I've previously suggested making trade not stockpilable. There is one major reason I see why trade would be better left stockpilable: It give empires something to exchange with eachother as a lump sum. If there are no minerals or food to exchange, then all that's left as a currency is "trade" points.Bigjoe5 wrote:...there's no greatly compelling reason I can think of to keep Trade as the only stockpiled primary resource...
The way trade is distributed also makes it more suitable for being left stockpilable than minerals or food. IMO a resource can be stockpilable but not distribution-limited (trade), or distribution-limited but not stockpilable (industry / production). Having a resource be both leads to problems with game mechanics and interface that I'd like to avoid, like deciding where the stockpile is stored or how much is available in disconnected subsets of planets in an empire. This isn't a reason to keep it stockpilable, but a note that a consideration for why food and minerals should not be stockpilable doesn't apply to trade.
One reason to make trade not stockpilable is that I suspect for the espionage / social uses I envision for trade (or "influence" as I'd like to rename it), it would be better balanced if it was not stockpiled. If a minimum total trade/influence amount is required to be able to do certain espionage or influence activities, having stockpiles would make it harder to impose such limits. If empires need to produce some amount consistently to pay for an activity, that's a more powerful restriction to have available.
Not having a stockpiled "money"-type resource also avoids the apparent need to have issues like defecit spending and how to deal with a defecit when there is no money "in the bank".
IMO a non-stockpiled "influence" also makes more sense in context. For a "real" empire, "money" would not exist; it's merely a tool used to manipulate / control the populace. Commonly-understood microeconomic principles don't really sensibly apply to galaxy-spanning empires...