Trading formula worth modding?

[Buster's Uncle]

I think you are right. I played another game that started similarly but later on my trade income eventually inched up to 1 or 2 energy.

I have to say I think I'd count it as a bug though. Even if the benefit each trading partner accrues is not equal, trade should at least always be mutually benefitial to a certain extent. For the Morganites to be getting 9 energy/turn while I get absolutely nothing is just daft, I'd be better off cancelling the agreement completely.

For more on that, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=548789

[Yitzi]

If there's a proposed change, we can discuss it.

[Buster's Uncle]

He's saying that 1 energy back for each base trading should be minimum and I think he's got a point.  That's a proposed change.

[Yitzi]

Perhaps it would be better to simply have it always round up?  Technically, that would allow for 0 commerce income if both bases have 0 energy income period, but that's a highly abnormal case (without modding, only  can have a base producing 0 energy before inefficiency).

[Buster's Uncle]

Are you suggesting some "If [base trade profit variable]<1 Then [base trade profit variable]=1" thing (however you'd actually code that)?

I do think that's what the fellow was suggesting, and I don't reckon that I disagree.

[Yitzi]

Are you suggesting some "If [base trade profit variable]<1 Then [base trade profit variable]=1" thing (however you'd actually code that)?

More than that; I'm suggesting that if the commerce formula would give 0.2, it should round up to 1, if it would give 1.2 it should round up to 2, etc.  It's a neater rule than "if less than 1, then set it equal to 1", and would still ensure that (barring trade between two copies of the Hive or the like) there'd be at least 1 commerce.

[Buster's Uncle]

Seems -- less frustrating for beginners, for sure, maybe for everyone.  So I think worth it.