Caravans Carrying Suggestions

I noticed that when buying something from a faction hub only my caravan was sent out. It dropped off the payment and picked up the goods. This is exactly what I have in mind with all trade. Only one player sends stuff out. I personally think it would probably be best if it was the seller in those circumstances, but I can see the argument for the buyer to be the one to do it as well. It means that one player will still have his caravans available for other purposes. 

I have a question about resource gathering for everyone as well. Do you think it makes sense that caravans can gather some stuff but cotters are required for other things? It seems to me if I sent out a caravan one of the people accompanying it could be someone who knows how to harvest stuff. What do you all think? I feel that maybe caravans should not be able to harvest at all. It keeps consistency and makes the cotters more important, and in addition adds a slight bit of simplicity to a game that for newer players is quite daunting to learn and understand. Just my two cents. 

As I learn I update. I had not originally said anything at all about blockades exactly. Just that only one caravan should be sent. With your concern came a better understanding and an idea for how to make it work. If you are blockaded then you simply can't trade on the market. That way it is fair, you are hurt by the blockade but no one else is. I think it is a solid idea to fit with mine. If you can't put the trade up then you don't have to worry about the tax issue either. 

If France was at war with England, would you not expect that goods traveling from Germany to France might get interrupted or blocked? I think if you get blockaded, you can't put goods in the market or buy goods in the market. That way noone feels cheated, because no one tries to do a deal and then gets told oh sorry they are blockaded. Then neutral players don't lose anything. Just an opportunity with a trade partner who is legitimately at war. 
 

DeathDealer89 wrote: I do like the idea of blocking certain alliances/players from doing trade with you.  But I don't like the idea that those players just selling orders get their vans and goods taken away with because someone else is at war.

Politics seems like it could be a really great thing in the game. I am sure it is already, but being new I have not seen as much of it. SO... an opportunity to see more politics worked in can't possibly be a bad thing. 

I envision every player building a city not just to be a great city but to focus on a certain strategy of domination. Maybe a massive resources producer, or a bow maker, or an army producer, but also a huge trading hub, a travel hub, or a service city. Maybe a mercenary city that lets you rent their units to do battle with, or a city whose only goal is to make getting across the map easier. A city of with super advanced buildings that take up multiple slots but other players can pay to use themselves. Think of the diplomatic, political, trade benefits of things like that. 

The problem is if I buy something the victim.  And I the victim get blockaded.  The neutral player who sold me stuff gets hurt not the player who gets blockaded.

I'm assuming the situation you're imagining is one where the two players are making a market transaction and are not aiding each other in war.

If this happens, then you demand the player doing the blockading pays you back for the damage. It would certainly make you think twice about who you make trades with. The marketplace could even include an option to deny sale of your goods to players currently being blockaded.

I actually like the political implications of this change.