I hear ye, NathanKell...it be a lot to take in all at once. Take your time, there are already holes in it that I'm aware of, but it'd be useful if other people caught up first.
Just summarising quickly, adding multiple colonies would allow you to modify certain aspects of the model to make the Caribbean economy more realistic at a cost of needing more time to ensure game balancing...namely:
a) Each individual colony no longer needs to be so robustly self-sufficient.
b) Colonies do not necessarily consume ALL goods. Some of these will be bought for further trading - either to other colonies or to Europe. The effect of this will, again, make the colonies more interdependent.
Additionally, colonies do not necessarily need to demand significant amounts of all goods at every stage of wealthiness. Luxuries such as chocolate would be difficult to sell in struggling towns, for example - however, if there are enough towns in the Caribbean, a major chocolate producer will still have enough potential trade to bring in wealth - it will just be a lot LESS wealth.
c) Gives the opportunity for set colonies (likely larger ones) for each nation acting as major ports for Europe-bound or Europe-arriving vessels. These ports would all, as Jim Hawkins suggested, be major importers of tobacco, sugar, valuable indian artefacts, etc. from the Caribbean and major exporters of said goods to Europe. Likewise, they would have cheaper prices for European imported goods (Maltese swords, etc?), but on account of their wealthiness, they'd probably have higher prices for virtually everything else, especially including essential goods such as sailcloth, rum, etc.
That would also act partly as game balancing, to prevent 'super ports' where it is ideal to sell expensive goods at high prices and buy other expensive goods at cheap prices.
d) Geography would become more important. The most profitable trade routes should probably also be the longest / most dangerous.
e) The overall trading situation would need to be balanced and tested (same as in the original model) to ensure that no one country is naturally inclined to become more wealthy (and, hence, more powerful) than the others unless this is intentional, and balanced in other ways.
====================================================
If trading is not made abstract, and I'd agree with you that this would be more realistic and more fun, then not much needs to be changed at all - in fact, it would tie in rather well with some of the points above.
a) Colonies do not necessarily consume all goods. Some goods in storage will be traded elsewhere, depending on the intended destination of the merchant ship. In the original model, the colonies consume tobacco at an unhealthy rate - in this one, a ship would be created that would export the tobacco EITHER to somewhere else in the Caribbean where prices were higher, OR onwards towards Europe (removing it from the game, provided the ship sails away).
b) A sub-model would be needed to define trade routes. If all trade is actually conducted by the game on the map, then we need to ensure that not all merchants chase after the most profitable routes only, etc. And those that do go on the more dangerous routes are either fast ships that are running their luck, are escorted, or are more capable of defending themselves. Those that undertake short, low-profit runs would be smaller scale ships who'd make a much less attractive target for pirates and, hence, would be less defended.
c) This would depend a lot on the geography of the Caribbean in the model, but 'traders' would fall into several different generic types. I'll try to put down the obvious ones:
1) Short-haul national traders. These would be small ships, Tartanes, Luggers, etc. transporting cheaper goods in smaller quantities. Their trade routes would run only between colonies of their own nation. These traders are not really equipped for conflict, and would either a) avoid the waters of hostile powers, even if that restricts their trading routes or b) not travel more than a certain distance from one colony to another.
For example, short haul traders would happily make the run between St. Kitts, Nevis, Barbados, etc. but would be reluctant to sail all the way west to Port Royale, especially if the Spanish and French were hostile.
2) Short-haul free traders. Again, smaller ships transporting cheaper goods, but not so concerned about where they sell. These would be the backbone of trade in the model, I think. Their trade routes would, again, avoid hostile waters to their nationality and not travel more than certain distances between colonies, although their trade route in total might take them a very long way before they return 'home'.
These traders would be more used to the difficulties of going between different, potentially rival nations. They'd be slightly better able to defend themselves, or flee from a threat.
3) Long-haul national traders. These are your merchantmen or galleons, who are prepared to take on the more valuable trade routes (e.g, getting the sugar from Port Royale's plantations and taking it to be sold in St. Kitts, ready to be shipped to England). These traders would have a long-distance route in mind. It is likely that they would make infrequent stops on their route for re-supply and minor trading where appropriate.
These traders would be mindful of hostilities between nations, but not to the point of avoiding hostile waters. Nor would distance limit their profiteering. These ships would quite possibly have an escort from their home country.
