Commerce Poll (PLEASE READ DEBRIEFING FIRST)

[Dr. Nick]

Alright, here's the debriefing:

We are building caravans in the following cities:
Sodaq- Spice, Pearls, Salt
Apolyton- Silk, Furs
Walvis Baii- Pearls, Gems, Furs

We can trade with nearby Rome for some quick profit, they seem to be peaceful and small and after the containment city is founded it'll be easy to maintain the peace. There is a trireme nearby that seems to be about to turn into a taxi as a poll suggests.

Rome demands:
Rome- Silk, Copper, Silver
Antium- Dye, Copper, Silk
Cumae- Silk, Wool, Gems
Veii- Dye, Copper, Pearls

On the other hand, we have faraway Egypt. There's a trireme lying idle around Egypt that can be used to transport two caravans, though this will take longer, it should net us some more cash (although I don't expect it to be very much more).

Egypt demand:
Thebes- Furs, Wine, Silk
Elephantine- Furs, Gold, Silver
Heliopolis- Dye, Copper, Pearls
Memphis- Dye, Wine, Furs

We can produce demanded commodities in both empires in each of the three cities making units. I personally suggest we go for trade with Rome. They may be closer, it'll net us some less money individually, but it won't be so disruptive to the movement of triremes. As well as the fact, that I'm pretty sure that trireme sulking at the loss of our warrior north of Egypt will be used for colonisation rather than commerce in the nearby future.

Overall, we have those two options or the isolationist, you decide.

[cavebear]

It appears that our main plan involves eliminating India and then Rome. If that is the case, there is not enough gain to be had by trade with cities that may soon be destroyed.

It will be worth more to establish trade (if we do that at all with other civs) with those destined to survive longer.

Actually, the best thing is to establish trade routes with our own cities on other landmasses. That way, we don't have to share the wealth with anyone.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I dunno....

We should perhaps look for the quick benefit - and if Rome really is peaceful, perhaps it is best to consider using it as a useful trading partner until we are dominant enough that we no longer need them.

I don't know IIRC, but don't things like trade have an effect on the Civ's attitude? India seems to have all the hallmarks of Hostile Nation #1 at the mo', and I don't believe we are quite at the stage of killing them and moving on to someone else YET.

So, all in all, let the swine (Romans) have their pearls! We need the gold, and perhaps that will allow us to adjust taxes to curb those unhappy mutterings disturbing our President so.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Trade with Rome after containing them.

That aside... pearls? I don't remember that being a trade commodity... *scratches head*

[-Jrabbit]

Another advantage to trading with the Romans is that soon those cities will be ours!


Where the heck did we find Pearls????????

[shade]

Trade with Rome:
advantages:
-Close
-quick profit
-easy to contain as "other empire to trade with"(we keep them contained(=NOT KILL THEM) and get big profits=> kill rest of the world...since they(Rome) are pathetic we don't need to be that affraid of them))
-keep triremes near.

Shade

[MrWhereItsAt]

Blame El Awrence for the Pearls, I just followed his lead...

Maybe there are Pearls in the MGE game?

[Hydey]

I never see pearls, perhaps its a cheat.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

It sounds as tho someone has an altered rules.txt... One wonders what else has been altered besides just the trade commodities?

If it's just a commodity, no big deal. It will revert back to whatever the default is when the next president plays.

[JCP]

I try an explanation :
Don't blame latin players : in Civ II, there are Gems for trade.
But the translation in other languages may be not very acute.
In french, for instance, gems become "joyaux", that may be translate approximatively by Pears !
And in castellano (spanish...)...

[JCP]

Originally posted by JCP
...translate approximatively by Pears !

Pearls, of course !

[MrWhereItsAt]

Mais, bien sur!