> This strategy isn't necessarily a "winning" one even in the current
> game -- other people could occupy the cities elsewhere that you trade
> with, and blow your traders away. Presumably you have a backup
> strategy for that case.
I never said it was a "winning" strategy, but it was the strategy I and my
allies decided to adopt and the kind of game I like to play. I think it is
unfair I have to rethink a stragety which was based on the startup rules.
Regarding the attacks you mentioned, what do you think I was trying to say when
I mentioned the fragility of a traderoute?
> Also, the effort that you have spent already has a limited life due
> to the 24-36 month life of a route.
But the cities are still there and a new one can be made. When I mentioned
the effort I wasn't just mentioning the fact of creating the route itself, but
of the deals made with the owners of some of the terminus cities as well as all
the nobles we have with trade skills and the amount of roundships we have built
in order to be able to use all of them.
> So, if Rich decided (and I doubt he will) that trade was too good in
> the current game, if he introduced a gradual change, you wouldn't be
> hurt that badly; you'd know about it and you'd change your strategy.
But I could not change the place where we have settled, because all of the
surrounding land is settled, which wasn't when we decided to settle here. As
I've said to several players, we are a small trading kingdom, and if trade is
reduced (especially by the huge amount refered in the original post) we surely
could not cope with our expenses, much less make a profit.
Best Regards,
--
Rogerio