the amount of gold i received, come on now.

IMO , trade routes should have an initial gold bonus, and then an amount that carries over each turn like it does already in civ when you establish a trade route.

However, the one time science payout is by far the single easiest way to research techs, thus making it way too easy to surpass a cheating ai in the conquest of AC.

Now i am sure many of you will come to the defense of the science payout with arguements like trade increses spending , thus increasing development, thus incresing technology/science growth etc.

Maybe that is a realistic way to look at it, i am not fully convinced (this is your job now people) but i still think for civ, it makes the game too easy to win.

*runs off stage to chorus of boos and rotten fruit*

"trade increses spending , thus increasing development, thus incresing technology/science growth"

Enough said...

But think about this. When you build caravans, you aren't building something else... other city improvements, and army/navy... you should get some value for your efforts

Plus, considering that the caravan may never make it to it's intended city, and all the shields will be wasted...

The other thing i forgot was caravan disbanding. This makes them even more powerfull. How is a food caravan going to help me build an wonder other than the pyramids even then, the food is not made out of stone. The caravans should allow for 25shields not 50, or whatever the disband equivilent would be in regards to the other units.

Granted there have been many games when i wish one caravan would build me than needed wonder before the rest of the heathens beat me to it but thats my poor leadership not the games fault

throws rotten egg.....

Every player has the same exact opportunities and therefore has no excuse if someone takes advantage of trade and they do not. If you're playing the ai.....when has being fair taken any consideration? They sure don't know the first thing about being "fair"!

Seriously though, you don't think its a bit much having the science added to your tech rate? Am i the only one who feels caravancs are too powerfull.

That your point is unarguably right can be demonstarted up and down the threads of Apolyton. "When you've built one caravan, build another"; "And when you've built enough, build more"; "When you have no compelling reason to build anything else - (you've guessed it) build a caravan"; "Long live the camel"; "The camel rules, OK".

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 11-16-2000 08:26 AM ...I feel a challenge coming on - a simple one. Win the game (blood lust or AC) without ever building a caravan or freight.

Not too tough, especially using several of Xin Yu's size 5 cities to generate science. I hardly ever establish trade routes in a conquest game, and I'm sure I could crank out the wonders I really need by disbanding units if necessary.

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 11-15-2000 03:54 PM 2 The one time science bonus. Ok here is where i have a problem. Why give a science bonus?

Not that I'm pretending that Civ is an accurate reflection of the real world, but there is a legitimate historical precedent for this.

Early traders were motivated mostly by profit. But it's also true that they learned a lot by being exposed to different cultures. They not only brought back goods, but they also learned methods of making those goods, and they picked up new ideas as well simply by dealing with another group of people.

------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.

THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!

quote: Originally posted by Blaupanzer on 11-22-2000 10:17 AM The real historical precedent is the Romans versus the Phoenicians (Carthaginians in Civ). The real Phoenicians were trading giants, and their civilization had a big lead on the Romans at the start. We all know the Romans ate them alive and salted the soil of their capitol. A pretty firm argument in FAVOR of Merc's point. With that lead and that strategy, the Carthaginians should be able to win in Civ II. (Probably more than one scenario on this; I'm not really into scenarios.)

You speak as if the results of the first two punic wars was a foregone conclusion. This is hardly the case. Rome won the first one. which was mostly a naval war, because of a tactic the Carthagenians were not prepared for. The Roman ships each had a cmplement of soldiers, and any time two ships got close, the Roman ship would throw a grapple onto the Carthagenian ship, holding it close long enough for the Romans to board the Carthagenian ship. In this way the advantages the Carthagenians held in seamanship was voided. This is hardly a tactic the Carthagenians should not have been prepared for. It was common among the Greeks, which is where the Romans got the idea. They probably just didn't think the Romans would use it. Had the Carthagenians been more prepared for this tactic and thereby prolonged the conflict, theit greater economic power certainly would have taken its toll on the Romans, who had ben stretched to their limits in building their fleet.

Matthew agreed that the Carthaginians should have expected that from the Romans. Another classic example of underestimating the opposition and it coming back to bite you in the leg. also another example of the Romans using techniques of other civilizations and modifying them to their benefits.

