Some of these sound like features in board game emulators I've seen.

I do not think we should encourage a player to 'keep the item hidden deep in a vault collecting dust'.  It discourages trading, which is the opposite of what we want.

If anything, I think he should be targeted by enemies anyway, but in a way that only players don't know.  So then he has the options to A:  Deal with the problem, or B: trade it to another player, who in turn will be targeted by the problem and probebly be pissed at the player who traded it.  

The deal with collecting a specific resource I think has been solved in other games;     there is a market price that fluxuates.   Anybody can put up their resources on it, and the price everybody sees is automatically the lowest price.   So no bother sending out messages, just check there.

A "mass message" feature or something that is sent to the "Entire wizard council" (whatever UN like feature that automatically includes the leading channelers) would be a plus though.   Jedi's idea about the checkboxes works, that is how it is done in "Sea3D" (settlers of catan for PC) when offering trades.

** edit:   IWARMONGER!?   You've come back from the dead (and sniped my usual 1st post for topics created during this time frame) Where did you come from!?  I have not seen you in months.

I agree that auctions are a good idea. If implemented, it may even be possible for neutral merchants to sell the artifact (like megaevents in GC2) or the mercenary units to offer their services.

The checkbox idea when creating an auction is also good idea. I suggest to add buttons select all, select none, select allies, invert. The default setting should be all except the nations i am at war with. For multiplayer purposes there shall be a possibility to add a message. 

Tradeable items: artifacts, possibly units, cities, technologies. If other resources are Civilisation IV like, also these could be sold. If GalCiv like, it does not make sense to sell them this way.

I like the ideas in the OP, and am right with pigeon in hoping that Elemental will indeed make it both possible and fun to play as a trading nation.

I have to agree that trade routes should be the way to go.  Possibly not even set up by the player (trade tended to go where the infrastructure and terms were best).  So if you tax the trade coming through your territory too heavily you will find it elsewhere.  Or if pirates stick around outside your ports looting ships and you do nothing about it, merchants will cease to come.  Trade, for the most part, should be independent from the nation state.  Something to influence, but not control.

[QUOTE who="NTJedi" reply="9" id="2077038"]


If trading is only available via trade routes the weakest players will suffer as the greatest as one or more stronger empires can more frequently cripple their trading abilities.  And the weaker player struggles to protect shipments while the stronger player grows and harrasses the weaker player.

All the  GREAT  fantasy TBS games have allowed the trading of goods via a trading screen option which occurs within 2 turns or less without disruption.  Which is easily understood due to the ability of teleporation, mind spells, and other magical traits supporting the trading goods.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree.  A larger empire would be proportionately more difficult to protect than a weaker empire (thus making commerce raiding and banditry a way to catch up for smaller nations), while at the same time the larger nation steals large amounts of trade from itself (by building up infrastructure and businesses in one area it steals away trade from neighboring locales... who also happen to be a part of the large empire), while smaller nations are better able to capitalize on the lost business of their neighbors.  This style of economics prevents the "larger nation=larger tax base=larger nation" style of economics by enabling trading nations, making the game interesting far into the end game.

I agree with Iwarmonger, depending on how you set it up, the larger empire won't have anybody nearby to trade because they will be nearby to themselves.  So a town surrounded on all sides by other nations will get better trade than a town surrounded on all sides by the same nation.  Also a larger country that has 1 side of its boarder blockaded (or whatever will stop a trade route) something like 5 cities will be prevented from profitting, where a small nation that has one of its trade routes cut will only loose like 1/5th of that 1 cities trade income.  It wouldn't really help the smaller nation get ahead, but the larger nation is more vulnerable to the tactic.

I think you are talking about something else NTjedi.  I do not think Iwarmonger was talking about things like giving your ally gold or trading magical items that can be done in so many fantasy TBS games, he was talking about overtime income as a result from trade sources. 

That also being said, not all great fantasy TBS games hav that feature.   HoMM, one of the larger fantasy TBS series, has very strict and harsh inter-player trading rules with a great deal of early game trades taxed by under-developed markets.

Yeah well, there also wasn't magic.

So implement some compensating feature so that is not the case. You could make internal banditry a problem in larger countries. To keep trade caravans passing through your territory safe you'd have to invest some of your income/resources/military/whatever into keeping your roads safe not only from other players, but from bandits within your own lands. This could scale with nation size. Likewise, it would be easier for a smaller nation to send little raiding parties into larger countries to disrupt trade than the other way around - the smaller country would be able to respond to such an incursion much faster. Sure, the large nation could send a whole army into a smaller nation to disrupt trade, but at that point it's an invasion, not a raid on trade.

Additionally, players who raid trade caravans anywhere should be shunned by traders.

