PyroMancer2k PyroMancer2k

[1Z1][Suggestion] Food, Housing, and Prestige Overhaul

[1Z1][Suggestion] Food, Housing, and Prestige Overhaul

As many people have pointed out the current food & housing system is a bit odd and not well liked. The reason I think is because you use food to build houses which doesn't make sense as those houses could be empty. And once the houses are built you can proceed to lose your food production and while it will become negative there is no real penalty. Also once a city has reach the desired level there is no incentive to maintain the current population. You can simply demolish the houses in favor of putting up production facilities. The same goes for the Prestige buildings as once you have reached the max amount of people needed the buildings become useless and ripe for demolish in favor of better buildings.

That being said what I propose is a real shift on how these things are looked at and used in the game. The objective of these changes is to makes sure they make sense from a strategic point of view and that they stay important throughout all stages of the game. Also since this is more concept then hard numbers I'll try to stay clear of using actual figures as that falls under balancing which can be worked out later. Anyway down to business.

 

Food

Obviously food should be used to feed the people. So the question is how to go about doing this. Well since the economy is global with all resources treated to one giant pool it stands to reason that food should be the same way. Though it's not just resources but also population that shows up on your global resources.

This provides a bit of a unique opertunity as we can use the global population to determine the food consumption as it also includes your army units. Thus if you build a large army it could end up eating most of your food. This way late game players won't be able to simply withdraw large numbers of their population into their army as a way of avoiding having to feed them.

It seems obvious that while food is in surplus the population should grow. The real question is what happens when there is a food shortage. Well a couple things can happen, first the most obvious is some of your people die from starvation and second your military units become less effective either from some penalty of maybe some HP loss. The exact amounts and figures to be determined during a balancing phase.

The question on how to manage a shortage can be handled several different ways.

1) The player has not control over which villages starve.

2) The player can assign priority on a sort of resource priority page which simply list the order in which towns should be given resources in case of shortages.

3) Similar to 2 only the player could choose to spread the shortage evenly thus no one city takes a major hit. Including possibly a mix with a High/Med/Low priority setup.

4) If a military penalty aspect is in play for food shortage then the player can choose which gets priority the military or the civilians. This would work best if the military actually takes an HP hit and can't heal until food comes in surplus again. After all if the player is damaging his resource gather base by starving out then the other option should also be damaging beyond simply a weaker atk/def for a single round. As in both cases the losses can be naturally recovered once food supplies are restored.

This also allows for the option of sieges that cut off food supply since as the mechanics for a starving population will already be in place.

 

Prestige

Prestige I think is ment to represent how popular and atractive a city is to potential citizens. While right now it serves as little more then a counter for how many people move in each turn. I think a much better approach would be to use prestige as a more dynamic tool that is sort of another cap to population as well as housing.

What I mean by this is the higher the prestige the more people move in just like now but at the same time the more people that are in your city the slower it grows. After all as the city fills up it becomes more crowded and less atractive to new citizens. Unless you continue to improve it with things that will draw people's attention like inns, pubs, theaters, and town halls.

So it becomes a bit of an uphill battle as the more population you get the slower the city grows which means you need more prestige to help make it grow faster. And of course there will be some point at which having too low of a prestige will mean that people actually start moving out of your city. This means that you will need to maintain a decent amount of prestige to keep your citizens happy and staying in your city. It will also make many of the currently useless prestige buildings serve a purpose.

 

Housing

Obviously given the change to food the houses shouldn't require them anymore. But given the changes to Prestige I think most of the housing buildings should give some prestige. Though I also think huts, housing, and Villas shouldn't be auto upgrade. As the higher ones should give more prestige and cost more as well as giving more population cap like they do now. The option to upgrade without having to demolish the old building and building a new one should be implemented as this would be a good feature in general since many modders will likely want to have building upgrades that are not automatic.

This new setup could make houses with high prestige such as estates more worth the investment. Along with even more potential to make the slums matter as a choice. Several people have already noted the slums need either more population support or less food usage. Under this setup though the food isn't really an issue though it probably would need a larger population cap. But overall it does open up some possibilities which would need to be worked out in balancing issues but the basic concept is there. As it's a trade off with faster population growth of high prestige but lower housing cap vs a higher housing capacity with slower growth. So it'll be kinda like it is now except growth slows down as the city gets closer to being full and you need to maintain a curtain amount of prestige to keep your citizens.

 

Final thoughts and other ideas

This setup makes it so in a way you have 3 things determining your population capacity but each one has a different effect so it's a bit of a balancing game. As food not only applies to your citizens but also your military there is the need for large amounts of food. While prestige has more of a morale effect on cities by not only effecting how fast they grow but also how much over crowding they will tolerate. And lastly the housing is of course the population cap for the city but also allows more types of bonuses to be applied to different housing effects in not only prestige but also possible other things like gold for "taxes".

While the proposed system includes some changes to all 3 areas they are not really dependent on one another. Like the food change could be made but the prestige could remain the same or have a completely different approach. And like I said before this is mainly an exercise in concept rather then specific numbers and balance. So things like how much food a farm should produce of how many people 1 food should support and all that stuff can be addressed at a later date. Even the figures currently in use on food, housing, and prestige haven't gone through any balancing so don't rely on them as a basis of comparison when it comes to numbers but rather compare how their mechanics work.

