Major Nimrod wrote:Trade is not broken at all. It's essential to winning the game!
Removing it, or nullifying it because some people can't appreciate the importance to victory, seems like cow-towing to the wrong group of people.
My friend, I really can't see the connection between the two things.
Did you notice that I just wrote that Trade - as it is now - could be such a HUGE advantage if properly exploited?
Do you remember we won a Match together? Yes, it was GT01. Do you remember how? Towards the end of the World War, I bought maybe dozens of El_perdedor units and cities when he and ifaesfu were spreading inside your borders. I also bought Antwerp, one of the biggest cities in the world along with its working Wonder (!). I spent dozens of thousands of $ in the operation. Where do you think all that money came from? No, not from Auntie's weekly pocket money. It was from the instant bonus provided by a bunch of spare Freigths, all hungry for estabilishing over-inflated trade routes from my best Western cities with artificially over-inflated cities in the East. Now, the real question is: where did all those Freights came from? Yes, my mate, you already know the answer: they had been BOUGHT with incomes of previous trade routes instant bonuses. That's because I successfully found a self-sustainable economical process to over-produce $ with which virtually build a even bigger-sized process in few turns.
The process worked because I had many cities and I always found fresh trade routes to estabilish, and sometimes revived old ones once they were dropped.
Now, I didn't do it myself but I think one could build a simpler system of this kind: 6 big sized cities of more or less same size and trade, one of which ("A") quite far away from the other 5 ones and all connected by railroad. "A" has trade route with 4 of them ("B","C","D" and "E") and estabilish another trade route with the 5th ("F"), which should be better (bigger) than, say, "E". Then, with the $ earned, you both buy another caravan, and a settler in "F". Next turn you add the settler to "E" and send there the caravan. If cities are enough big and enough similar in size, you will get enough $ to cover your expenses (settler + caravan), so you can do the same again and again, just swapping "E" an "F" roles. With the rest of the $ you can buy beers or a over-sized army or enemy cities if you're that lazy.
If I had time I also would try a Pentacle
: 5 big cities same sized and equally far from each other and all buying caravans and sending to other cities in order to mutually stealing/donating trade routes: this theoretically could generate a huge amount of $ without much fiddling, provided that you find the correct trim. IF you have more cities you could also buy more caravans and repeat the process as many times as caravans slot you can force to build. If rapture were enabled too, well... things would become ridicoulusly over-inflating: one could also have time to buy settlers and found more Pentacles: it would be a subprime orgy without the subprime risk. Even without the Pentacles, it sounds esoteric because it somewhat IS esoteric, i.e. it is disconnected from the "real" world
(and disconnected from healthy, "real" economics of Freeciv, which are founded on good old land exploiting).
So when you talk about "importance to victory", I hear "exploitable unwanted financial esoterism".
Do you want to win with accurate economical and trade moves? Fair. You can do it very well even without the instant bonus, or having it drastically diminished.
Now I changed my mind in a more radical position so I propose this poll:
1. No change (=GT01 settings)
2. halving instant $/bulbs revenue
3. halving both persistent trade bonus and instant revenue
4. disable instant revenue
5. halving trade bonus and disable instant revenue
6. disable routes
I would vote for (4).