14-01-2004 04:05									#1
	DESIGN: Trade Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

What about changing Gold benefits to Commerce straight away. Altering Trade should be not just design, because Trade isnt even worth 1 Caravan in the vanilla patched game and the AI builds Caravans. Obviously disabling the AI building Caravans is a cop out, better to make it useful.

Id consider this a fix for Trade to put out along side, unit/building/pw/wonder rebalancing, that sort of thing, and ill leave the grand designs for later to someone else

Good, bad idea? Got a better one?

BTW i searched for Trade threads in this forum and didnt find any, i think it got lumped in another thread i forgot.

	22-01-2004 20:01									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sure. In the midst of working, I've been jotting down a few notes. Trade and gold rebalancing has been a part of that.

Heres the concept I've been thinking of so far.

In the trade db a couple fields are added (and the name of one field changed for consistancy)

GoldValue
ShieldValue
FoodValue

This forms the basis for the value of a good. A city with a good in its radius, which isn't trading it, adds these values to its gross food, shields and (gross) gold.

Thats basically a GoodMod effect, but would be implemented in the game.

If the good is sent internally in the civ, to another city, then these values get multiplied by a trade coefficient.

The trade coefficient is...

code:

sqrt({distance in tiles *100}/{travel distance (in 100's)}) * sqrt({distance in tiles *100}/{max empire size})

with a minimum value of 1.

then is multiplied by {internaltradecoef}

internaltradecoef would be a new coefficient in govern.txt, just for the purpose of calculating (internal) 
trade values per government.

I.E. Say a city is sending a good to a city 40 tiles away, 
fully railroaded (and railroads had a move value of .2), 
the maxempiredistance for its government was 2000, 
and the internaltradecoef was 1.25

That would calculate as sqrt(800/4000) * sqrt
(4000/2000), which calculates to a multiplier of 3.16, 
which would then be mulplied by the internaltradecoef 
of 1.25, for a final coef of 3.95.

Thus the value of the the good would be multiplied by 
3.95 for the purposes of this internal trade... of course, 
caravans would still need to be built, etc.)

Last edited by MrBaggins on 22-01-2004 at 20:11

	22-01-2004 22:32									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I faviour a different method to implement, trading ressources and terrain boni.

I propose six fields:

The three existing ones:

Gold
Production
Food

Of course they can be renamed and three new ones:

TradeGold
TradeProduction
TradeFood

This way the values for terrain boni and Trade boni can be separated, if we do it is another question, but this would allow modders to change it.

-Martin

	22-01-2004 22:39									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sounds good... although maybe a goodbonuscoef would achieve about the same thing?

In retrospect, I think that having as much flexibility in being able to alter values is the best policy.

In terms of implementing separate terrain bonuses and trade bonuses, how would that work in practice?

	22-01-2004 22:49									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Incidentally... I don't really see much point making this new trade system optional: its an extension to the existing trade system, and can largely simulate the existing system. Perhaps the only optional thing might be whether gold should be treated as commerce for just international trade, all trade, or no trade.

	22-01-2004 22:49									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins In terms of implementing separate terrain bonuses and trade bonuses, how would that work in practice?

You could imagine some kind of food that decay during the long way between, two cities. Of course some food decay faster, and methods to preserve food costs also some value of the food.

Of course for diffrent kind of food these values are different and actual also diffrent with differnt preservation techniques.

-Martin

	22-01-2004 22:59									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

What I was referring to, was the actual calculations involved:

I mean that I've dealt with the 3 situations... untraded goods, internally traded goods and externally traded goods, with the relative value that each situation gives the host and destination city.

If you include a separate set of values for untraded goods, is it still in effect when you also trade that good? and how does that effect the values of the trading?

	22-01-2004 23:11									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You could completely seperate terrain boni and trade boni, so that you get the terrain boni irrespective of the fact if the good is traded. Or something could be removed from the terrain boni. Of course the trade effects should be mutual for the cities and the empire. So if one city gets some aditional food, the other city should get some gold, of course we could also introduce luxary goods that makes the people of one city happy and give the other city some gold. We see that things here are really getting complicated.

-Martin

	22-01-2004 23:52									#9
	Put an end to popups!

Yep... a little bit complicated... here's a solution:

Four structures in the goods.txt

BaseGoodBonus
{
GoldBonus
FoodBonus
ShieldBonus
HappyBonus
}

TradedGoodBonus
{
TradedGoldBonus
TradedFoodBonus
TradedShieldBonus
TradedHappyBonus
}

SentGoodCoef #each sent and received pair should equal 1
{
SentGoldCoef
SentFoodCoef
SentShieldCoef
SentHappyCoef
}

ReceivedGoodCoef #each sent and received pair should equal 1
{
RecdGoldCoef
RecdFoodCoef
RecdShieldCoef
RecdHappyCoef
}

So... the good if untraded has one value and another if traded (modified by the coef I mentioned in my first post,) and the proportions of the sent and received values can be altered... so food can be 'sold' for gold, or all the 'values' equally shared, should we wish.

This allows us to implement luxuries too...

