10-06-2004 10:33									#1
	DESIGN/PLAYTEST: Trade & Caravans Increase the size of your Attachments

DESIGN/PLAYTEST: Trade & Caravans

With the implementation of freight costs based on terrain type, the number of caravans needed to form a trade route has increased so much to be practically prohibitive.

What was done:
Before the CalcTerrainFreightCost function returned the value of 5
Now the CalcTerrainFreightCost function returns the freight cost from terrain.txt or tileimp.txt

The freight costs range from 10 for Maglevs and Undersea Tunnels to 600 for Mountains.

I played around with a with my savegame and the data files and have come up with a set of values which I am going to playtest

Const.txt
CARAVAN_COEF 0.04 > 0.02

Tileimp.txt
TILEIMP_ROAD 33 > 28
TILEIMP_RAILROAD 20 > 17
TILEIMP_MAGLEV 10 > 6
TILEIMP_UNDERSEA_TUNNEL 10 > 3

Terrain.txt
EnvRiver 50 > 25
TERRAIN_WATER_DEEP 33 > 11
TERRAIN_WATER_VOLCANO 33 > 11
TERRAIN_WATER_SHELF 33 > 22
TERRAIN_WATER_TRENCH 33 > 11
TERRAIN_WATER_RIFT 33 > 11

Why did I choose these numbers?

Changing the CARAVAN_COEF results in half as many caravans being needed.

Undersea Tunnels are not available until near the end of the game, so trade routes over oceans continue to require large numbers of caravans for most of the game so I reduced the deep-water tiles to have a value just above what they would have had before (11*.02 vs 5*.04). I did not change the shallow-water tiles because I thought that would have resulted in most trade being along the coast and not by road/rail.

I lowered undersea tunnels to make sure trade followed them (versus the new deep-water value).

I lowered the Maglev value below the original freight cost (6*.02 vs 5*.04) since the values for road and rail are now higher.


Please playtest my values if you would like and/or suggest different ones

[Edit] I fixed my 'what was done' link

Attachment: trade.rar
This has been downloaded 4 time(s).

Last edited by Flinx on 17-06-2004 at 19:22

	10-06-2004 12:41									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The trade costs need surely adjustment.

I used your changed options with the result shown in the picture.

Above the costs before the change.
Further down the new ccosts.

It's approximately halving the costs. But imho still too expansive to use.

Attachment: tradeoldnew.jpg
This has been downloaded 155 time(s).

	10-06-2004 18:24									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'll test it when I can, but I just had a thought if we lowered the caravan production cost instead of number of caravans could that have helped?

	10-06-2004 19:45									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Lui2 looking at your numbers, I am guessing it is early in the game and you only have a few roads. As you build a complete road network followed by rail and finally maglevs, the number of caravans needed will continue to decrease.

	10-06-2004 21:15									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

E that wont work say your have two cities and need 45 caravans to create a rout this would take 23 turns min to build all the caravans, (less for fraight) needed but if we reduce the number of caravans we reduce the minimum weighting time.

	10-06-2004 21:27									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc weighting time.

I think you mean waiting time

	10-06-2004 22:54									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I thought we already talked about :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J Bytheway in the first Playtest thread
Well, assuming the poposed explanation was correct then the new system will give the same values as the old system if there are maglevs present. So, if you want to adjust it to give the same behaviour as the old system if there are roads present, rather than maglevs, you need to multiply CARAVAN_COEFF by 5/33.[SIZE=1]

Well that would be a CARAVAN_COEFF 0.06 maybe I should add this factor to the source code so that it is not so low in the text file.

-Martin

	11-06-2004 01:39									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

CARAVAN_COEFF 0.04*5/33 = 0.00606

This would result in a trade route over roads needing the same number of caravans in the original game and in the current playtest however when you upgrade to railroads you will need 39% fewer and maglevs would require 70% fewer caravans (than over roads). This makes trade routes ridiculously cheep.