Although Rome had to rushbuild its navy, it did not use most of its resources to do this. In fact one could argue that the cathaginians spent alot of there coffers paying for their mercenary army consisting of Celts, Spanish, Gauls, Numidians and Greeks.

*throws a rotten watermellon*

*throws carved rotten pumpkin with words civ 2 on the front*

Their ability to disband the amount of shields they cost to make for a wonder makes them Waaaaaaaaaaay to powerfull. All other units disband at a much different rate, ie half at most i believe. So why make caravans different?

The reasoning behind the 50 sheild caravan if you use it to Build a Wonder, not disband it, is that Caravans were quite large affairs. Drivers, loaders, guards, merchants, etc., and when you use them to build a wonder all those people become labors working on the wonder. If you move the caravan into the city with the wonder and disband it then you only get a portion of that cost back, just like any other unit. The camels and drivers, etc., are still hanging around using up resources waiting for the next caravan to be formed. When you build a wonder all those items are put to immediate use and you have a lot of camel steaks to feed them with.

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-19-2000 08:44 PM I am back with another flavour for my arguement. I think the price of 50 shields is way too low for caravans. In single player, one often has hordes of caravans in the making and/or sitting around collecting dust. Therefore IMO that caravans should be double the price, so 100 shields. That would make them more realistic, what do the lemmings here think of this point?

Okay, I'm a newbie with a lousey trading strategy, but here's what I think: The real problem, which has eluded everyone but me because I'm so la-di-da brilliant , is that the caravan only changes once, into freight. Think about it: historical progress in the game gives you all manner of infantry units; it turns horseys into knights into dragoons into cav; but the caravan just keeps going and going and going. Why not have a little more variety in the trade? There could be several trade units, each replacing the other, costing more than the one before, and having slightly different qualities. After all, 50 shields is actually quite a lot at the beginning of the game...more than any other units, more even than basic city improvements like barracks and temples. But there's no reason it couldn't change into a different unit that costs more upon the discovery of, say, navigation or banking, and again on the discovery of economics, then finally again on the discovery of the corporation.

There...problem solved.

Or perhaps a game without them? That would most certainly be a new ball game wouldn't it?

Rufus, i think that is a great idea, but engineers like caravans, seem to only upgrade once, and i wonder what type of icon you could make muchless what you would call it

With a massive overseas trading strategy you can manage a tech a turn - even in Fundy!

-------------

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-20-2000 01:12 PM Rufus, i think that is a great idea, but engineers like caravans, seem to only upgrade once, and i wonder what type of icon you could make muchless what you would call it

Yeah, I felt suitably embarrassed about not being able to think of units/icons, too.

But now I have a new brilliant idea: "science-friendly" caravans and "caravan-ready" cities. Check it out:

"science-friendly" caravans: only caravans produced in cities that had libraries would be able to generate a science bonus; for freight, there would need to be a university. The game analogy would be to barracks/port facilities/airports producing vet units. The logic would be that, while caravans did in reality produce a kind of "science bonus" by bringing back knowledge from other lands, the folks back home had to want to and to be able to use knowledge.

"caravan-ready" cities: only cities with banks in them would be able to use caravans to build wonders; freight would require stock exchanges. The game analogy would be to those many city improvements (marketplaces, banks, factories, etc.) that increase some aspect of city production/trade by a fixed percentage; so now, a bank would increase the number of shields gained when a caravan was disbanded by 100% when a wonder was being built. The logic would be...well...there's not a lot of logic to caravans helping build wonders to begin with, but I suppose you could say that a big project stimulates the local economy, so trade coming in is more useful under those conditions provided there's an appropriate financial infrastucture to take advantage of it.

Whaddaya think?

PS: I dont think caravans are too powerful if you consider the effect of long-distance trade route in history. Eg., Spanish galleons, China silk trade, etc. The Spanish kept their luxury-heavy economy afloat for hundreds of years solely on the basis of trade routes to the New World.

Well Merc, I disagree. Caravans are not to powerful. Compare 2 caravans to 3 musketeers when you're the only one with musketeers. My musketeers will take a city, give me a tech advance, take away same city from ememy-decreasing his stuff and increasing mine, I fight on his ground. I expand through conquest and keep conquered trade routes. I realize that this is a difference in gaming styles, but maybe my point is clear- A pacifist style play(er) will ALWAYS lose to a conquerer.

Maelhavok