	23-01-2004 05:15									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

Maybe a dumb idea here but if we make it so that when a city makes a unit for example a tank a city with oil allows that tank to move 1 turn more for a period of five turns. Then we can use gold to buy the goods that would improve are units.

	23-01-2004 17:43									#11
	Got spare money?

A slight extention to the system too... renegotiation.

Another tab is displayed, showing preexisting foreign trade routes. You are allowed to "buy-out" a route by paying double what its worth to both parties. It still requires a number of caravans to form, too. The trade is revalued, given the new situation.

Your reputation with the previous "buyer" is hurt... slightly. Your reputation with the sender is possibly hurt or enhanced.

	24-01-2004 02:28									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

enhanced

they think that you are loaded

	24-01-2004 02:42									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Depends if you give them a better or worse payout than the last guy did on a turn to turn basis.

I like your way of thinking though

	24-01-2004 03:13									#14
	Tired of ads?

Another thing I like to have is a field for the GoodMod pilage good Improvement effect, like:

GoodRestorationTime intval

This is the time needed for restoration of the terrain boni of a good after pillage.

0 would be good can't be pillages
-1 effect would never be restored
and any other value bigger 0 gives the good restoration time in turns.

-Martin

	24-01-2004 04:03									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would also like to see goods go out of date this would be fun for example a civ is trading with a player oil. The player discovers fuel cell technology and cancels the trade for oil. This means that the civ who was exporting oil now has to trade with a different civ for a lot less. This means that you could get big due to trade and then your empire falls apart because all your goods are out of date.

(note my new mech is nearly ready and it looks so cool)

	24-01-2004 10:32									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

But oil is used in lots of things its not just a fuel source.

	24-01-2004 19:30									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I know that but it’s an example however if you don't take the hydrocarbons you don’t need less then 1/2 the oil would be used for the creation of plastics.

	24-01-2004 20:26									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I like the new trade ideas. Should these also be options in diplomacy too? or strictly with the caravans?

Civ3 (to cherry pick) also lets workers be traded. Since there is no workers in CtP2, and as horrible as it sounds, what about slave trading?

I like the bonuses with goods (I'd like to see certain goods have different bonuses besides happiness, maybe increase in PW for oil, etc we could gave a separate thread on that if interested).

	24-01-2004 21:31									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Slave trading has long time been a dream of many people (to represent real world)
The problem with that is that that slaves come from some wear your civ for instance so you would by your own people back to be enslaved.

	24-01-2004 21:45									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Slave trading sounds too complicated what about if Public works points could be traded in diplomacy? That might be usefull.

My thought is that if there is slave trading from civ to civ you would have to have some nice fat penalties and such to make it balanced.

Also one thing that earks me the most about the trade system is that the routes never take the best route to a city. They allways stay in shallow water if they can even if theres a shorter distance over deep water. This becomes problematic because they AI doesnt really ahve to work too hard to pirate routes. Since all routes end up jumbled together in the shallow water. This is my experience anyway anybody else notice this?

Last edited by tyrantpimp on 24-01-2004 at 21:55

	25-01-2004 02:20									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

pw is easy.

Trade does take the long way around. You know it is possible for the good to go almost around the world to reach a city at the side of you. it because a good will only go over terrain that has been discovered.

	25-01-2004 04:28									#22
	Support Apolyton

Trade takes the long way around no matter what, i have the whole map explored and the routes stay the same. This is after breaking them and making new ones. Routes favor the shallow water for some reason.

	25-01-2004 05:28									#23
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by tyrantpimp Trade takes the long way around no matter what, i have the whole map explored and the routes stay the same. This is after breaking them and making new ones. Routes favor the shallow water for some reason.

Actual the routes use the wrong path, I got the notion that their path is like they were air units but have to respect the terrain move costs, but ignore rivers and roads/railroads/maglevs.

Well this is actual just a guess into the blue so far, actual my indention is to use the Fraight flag in terrain.txt and now also in tileimp.txt to calculate the path. But that is more difficuilt than I thought, because I lost me in the Tradeastar.cpp or how the file is called and I didn't try again recently.

-Martin

	31-01-2004 02:05									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

At first I thought tyrantpimp was playing the wrong version of the game. For all I knew, CTP2 always had straight-to-the-goal trade routes. I remember CTP1 having
routes that followed roads, and me wondering why this silly AI that was creating trade routes right through my cities when at war with me.

After some testing, I realised he was correct after all. When crossing water, strange bends may appear in the routes for CTP2. Time to find out how it really works, and delve into the pathfinding.

The A* pathfinding is based on 2 values for each tile.
The first value is the real cost it took you to get to a tile from the city that is going to send a trade good (start). This is 0 at the start, and goes up until you reach the city you want to send the good to (goal).
The second value is an estimate of what it will cost to get to the goal from a tile. This starts at some value in the start, and goes down or up, depending on whether you move towards or away from the goal.
Now, you basically begin at the start, and expand it by determining the real and estimated costs for each of its neighbour tiles. After this, you select the unexpanded tile with the lowest sum of real and estimated costs, expand it, and repeat the process until you reach the goal.