4) Long-haul free traders. These are more likely to be merchantmen than galleons, given the cost required for an independent merchant to acquire and run larger vessels. These ships would ply the main high-value trade routes of the Caribbean, regardless of national ties. For example, Port Royale - Martinique - Trinidad - Curacao - Port Royale.
These traders would be able to afford some kind of escort, or would be mindful enough of their own protection to have large crews and many well-equipped guns. They would be prepared to sail anywhere.
5) Ocean-going traders. These are the ships travelling from Europe to the Caribbean and returning by the same route, mostly of larger classes with powerful escorts. They would only be concerned with stopping at major locations in the Caribbean. The first port of call would see wealth put onto the ships as European goods are sold. The last port of call would see wealth given to the town as the Caribbean goods are bought, ready to be shipped back. The first and last port may be the same place, or these ships might, like the Spanish treasure fleet, make a small circuit of the Caribbean, or stop at one or two ports only, etc.
If they are stopping in multiple places, the first vs last port effect would be spread more evenly over their route.
6) Treasure fleets. These are the tax collecting ships. I'm not sure, historically, quite how they worked. I would assume they only stopped at major ports (for their own safety and, plus, why would you sail frigates to the huts on the Florida Keys?) and expected other towns to leave their taxes there, ready for collection. Small outposts and the like were probably effectively exempt from taxation, as it wouldn't be worth the risk or bother of getting the fleet to pass by.
The treasure fleets would gain wealth along their route and carry only essential goods and maybe one or two items of interest for the European nobility. They would be under very heavy escort at all times. Their wealth would be almost non-existant on arrival, but potentially very great upon departure to Europe (depending on the wealth of the colonies).
7) Smugglers. These despicable denizens of the sea-lanes would use mostly small, fast, heavily-armed ships, used to fending off advances from the coast guard, military, rival smugglers, etc. Their entire purpose is to trade where they were not wanted, escaping local duties and dealing in contraband. Although they may have a 'safe' national port, they are prepared to sail anywhere where the goods that they buy are declared contraband in search of high profit.
Smugglers cause a one-sided trading effect for colonies. Where they buy goods legitimately, that gold is added to the colony. Where they sell them illegally, the cost to the colony of chasing down the smugglers or seeking to punish the buyers, plus the extra crime that such activities would bring about, can be assumed to be equal to the value gained by having those goods in the economy. In other words, the destination point, where the goods are illegal, gains no benefit from the arrival of smugglers - only from what they buy legitimately before they leave.
d) Finally, you'd need to determine if the trade routes are pre-set or if they are to be variable to any degree. Pre-set routes would make for a predictable trading model, but would be effective and ensure that no colony ever became permanently screwed if it was surrounded by hostile waters and too poor to attract large merchants (e.g. Providence), because someone, at least, would trade there. Fixed routes would ensure that, generally, ports which are expected to be wealthy will return to wealthiness steadily over time, even if pillaged. Ports which are expected to be poor will always remain relatively poorer, as fewer traders will go there, even if prospects on paper are good.
Variable routes cause more of a headache, allowing trader classes to select trade routes based on variables such as danger, profitability, distance, nationality, etc. Whilst possibly more realistic, it would make market forces a very powerful game influence. Wrecking the economy of a major port could, potentially, really screw up trade routes. It also makes poor colonies less likely to 'catch up' rich colonies, but would allow the possibility of, for example, the Florida Keys becoming a larger, more bustling port than Havana, given the right leg up and providing coded limits aren't made on a colony's maximum size and wealth.
e) The amount of trade would be dependent on the demand status of any given trade route, limited by the supply available. If there is a market in the Caribbean for a colony's excess goods, it is likely that a trader will take advantage of it. For example, a wealthy colony demanding large amounts of European goods will cause such more traders carrying those goods to travel to them from ports which have them in excess (most likely implemented by the number of traders created on that overall trade route or routes being increased). The maximum amount of trading would occur when there was no more excess remaining in the colony.
Likewise, a fall in demand (e.g. population decline) would cause less traders overall. In this model, traders have perfect information on the market, and will not sail if they realise that there will be no market for their goods when they arrive.
