Thank you Jonny, for saying what I've been trying to say for days now, in a much clearer way. You seem to do that often, I'm jealous 
The only way I can see 'the middle guy' benifiting from trading realistically, is if there is a 'trade' tech or something that that to dictate the maximum reach of your trade routes. That way, early to mid game, the person in the middle could have tons of trade routes, where the people on the edges could only trade with... well, the guy in the middle.
An alternate idea is that trade routers build themselves based on supply and demand of different goods, which a higher chance that it is established with the closest source. This also seems like a realistic solution, but it takes some control away from the player (maybe that is best?)
I was thinking more along the lines that foreign caravans passing through your territory would generate income for you. In GC2 trade only generates income for the players on either end, and people in the middle of major trade routes get nothing - although you can milk them with economic starbases if I remember correctly... In reality, the people in the middle of trade routes between distant places benefit the most - and I think this is one of the cases where mimicking reality would be a good thing for gameplay.
'Trade routes' might just be rough routes through which many caravans pass (if caravans only or prefer traveling on roads, they would probably be fairly well defined), or they could be defined in other ways. Really I think that for a system like what I'm proposing to work, players would need the option of diverting their trade around obstacles like Geoff's swamp or their angry enemy. This would require a nifty UI, but would be doable I think. I'd love to be able to draw my own trade routes in the cloth map
Wow you take my sentences and twist them responding with massive unrecognizable reactions. As I wrote within my post Stardock listens to its customers and this can bend some of their decisions. Bend means to lean it does not mean a complete change. I did NOT say posts on the forums would cause Stardock to mindlessly obey as you reference my response as calling them mindless... where do you get this stuff... it's like you channel dead crazy people.
The whole point of making suggestions is to get Stardock to lean towards them. My point still stands - we have to know that Stardock knows when to stop leaning and fall over, and when to stand up straight again. I am most definitely not going to refrain from making a suggestion for fear that Stardock might like it. I hope you make all the suggestions you'd want to see in the game, too.
Suggesting major features now is a good idea, but as I wrote earlier each game can only have so many major complex features due to development time and deadlines. Feel free to express your ideas whether it's a race of mad clowns or a complex trading system, I'm just advising to be more mindful of suggesting your most important major complex features ideas first.
Lol, first? I've been trolling these threads for 4 or 5 months and this is nowhere near my first suggestion. And this is somewhat of an about-face for you, as originally you said:
"We don't know how much time the developers have devoted on other more important features, so until we see what currently exists on a full beta requests for a complex trading system should be delayed."
But saying we should delay a suggestions about a potential major feature until we see the full beta is nearly the same thing as saying, 'don't suggest this at all.' Because the chances of Stardock being able to incorporate something major and totally unplanned for once the game is that far along would be much more difficult than doing so now - even if Stardock loves the idea. And "each game can only have so many major complex features due to development time and deadlines" make me even more sure that you have no faith that Stardock is capable of making competent decisions. If your statement is blatantly obvious to me, then it is even more so to Stardock - they know their limitations and abilities better than either of us, and they are the only ones capable of making the decision, "should we try this? Can we try this?"
As I've written within a previous post suggesting the traditional trading system could still exist with a balanced magic cost which would still encourage players to use the trading system you've suggested, but I haven't seen much feedback.
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you mean the traditional system instead of the one I'm suggesting (either absolutely or as an option). Having the two together could work - it would also make it easier to balance magic costs of teleporting trade. If there is another method, which doesn't require magic at all (caravans), then the magic costs of the 'traditional' method could be high enough to be balanced without breaking trade.
Well the dangers and delays naturally will result in less trading as compared with the traditional trading system since demand is often with a deadline where waiting 5 or 25 turns is not an option. Even with an optional caravan speed setting, which would be tough explaining, there's still a delay. These deadlines might be a hidden approaching army, unexpected natural disaster approaching, an angry independent dragon, etc., . Waiting for trade is sometimes not an option thus less trading. The same is true for dangers where you may offer an exchange yet one or more players will just respond saying, "sorry it's not worth the risk."... thus less trading.
Just means you have to plan ahead more. Normally trade functions as an "OH SHIT!" button, kind of a deus ex machina. In my suggestion, you'd have to actually think ahead about what you might need that you can't provide for yourself, and then work out how to get it. It does mean you wouldn't be able to use it as an 'OH SHIT!" button - but if you combine both our ideas (caravan + teleport trade), then you could still have the oh shit button, it would just cost you - and it might not always be worth spending that mana on getting those resources now. It just bothers me that trade is always such a risk-free feature. I like risk in my strategy games, it makes it more interesting.
After careful consideration the best solution for one lost shipment or even both lost shipments would be having the 3rd party merchants refund the original owner(s) with gold equalling a percentage gold value of the lost contents thus 50% as the default and perhaps insurance raising the percentage to 75%. Also when a shipment is attacked a random percentage of the goods should be damaged as a result of fighting the guards from the merchants guild. The percentage of lost goods and percentage of refund would help prevent exploits.
Not a bad idea. I completely agree that raiding a caravan should not yield everything that was in it. The rest could work well, but I still think any tentative solutions to this problem would have to be thoroughly tested as it is a rather tricky issue.
However the dangers involved with trading and the delays involved with trading between players via caravans would result in less trading between players as compared with the traditional system. The developers would have to decide if it's worth the extra development, AI programming, and bug fixing to try using a new trading system which will have less trading.
Potentially less, but more meaningful, trade. I think you are actually overestimating how much this idea would reduce trade. For one, in the standard system you always know exactly how much of everything you need, which means you can make precise trades for maximum efficiency rather easily. Under this system, you have to plan ahead, which means you don't have quite as perfect an idea of what you need (or rather, what you will need). This means that players might be more inclined to trade more often, or for more, then they might ultimately need, somewhat making up for the loss of trade due to the risks and delays involved.