CARAVAN_COEFF 0.04*5/20 = 0.01

This would result in trade routes over railroads in the playtest would be the same as over roads in the original. Trade routes over roads would require 65% more caravans and trade routes over maglevs would require 50% less versus the original game.

The issue with just changing the CARAVAN_COEFF is that foreign trade often travels over water and so will always require more caravans until undersea tunnels are researched.


Using CARAVAN_COEFF=0.01 and giving ocean tiles a freight cost of 20 would make the number of caravans needed for a trade route in the railroad era same as the original game. With only roads more caravans will be needed, with maglevs, fewer.

	11-06-2004 01:51									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Flinx I think you mean waiting time

**************************************************
**************************************************
microdoft spell checkeeer

	11-06-2004 01:56									#10
	Support Apolyton

Well if we want it exactly the same as before all we need to do is set the freight costs for ALL tiles and ALL tile improvements (well just roads, railroads, maglevs, and undersea tunnels) to 5 and leave CARAVAN_COEFF=0.04

People can then adjust the values in mods if the want to.

	11-06-2004 02:15									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

With these files trade should be back to how it was in the original game.

Attachment: originaltrade.rar
This has been downloaded 4 time(s).

	11-06-2004 04:23									#12
	Tired of ads?

Since trade is essentially useless right now I see no reason to make it more expensive to trade. When something is done to improve trade then I can see increasing the costs for crossing various terrain and such.

	11-06-2004 18:43									#13
	Remove this text

quote: Undersea Tunnels are not available until near the end of the game, so trade routes over oceans continue to require large numbers of caravans for most of the game so I reduced the deep-water tiles to have a value just above what they would have had before (11*.02 vs 5*.04). I did not change the shallow-water tiles because I thought that would have resulted in most trade being along the coast and not by road/rail.

Like in reality?

	19-06-2004 13:37									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flinx With these files trade should be back to how it was in the original game.

Thanks Flinx, I would have preferred to use a file designed for the latest Playtest build but as it seems that the current values will not be changed I will revert back to the original ones.

	19-06-2004 15:33									#15
	List of trade routes Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Found a bug - actually I already noticed it in the previous playtest but I forgot to report:

Say there are four cities: City_1, City_2, City_3, City_4 and two Goods: SomeGood_1 and SomeGood_2. When I open the trade window, I get the list offering possible trade routes from

SomeGood_1 from City_1 to City_2
SomeGood_2 from City_3 to City_4

The "trade advisor" suggests the creation of a trade route:

SomeGood_1 from City_1 to City_2

I follow the advice and create this trade route. As soon as this route is established (and on the map it seems established / is displayed correctly) the list in the trade window tells me I am running a trade route:

SomeGood_1 from City_1 to City_4

and the entire list changes to offering different trade routes than at the beginning. I am still able to continue establishing trade routes as suggested by the modified list, but the list consequently gets screwed up each time.

	21-06-2004 10:33									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I have never noticed any bugs.

I opened the Trade Manager, and selected "All" and set "Cities Per Good" to 2.

Attachment: trade1.gif
This has been downloaded 86 time(s).

	21-06-2004 10:35									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

After trading Elephant from Ottawa to Moosonee this is the situation

Attachment: trade2.jpg
This has been downloaded 85 time(s).

	21-06-2004 10:46									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

As you can see, the colour of the good changes from black to red, to indicate that the good is currently being traded, and the second best option is now listed first.

Normally, you would only have "Cities Per Good" set to 1 so in that case what you would see is

Before
Ottawa Elephant (black) Moosonee 116 32
After
Ottawa Elephant (red) Chesterfield 113 35

Note that
Ottawa Elephant Moosonee 116 32
now shows up on the "Trade-Summary" tab

Attachment: trade3.jpg
This has been downloaded 84 time(s).

	23-06-2004 22:04									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Nice work! I hope you guys are dedicated enough to really improve the rade aspects of the game (like those mentioned in the trade thread)

	24-06-2004 16:13									#20
	Remove this text

Some more ideas about trade and caravans:

Why not make the cost age dependent? (including # of caravans needed and cost of each?)

