So, I wanted to like these changes. But it doesn’t feel like they managed to actually hit trade having a distinct purpose; it still feels like EC, except with extra steps. DOUBLY so because you still use trade to purchase services and coins!
You could have added an EC cost for deficits on a planet, and it would have done the same thing!
Trade is, at its core, an alternative way to generate EC, CG and unity, and this change to it as a resource does not alter that except to make it BAD at it, as the market is always creeping in inflation, while you no longer convert everything: a previously for example, you’d just straight convert it all to energy and CG, while now you get trade as a resource which you manually trade with the market, a base gouge of 30%/20% extra which then scales nigh infinitely higher if you want to buy any amount of note, quickly turning trade into Zimbabwe dollars late game. I.e, you do what the game automatically did for you before, except now you get a conversion method/rate that makes it unable to perform.
This all circles back to the core question of “why?” Though. What were the devs intending to accomplish with this change; it doesn’t feel like a unique resource in the way that alloys, research or unity does, it just feels, again, like EC with extra steps except WORSE.
you made hyper specialization even more powerful, and the trade upkeep being inconsequential makes it so you don’t even need to care. It adds nothing to the game, it’s not a resource that you want to really accumulate or control, and doesn’t change how empires function except that trade empire’s turned into dogwater. Heck, if anything, trade is less interesting now, since things like merchants and clerks got nixed and thrifty only applies to traders solely; no more using bad habitability worlds as trade worlds, less intricacy and depth, ect.
So, here’s my view: the devs thought about this as a logistics kind of thing, where trades about how well you interlink your empire and counter planets being apart.
You know what the OPPOSITE of that is? Sprawl.
bureaucrats as anti-sprawl mechanics had a stake put in their heart long ago, but there is really no other area to make logistics have a purpose here: the change trade adds NOTHING to the game from how it was before: there is no unique resource you need it for like CG to science/unity or minerals to alloys, and you made in infeasible to use as an EC substitute since the market will inflate nigh infinitely compared to the pure conversion of before. There isn’t even a repercussion to having trade deficits for planets, or ever increasing costs in contrast to ever increasing specialization benefits.
In short, to summarize my giant paragraph:
This change does not make trade unique.
It does not make trade more interesting or add to the game.
It solely makes trade WORSE.
There should be a defined purpose, even beyond balance, as there should be a fun and unique reason for a resource’s existence, or else it might as well be removed. Trade lacks one now.
You could have added an EC cost for deficits on a planet, and it would have done the same thing!
Trade is, at its core, an alternative way to generate EC, CG and unity, and this change to it as a resource does not alter that except to make it BAD at it, as the market is always creeping in inflation, while you no longer convert everything: a previously for example, you’d just straight convert it all to energy and CG, while now you get trade as a resource which you manually trade with the market, a base gouge of 30%/20% extra which then scales nigh infinitely higher if you want to buy any amount of note, quickly turning trade into Zimbabwe dollars late game. I.e, you do what the game automatically did for you before, except now you get a conversion method/rate that makes it unable to perform.
This all circles back to the core question of “why?” Though. What were the devs intending to accomplish with this change; it doesn’t feel like a unique resource in the way that alloys, research or unity does, it just feels, again, like EC with extra steps except WORSE.
you made hyper specialization even more powerful, and the trade upkeep being inconsequential makes it so you don’t even need to care. It adds nothing to the game, it’s not a resource that you want to really accumulate or control, and doesn’t change how empires function except that trade empire’s turned into dogwater. Heck, if anything, trade is less interesting now, since things like merchants and clerks got nixed and thrifty only applies to traders solely; no more using bad habitability worlds as trade worlds, less intricacy and depth, ect.
So, here’s my view: the devs thought about this as a logistics kind of thing, where trades about how well you interlink your empire and counter planets being apart.
You know what the OPPOSITE of that is? Sprawl.
bureaucrats as anti-sprawl mechanics had a stake put in their heart long ago, but there is really no other area to make logistics have a purpose here: the change trade adds NOTHING to the game from how it was before: there is no unique resource you need it for like CG to science/unity or minerals to alloys, and you made in infeasible to use as an EC substitute since the market will inflate nigh infinitely compared to the pure conversion of before. There isn’t even a repercussion to having trade deficits for planets, or ever increasing costs in contrast to ever increasing specialization benefits.
In short, to summarize my giant paragraph:
This change does not make trade unique.
It does not make trade more interesting or add to the game.
It solely makes trade WORSE.
There should be a defined purpose, even beyond balance, as there should be a fun and unique reason for a resource’s existence, or else it might as well be removed. Trade lacks one now.
- 5
- 4
.png){kind=avatar}
