Sid Meier's Civilization VI

Sid Meier's Civilization VI

Redistricting
Ananse  [developer] 13 Mar, 2017 @ 10:39am
Trade Routes
I'm creating this post to explain the functionality of trade routes in this mod, which is substantially different from the way they work in vanilla.

I rebalanced the values according to the principle that, in trade one always needs to give something to get something in return. It doesn't make sense for a trade route to generate all positives all of the time. This actually negates the gameplay potential of trade routes, by making it close to irrelevant which ones you choose.

Let's start with city center. In this mod, it makes every OUTGOING route cost 1 gold, and every INCOMING route generate 1food/1production. So your very first trade route between two cities with no districts will cost 1 gold for 1 food/1production - a pretty good deal.

Now lets say City A builds a Fishery. A city with a fishery will trade its extra fish for gold. So OUTGOING trade routes from that city will cost -1 food and generate +2 gold, while INCOMING trade routes will generate +2 food and cost -1 gold.

Now a trade route from City A (city center+ fishery) to City B (city center), will have the following modifiers applied: -1gold (city center A), -1food (fishery A), +2gold (fishery A), +1food(city center B), +1production (city center B), for a total of +1gold,+1production in city A.

Meanwhile, a trade route going from City B to City A will have the following, different set of modifiers: -1gold(city center B), +1food(city center A), +1production(city center A), -1gold(Fishery A), +2food (Fishery A), for a total of -2gold, +3food, +1 production.

If this all seems very complicated, here's a few rules that I hope are intuitive:

1. When a city builds a district it will attempt to trade away the goods of that district on outgoing routes. Growth districts cost food, production districts cost production. Faith, culture, and science districts all cost gold instead. Gold districts don't cost anything, and instead add a small amount of gold to trade going both ways.

2. When you send a trade route to a city, the city sending the route will receive all the goods of the city it's being sent to (and pay a price).

The logical consequence of this is that sending a route from a small city to a big city will create lots of good for the small city, at a high price in gold. While sending a route from a big city to a small city will create lots of gold from sold goods, but not generate much other yields (the small city doesn't have much to offer).
< >
Showing 1-2 of 2 comments
The Big Red Cheese 27 Jun, 2017 @ 10:15am 
"I rebalanced the values according to the principle that, in trade one always needs to give something to get something in return. It doesn't make sense for a trade route to generate all positives all of the time...."

I really don't agree with this. The point of trade is to create something from nothing, in a sense. You take things from where they are worthless, to where they are worth something. If the food weren't sold, it would spoil, if the oil weren't sold, it wouldn't be tapped. You're talking about 'supply routes' here.

Shortages of food are man made. In the Potato famine the British government SENT AWAY relief efforts that would have stopped the problem, because they thought the Irish needed to suffer. There has NEVER been a time of famine where food wasn't immediately available to those starving. The socioeconomic reasons for this are complex, but it's incredibly rare for trade to cause a deficit like this.

If this logic were correct Germany and Japan would be in dire straits today, like they thought they'd be when they started WW2. Fast forwards to today, and are Germans/Japanese starving and poor? No. They're on top of their continents, and they are the ones who LOST THE WARS!
Last edited by The Big Red Cheese; 27 Jun, 2017 @ 10:19am
Mk Z 14 Jan, 2019 @ 10:13pm 
thats very interesting.
its not clear though do both cities receive some goods from trade or not
i think it definitely should be so.
e.g. if there are 2 cities, having only city centers, both cities receive 1 food 1 prod, for the cost of 1 gold for the first (which sends a trader). if theres a food district in the first city, it should get additional -1 food +3 gold (as food is better than gold), while the second gets additional +2 food -3 gold, for the total 1 prod 3 gold for the first city and 3 food 1 prod -3 gold for the second.
Why the food district creates -1 food in the first city but +2 in the second? to simulate diminishing returns. in the first city theres an oversupply of say, fish (if its a fish district providing tradeable food), so its nutritional value is excessive.

another thing to consider -- should tradeable goods be finite? what if 10 routes come to the city? should each of them get 2 food from the fish district (provided theres no fish district in the trader's city)? i think, there should be a limit equal to the district's yield. E.g. a fish district gives 2 food, and each route takes -1 food (creating +2 for the partner) so 2 routes can take food in that city.

if tradeable goods are finite, theres an incentive to send traders to different cities, not to the best city.

ps there could be a cultural/scientific diffusion on the international routes, e.g. each turn you receive a certain % of the beaker cost of the partner's techs you dont have. same with culture. but science/culture from districts shouldnt be tradeable like food and production.

also, gold conversion ratio is a tough matter. for example, production is 4 times better than gold when buying units, but gold is more versatile. what should be the ratio? 3:1, 2:1? Also, food is generally better than production, but in different situations conversion rates may differ. I think for the routes 3:1 for food and 2:1 for production would be ok...

What do you think?
Last edited by Mk Z; 14 Jan, 2019 @ 10:22pm
< >
Showing 1-2 of 2 comments
Per page: 1530 50