> But to make the game itself tax the traders makes the traders into
> commoners, & they're not, they're noble. & the only way to can tell a
> noble what to do is by putting an elite guard on his head: as
> historically is true.
>
They are only noble because that's what Rich calls them. Outside of
Venetia and Genova, well, in the majority of places I've read about,
the simple day-to-day merchantile stuff was considered beneath nobility.
Of course we could all be Fuggers, purchasing our "titles" from the
Crown [Rich, to the tune of $2.50 American a week! :-) ].
Personally, I enjoy these conersations about how things work in the game
and what _historical_ events prove the way the game works is right, or
wrong, in the eye of the beholder. But the only question that concerns
me is: does it [the game] work [as a game]?
I have my preferences on how I would like to see money gernerated in the
game. Other players have theirs. The only question I haven't seen, and
the one that really matters, is not the ratio of Trade income to Rent
income, but whether or not there is too much money being generated by
the game. Its the amount of money that's being generated that will
allow the monster armies of troops to replace the Monster armies of
critters we used to see in g1. If all that has been done is to change
the make-up of those armies from Dragons to, say, Elite Guards, has any
change really transpired?
Just my off the wall opinion.
Jim
> best wishes,
> Mark,
> ABD