I originally posted this on reddit, but have updated it slightly

Right now it feels like the trade system is bare bones and abstract. There’s a payoff but little downside, which makes it a bit of a no-brainer. The fact that plundering a trade route can generate grievances does mitigate this somewhat but it’s hardly much of a deterrence. I propose several big changes to make trade more concrete, intuitive, and meaningful to players, hopefully without needless complexity. I warn you all, this will be a long post.

Basic Mechanics:

1. Caravan Units: Taking inspiration from Civ V, I propose all trade to be done through trade units. That is, in order to set up a route, one must build a caravan unit that must make a successful trip in order for the player(s) to reap the benefits of said trade route. A successful trip consists of a caravan, once built, successful traveling from a home city to a destination city, and back again. That is to say, when it reaches the destination city - that civilization gets a positive effect (+ gold, stability, strategic resource). Then, once it reaches the home city on its return trip, the home civilization gets a positive effect (+gold, etc). To balance out the fact that it would take many turns for a complete round trip, the positive effects should last for the duration of two complete trips. It could be represented as a per turn increase to make it more intelligible for the player. Higher tech could increase the benefits of trade and shorten the travel time (which could also increase the benefits of trade). If only one suggestion I make is taken, I propose it be this change because then all trade is on the map. One can see it, touch it, and feel it. It would be real to the player, not just yet another item on a spreadsheet of bonuses and maluses.

2. Trade Hubs: After reaching the classical era, trade hubs should be unlocked. They would be a small tile improvement much like a camp or sanctuary and they would function as a meeting place for trade. Two caravans from two different civilizations could meet there and exchange goods and then head back home, cutting the travel time potentially in half. Naturally, this would require both civilizations to build trade caravans.

Trade hubs would be organically built by a trade route automatically in a neutral territory between two civilizations at a rough halfway point. A fraction of the transaction would be lost as a cost paid to the middleman (trade hub). However, should one wish, one could spend gold to construct one on advantageous, defensible territory. And as owner of said trade hub, one could charge a tax on all transactions that took place. For naval trade routes, trade ports could be built along the coast, along with trade cogs having a faster movement speed than land caravans.

Any outpost or city that had a trade hub (or port) in its territory would receive a bonus to cash income. Doubly so if that civ owned the trade hub to boot. If built next to districts it could even provide adjacency bonuses. A trade hub would also provide 1 hex line of sight to all civs that used it so building close to one’s districts could potentially come with a trade off. Free adjacency bonuses in exchange for free intel? Perhaps owning the trade hub and having reduced travel time for trade routes is enough of bonus so it is kept far from the city. But then again, now it is harder to defend.

Trade hubs would add an extra layer to trade by providing convenience with intuitive downsides to balance them. By gating some of their more substantial upsides through ownership of the hub, the territory, or both, there’s now incentive to own one through peaceful or hostile means. Naturally, the spiteful can choose to raze them and pocket substantial money (and benefits re: luxuries/strategic resources) but this comes with the risk of several aggrieved parties to declare war on you at the same time.

Trade Route Costs

 As of right now, trade is a no brainer. You make a deal with someone to get money per turn and they get a resource and its attendant benefits. There’s no pressing reason that I know of to not trade as much as possible.

But if trade is carried out through physical caravans, then it already has an intrinsic cost:

1. opportunity cost of building the caravan
2. population lost (same as military units)
3. gold per turn upkeep
4. food per turn upkeep (after classical era as caravans become too big to make foraging practical)

Make too many trade caravans and you’ll cripple your population and economy along with having little means to defend them. This would gate the size of trade economies in the early game to prevent massive snowballing. This also provides the opportunity to help differentiate civilizations by how they deal with trade by applying select bonuses (less upkeep/cheaper to build/etc).

Information/UI:

There should be a trade map mode that would show each trade route, highlight each city engaging in trade (yours and other civs), and display the cost and yields of each trade route. There should be a list of routes somewhere in the corner of a screen with important info at a glance - total cost of route, total income, and what is traded (gold for resource or vice versa). When a route is clicked, it should have a drop down infographic of exact details of route (break down the costs, the income, cultural/religious/science pressure) the route should be highlighted on the map.

Raiding: 

Not everyone can afford to build a robust trade empire and not everyone wants to. But everyone can profit off of trade - some just profit at the expense of others. Why not let someone else do the hard-work for you?

So if a military unit attacks a trade unit it is defenseless and immediately gives its goods (be it a strategic resource or the payment for it). The attacker would then have the option to destroy the caravan or press it into service. Being grateful for their lives, the caravan could operate free of charge for a few trips. Naturally, this would generate grievances for the two (or more) parties affected by raiding. The severity if the grievance would be commiserate with the value of the plunder and the effect of its loss. If loss of a trade route put a civilization into the red financially, it would be more upset than one that lost income but was otherwise okay. If the trade loss sent that particular civilization to the brink of financial ruin, it would be even more upset and might declare war if its grievances were not satisfied immediately.

