> Er, the size of the world and frequency of cities wasn't in the
> startup rules. So your strategy was not "based on the startup rules",
> and could have been wrong. You got lucky, and now you are complaining
> if your brilliant strategy that you luckily chose might get slowly
> changed?
First of all, I _never_ said my strategy was brilliant, but it was the one I
decided to follow based on what I've read from the rules. You said yourself it
wasn't a winning strategy and I surely don't think it is. Should I think that
the only cities in the world were the 5 starting safehavens? The rules even
state that a city has to be farther away that 8 provinces for a traderoute to
work, so I based my initial estimates on cities 9 provinces away. Actually, the
average traderoute in Olympia is about 12 provinces apart involving both land
and sea so my estimates were wrong, but not that wrong. I think I still have
that spreadsheet where we calculated income from average traderoutes as opposed
to castles somewhere if you'd like to see it.
> Which brings me back to my initial post: I'm sure Rich will have a
> hard time with all the whiners. That's a shame; g1, for example could
> have been far more interesting had a few changes been made once it was
> realized that beastmastery was more effective than human armies, and
> that infinite aura was easy to generate. Both of these were
> strategies that people could have claimed were "based on the startup
> rules", using the same flawed logic that you did above.
The logic I am following is that I don't think trade is imbalancing (sp?)
this game as where both your examples were clearly unbalancing g1. Castles will
always be a necessity in g2. Human armies were not in g1.
Best Regards,
--
Rogerio