Well, the only TBS game I've played that doesn't utilize instantaneous trading is Colonization, and I love Colonization. The caravan system there was clunky, and Stardock can do much better, but it's a great starting place. All the great fantasy TBS games have done instant trading because almost every single TBS game ever has - no one has taken the risk or made the effort to make a more in depth trading system which, I think, has tons of potential. And quite frankly, 'mind spells' are not going to transport 200 bears across 500 km in a day. And if I could teleport 200 bears, enough grain to feed a city and a steady supply of iron across hundreds of kilometers with negligible effort, then I should be able to teleport small armies all over the place whenever it strikes my fancy. Likewise, if I can do that, then why do I have to deal with caravans and such within my own territory? Stardock is rethinking 4X economics in this game, and I think foreign trade deserves as much rethinking as internal transportation of goods.

It really depends on how it'd be implemented. In my mind, you'd have to be a really belligerent bastard to harass trade, even if it's going to someone you don't particularly like. Like lwarmonger said, I envision the merchants as "something to influence, not control." If you attack a caravan heading from A to B, you aren't attacking A or B (although you are stealing their resources) - you're attacking the merchants - independent traders. If you build up a reputation for harassing traders passing through your territory, you're going to see a lot less trade come through your way and that is your loss.

It does provide benefits for those in the best trading locations. Just like players in the most resource-rich locations have advantages. And just like how in most TBS games, the most isolated players have the advantage. This just switches things around a bit. Also, it may give an advantage to the players on the best trade routes, but it also makes their territory much more juicy to others, and they will probably find themselves on the end of more invasions because of it. Look at Persia - it was essentially the biggest trading hub in the world and it was conquered more times than I can remember - over and over and over. The riches were too good to pass up. So it provides a pro and a con - balance them out and you have success.

Forgive me for being cynical, but I think the reason why so many TBS games have allowed instant trading between players is because the effort and risk required to make a good trade route system was more than anyone wanted to deal with. Much easier to stay with the tried and true method. "Everyone else is doing it" isn't a good reason. You've provided other reasons, but none of those are insurmountable with a little creativity.

Really, the one problem that I think will be difficult to work out is the whole time-delay thing. That said, I think caravan-based trading is a necessity if they go through with their planned internal caravan-based economy. And I think we'll get used to it quickly; and I think it'll add another strategic component to the game. Just think of trade routes as another resource to consider when placing your settlements and planning invasions. Except they are even more strategic than regular resources because they can move under the right circumstances!

PidgeonX2...

The internal banditry you mention sounds like another type of corruption as we saw from the corruption within CIV_4.

The foreign trade could be introduced and work... hopefully the game will have that many types of resources available for trading and the ability to create new resources.

I see lots of players interested in preventing or stealing trade... I would be more than interested with stopping a caravan of swords traveling to one of my neighbors!!  And players would start seeking ways to kill the caravans indirectly as well via map spells or independent units / summons. 

The internal caravans between towns you own for an overflow of goods will work great as what's been mentioned by Stardock.  We haven't seen anything to indicate the caravans will be used for trading between players as it would cause the following problems: 

1) Limited trading between players based on locations.  (My suggestion allows safe trading with everyone.)

2) Player who ends up trapped behind another player due to random map creation or bad events can only trade with one player and/or has full control of anything going FROM or TO this trapped player.

3) You mentioned players who raid caravans would be shunned.... but unless everyone knows who attacks moving caravans there's no way to be certain who attacked the caravan unless it was your caravan.  For example I could say Player_J is attacking the caravans I send to you, but what's to say I'm not lying since you won't know when my units are attacked.  It's also possible someone casted a spell which summoned a neutral monster that attacked and destroyed the caravan thus no proof who caused its destruction.

4) The greater the distance the greater the chances of losing the shipments.  It would feel stupid for me to lose a game because I couldn't trade for resources which only existed outside my two enemies.  

ah, you're looking at the boarder of the nation.   I'm just talking on a per-city basis.  Only the boarders of the nation would be next to another nation, and likely it would only be one or two.    The cities nearby would mostly be the other cities of the same nation.  The net growth in theory is still good, but if you blockade 1 trade route, you cut off a bunch of cities (since most of them wouldn't have a trade route out of the nation)

Cities of a small nation, would have much less distance on average to travel in any direction before they hit another nation.  So on average, the trade of each town could be higher, if thats how you do the trade system.

In heroes 3 could not trade until you built up your market, and then you had a certain % of resources traded to other players deducted.  So if you are trading 1000 gold, the other player would only recieve something like 900, or if it was 10 gems, they would only recieve 8 or 9 gems, until you have like 2 or 3 markets.

Civ 4 also wouldn't let you trade with other players until you've reached a certain advancement in the tech tree.  Its not fantasy TBS, but its one of the main leaders of TBS in general.

I guess it does, at that. I hated corruption in Civ 4. But there is one major difference - in my proposal you can actually compensate for the 'penalty' if you want. It'll cost you, but in the end what you gain by spending to make your lands safe for trade might more than make up for it.

Yes, it would be nice to halt key trade to enemies. However, if you prove that you're willing to take the reputation hit for disrupting trade, your enemies will go out of their way to divert their trade around you if at all possible. And really, how many unattributable ways do you think there will be to kill things.

