The Spice(s) must flow - Why a grouped spice system is the best option

[slupie]

I definitely think the common/aromatic/piquant/rare split is probably the most graceful naming.

When it comes to vanilla, cursory reading indicates that it was only used in making chocolate until the 18th century when it started to be used as a flavoring for other sweets. This tracks with how vanilla remained almost exclusively a Central American export until around that time, when it became more profitable to try to grow on other colonial plantations. In this sense, vanilla would be an aromatic spice with more value than common spices.

 

[Bozkurt]

It would be really upsetting to see while everything get more expanded in PC compared to EU4 spices get abstracted.

 

[Paulatim]

1- check the historical data
2 - balance the game for the treshold of which spices are relevant enough to be included as individual trade good
3 - the rest is "spices"

Question: why not breaking apart also wines? Each wine location should have one between "prized wine", "mid wine" and "cheap wine", and then you can make some exeptional sought-after wines as individual trade goods. Same for other goods in different continents.

Or maybe a simple system is better.

 

[Sirbab]

1- check the historical data
2 - balance the game for the treshold of which spices are relevant enough to be included as individual trade good
3 - the rest is "spices"

Question: why not breaking apart also wines? Each wine location should have one between "prized wine", "mid wine" and "cheap wine", and then you can make some exeptional sought-after wines as individual trade goods. Same for other goods in different continents.

Or maybe a simple system is better.

While I understand what you're getting at, if wine gets broken down by location and quality, then that beggars the question why every good isn't given this level of detail, like wood, stone, etc.
The spices in question sold for radically different values, and held varying uses from pleasure, to medicine, to even decoration.

 

[Paulatim]

While I understand what you're getting at, if wine gets broken down by location and quality, then that beggars the question why every good isn't given this level of detail, like wood, stone, etc.
The spices in question sold for radically different values, and held varying uses from pleasure, to medicine, to even decoration.

Dyes.... medicaments.... I guess every location should produce some food as raw material...

You guys are going from oversimplified to overdetailed, with a completely made up category that speaks nothing about the spice trade (nobody cared whether a spice was a rhyzome, a fruit, a carpus, a nut, a leaf, a false leaf, from xilema or floema...)

The flavoring grouping makes a bit more sense IMO, but the rarity and uniqueness is actually way more important (why putting gold in food then..).

I was a proposal of the geographical splitting back in the anatolian tinto maps, and yet I realized it is another artificial grouping.

By having an objective, adaptable system like "we choose an adaptable criterium and we apply it to decide which and how many individual spices to represent, leaving the others as generic spice" you can then do some balancing with trial and errors.

You can have your fun creating a SPICEY mod though.

 

[LordThanatos]

You guys are going from oversimplified to overdetailed, with a completely made up category that speaks nothing about the spice trade (nobody cared whether a spice was a rhyzome, a fruit, a carpus, a nut, a leaf, a false leaf, from xilema or floema...)

I get that you're being superfluous here, but you've clearly already seen that we've already discussed a grouping which doesn't have the same issue that the botanical naming does and that it seems to fit a lot better.

The flavoring grouping makes a bit more sense IMO, but the rarity and uniqueness is actually way more important

All of the rarest spices are already represented as unique in the table, or are placed only in a group with the rarest spices if they absolutely have to be removed in favour of smaller good-numbers. Grouping by market niche like this already accounts for rarity.

By having an objective, adaptable system like "we choose an adaptable criterium and we apply it to decide which and how many individual spices to represent, leaving the others as generic spice" you can then do some balancing with trial and errors.

Yes, that's what this thread is for, and I think we're making pretty good progress in getting a feel for how the system should look and play. Criteria can only come once we've defined the groups, but roughly, when adding a spice, the questions to ask are:

1. Was the spice historically significant? Was it globally traded? Were wars or explorations mounted to find sources of it? If not, it might be a common spice or not worth representing.
2. Was this spice sought in order to compete with the trade in another? If yes, consider placing it in the same category - so far this has fit pretty well.
   1. Examples so far: Piquants in general, Anise and Star Anise, Cinnamon and Cassia
3. How does the price compare to the others in a group, during this period? If it's fairly close, consider placing it in the same category.

