RE: FYI

Colin (C.I.Cavanagh@qmw.ac.uk)
02 Feb 1998 18:09:52 +0000

In <CDCF514238FDCF11B9F5000083A25FF6010BCE0D@exchange.unex.ucla.edu>, Rodgers, Robert wrote:
>I'm assuming this is for one month. If it is, then clearly trade is the
>way to make money in this game ;) Too much money.
>
>That said, I just scanned a weekend's worth of messages and have a
>couple of comments. I said earlier that using historical comparisions
>to Oly is dangerous, and what I just read bears it out. Although there
>have been some great trading empires, including Venice and Holland,
>eventually they lost out to military powers simply because of a shortage
>of other resources. Money will only buy so much in the real world. In
>Oly, that isn't the case. A castle owner who controls 50 provinces
>can't raise 500 peasants a month and train them into soldiers, he simply
>doesn't have enough nobles to do the job. A single faction can only
>raise and train maybe a 100 troops a turn, and that is pushing it. You
>can do that in 8 provinces if you have a city or two. So a trading
>empire who has tons of gold has the same ability to raise troops as a
>large landholder, but he can support them indefinitely. This is where
>Oly differs from the "Real World" IMHO.
>
>Should trade be changed? Personally, I like the suggestion of adding the
>REMOVE TRADE ITEM order. That might pit the traders against each other,
>as they should be. I'm still for allowing city owners to set some sort
>of tax on trnsactions too. Of course, there are other methods of
>discouraging trade. Some of these "newbie" factions might want to go
>into the piracy game. Remember, "real" pirates didn't spend much time
>hunting down ships at sea--it's too damn hard to find a sailing ship
>from another sailing ship, just ask Admiral Rodney. Nope, most pirates
>made their fortunes raiding ports, just like in Disneyland. All that
>trading gold has to be stored somewhere...
>If Mark's naval rules are implemented in some form (which I support)
>then that is also a good option.
>
>Rob
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>
>> From: Rich Skrenta [SMTP:skrenta@pbm.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 1998 10:38 PM
>> To: g2-list@pbm.com
>> Subject: FYI
>>
>> Gold report
>> -----------
>>
>> Common magic: 0 0%
>> Lead to gold: 0 0%
>> Pots and baskets: 6,584 4%
>> Opium: 0 0%
>> Trade to cities: 104,599 76%
>> Inn income: 6,278 4%
>> Taxes: 12,306 9%
>> Times press: 0 0%
>> Combat with indeps: 403 0%
>> Petty thievery: 2,217 1%
>> Temple income: 3,700 2%
>> Pillaging: 16 0%
>> Ferry boarding: 0 0%
>> ----
>> Total: 136,103
>>
>> Player combat: 15,206
>

Despite what any one says the only historical empires to be succesful
used the land they controlled to trade and reap the benifits to feul
their armies to grab more land

The only way things would be historically correct would be for the
castle holders to have some contrrol on the trade in their holdings at
the moment there is none you can control all the cities but unles you
prevent others trading in themn and you trade instead of them then you
will only reap the taxes of your people, which is never enough.

so if you want to balance things allow the land owners to have some
control over taxes and trade, but do not change the taxing system.

Colin

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links