Allowing trading to 'max out' could potentially make the player incapable of trading effectively, so caution would be advised. It'd also start messing with the overall pricing scheme. The closer you get to the maximum desired level of trade, the closer the prices between the two towns get. 'Demand' towns would be given a naturally higher level of demand for a specific good than the Caribbean average, just as 'supply' townd have a naturally higher level of supply. The price difference caused would ensure that trade will always continue, but it is most profitable when the number of merchants is low.
Other influences on the number of merchants include piracy, the amount of hostilities in the caribbean, etc.
f) The above ( e ) really assumes that trade routes are pre-set and that the number of traders in the Caribbean is defined by the trade routes and the status of the towns on them, taking into account any limiting factors. Does that make any sense? Probably not.
For example, assume only Oxbay, Redmond and Douwesan exist. One single trade route between them assumes a 'normal' level of trade of, say, 3 traders, who go from Oxbay to Redmond to Douwesan to Oxbay.
If Redmond grows in size, it will demand more goods from Oxbay. Assuming the merchants do not naturally trade ALL of Oxbay's excess, an extra trader will take the route between Oxbay to Remond. These traders will vanish upon arrival, the rest of the route is unchanged. If the respective countries are at war, one less trader will make the route from Redmond to Douwesan and again, one less from Douwesan on to Oxbay.
The pre-set model doesn't, for example, create Trader Jim Jenkins and follow his trading decisions across the Caribbean. The creation of traders is abstract.
A variable model would do the opposite. A set number of traders would be created in the entire Caribbean based on colony sizes, wealth, war, etc. and distributed amongst the colonies at re-initialisation. These traders would then decide on the best route depending on their class and then take it, and the game would determine where they were and what was happening to them.
Periodically, the status would be re-assessed. If trade prospects are good, a set number of new traders would be created and distributed across the Caribbean accordingly. Up to a certain percent of traders sunk or otherwise waylaid would probably also be replaced at their origin point. The total number of traders would be limited by Caribbean-wide demand and supply (functions of wealth and population size). A minimum number should also be included to prevent over-piracy or war wiping out all trade and messing up the model.
The main problem with this approach is that giving each trader free will requires not only far, FAR more thorough coding and testing for a sensible decision-tree, but also that unless the game is balanced right, bad situations could cause certain colonies to be well and truly kicked while they were down...
On the plus side, merchants would not blindly sail into the player's waiting cannons because "that's where we always go!", and trade will shift across the Caribbean depending on the situation of various colonies. Also, if a memory effect was included into demand and supply (something I was thinking about this morning, as it happens), you could use it to prevent over-trading.
Without going into great detail (ie, I'll think about it more in terms of the original model soon), the idea is that the towns have an idea of their trading status. For example, Oxbay produces Silk which Redmond demands. If the 'normal' level of trade exists between them, Oxbay doesn't pass on all of its excess Silk, Redmond doesn't receive all of the extra Silk that it would be willing to, and the prices between both remain the same.
If more traders ply the route in one economic cycle (e.g, profits on the chocolate route are down), they will take advantage of the profitable price difference. At the end of the cycle, both colonies re-assess the situation. Oxbay knows that demand for its Silk is up (ie, more traders are requesting it), and so it raises the selling price. This is a canny decision as Oxbay 'knows' (ie, we know) that trade is being limited by the merchants' capacity, not by the amount being produced...so, the best way for the storeowner to increase profit is to sell at a higher price, because the traders are going to fill their holds whatever.
Likewise, Redmond realises that more Silk is coming into the colony. Whilst it might not be the most the colony would be prepared to accept, the storeowner will know (ie, we know) that he needs to find a market for all this extra Silk coming into his store, and that more will be on the way. As a result, he lowers his offering price, figuring that the traders will fill their holds whatever and already be on the way, so he can cut a healthy profit.
The memory effect works if the traders decide their trade routes at a point in the economic cycle BEFORE the towns set the new price of goods. The traders will still make money (price changes won't be huge), and will be largely committed to their planned route. At the end of the economic cycle, they'll review the situation. Over time, the profitability of the Silk route will fall, and other routes' profitability will rise, so more traders will be attracted away. At this point, the Silk route will return back towards the original price levels (ie raise its profitability) and so the balance will always be changing.
Memory would be a function of the difference in supply to a demanding colony, or the difference in demand to a supplying colony, on a cycle by cycle basis. If supply rises, price falls - if demand rises, price increases and vice versa.
