Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2006:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: more considerations about trade routes
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: more considerations about trade routes

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Per Inge Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: more considerations about trade routes
From: Martin Olveyra <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 22:12:28 -0300

Governments have sometimes been involved in trade. That is true. In fact they are involved, when they themselves are providers or customers. Perhaps you are referring to this fact. But when we are speaking of intervention (not participation) in trade, government only obstaculizes.

I understand that you are (correctly) separating private wealth from government wealth. If we reason this way, and speaking in freeciv terms, trade generates private luxury, and hapiness. And there are always a balance between trade and tax level. If you apply more taxes, you inhibit trade.

This is not exactly a reinvention of the tax settings, but instead a modification. May be a more realistic and balanced modification. Actually the game establishes a balance between luxury and taxes. Perhaps a balance between trade and taxes is more rational. You can have two controls: one that balances internal trade and internal taxes, and other that balances external trade and external taxes.

Observe that if you design the game in this way you can controlate in a more general manner the effects of the different classes of government, without having to chose them specifically. The kind of governments defined in freeciv is just a way to give the posibility to choose between more or less interventionism, between more or less revenues for the state, between more or less posibility of government consumption and, as consecuence, of wars. But with a disadvantage: you cannot choose intermediate state of government, but only those specified in the rulesets.

I dont say that you must redesign the game. But at least consider that if you do that, the trade, taxes and government system would be unified, and would be more realistic and more flexible, but at the same time with much less micromanagment complications. Even the AI system would be more simple.

¿what about revolutions? This can be based on culture. Instead of press for a change in what in freeciv is a type of government, it press on the level of interventionism and statism.

Per Inge Mathisen wrote:

On Tue, 9 May 2006, Martin Olveyra wrote:

In the real world, trade is a spontaneous conduct of people. They dont need to be directed by governments in order to trade each other. Instead, the function of government is to obstaculize trade (think in customs, customs duty, protectionism, taxes, etc). When two governments celebrate a free exchange pact, a commercial agree, etc, they are not impelling trade, but they are establishing exceptions to the obstaculizations themself impose.

So ¿why, instead of leave a system in which we, the players, must act in order to establish trade routes, they instead are created spontaneously unless we obstaculize them? This alternative only takes from us the establishment of the degree of customs duty and of customs control, with the benefits for the government of more tax revenues, at the cost of less trade.


I could nitpick and say that historically this is not entirely accurate, as governments have sometimes been quite involved in trade, but the more important objection is that what the player (the government) gets in tax revenues, and trade, is the same thing.

You could say one is gold, and the other is, say, luxuries, representing private wealth, and have a control that would balance between them, but then you would merely reinvent the tax settings.

  - Per




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]