> > Anyway, Olympia is a simulation,
>
> It is?
> Olympia is a computer moderated play-by-electronic-mail (PBEM) fantasy simulation.
>
Taken from the starting page of the olympia web page.
> 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.
As in Olympia every city 'produces' up to 2 tradegoods, that is not the case. And
Genova didn't produce any substancial amount of a single considerable good, altough it
had an average production capability. The difference between Venice and Genova, was
that the trade from Genova was not made by those who owned production and still the
rich families of Genova were the ones who handled the trade and not the production.
> > 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.
No, I didn't guess. I looked at the amount of noble days necessary to build a
castle + install garrisons as opposed to the noble days necessary to build a
traderoute. The money necessary to build all our castles (ie to pay up the stacks of
100 workers) came in the majority through trade.
The greater advantage of castle income is that it indeed requires very little
maintenance as opposed to trade which is an extremelly high maintenance cost (not in
gold but in noble days).
All in all I would say that both methods of income are well balanced, each with
its own flaws and merits.
Best Regards,
--
Rogerio