Re: Trading history for fun

Colin (C.I.Cavanagh@qmw.ac.uk)
03 Feb 1998 08:33:25 +0000

In <34D65145.7B41@netdex.com>, Jim Frediani wrote:
>Mark Hendrickson wrote:
>
>> 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
>

I have decided that there should only be one way of generating money
and that should be

All nobles controlled by my faction should have all the money-rule

hope you all do not think thats a little one sided .

Colin

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links