And that's it. We just need some specifics for pricing. The names are applied afterward to match the groups, and are just works in progress.

 

[perceval350]

While I understand what you're getting at, if wine gets broken down by location and quality, then that beggars the question why every good isn't given this level of detail, like wood, stone, etc.
The spices in question sold for radically different values, and held varying uses from pleasure, to medicine, to even decoration.

I think you're misrepresenting the scale of the issue of not representing several spices. Wine already has a better level of detail given to it than spices because it has been given its own category rather than being included in an abstracted alcohol good. It's not that adding several spices to the game would be unfair compared to the treatment of other good, I'd say the problem is the opposite, spices have not been treated with the same standards as other goods in PC.

You give the example of stones, well they actually have been divided between stone and marble. Having fruits and dates also shows a large dedication to granularity that hasn't been applied to spices

And about wood, I'd say there's actually a good argument to be made to separate wood and tropical wood. Tropical wood could be used for luxur furniture and dying and that way, PC could portray the fact that, originally, the colonisation of Brazil happened almost solely to exploit tropical woods used for red dye

 

[Paulatim]

I get that you're being superfluous here, but you've clearly already seen that we've already discussed a grouping which doesn't have the same issue that the botanical naming does and that it seems to fit a lot better.

All of the rarest spices are already represented as unique in the table, or are placed only in a group with the rarest spices if they absolutely have to be removed in favour of smaller good-numbers. Grouping by market niche like this already accounts for rarity.

Yes, that's what this thread is for, and I think we're making pretty good progress in getting a feel for how the system should look and play. Criteria can only come once we've defined the groups, but roughly, when adding a spice, the questions to ask are:

1. Was the spice historically significant? Was it globally traded? Were wars or explorations mounted to find sources of it? If not, it might be a common spice or not worth representing.
2. Was this spice sought in order to compete with the trade in another? If yes, consider placing it in the same category - so far this has fit pretty well.
   1. Examples so far: Piquants in general, Anise and Star Anise, Cinnamon and Cassia
3. How does the price compare to the others in a group, during this period? If it's fairly close, consider placing it in the same category.

And that's it. We just need some specifics for pricing. The names are applied afterward to match the groups, and are just works in progress.

I would say the amount produced and volumes traded are the most important thing. Starting from there, you can then reduce the number of spices using your criterion 2) and finally create a table with all the spices and say "where should the individual spices end and the generic spices be grouped altogether?", which is due to balancing by the dev.

Post-Hoc grouping rather than a priori. It fits the final goal better.

 

[LordThanatos]

I definitely think the common/aromatic/piquant/rare split is probably the most graceful naming.

When it comes to vanilla, cursory reading indicates that it was only used in making chocolate until the 18th century when it started to be used as a flavoring for other sweets. This tracks with how vanilla remained almost exclusively a Central American export until around that time, when it became more profitable to try to grow on other colonial plantations. In this sense, vanilla would be an aromatic spice with more value than common spices.

Just for a little more information, the main reason vanilla wasn't produced on colonial plantations outside of Central America is actually that vanilla was planted but it did not produce beans. Vanilla requires a certain species of bee native to Central America to pollinate it and produce beans. The only reason it now produces in Madagascar, Reunion and Tahiti is that it's painstakingly hand-pollinated using a method only discovered in the 1800s. (And if you're wondering - no, this does not produce enough for the world's current demand. 99% of vanilla products contain no natural vanilla, but rather synthesized Vanillin, the compound which gives vanilla it's flavour. Today, this makes it the second most expensive spice by weight, only topped by saffron)

Also, it seems like it was used in sweets other than chocolate prior to the 1800s, and famously was used in ice-cream soon after that started being made in the 16th century. The main reason for it not being in the Rare spice category is price, as it seems like the limited production met the European burgeoning demand (Which was mostly local to the nobility) until the 1800s. If it ends up being unique when we see the maps of America, then this discussion is sort of moot, anyway as it probably works best being unique. That said, if it ended up in the rare category, with only a few locations, I'd be okay with that.