Raiding a trade hub would be even more profitable, with the option again to own it or raze according to one’s pleasure. Again, the consequences could be commensurately severe. If the raiders have horses and more than one unit, then there’s a chance to capture any unfortunate caravans within a small radius of the trade hub. High risk, high reward baby!

Demanding tribute could also be an option.

Protection/Security: 

Just as it is natural for enterprising scoundrels to want to profit on the backs of others, it is natural to want to protect one’s own investments.

I propose that combat units be able to attach to caravan units in a special kind of army as security. In this manner, enemy units would have to fight the security in a battle before they could plunder the caravan. Security units would be auto-attached with the caravan and would not be able to be used to attack enemies unless un-attached. The trade off-however, would be that trade caravans could be slowed down depending on how much security they had and what type. Horsemen, as security would naturally not slow down movement. But foot soldiers might. Or you could pay extra upkeep for the foot soldiers so they have steeds available for travel purposes.

One could attempt to be devious and detach these security forces in enemy territory but doing so would be immediate cause for war and other nations might force you to leave your security forces at their borders or stop trading with you all-together. But once trade hubs start popping up - this wouldn’t really be tenable.

There’s also the option to bribe both independent civilization and player alike to leave your trade hub/caravans alone. Expect pirates on the high seas!

Diplomacy:

In diplomacy, there will be several changes. There will be an initial level of trading beneath trading luxuries that is basically open borders but just for trade units. Cancelling this treaty would cancel all trade between two nations and auto-send all caravans on a path outside the host nation after their final trade. Doing this unprompted could potentially cause grave offense (read: grievance time baby). This would also allow players to have trade routes that go through your territories. You could charge for this privilege.There would also be an option to ask for escort privileges which would allow security forces to travel with the caravan. Once trade hubs become a thing, this option would be kind of like conditional open borders in the event that someone has a trade route that would pass through your territory. You could charge for this privilege as well. But if you don’t allow security forces in your territory, you will generate a small grievance in the event someone’s caravan gets ransacked on your watch.

Lastly, there will be the issue of duties. As lesser form of retaliation and revenue source, players could levee costs on trade conducted through their borders or in trade hubs in their territories. Allies could negotiate special exceptions but that is up to the player.

Miscellaneous:

I believe trade routes should also exert cultural and religious pressure commensurate with the strength of one’s culture and religious vis a vis someone else’s. Nations with higher tech than a trade partner would also exert a slight tech boost.

Also - pirates. Perhaps in the era after classical, pirates should be a thing one should be able to pay or create pirates to raid enemy trade routes without it being explicitly tied back to you. But if you run out of money for those pirates they may stop working for you and may even disclose your involvement in their raids to your competitors.

I have more thoughts on trade - but they tie into other suggestions I wish to put forward, like mercenaries.

Closing Remarks:

The idea behind all this is to make trade meaningful to the player without muddying the waters of his understanding with heavy amounts of abstraction. Having physical caravans that carry physical goods from one city to another makes the trade system concrete and understandable. Already, the player can see how it might be important to protect trade routes. This step, along with making trade progressively more lucrative already encourage everyone to dip their toes in as much as they can afford to. But the fact that one can just as easily raid and steal the means to develop a trade empire is a heavy incentive to use the sword to solve the problem of money. Both paths are curbed by the rising costs of caravans and the potentially catastrophic consequences of more than one nation. Combined with expanded, more fine diplomatic options to deal with all this and all of a sudden you have a facet of gameplay that not only provides another way to win but interfaces with nearly every other system in the game.

In this manner, I hope to make trade a lucrative enterprise that is made interesting by the player having to balance the costs and risks with the rewards. And hopefully this would provide more fodder to make for more unique civilizations.

What do you all think?

Wald

Walderschmidt wrote:
Right now it feels like the trade system is bare bones and abstract.

I severely disagree with this statement, as I have  experienced plenty of games where the effects of Trade Dependency proves catastrophic to my empire to where I've become invested in responding to the perpetrators. 

If there is one thing that  HUMANKIND does well right now, it is portraying the byproduct effects that trade has on the Geopolitical scene. If you're not fortunate enough to spawn with every resource within reasonable reach of your empire, you are crippling yourself by not trading for resources, even on a low luxury/strategic spawn setting. And if you make it a point to trade with everyone, you run the risk of becoming dependent on a hostile player who has a trade monopoly of major resources--to the point where if they decide to start burning trade routes or activating grievances/tariffs against you, the halting of their resources significantly slashes the FIMS production potential of your empire. All that is a consequence system that HUMANKIND somehow managed to make as a natural byproduct to how trading works in the game right now. And I do enjoy that aspect of this game. Especially in situations where it comes together to provide an, albeit rare, experience of causing something similar to a bronze age collapse by simply committing to the burning of major resource trade routes, indirectly forcing players to use often older military units to deal with the sudden resource disparity.

Is it perfect? No.

Could it be better? 100%

But is it bare bones? I wouldn't say so.

If anything, I'd be interested in the map generation favoring luxury and strategic resource spawning that helps force high density trade routes to spawn--ala the silk road or the Austronesian maritime trade network, etecetera. However, it would likely be a better compromise to give the player the agency of being able to direct trade routes through specific cities that they choose.