[Rigelian]

I don't find this at all unrealistic. It's roughly what happened in World War II.

No, the SE4 analogy for that would be GIFTS from Allies, i.e. massive transfer of 'real economy' resources to a flagging ally/allies. Did the US get any of that lend/lease stuff or Marshall Aid back again?. I think not. Thanks again, by the way... bet you wish you'd left the French out now, eh? 8-)

Back on topic, when I talk about trade I mean the 'free' resources generated for both sides by a trade treaty. In classic economic terms, the bonus to both parties from trading a surplus for a scarcity - everyone wins. But on average everone wins about the same amount, based on the amount of trade, based in turn on the surplus available to be traded. If the smaller economy has, say, 20K of surplus to trade, that's about what the other side will get out of it too. This is why I think the algorithm is in error. How can I get 100k of resources from trading the surplus of my 10k of actual production? 2K is what I should actually make out of it.

Why do I have such a problem with this? Several times I've been in games where someone is dominating the game and will win soon. The difficulty is in persuading people to drop their super-lucrative treaties with him to even begin an alliance.

Plus the situation where you have almost wiped someone out but their 'virtual economy' remains huge. As I said, no problem with a larger ally GIVING resources, that's fine because its costing them. Trade doesn't.

Rigelian
(My trade-limited game ConventionalWarfare_1_49 begins this Saturday)