Re: more on trade

Greg Lindahl (lindahl@pbm.com)
Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:39:45 -0500 (EST)

>
> Greetings,
>
>
> > 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
>
>

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links