Would it be reasonable to have a "Flavorings" good that represents the low-value spices and similar things? Coriander, parsley, even hops.

That's a pretty good alternate name for common spices! I've been trying to think of a less awkward name. That fits. I guess the main issue is that all spices are also a flavour.

Some brainstorming for alternate names:

Group	Alternate Names
Common Spices	Flavourings, Herbs (1)
Rare spices	Fragrant Spices (2), Rare Aromatics, Rare Aromatic Spices, Flower Spices (3)

1. Obviously this name does overlap with medicaments, the line between common spices and medicaments is pretty blurry already, though. As I've already noted, if it were up to me, common spices would be the first good cut from the system if there are too many.
2. Alternatively, Rare spices could become Aromatic spices, while aromatic spices become fragrant spices
3. For Saffron and Cloves - this name leaves out nutmeg, unfortunately - though perhaps nutmeg should be represented without a good, given it should be on only one location in the whole game.

The rare spice category is as difficult to pin down as ever, being largely a grouping for game purposes more so than the others. It's possible that rare spice is the best name it could have. I really hope the team makes saffron and cloves separate. To ease my headache thinking about this, if nothing else.

 

[ibvfteh]

I largely agree with the names, and it does make sense if people like it more than the other names. Seed-spices translate to common spices well (though common spices is a little strange to see on a map), as do fruit-spices to piquants.

The main issue I have is with the aromatics. Namely because of the issues I've already highlighted with putting saffron and cloves in the same category as any other spice. Perhaps it works if it's just the three rarest, most expensive spices - saffron, cloves and nutmeg. Cinnamon might be expensive, but it doesn't quite make the cut when compared to the other and it's far more widely produced than any of the three.

Rather I'd put cinnamon, ginger, sassafras and similar spices in an aromatic category, while the three most expensive spices are either separate or in a category of their own - with saffron only produced in maybe one province for each of the regions it grows in to show its scarcity and allow the Indonesia spices to be of primary importance, while making saffron-producing locations incredibly valuable.

Spice Groupings​

Spice	Proposed Good	Region	Later Regions
Fennel	Common Spice	Europe, Asia	1500s: Americas
Coriander	Common Spice	Mediterranean Europe	1500s: Americas
Cumin	Common Spice	Eastern Mediterranean, Central/SW Asia	1500s: Americas
Mustard	Common Spice	Europe (Dijon in particular), Africa, Asia	1500s: Americas
Anise	Common Spice	Europe, SW Asia
Star Anise	Common Spice	SE Asia
Allspice	Common Spice/Aromatic Spice	Central America, Caribbean
Cinnamon	Aromatic Spice	Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines
Cassia	Aromatic Spice	China, Vietnam
Ginger	Aromatic Spice	South Asia, Indonesia, Polynesia
Sassafras	Aromatic Spice	East Coast - North America
Vanilla	Unique/Aromatic Spice	Central America	1800s: Tahiti, Madagascar, Reunion, Indonesia
Black Pepper	Piquant Spice	India
Long Pepper	Piquant Spice	Indonesia
Cardamom	Piquant Spice	India, Indonesia
Melegueta Pepper	Piquant Spice	West Africa
Chili Pepper	Unique/Piquant Spice	Central/South America	1500s: Africa, Asia, Pacific Islands
Saffron	Unique/Rare Spice	Khorasan (Iran), Kashmir, Spain, France, Rhodes, Essex (England), Krems (Austria)	1600s: Pennsylvania (North America), 1700s: Greece (Kozani)
Cloves	Unique/Rare Spice	Maluku Isles	Most of Indonesia, Madagascar
Nutmeg & Mace	Modifier/Rare Spice	Banda Isles	1800s: British Colonies in India and Africa

Currently 20 spices are represented (Though honestly Common spice covers most regional herbs and spices, and should be represented as such. It could represent several hundred plants)
For those interested in what spices are, I've added Anise to the common/seed spices.

Number of Goods​

Scenario	Number of Goods
All Uniques Unique	7
Chili added to Piquants	6
Vanilla grouped into Aromatics	5
Maluku spices and Saffron grouped into Rare Spices	4
Rare spices added to Aromatics	3

As you can see, there's no real benefit to the number of goods over the other naming scheme - but some spices do fit better, particularly ginger. Ultimately I think it's up to user taste which is better.

