I think it would be nice if a new map was designed, perhaps closely to resemble campaign map, with some changes of course.
With a new, customized map, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to improve how trading works, a simple system such as
- Selling goods DECREASES prosperity
- Buying goods INCREASES prosperity
Production would be neutral, however, fiefs would slowly CONSUME goods to increase prosperity, so the whole map would average a prosperity of zero. Large transactions would decrease the fief's resources, so naturally, they will have less money to pay for additional goods.
A simpler idea would be to have set prices, such as in Native, that the fiefs will pay for good(s) of certain types. This does not necessarily have to make sense based upon the layout of the map. Grain in Dhirim becomes Praven's Ale.. or however that saying goes.
Anyway, this would help balance the map, so that there would be LOGICAL trade routes (cheap Grain from Dhirim, sold to Suno for Wine, sold for Ale in Praven, traded for Iron in Uxkhal, where each product is in demand, and contains a cheap resource in demand elsewhere) however with people taking advantage of these trade routes, the demands would be decreased, there would still be a profit in it, but a larger alliance would have more difficulty, over time, making money in the same transactions.
Oh, yeah, and the main production areas for said resources would begin to charge more, cutting profit margins of commonly traded goods for mega alliances.
Basically, the larger your trade alliance, the less profit each individual sees. Overall, this would still BENEFIT a large alliance, but your entire alliance will not be turning your 3 gold goods into 25 gold (further multiplied by the distance bonus) by the thousands, continually.
This will also have traders playing a more active role in strat, and add to the realism, in that they will usually have SOME cargo on their person(s) which they have had for several cities back, waiting to turn a good profit on it.
Now I don't know this for a fact but I believe strat = simulated warfare. Yet here you guys are asking for it to be fair....Like some people have suggested swallow your pride and allign with a "king" or be crushed like a rebel.
Yes larger size = more economic power.....duh?
...
The larger map honestly I think would cause more harm than help.
...
I think the main problem is that NA has proven, strat after strat, to be very warlike. EU, when cordoned off, has shown that it is perfectly capable of exterminating resistance, and resorting to peaceful and VERY profitable trade. They also control the most lucrative sections of map, IMHO, and much more of it than does NA.
The way trade is set up does not make great logical sense, and is kind of busted from a balance perspective too.
Splitting EU and NA into their own strategus maps would be a way to solve this problem, EU would have more land (which may or may not take one of their mega alliances longer to conquer the entire thing) while NA would have more room for everyone's ego to expand, and this would hopefully lead to more NA wars. That seems win-win as the largest portion of players, on both sides I think, would be appeased, without a major overhaul to the game.
This would have the added bonus of, essentially, INCREASING the amount of strat battles, as well, since there are two maps producing armies, etc, to be battling, as opposed to one. This would end up being a good thing to make the entire game more fun.
Poll