Ahriman
Tyrant
a) The 1/3 is not an abberation, I regularly get this by late-midgame playing as a spice industry civ.Edit: Having ONE game, where 1/3 of economy (let's say commerce ) is powered by spice, is not a strong enough arguement against spice improvement IMO
b) Economy and commerce are not the same. Economy is gold and beakers. 1/3 of commerce is MORE than 1/3 of beakers, because the commerce income from spice is concentrated in a single city, where you will have maximized your percentage boosters (universities, banks, etc), and have things like Academies built.
... I'd even say, it's an argument FOR spice improvement. I read it like: "in most games, spice makes up at most a third of economy. Most economy is granted via cottages or non-spice ressources."
IMO there should be games (not all, but it should be possible), where at least 2/3 of economy is running via spice... especially, as soon as the guild has "returned" to the planet.
I disagree with this. Spice should *never* be approaching 2/3 of the economy size.
The civ engine is, fundamentally, built around cities, and population, and that population working tiles or acting as specialists.
I think the engine and AI will break down if we try to divert too far from this, and make income just come from improvements within your cultural borders.
The AI knows how to attack cities, and defend its own. The AI does NOT know how to contest areas of spice, or protect its harvesters from being pillaged. And I suspect that it is not really feasible to try to teach it this.
If you make spice too important, you destroy the AI because it is easily hamstrung by a human player who can cut off its spice income.
This is a good point.The problem is that today in DW, a good human player can easily get 300-400 points of commerce per turn by turn 255, while the AI can only get 150-200 points
Human exploitation of fort culture is part of this. Maybe we should remove the ability to build forts outside cultural borders, since the AI can't do this?