(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.
>
>
>
>