Originally posted by RedPhoenix
There were a lot more advanced nations in africa than in north america, in terms of trade atleast, and malay was a trader nation wasn't it? Also there was much trade in indiaI don't see how these relate directly to manhatta, as there was a lot less trade than in any of these. If any the trade in north america should be around the great rivers or in the north around the iroquis confederacy. There were some a bit larger "trader" nations more south and west in NA Too. Trade in north america is hardly comparable to any of the other areas with a COT in the game though.
Also point is Manhattan is officially out of the game, do we wan't to mod our game to be otherwise? If we include manhattan I vote we rise the trade value of persia too
Now if I am correct the West African trade went north by caravan not through Ivoria until the Europeans arrived.
The Inca and Aztec cot's no matter how advanced they may have been performed no function when European arrived face it, it was not the trade in llamas they were interested in.
Several European countries get Cot's far in away above their value while others are below value.
In the far east yes there was trade and yes it was of alot greater value than North America but as soon as the europeans arrive the value of several Cot's should evaporate as they are bypassed and undercut price wise by the cheaper and more efficent method of sea communication.
Yes i agree remove Manhatten to keep modding going but it was a mistake to just deal with it in isolation and the reasons for it's removal such as game balance are dubious when so many other factors have been overlooked for game balance when they are blatant and obivious.
It should take a large and determined effort that any nation outside of Portugal England Holland and Venice to be a colonial or seapower just like it would take a massive effort for any one of these nations to become a land power. This distinction is getting blurred but only in the one direction.
Last edited:
