I can basically do the same thing now. I can notify people of the tariff
rate i wish to charge. Then people doing business can pay me or my
associate the rate that I am charging. Those who don't pay I can track
down and collect from them. This only automates the collection process for
those who wish to pay. Would this system report people not paying the
tariff if I don't have a noble located there?
|>
|> Three other changes--
|>
|> I'd raise the number of rare items that a city can trade to four
This could be dangerous. Trade routes are extremly powerful when you
can buy/sell tradegoods in each direction. Doubling the number of
tradegoods
would only increase the power of these traderoutes.
|> I'd make each rare item bought by a city increase the civ level by .25,
|> thus allowing a total possible increase of 1.
This wouldn't add much. If the city is already at civ-8, going to civ-9
would amount to an increase of 25 coins in taxes. If the city was at civ-1
and jumped to civ-2, you would gain 40 coins in taxes (assuming an increase
in the surrounding 4 provinces as well.)
|> I'd change the profit structure to reflect distance, so routes of 8
|> provinces get 50% of the listed profit, increasing by .0625 for each
|> additonal province until routes of 16 provinces or more would get the
|> full amount.
This kind of idea has some merit. Currently tradegoods from 8 provinces
away are just as valuable as tradegoods 50 provinces away. I'm not sure
if this kind of change would be better suited for a new trade system in G3
or added to G2.
|>
|> Comments? I think this would allow landholders the option of
|> restricting trade in their cities if they so chose, and even better, the
|> option of restricting trade to those they have an agreement with. It
|> also encourages trade by the civ level bonus. It encourages interaction
|> by allowing players to open their cities to trade--advertising a 5%
|> tariff might make you quite popular with the merchant class. Finally,
Why would any tariff make you popular with the merchant class? I think it
would be too easy for someone to do business in locations where there is no
tariff at all.
|> the distance factor would encourage interfaction trade routes.
|>
|> EXAMPLE:
|>
|> Yellowleaf buys Chocolate for 34 gold, quantity 100. The city has a
|> tariff of 10%. Schlomo wishes to sell his chocolate to the city, and
|> chooses to be a good citizen and pay the tariff. Thus, when the
|> transaction is completed, Schlomo gets 3,060 gold instead of 3,400, and
|> Moishe, the owner of Yelloleaf, gets 340. If Schlomo bought his
|> chocolate only 8 provinces away then his profit is pretty diminished--he
|> should find another market farther away, or cut a deal with Moishe to
|> lower the tariff if he promises to increase the volume of trade.
|>
|> Rob
|
The current rules and this proposal still suffer from the isolationist
problem.
It is better to set yourself up in your own area and not be involved with
other
factions. A new trade proposal needs to encourage both landholders and
traders
to work together. Your proposal helps the landholders, buts penalizes the
traders for working with the landholders.
A better trade system would:
- Make it worthwhile for landowners to allow traders to operate. (taxes? civ
bonus?)
- Not have traders take away tradegoods that the landowner wanted to utilize
- Give traders a good reason to trade in an area where a landholder is
instead
of finding an area which is not populated
But for the proposed tariff command, I'd hate Rich waste his time coding
another
command that ends up like the "ferry" command.
Wayne Sheppard
mrwayne@mindspring.com