Those numbers can further be reduced by one if common spices are removed as a category. It's the one most likely not to make the cut for importance or mechanical simplicity.

Grouped Goods with Ranges​

Good	Regions
Common Spice	Europe, Asia, Central America (Likely America in general and Africa, once fitting spices are found)
Aromatic Spice	SE Asia, India, Indonesia, a small amount in Polynesia and NE America (+Central America if including vanilla)
Piquant Spice	India, Indonesia (+Central America if including chili)
Rare Spice (If used over uniques)	Large amounts in Maluku Isles, Banda Isles, Small amounts in Iran, Spain, France, Greece (Especially Rhodes), England, Austria

Rare and Aromatic spices are working names, and a better name would be appreciated for at least one of them. So we can have aromatics, and something else. If other names come up, I'd love to see discussion around what feels best to represent the categories and appear in-game.

you can add Piri Piri (African Bird's Eye Chili) as a Piquant Spice from East Africa.

and in grouped goods, you have not included West Africa region for Piquant Spices


One more proposal is Sichuan pepper and Japanese pepper. Also as a Piquant Spice

 

[Catsley]

I largely agree with the names, and it does make sense if people like it more than the other names. Seed-spices translate to common spices well (though common spices is a little strange to see on a map), as do fruit-spices to piquants.

The main issue I have is with the aromatics. Namely because of the issues I've already highlighted with putting saffron and cloves in the same category as any other spice. Perhaps it works if it's just the three rarest, most expensive spices - saffron, cloves and nutmeg. Cinnamon might be expensive, but it doesn't quite make the cut when compared to the other and it's far more widely produced than any of the three.

Rather I'd put cinnamon, ginger, sassafras and similar spices in an aromatic category, while the three most expensive spices are either separate or in a category of their own - with saffron only produced in maybe one province for each of the regions it grows in to show its scarcity and allow the Indonesia spices to be of primary importance, while making saffron-producing locations incredibly valuable.

Spice Groupings​

Spice	Proposed Good	Region	Later Regions
Fennel	Common Spice	Europe, Asia	1500s: Americas
Coriander	Common Spice	Mediterranean Europe	1500s: Americas
Cumin	Common Spice	Eastern Mediterranean, Central/SW Asia	1500s: Americas
Mustard	Common Spice	Europe (Dijon in particular), Africa, Asia	1500s: Americas
Anise	Common Spice	Europe, SW Asia
Star Anise	Common Spice	SE Asia
Allspice	Common Spice/Aromatic Spice	Central America, Caribbean
Cinnamon	Aromatic Spice	Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines
Cassia	Aromatic Spice	China, Vietnam
Ginger	Aromatic Spice	South Asia, Indonesia, Polynesia
Sassafras	Aromatic Spice	East Coast - North America
Vanilla	Unique/Aromatic Spice	Central America	1800s: Tahiti, Madagascar, Reunion, Indonesia
Black Pepper	Piquant Spice	India
Long Pepper	Piquant Spice	Indonesia
Cardamom	Piquant Spice	India, Indonesia
Melegueta Pepper	Piquant Spice	West Africa
Chili Pepper	Unique/Piquant Spice	Central/South America	1500s: Africa, Asia, Pacific Islands
Saffron	Unique/Rare Spice	Iran, Spain, France, Greece (Especially Rhodes), England, Austria (Maybe a location or two in each.)	1600s: North America
Cloves	Unique/Rare Spice	Maluku Isles	Most of Indonesia, Madagascar
Nutmeg & Mace	Modifier/Rare Spice	Banda Isles	1800s: British Colonies in India and Africa

Currently 20 spices are represented (Though honestly Common spice covers most regional herbs and spices, and should be represented as such. It could represent several hundred plants)
For those interested in what spices are, I've added Anise to the common/seed spices.

Number of Goods​

Scenario	Number of Goods
All Uniques Unique	7
Chili added to Piquants	6
Vanilla grouped into Aromatics	5
Maluku spices and Saffron grouped into Rare Spices	4
Rare spices added to Aromatics	3

As you can see, there's no real benefit to the number of goods over the other naming scheme - but some spices do fit better, particularly ginger. Ultimately I think it's up to user taste which is better.