So you think there'll be delayed, caravan-based trade internally, over short distances, and instant magical fairy dust trade for long-distance foreign trade? I'm sorry, I just don't see the sense in it.

Sort of. It would just be more difficult to trade with farther people. And I don't see how that's a 'problem.' I just see it as different. Just because you're used to always being able to trade with anyone instantly doesn't mean it has to be or even should be that way in every game.

If it just so happens that someone is completely trapped between one other player, that person will have to overcome a potentially difficult situation. But still, if that blocking player decides to intercept all trade headed to the player behind him, then that player himself might have some difficulties getting people to trade with him - or maybe a third party 'Merchant's Guild' will demand a higher cut of the trade to go into his territory. There are ways to deal with 'problems' like this, like I said. Elemental could be the first game in which conflicts over trade could cause war! Personally I think that'd be great.

Unless attacks against caravans are recorded by a third party, like the traders themselves. All trade could be carried out under the auspices of a Merchant Guild or something, and disrupting trade will not only make the affiliated parties mad at you, but it'd anger the merchants themselves. Players' reputations regarding trade can be made available to see by everyone. Merchants might demand higher cuts of the trade for more dangerous routes, encouraging you to divert your trade routes around trade-unfriendly players - and of course any trade to/from a player with a poor reputation regarding trade would suffer these penalties. And seriously, how easy do you think it'll be to summon a neutral creature to attack a specific trade caravan? If you summon a neutral being and it happens to attack a caravan or two, or even more, so what? So before trade can really resume along that route it will have to be dealt with. I don'e see how that is a problem at all, if you can pull it off, or if it's an accidental consequence of a summon.

That's silly. What if the only people who had the resources you wanted were your enemies? Would it feel stupid for you to lose because of that? Again, I don't see the problem.

Also, if we tie this whole trade route idea into the ideas being thrown around in the various threads about wild space, that should solve even more of your 'problems.' If Elemental can successfully prevent the whole world from being tiled in cities and nations, then there should be plenty of open routes; they might be slower, as they might not be along roads, but they'd still be there. Although some wild space could also be rather unfriendly to trade...

Well if trade can only occur via caravan on the roads eventually the strongest nations will want to take control of all trade thus suffocating the nations trapped behind them.  Sure the larger nation would have struggles with trade owning lots of land, but the smaller nations would have their trade completely stopped or otherwise controlled by the larger nations during late game. 

If I knew a smaller nation could only expand by attacking me...  they're not having any caravans travel thru my nation.

I really think you're blowing this 'problem' way out of proportion. For one, if you're completely trapped behind a much larger nation and the edge of the map, trade is probably going to be a smaller thing for you to worry about. If that larger player is at all smart he'd try to conquer your lands as soon as possible - he'd get extra land without expanding his border with anyone else!

Also, perhaps more importantly, you are chronically ignoring that all my suggestions have included some mechanism to make disrupting other people's trade have severe consequences. Blocking/stealing someone else's trade should be a very major decision, one that you will have to pay for in some way. 

I've never played Dominions 3, so I've never experienced that. Being able to totally disguise your attacks or send neutral forces to do your bidding could definitely be interesting in moderation. In that case, even if you send such an attack against someone else's trade, if it occurs within your territory, it should have a big hit to your reputation for safe trade - after all, if you allow for a completely anonymous raiding force to disrupt someone's trade in your lands, that's a pretty poor voucher for safe trade.

"Limiting trade" is a pretty narrowminded take on the proposition we're making here. One of the effects of this suggestion is that trade would indeed be harder, and thus more limited (especially with distance), but that in no way reduces strategic options. If you want my opinion, it increases them. It means you have to think about the trade routes that are important to you, make relevant diplomatic decisions and maybe in drastic situations even go to war over it. It serves to form a pretty concrete connection between all the different players, connections with actual meaning and consequence. Trade will affect your strategic decisions and your decisions will affect your trade.

You're totally right about the problem if players A and B make a deal to trade commodity X for Y, and player A's shipment of X is raided, what happens? I'm not sure. I guess the players involved could decide no big deal and move on, or the next shipment of Y could be delayed until the next shipment of X gets through. The players could be presented with choices, or Stardock could choose one method. This I think is one of the bigger kinks that would have to be worked out. Backstabbing, on the other hand, I don't think is a problem. Backstabbing is fun

'3rd party merchants guild may not even exist much less it having a penalty for the losses of caravans from players,' no duh - that's why I suggested it... As a game mechanic that would go very well with meaningful trade routes. And human players might not care, but the game would care for them. If you disrupt all the trade going to that player stuck behind you, you're going to get much worse trade deals just to convince the merchants to enter your territory.

Seems like we're starting to reach something of an agreement You constant nudging is definitely what got me thinking about a 3rd party group involved in trade, and I think it's definitely an improvement on the idea.

Well, I think roads are going to be mostly or entirely player-built. Which means even if trade caravans can only travel on roads, you would literally be able to create your own trade routes.