I also decided to invest heavily in trade from the beginning of the game,
when I realized its advantages compared to landholding. However, the
profits generated do threaten to be large enough to cause large-scale
inflation. Successful trading alliances will be able to field armies of
virtually any size for indefinite periods. "Economic" forms of
welfare...raiding trade routes and attacking garrisons in an attempt to
"starve an army out" will be useless as every army has enough gold
stockpiled for dozens of turns. So I have no objection to a change, as
long as Rich gives us plenty of warning.
OTOH, I think that ALL aspects of a change should be looked at closely.
Not just "how does it hurt me," but how does it affect the entire game.
Making trade less effective would have the effect of strengthening already
existing alliances and making things more difficult for newbies, because
most large alliances have probably already built up large gold stockpiles
that new players could never hope to match.