Grouped Goods with Ranges​

Good	Regions
Common Spice	Europe, Asia, Central America (Likely America in general and Africa, once fitting spices are found)
Aromatic Spice	SE Asia, India, Indonesia, a small amount in Polynesia and NE America (+Central America if including vanilla)
Piquant Spice	India, Indonesia (+Central America if including chili)
Rare Spice (If used over uniques)	Large amounts in Maluku Isles, Banda Isles, Small amounts in Iran, Spain, France, Greece (Especially Rhodes), England, Austria

Rare and Aromatic spices are working names, and a better name would be appreciated for at least one of them. So we can have aromatics, and something else. If other names come up, I'd love to see discussion around what feels best to represent the categories and appear in-game.

I was hoping someone with more knowledge and commitment would run with the proposal, so this is great to see.

A couple of comments:
For me cardamom doesn't fit into piquant spices. If piquant spices are pepper and the other spices treated as substitutes for pepper, cardamom is not that. Whether cardamom in the period would qualify as a rare spice I am not sure of. Certainly, it is very significant in India and is apparently one of the most expensive spices by weight today. I don't think it ever had the significance in European markets that cloves or nutmeg had. The way that you have constructed Aromatic Spices in your scheme as a sort of mid-tier would seem to fit cardamom nicely to my ignorant eye.

Regarding whether to treat chili as piquant spice or as unique, I think there are arguments both ways. In chili's heartland in Mesoamerica I think it does fulfill the demand for piquant flavour in a way that lessens the demand for other similar spices. The same goes for Japan, where wasabi is the native piquant spice and fulfills that role in the cuisine. I'm thinking of Mum saying "we don't need pepper, we have Piquant Spice at home". It seems to me that the spread of chili to so many other cuisines has something to do with the ease of cultivation across tropical climates, which has meant that following the Columbian Exchange, it has become the most accessible source of piquant flavour in many cultural contexts. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I think having a category called Piquant Spice that doesn't include chili is also somewhat absurd.

On the other hand, has the adoption of chili into Indian cuisine lessened the demand for pepper there? I'm not sure, truthfully. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could comment. The Indian market for spices is really a different beast to the European market and if PC shockingly turns out to be India Universalis 1, I think all the major spices would really have to be represented individually. I have some more thoughts but am at work at the moment so will have to come back to it.

 

[LordThanatos]

you can add Piri Piri (African Bird's Eye Chili) as a Piquant Spice from East Africa.

Thanks for the suggestion. Piri Piri is only introduced when the Portuguese bring over American Chili Peppers to their colonies in Africa, though. I've represented it with the "Later Regions" column. I imagine it will be part of the Columbian Exchange system.

and in grouped goods, you have not included West Africa region for Piquant Spices

Thanks for catching that! I've added it in.

 

[ibvfteh]

Thanks for the suggestion. Piri Piri is only introduced when the Portuguese bring over American Chili Peppers to their colonies in Africa, though. I've represented it with the "Later Regions" column. I imagine it will be part of the Columbian Exchange system.

Thanks for catching that! I've added it in.

sorry, I added a bit later another proposal: Sichuan pepper and Japanese pepper

Random person on quora:
Sichuan peppercorns have a long and fascinating history. They have been used in Chinese medicine and cuisine for thousands of years, and were even mentioned in ancient Chinese texts. The peppercorns were also traded along the ancient Silk Road, which helped to spread their popularity throughout Asia and beyond.

 

[LordThanatos]

For me cardamom doesn't fit into piquant spices. If piquant spices are pepper and the other spices treated as substitutes for pepper, cardamom is not that. Whether cardamom in the period would qualify as a rare spice I am not sure of. Certainly, it is very significant in India and is apparently one of the most expensive spices by weight today. I don't think it ever had the significance in European markets that cloves or nutmeg had. The way that you have constructed Aromatic Spices in your scheme as a sort of mid-tier would seem to fit cardamom nicely to my ignorant eye.

