Even I know better than to argue history with a history major! <g>
> 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.
>
I personally think that the profit gained by trading is fully worth it.
You need a dedicated noble to learn the skills, and then travel to the
various cities to discover the trade routes. Using skill 732 "find
tradegood for sale" takes 2 weeks. So to find the max of two tradegoods
per city takes a full game month. THEN, assuming you are carrying samples
of rare tradegoods from previously visited cities, you must then use 733
"find market for tradegood" for each one of those samples. Two weeks for
each sample. Then you travel to a new city and start the whole process
over again. It can take many, many turns to discover traderoutes. It can
also happen sooner, but I think you get my point. You have to dedicate
serious effort from one or more nobles in order to make money from trade.
I think the profits fit the effort.
Do I think the effort is worth it in building a castle, improving it and
garrisoning all those provinces for the tax income? Nope, not by a
longshot. You need some serious land in order to generate a decent amount
of cash, and the effort to accomplish this is tremendous. But, land
control is the name of the game, and an unfortunate necessity.
Just my two gold pieces,
Klaus