(Edit: Please be aware that there has been a lot of discussion over the course of this thread, and thus changes to the table of spices. You'll find threadmarks for later versions, but if you want to just see the latest version, you can go here)
First of all, I'd like to credit @Flower_Marlin with this idea. I've not changed it much from their initial proposal in the Indonesia Tinto Maps. My only addition has been to add Grains of Paradise, Ginger, an incomplete list of locations and plenty of justifications for this system over others. I think there should be some discussion over what spices should be represented, what categories they should be in as well as if the group names should be changed. I also think a fleshed out list of where these spices would be is necessary to envision what a final system might look like and how it would play in game.
And so I present the system as Flower Marlin originally stated it:
Now I've taken that proposal, looked at what regions they would encompass and started breaking down some different options for the number of goods.
Why not have every spice be a separate good?
I'm aware that there is/was a large call for regional spices, If you followed my points in the Indonesia thread, you're likely familiar what I have to say, but for those who did not follow, I'll briefly summarize:
The main downside in my mind is that groupings inherently abstract pricing, and lock certain spices prices together.
This seems like an acceptable abstraction to me. The only better way of doing this would be to have separate goods which still had some sort of group relationship in pricing code so that they could influence one-another - which sounds like a tall ask for this stage in development and may be too granular. This seems like it would drive enough interesting and dynamic gameplay while not being overbearing. Finally, whether or not this system would work with any production methods that use spice is a mystery to me. I suppose we will have to wait for an example in order to see if it would.
Thank you for reading, I am curious to hear what people think and what you all can find to add to this proposal.
First of all, I'd like to credit @Flower_Marlin with this idea. I've not changed it much from their initial proposal in the Indonesia Tinto Maps. My only addition has been to add Grains of Paradise, Ginger, an incomplete list of locations and plenty of justifications for this system over others. I think there should be some discussion over what spices should be represented, what categories they should be in as well as if the group names should be changed. I also think a fleshed out list of where these spices would be is necessary to envision what a final system might look like and how it would play in game.
And so I present the system as Flower Marlin originally stated it:
Now I've taken that proposal, looked at what regions they would encompass and started breaking down some different options for the number of goods.
Spices and their proposed Raw Resource Good
| Spice | Proposed Good | Region | Later Regions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fennel | Seed Spice (1) | Europe, Asia | 1500s: Americas |
| Coriander | Seed Spice (1) | Europe | |
| Cumin | Seed Spice | Eastern Mediterranean, Central/SW Asia | 1500s: Americas |
| Cinammon | Bark Spice | Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines | |
| Cassia | Bark Spice | China, Vietnam | |
| Ginger | Bark Spice? (2) | India, China, Madagascar, Pacific Islands | |
| Black Pepper | Fruit Spice | India | |
| Long Pepper | Fruit Spice | Indonesia | |
| Cardamom | Fruit Spice | India, Indonesia | |
| Melegueta Pepper | Fruit Spice | West Africa | |
| Saffron | Unique | Iran, Spain, France, Greece (Especially Rhodes), England, Austria | 1600s: North America |
| Vanilla | Unique/Bark spice | Central America | 1800s: Polynesia, Madagascar, Reunion, Indonesia |
| Chili Pepper | Unique/Fruit spice | Central/South America | 1500s: Africa, Asia, Pacific Islands |
| Cloves | Unique/Rare Spice (3) | Maluku Isles | Most of Indonesia, Madagascar |
| Nutmeg & Mace | Modifier/Rare Spice (3) | Banda Isles | 1800s: British Colonies in India and Africa |
- I want to look into the place of Fennel and Coriander as spices. They are incredibly common across Eurasia so far as I am aware, and I have never heard of them being traded in huge quantities. I need to do more research on their role in this time, but if they don't fit, the seed-spice grouping might need a rework, unless other spices can be found to fit that group well.
- I don't really know where ginger should go in this list. I think having it be a bark spice largely fits its role in the economic ladder here, and grouping largely overlaps with cinnamon in the bark spices. It doesn't make sense as a name, though. I've considered that it could be unique or even a medicament - but then most spices are considered medicinal in this period and introducing it as a unique doesn't seem like the right move. Unique spices should be limited as much as possible, especially to those of paramount importance.
- Personally, I recommend grouping nutmeg and cloves as the highest value spices, (Rare being my working group name, but not a good one) if the Banda Isles are represented.