=====================================================
As you can gather, making ALL trade on-screen would take a lot of implementation. Likewise, you could fix national traders to have set routes whilst free traders changed by market demand and supply, if you wanted to keep things realistic (sorry - should have added that in above, but only thought about it now).
Alternatively, you could 'simulate' trading by spawning merchants carrying the expected trading goods of a given route every so often and deal with the actual effects of trade in the originally proposed abstract manner (ie, colonies only change their wealth when interacting with the player. All things on the map are just 'for show'). I assumed that wasn't really what you wanted to do, so I went into detail. <img src="http://www.piratesahoy.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="
" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
Thanks fer the kind words, all. Likewise, I'll also appreciate ruthless and brutal criticism. I know there are bits that could be better implemented, or pitfalls that I'm sure I've missed.
The main pitfall I see with implementation is that its going to be insanely hard to do it all at once, but not particularly easy to do in stages either. I should have a bit o' time this coming week to mess about with the basic demand-supply relationship and see if I can get some figures that'll work for that. Once that's done, everything else can be seen as variables that affect it.
v_Grimmelshausen, I hear what you're saying about clothes - hopefully this explanation will make sense for why clothes are a low-price (hence low profit margin) luxury rather than an essential:
Whilst clothes are an essential good, if they are tagged as being so in-game then they need to have an actual purpose to either the town or the player, otherwise...
Well, take wheat as an example. If you own all of the wheat supply in a town, you could charge the highest prices imaginable and still sell it, because people have to buy it - they can't live without it, its an essential good. The only reason that you can't do that is because if you charge 1,000 gold for a unit of wheat, any trader coming in will happily charge only a gold or two above the normal price, sell his entire cargo and leave you with a lot of wheat and no buyers.
The original model assumed that trading was occuring all the time, AND that you naturally make more of an essential good than you use. This stands to reason - there are always more clothes than there are buyers, large stockpiles of planks and sailcloth and more cannonballs and musketballs in a fort than will be fired in the foreseeable future.
Production of essentials is usually limited by two things: storage and demand spikes. Eventually, excess stored wheat will rot, for example. Also, there's only enough space to store so many of these items before the storekeeper refuses to buy any more. At this point, price starts falling, the excess gets bought up and traded elsewhere.
Demand spikes might happen as a result of this lower price from excess storage, or from unpredictable events. For example, if a new ship is built then planks, sailcloth and cannonballs will all be consumed in a one-off capacity. Likewise, an influx of new immigrants would deplete wheat stocks faster than they were replaced, but after a while the larger population would become self-sufficient (and more) again.
I didn't really mention them much, but artificial (or productive) demand spikes would act as limits on the amount of excess production held in store, to prevent storeholders eventually holding, say, 500,000 wheat and throwing it away at 0 gold.
Now...clothing. If clothing is an essential good that is underproduced, then you get situations such as the one regarding wheat that I initially described - stores will pay truly enormous sums to get their hands on them. If it is underproduced Caribbean-wide, the price will continue to grow and grow and grow. Hence, for game balancing (and since all essentials so far affect either the player or the town, and might make repairs or restocking impossible), essential goods are always safely overproduced.
In which case, the exact opposite occurs. There is no 'need' for them to be traded except to take advantage of inflationary differences in prices between struggling towns and wealthy towns. Every town has more than they need, and can't give them away fast enough. Prices will naturally tend towards a continuous decrease in the long term unless demand spikes are used, etc.
In other words, essential goods make very, VERY poor trade goods in the environment this model describes. Luxuries are the opposite. The more you trade in a good, the less profitable it becomes, until the point where the profitability in trading between the supplying town and the demanding town is negligible. Naturally, we'd make sure that this point was rarely, if ever, reached. On the other hand, a shortfall in luxuries drives the prices upwards gently, but with no negative consequences to the town or player.
Oh, and for the curious, I'm not an economics tutor, but a former economics student, now studying Marketing.
:" border="0" alt="icon_eek.gif" /> WOW! <img src="http://www.piratesahoy.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/icon_eek.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="
" border="0" alt="keith.gif" /> incredible! <img src="http://www.piratesahoy.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/par-ty.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="
" border="0" alt="par-ty.gif" />
" border="0" alt="me.gif" /> . Are you an economics tutor IRL? 
" border="0" alt="icon_mrgreen1.gif" />
" border="0" alt="buds.gif" />
" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> Yes, please! <img src="http://www.piratesahoy.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="