Having to trade with other players seems more interesting, and healthier for the game. If I always have the option of trading at base value with the bank (with my paid resources being safely destroyed), I’d need a big incentive to trade with an opponent who’d instead get to keep the resources I’ve lost.

Trading-based board games (like Settlers of Catan) tend to allow trading with a bank, but at cripplingly high rates, so that it’s always in your best interests to trade with another player if you can.

You are only allowed to trade once in a week with “the bank” and only one Ressource with another one. For more complex trading you need others.

Additionally, the rates are not that good, because the Trader’s Amount of the “Offered Ressource” does not count… So it’s a big fail to trade a lot at once.

Oh, I suppose making it weekly is quite crippling.

Although crunching the numbers, I’m not sure I like how this interacts with Scavenging - the optimum scavenging strategy would be to pick one Resource you wanted, and to calculate whether any of the other Resources could be traded favourably with the bank for another Resource you wanted (at current rates, I can Scavenge 10 Wood and 10 Iron, or I can Scavenge 10 Wood and 1 Gem, immediately trading the Gem in for about 25 Iron). I don’t want to have to calculate that every week; the current noticeboard of simple trades seems about right.

Well thats right. Hm…

How do you think about “free market scavenging?” You can scavange 10 Iron. And you can scavange Total Amount of $Resource/Total Amount of Iron * 10, rounded down of $Resource. So there would be a nice belance between all Resources and their values. But for the flavour it’s senseless…

[Keba] I mean to say that the this rule would make Scavenge-and-Trade a strong and cumbersome strategy, and a bad thing. Making it a part of the Scavenge rule would also be a bad thing.

Hm, Im thinking of self-killing again… But I am not sure…

Mabye, I should vote - if ais votes against this, I have deferential self-killed my Proposal :P

Trade is more fun when people actually have to trade, rather than magically conjuring resources from the ether. (And what was the precedent about whether an Emperor can indirectly self-kill someone else’s proposal?)

I’m not sure there’s any ambiguity: ”[A deferential] vote will count as the same as the Mad Prince’s vote.” and a proposal may be failed if “The Commoner who proposed it has voted AGAINST it.”

I suppose there’s room to argue that they didn’t actually vote AGAINST, they voted DEFERENTIAL, so it should maybe be “It has an AGAINST vote from the Commoner who proposed it.” to match the rest of the rule.

Hm, I dont know really. But meanwhile:  anyways ;)