First observation: unlike for the army movement paths, the real costs for the trade routes do not depend on the terrain, nor on its improvements. The only thing that matters is the direction. For N, S, E, and W "movements", the real costs are 5. For NW, NE, SE, and SW "movements", the real costs are 4.75. So, the trade routes prefer a straight NW + NW (cost 9.5) over a bended N + W (cost 10) path.

Second observation: the estimated costs do depend on the terrain movement costs, which are recomputed every barbarian turn. For the actual values, see the Movement values in terrain.txt and the MoveCost values in tileimp.txt. Typical values are 100 (plains, grassland, all water tiles),
50 (rivers, cities), and 33 (roads).

Third observation: for the trade route computation, the value of a tile does not only depend on the movement cost of the tile itself, but also on its surroundings. Have a look at .
The bottom part of this picture shows a block of 8 tiles with XY coordinates, starting at the top left of the map. You may ignore the top part of the picture. It is showing the same block with RC coordinates. I was just too lazy to remove it.
The map is divided into a repeating pattern of blocks of this shape, and all tiles of a block share the same value, being the smallest of the movement costs of the 8 tiles. So, if you have only water tiles in a block, the value is 100. It will also be 100 when e.g. 7 of the 8 tiles are mountains (movement 400) and only 1 of the tiles is water. Note also that after completing a road on any of the mountains, all tiles of the block would get value 33.

Fourth observation: it gets even worse. After having assigned each block a value, the actual estimated cost is not value of the block, but the smallest value of a group of (up to) 9 blocks, consisting of the block itself and its directly neighbouring blocks. So, completing a road at tile (7,7) may set the value of tile (0,0) to 33, even when all tiles in the block of 0,0 are unroaded mountains or water.

This explains why water tiles far from the coast stay at value 100 for a long time (until you start building underwater tunnels), while tiles near to the coast will get lower values earlier in the game (when you construct cities and roads).

Fifth observation: unexplored tiles will never be used in a trade route path, but will be taken into account in the value computations. So, the AI is not the only one to cheat.

Last observation: the estimated cost for a tile is simply the product of the remaining tile distance to the goal and the value of the tile. Tiles with value 100 will just not get selected for expansion, unless there really is no other option to get to the goal. With a real value of 5, a city or river somewhere on the coast would already enable a detour of at least 10 tiles.

It really is a pity that the original code comments have been removed. It would be interesting to see whether it has been designed in this way deliberately. And the real cost code of CTP1 has been lost as well.

	31-01-2004 02:26									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yup, first thought is that. Water tile effective move cost (for trade calculations) should be changed by certain naval techs, rather than being fixed.

	31-01-2004 02:29									#26
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Actual the original idea was to do it like in CTP1. But they forgot to implement the CalcTerrainFreightCost() method afterwards I implemented it, you can see the results on the attached image.

Note if there are no maglevs then the path between Chichen Itza and Uxmal would follow the coastline on the shallow tiles.

-Martin

Attachment: sometrade.jpg
This has been downloaded 120 time(s).

	31-01-2004 02:39									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Uh? Could you explain that again, Martin?

	31-01-2004 02:51									#28
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well,

The problem is that you have in the ..\ctp2_code\gs\world\wldgen.cpp a method called CalcTerrainFreightCost, in the original version all it does is returning 5, instead of the actual FreightCost of the terrain. All I did was to add a similar function to the Cell class and modelled like the CalcMoveCost method there, but it retrieves the fright cost from the TerrainDB and TileImprovementDB instead the move costs and that it is. So I hope you can see the trade route in the picture above, actual there are two following the maglevs and one following the river more or less, without the maglevs the a trade route from Chichen Itza to Uxmal what go through the shallow water along the South cost of that continent instead following the maglevs. Of course I used the cheat editor to place the cities and the maglevs.

Another interesting thing I have to note is that the number of Caravans you need to build a trade route depends on the Freight costs of the terrain between the cities, on the maglevas the costs are the lowest and you need instead of 25 Carvans just 1.

So now it does make sense that you loose a Caravan if you break the route, because when you build the route again and you have a better connection between the cities you save some caravans.

-Martin

	31-01-2004 03:02									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I still don't see how why it would follow the shallow water tiles, if they cost the same as un-roaded, un-rivered plains/grassland. I.E. 100

Surely the land route is better either way... although it might take a slightly different route on the river, if the maglev isn't there.

	31-01-2004 03:10									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins I still don't see how why it would follow the shallow water tiles, if they cost the same as un-roaded, un-rivered plains/grassland. I.E. 100 Surely the land route is better either way... although it might take a slightly different route on the river, if the maglev isn't there.

Well that would be true if all terrains have a base Freigth of 100, but in fact that isn't true, Forest have a base Freight of 200 like there Movement is Glacier for example have a Freight of 500 in comparision to Movement 300, and finally all Water tiles have a Freight of 33 in comparision to Movement of 100, so the sea route is in fact cheaper, and I think that was also in reality the case.

-Martin