That's a good point. It's really a holdover from the botanical grouping system that I didn't catch when copying the table. It's definitely an aromatic spice. I'll fix that, thanks!

Regarding whether to treat chili as piquant spice or as unique, I think there are arguments both ways.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind seeing them separate, but if they end up grouped, I won't complain. That said, if chili is separated, the piquant group can be named "Pepper" as a good as all the remaining spices are true peppers, or plants called pepper that can compete with pepper.

Sichuan pepper and Japanese pepper

Thanks! I'll take a look. I from a brief glance, it appears adding these would add a small number of piquant spice locations in China and Japan

 

[LordThanatos]

Number of Goods​

Scenario	Common Spices Exist	Piquants Separate to Aromatics	Chili Group	Vanilla Group	Saffron Group	Cloves Group	# of Goods
1	Yes	Yes	Unique	Unique	Unique	Unique	7
2	Yes	Yes	Piquants	Unique	Unique	Unique	6
3	No	Yes	Piquants	Unique	Unique	Unique	5
4	Yes	Yes	Piquants	Aromatics	Unique	Unique	5
5	No	Yes	Piquants	Aromatics	Unique	Unique	4
6	Yes	Yes	Piquants	Aromatics	Rare	Rare	4
7	No	Yes	Piquants	Aromatics	Rare	Rare	3
8	No	No	Aromatics	Aromatics	Rare	Rare	2
9	No	Yes	Piquants	Aromatics	Aromatics	Aromatics	2

Just made an edit that I'm sure some people would find interesting or want to consider for themselves. I've changed table for number of goods to represent some more options. It's not every combination, of course, but I do think it represents most of the ones worth consideration (For example, I don't think having common spices but folding saffron and cloves into aromatics is even nearly an equal trade). It's in roughly the order from best-worst in my opinion.

 

[Paulatim]

Just made an edit that I'm sure some people would find interesting or want to consider for themselves. I've changed table for number of goods to represent some more options. It's not every combination, of course, but I do think it represents most of the ones worth consideration (For example, I don't think having common spices but folding saffron and cloves into aromatics is even nearly an equal trade). It's in roughly the order from best-worst in my opinion.

why not using scenario 1, with only one type of common spice to represent less relevant and local spices, while making a few unique spices which may or may not represent grouping? so spices would represent all the common and local aromatics, which use is often bound to culture or quite commonly found outside of their native range; pepper and cinnamon would represent all the competitive pepper- and sweet-kind spices; cloves, nutmeg, saffron and sichuan pepper would be specifically THAT spice. Namings used as an example, the actual ones might differ.

 

[coconutboat]

On the other hand, has the adoption of chili into Indian cuisine lessened the demand for pepper there?

I can't answer for India, but in Indonesia, cabai jawa/cabya/cabai jamu/cabai/cabe jawa (Indonesian) aka piper retrofractum/balinese long pepper/javanese long pepper (English) was used for culinary purposes since at least 10th century, but it was superseded by chili that was brought by the Portuguese and Spanish in the 16th century, resulting in a semantic shift in which the new crop became cabai, and the old became cabai jawa. Today cabai jawas are mostly used to make jamu

 

[LordThanatos]

why not using scenario 1, with only one type of common spice to represent less relevant and local spices, while making a few unique spices which may or may not represent grouping? so spices would represent all the common and local aromatics, which use is often bound to culture or quite commonly found outside of their native range; pepper and cinnamon would represent all the competitive pepper- and sweet-kind spices; cloves, nutmeg, saffron and sichuan pepper would be specifically THAT spice. Namings used as an example, the actual ones might differ.

If I'm getting this correct:

1. Spices
2. Pepper
3. Cinnamon
4. Saffron
5. Cloves
6. Nutmeg
7. Sichuan pepper

Depending where you put chili, either as a unique you left out, or as a pepper, this is a similar proposal to 1 or 2 on that list.

The main questions are:

1. Where is vanilla?
2. Where is ginger?
3. Are herbs in common spices?
4. Why have sichuan pepper separate to either "Spices" or pepper?
5. Why represent nutmeg as a good, when it only grows in the banda islands, right next to cloves?