So like in the early stage cheap caravans and low cost for each. BUT to offset this having a limitation onto the overall number of traderoutes allowed, let's say max. 4

Next age:
# of caravans goes up slightly (like 15%)
cost for each: also up, but like 20%

Same for any following age, till the discovery of factory or similar, when cost shall go down drastically, but maybe the number still up.

This would reflect better (IMO) the real situation.

The really old trade routes were limited, but bringing for 'cheap' money/resources far more back in short time. (like the silk-street, or the salt-street, but they were already later)

Only later (like the East/West Indian Company) it was quantity over 'quality'. And for the last ~100 years the complete bulk freight transport of goods, made them cheap.

Just and

	24-06-2004 16:31									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I would go for the kiss approach. (Keep it simple stupid)

Trade has too purposes one get goods to places that don’t have them. (it is no good trying to sell ice to the Eskimos). The second reason is to make money .

As for age dependent how about more caravan types.

Lets say

Ancient: Camel
The one my spell checker dos not get : Wagon
Modern: Truck / fright
Genetic: Supper fright air ships
Diamond: Transporters (like in star trek ) ha ha ha ha

	24-06-2004 18:03									#22
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc The one my spell checker dos not get : Wagon

Are you sure about the spell checker, might it not be you? (no offense meant).

	24-06-2004 18:55									#23
	Tired of ads?

If in don't blame the guy that don't speak English.

as my spell checker dos not speak English I am blaming it.

	24-06-2004 19:10									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The Big Mc If in don't blame the guy that don't speak English. as my spell checker dos not speak English I am blaming it.

What do you expect from an American spellchecker? Shall they really know Oxford English?

Those neighbors neighbours are sometimes weared

But shortly coming back to your idea:

This would only change the cost of producting, but I'll would like to see also differences in the income of it. The ancient trade routes were far more valuable than nowadays.

Just think of pepper, there were times were pepper was more valuable than gold. Same goes for silk by the way. But this isn't reflected at all.

	24-06-2004 23:28									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The Americans, don’t get me started .

But really my idea is that the value of caravans each one represents is increased.

Well won’t that be included in a nice idea of goods going out of thw window. Like tobacco being pointless pas the genetic age.

	24-06-2004 23:54									#26
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I can't stand America! We should have the option of chosing state flags rather than the American flag

Great work on the whole trading thing, though IMHO its still useless. Introduce strategic resources and all will be well.

	25-06-2004 02:34									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by EPW I can't stand America! We should have the option of chosing state flags rather than the American flag

Why what state would you have

quote: Great work on the whole trading thing, though IMHO its still useless. Introduce strategic resources and all will be well.

Not strategic recourses. positive recourses maybe

	25-06-2004 04:23									#28
	Support Apolyton

California of course!

yes, strategic resources, must have strategic resources...

Actually with trading to, it would be nice to see a market alue for goods and be able to adjust the price and compete with other traders in the old ctp2 model (if you can beat them in the market place then beat them in war!)

of course it would also mean there would have to be an incentive for trade (happiness or something in exchange) but that goes back to the other trade thread

	25-06-2004 12:13									#29
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

E instead of strategic goods I am all in favour of positive goods.

These are where a good increases something in a unit or city.

Example one

A city which receives oil can make a tank that goes 1 movement point further.

Example two

A city that receives wood has an increase in production

Example three

A city that collects sugar has an increases in foods same with the city that receives it.



This system allows for goods to add a strategic element to the game without causing a civ3 style stupid tech acquisition like tank where you can’t get oil.


Also remember ctp is set post modern so if we do strategic recourses some one has a lot of work to do making post modern goods.

	25-06-2004 12:39									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Big Mc,

sounds good (the examples). But I see it in the moment only as an exploit for the H player.

So long we can't teach the AI, it would be no fun..........