(no subject)

[Martin Olveyra <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mmm...may be you are right for the sake of the game. Generally I'm quite purist :P

However, I have tested a game in which I have eliminated the restriction of minimum distance and the trade bonus diferences (the trade bonus is the same for cities in the same or different continents) and have added the same bonus ammount for shields and food.

This changes not only gives more importance to trade routes, but also gives more balance to the game in the sense that you can have a more economically powerfull civilization without having lots of cities. A feature that I dislike totally in the game is that you only can have a reasonable nation only proliferating the cities and expanding most as you can at the beginning of the game. In reality, the market multiplies the sinergy between different people agreggates. The is a profound interdependence between all nations. In freeciv the nations are to much autharkyst and independent for my taste.

But I agree with you that the trade bonus should be in a greater ammount for far cities than for near ones. Not only because the establishment of lots of trade routes inside one nation would unbalance the game again in favor of autharky, but also because that condition simulates the need of resources that can only be found in the foreign market. Here then what I see more important in my proposal is that the trade bonus applies also for food and shields. ¿what do you think?

At the respect of currency and trade, what about that:

- The trade routes can be established from the beggining of the game. That is, Trade technology has no other tech requirements (my arguments)
- Currency makes the trade bonus bigger in comparation when you doesn't know this technology (your arguments). Also, both civilizations that have a trade route must know the currency in order to have effect in their common trade routes.

I will test all this.

P.D.: I have noted that there is anywhere in the client GUI (in particular in the city dialog, where it should be), information about the trade routes established.

Cheers,

Martin

Peter Schaefer wrote:

On 4/20/06, Martin Olveyra <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  

Hello,

I think that the trade system is opposite to what it should be.

1) The trade routes between cities have more effect when the cities are
farer, and less effect when they are nearer. In reality, the trade
between near cities tends to be bigger, because the costs of transportation.
    

Well, the system is supposed to reward the player for his work. In the
real world, exactly because trade between distant areas is difficult,
it is a rewarding business once established. Also the effect that
close cities wil have many trade routes is not without parallels in
freeciv, since when you are in a hurry to make use of extra caravans,
you will establish routes between cities on your little continent

  

2) The technology Trade has the requirement of Currency. But in reality
the trade originated currency. And currency is an invention to improve
trade.
    

Well, but having currency makes trade more effective, so it only
becomes relevant after currency has been established ;-)

  

I think that if you change both things the game improves in balance and
gives more importance to trade routes.
    

C'mon ;-)

3) The real problem with trade routes is that it takes too much time
to micromanage their establishment, especially in online multiplayer
games.