If the answer to the first two is spices, and you are including herbs, then you're mixing cheap and expensive spices again. If the answer to 3 is no, that's fair, but why group ginger and vanilla when ginger is closer to cinnamon in price? If ginger is not being represented, that's also fair, but if herbs are also not being represented, then Spices contains only vanilla. If vanilla is in the "cinnamon category," why not name it something more fitting rather than obscuring what it is with the wrong spice name. We've used aromatics, here for that purpose.

The best move is to make vanilla unique and either put ginger into a group with cinnamon, like we have with Aromatics or remove it if you don't think it's important enough - it's definitely not important enough to be a good on its own.

 

[Paulatim]

If I'm getting this correct:

1. Spices
2. Pepper
3. Cinnamon
4. Saffron
5. Cloves
6. Nutmeg
7. Sichuan pepper

Depending where you put chili, either as a unique you left out, or as a pepper, this is a similar proposal to 1 or 2 on that list. I'm not sure why sichuan pepper would be separate even in a pretty idealized version of the game.

The main difference is that "Spices" now represent ginger and presumably what we've termed common spices, plus vanilla. If common spices are intended to be in that category, you're mixing fairly pricy spices with herb. If they're separate, the number of goods is either 8 or 9. Perhaps even 9 or 10 if chili is separate. That's getting close to the number of total food goods in the game, and I can't see that being accepted. (The seven goods I recommend is more an ideal than a reality. I doubt we will see more than 5 spices if they do change things and I'd bet the number would be closer to 3.)

If you put sichuan pepper in spices or peppers, then the main difference between your proposal and the one we've come up with in this thread is where ginger is placed in the grouping, if it's there at all, and where vanilla sits. Otherwise it's just a naming difference - and I don't think spices is a good name for a good when they're all spices.

Spices is a very good name for general spices I think, same as fruits when dates are separated.

Cinnamon intends to cover vanilla too. I vastly prefer finding cinnamon in mexico, rather than "sweetening spices" everywhere.

Same for chili and pepper.

The proposed individual spices should come from a table of spices, ranked on importance. Once you define importance (either average volume, price or a combination of them plus uniqueness), you can choose how many to represent (the first 3,4,5,6...).

Everything else goes in "spices", Either because of low price, widespreadness, gameplay balance. It depends on the table mentioned above.

I guess I should make such table at this point, but I have difficulties finding good sources.

 

[LordThanatos]

Spices is a very good name for general spices I think, same as fruits when dates are separated.

Cinnamon intends to cover vanilla too. I vastly prefer finding cinnamon in mexico, rather than "sweetening spices" everywhere.

Same for chili and pepper.

The proposed individual spices should come from a table of spices, ranked on importance. Once you define importance (either average volume, price or a combination of them plus uniqueness), you can choose how many to represent (the first 3,4,5,6...).

Everything else goes in "spices", Either because of low price, widespreadness, gameplay balance. It depends on the table mentioned above.

I guess I should make such table at this point, but I have difficulties finding good sources.

I edited my response, but the points are largely the same.

Naming is definitely personal taste, but with that in mind, I disagree that spices is a good name, not when there are so many spice goods separated from it. For one, dates might be fruits botanically, but when listing fruits, a date would not be most people's first answer. Most of the spices excluded from "Spices" are the most well known ones.

• The fruit good represents: All fruits other than dates, that's a simple exclusion.
• Your spice good would not include: peppers, chili, saffron, cinnamon, cloves, vanilla, or nutmeg. All of the most important goods of the Spice trade. That's not the same situation.

Now under your grouping, spices are in essence what we've listed under the common spices good in this thread, plus - for some reason - ginger when it's much closer to what you've listed as "Cinnamon.". If you ignore that, the only real change from the proposal is that you've made "Aromatics," "Cinnamon."

Putting vanilla is in the cinnamon category just makes it confusing on the map and I'd dare say, wrong. It makes no sense to do it the way you have. Vanilla is not a Cinnamon and the name in no way describes that a location is producing vanilla. At least with a name like aromatics, you're making clear what the commonality between them is while making it clear that the good does not represent one spice.