Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
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!
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?