Colin wrote:
>
> 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