Okay, just wanna start by saying I really like the mod - I like how it's brought back a few old things (like the colonists having a chance to become experts at things through hard toil) and the new stuff its introduced.
I do have a few questions/concerns though:
Why is the Economic victory based only on total goods traded instead of something that actually figures on you making a profit?
For a start, this somewhat destroys the incentive to create finished products. If you have a colonist reaping 6 tobacco a turn, why use another colonist to turn those into 6 cigars, when instead you could have him also out gathering 6 more tobacco, doubling your progress towards the victory? In fact, you'd be best off filling the city with 8 gatherers harvesting the highest possible yield of whatever good is available from a tile which has been pioneered, minus what is required to supply them with food. Then spam as many colonies like these across the map as you can. You would build as little as possible, because you want lumber sent out; you wouldn't want colonies to grow, because you could sell food before it reaches 200, too.
That just seems to not make much sense to me. Isn't that what the homelands wanted, a subservient country ferrying back raw materials instead of finished goods? Shouldn't the victory instead be a tally of net profit? Which favors making smart trades, exporting high yield finished goods, and keeping costs and imports to a minimum? Or perhaps you should have to accrue 100,000 current gold, or something instead.
This victory condition is also exploitable. With a ship at your homeland, find one of the goods with a small spread - like trade goods 2/3. Buy one stack of the good, then sell it again. For a cost of 100 + the tax rate in gold, you've just increased your economic victory by 200 by making a transaction that makes no economic sense. So all your excess gold from crating back hundreds upon hundreds of raw goods can be used to simply further skew your numbers. Having to actually create net profits would certainly change all that behaviour.
Anyway, that's my only gameplay concern. I've also had some weird behaviour with the natives, though. Here's my situation:
I landed basically between the Iroquoi and the Incas, on one of the smaller maps comprised of one continuous continent, in a narrowish strip of land between 2 puffier wide areas. The Aztecs have cities to the south, and the Sioux to the north. What's happening is that I'm getting incredible relationship negatives from the Sioux, and to a lesser extent the Inca, with the reason being "You have stolen our land." This is a negative I never get in the normal game because I always pay for land I want to settle. However, all 3 other european civs are north of me in the Sioux/Inca lands, and it seems like those 2 natives are in some way attributing the other European's land-grabbing negatives to my civ as well. I am nowhere near any of the Sioux villages, but I have a -8 modifier, and a -14 from the Inca. The Iroqois have a bit of "Way of life is threatening", no doubt because I have 5 well-developed towns smack dab between 3 of his villages, but Logan has absolutely no complaints about land-stealing, nor does Montezuma off further south. This is making things a bit difficult, as both Sioux and Inca declared war on me the same day and I'm pretty much forced to hire an army and wipe them out now.
)