Number of Goods based on Grouping
Unfortunately, this grouping still results in a quite a few goods. I'd like to explore possible ways I can think of to reduce that, and what impact that would have. Even with the lower numbers, I believe it could be acceptable, if that's the compromise that needs to be made.| Scenario | Number of Goods | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Every spice separate | 15 | This is a bad idea, spices in the same market niche no longer compete |
| All proposed Uniques are made unique | 7 | |
| As above, but Vanilla is a bark spice | 6 | Vanilla now competes with cinnamon, which is odd, but would probably be an acceptable abstraction as cinnamon is Asian while Vanilla is American. Likely the best minimum without significant compromise. |
| As above, but Chili is a fruit spice | 5 | Chili would probably not be as valuable as it would need to compete with peppers. The grouping would be strange, but if the values of pepper and Chili are close in the period, it might be the best minimum. |
| As above, but cloves/aromatics are folded into another category or made a modifier | 4 | A modifier might be acceptable, but folding cloves into another grouping reduces one of the most influential spices in history and makes locations it grows in far less valuable than they should be. |
| As above, but saffron is folded into another category or made a modifier | 3 | Dilutes the value of Asian/American markets for Europeans due to local production of Saffron. Putting it in the largely Eurasian "Seed spices" mixes lower priced spices with Saffron, one of the most expensive, even more so with the Black Death during the game period. |
| Current System | 1 | All the previous issues + no variation in price potential |
Why not have every spice be a separate good?
- Historically, some spices replaced others as powers competed to source and sell spices that could replace those of their competitors. The peppers all being separate would mean there's no reason to get cheap black pepper and undermine your rivals selling long pepper. Having them grouped gives them context.
- Any production buildings using spices (If they exist) would have to account for every spice. I realize that this is also the case with this proposed system, but I believe the lower numbers are more manageable, while the benefits to gameplay are pronounced enough to probably make it worth it.
- The developers have stated that they want to abstract the good and not represent all of them separately
I'm aware that there is/was a large call for regional spices, If you followed my points in the Indonesia thread, you're likely familiar what I have to say, but for those who did not follow, I'll briefly summarize:
- Looking at the table above, there are very few regional groupings that do not overlap with others. This forces either:
- Incredibly granular groupings, to the point they might as well all be separate spice goods (See above for why that's a bad option)
- Incredibly broad groupings that lose out on granularity and cause higher valued spices in a region to share with lower-value spices. This also means that playing in that region, all spice nodes are equal and there's no reason to place higher strategic value on certain locations which historically grew more valuable spices. Intra-regional trade of spice doesn't really matter under this system.
- Dividing a spice's locations among multiple regions, such as having Cinnamon in both Indian and South-East Asian spice goods. Or having saffron in both European and Iranian spices.
- Some spices that competed historically no longer would in the game. Looking in particular at the peppers, Melegueta pepper (An "African spice" under a regional grouping) has no connection to the niche it shared with black pepper (An "Indian Spice') or long pepper (An "Indonesian spice").
- Probably some spices. I looked at a good number, but I think the spices represented need a few qualities, and this list covered most of those that do fit (I want to do a little more digging on trade in fennel and coriander in this timeperiod to see if they fit these criteria):
- Globally traded. Looking at the goods added to the game so far, they're all traded globally for at least some portion of their history during the game period rather than just regionally.
- High Impact. A spice that's widely available across most of Eurasia and doesn't get traded a large amount probably isn't a good fit for a resource.
- Is it a Spice. I guess definitions of this can vary, but I think expense and whether or not it's an additive are decent indicators of this.
- The ranges of some of the spices could definitely be improved. I didn't get too specific and find exact locations for these goods, for one, but more importantly, I probably missed some ranges where the spices grew as I just did a cursory search for studies. This goes double for later Regions, and you will see that there's definitely a lot missing, there.
The main downside in my mind is that groupings inherently abstract pricing, and lock certain spices prices together.
This seems like an acceptable abstraction to me. The only better way of doing this would be to have separate goods which still had some sort of group relationship in pricing code so that they could influence one-another - which sounds like a tall ask for this stage in development and may be too granular. This seems like it would drive enough interesting and dynamic gameplay while not being overbearing. Finally, whether or not this system would work with any production methods that use spice is a mystery to me. I suppose we will have to wait for an example in order to see if it would.
Thank you for reading, I am curious to hear what people think and what you all can find to add to this proposal.
Last edited:
- 100
- 31
- 8
- 3
- 1