It is?
> Whoo... you touched a familiar subject, the example is even
> better than Holland. Actually the venetian families wealth came from
> a combination of glass production and glass trade of which glass
> production was an extremelly smaller amount.
Gee, I wish I was an authority who could say what would happen if
Venice didn't produce any glass. I would predict the stock market and
be a trillionaire.
> > Well, my character in the game is an earl, so I'd say "yes". But
> > before the game started I didn't know how big the world is nor the
> > frequency of cities, so I still didn't know the relative value of
> > trade verses castles. You didn't know it either; you guessed.
>
> Even if cities would be so sparse as to have to take 2-3 months to reach
> one, it would still be a more sane investment (money wise) than setting up a
> castle. Mind me, I have nothing against castles, and they are a necessity in the
> game regardless of their income. We do in fact own several castles.
So you agree that you guessed? Your "sane investment" argument is not
very strong; castle income is more reliable than trade, and land
requires little maintenance.
-- g