|
Roads -> (10/10/2003 12:46:17 AM)
|
[QUOTE=Le Tondu] I say that land trade can be abstracted as well which would make the game just as playable. The game right now causes all nations to eat out of the hand of England. [/QUOTE]
I could just as well argue it's the other way around - the game forces Britain to go cap in hand to ensure that he can get trade. He's always at the mercy of the other players for a large chunk of his income - this it true of no other country.
Everyone talks about how Britain has lots of cash. But without the income from trade Britain is not so much cash-rich as manpower-poor. Now in most games he'll be able to trade with most countrys and as a result his income will be very good. But it is always vulnerable if people decide to gang up.
For Britain this is unlikely, and therefor the vulnerability is more theoretical than real. Try to model land trade, which would put France in the same boat of having to ensure the ability to trade with the other countries and it's a whole different story. Neutrals will have a nice way to really hurt France, and France will be extremely vulnerable. (Ulike Britain, he cannot win the game without winning lots of wars and as a result everyone will be afraid of France).
Maybe this land trade thing appeals to those who think France is overpowered. I think that French diplomacy is already hard enough, and giving everyone else a big stick with which to beat France is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