Before I wrap it up I'd like to close by covering another problem that exist under the current system, which is population only matters for leveling up the city. Once a city has reached level 5 there is no real reason to keep the population around. The city will not de-level even if you demolish all of the housing/prestige buildings. This quite frankly is not a good thing as you should want a player to need to keep that level 5's city at or above 1000 people to really get it's benefit.

I think the easiest method to make players want to keep the city's population up after reaching that level is by having a modifier of something like (Current Population/Required Population for Level) apply to the output of buildings in the city, it would max out at 1 so you'd need to put a cap on it since it's only meant as a penalty if they go under. Thus a level 4 city which requires 500 people to reach with only 400 people in it would only produce at 80% efficiency. This combined with level multiplier I've read about mention would really make a huge difference.

I only recently read about the multiplier and didn't really notice it in the beta so not sure if it's in, was planned but then scraped as some post in forums are old so this next part could be off. But supposedly a level 4 city has it's buildings produce at 4 times the amount thus a market with 1 gold is actually producing 4 gold. Well under the suggested modifier above a level 3 city with a base produce of 10 would produce 30 goods. While a level 4 city would produce 40 but because the level 4 has a higher multiplier it could drop to 75% of the needed 500 population before it's production was less then that of the level 3 city.

Of course that is a very basic setup which is easy for the player to understand. A much more complicated one with the population production penalty more closely matching the curve from level 3 to level 4 population vs bonus given could be down but then you'd probably also need to take into account the increased number in building slots and such. But that seems like more of a headache. Especially when the goal is quite simply have the player keep their population above the level required by the city's level.

 

Anyway I'd like to know what you think of my proposal. Questions, comments, and etc. let me know.

 

234,114 views 114 replies
Reply #76 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 75
Fair enough. I was some-what wary of this, while at the same time couldn't help but get sucked into the discussion

I know what you mean. I started the thread and it got a little derailed on the ideas to help penalize L5 city builders. I kept trying to say that the current abundance of food in the beta was a balance issue not a mechanics one but it's nice to have a developer point it out as well. ;)

Reply #77 Top

I have no problem with "Pyromancer's suggestion of making prestige diminish as population grows" although I find that a bit artificial and does not appeal to me.    However, I agree in principle  that for any large city, pop growth plateau due to over crowding/difficulty of admin etc.

By any slim chance that the idea that "1 population consume 1 food and 1 prestige per turn" will be implemented,  it will achieve the same result.   When the pop required to upgrade a city to highest levels is getting higher and higher,  local prestige production cannot keep up with this requirement because of this idea.     

Reply #78 Top

"Last time I checked there was a technology that allowed you to "Imbue your Soverign with Essence".  However, currently the tech doesn't work, other than allow you to research it.....

The "Imbuing Essence" is to your Hero's from the Sovereign. Another reason why Essence will be a (the) critical resource as the game proceeds forwards. How much to start with and how much can be replenished is a Balance issue and not a mechanic one.

"John, I haven't been able to build a city without essence, unless perhaps you razed a city, then built one on the tile that has already had essence poured into it to make it city buildable."

As I noted, it may have been changed, but previously, as a City grew, the amount of fertile lands surrounding said city also expanded.

I will check this evening to confirm as I have not been to concerned about additional Cities or Essence consumption under the current 1Z2 build due to a rather limited "available Turns" before the "Grey Plague" rears it ugly head.  :X

Reply #79 Top

I regards to the City size and related Bonuses it would probably be a good thing that various combination of City sizes equate to the same bonus level as their equivalent single units.

An example might be:

A Level 2 + a Level 3 = a Level 5

A Level 2 + a Level 2 = a Level 4

That is not to say there should not be a Special Bonus for a solo level 5 (the Penultimate City) of your Kingdom. If you allow a bunch of max. Level cities, it would seem to detract from the fact they should actually be "Special". Unless of course no one actually cares about having a "Special" cities in their Kingdom.

Otherwise, as noted in posts previously, if the Math in game always determines that a L2 + L2 actually provide > than a L4 in production Bonuses, then I will likely, and logically, prefer to have more 2's than 4's based strictly on Bonuses provided.

That fact alone, given you can supply your Sovereign with Essence at Level up, will add to the one thing everyone seem to not want. A GIGATON (great word btw) of cities everywhere.

I would prefer to see the Bonus a City provide to Production be tied directly to the Infrastructure in place in any given City. You want max bonuses? pay the Gold/Material/??? cost to bring that city up to that level.


 

Reply #80 Top

Quoting Climber, reply 77
I have no problem with "Pyromancer's suggestion of making prestige diminish as population grows" although I find that a bit artificial and does not appeal to me.    However, I agree in principle  that for any large city, pop growth plateau due to over crowding/difficulty of admin etc.
 

I don't really see it as artificial. As in real life the more a city improves the more attention it draws to motivate people to move there. But each improvement to a city doesn't have an infinite draw potential like the current static setup does now.

Basically think of it more along the lines of this. A city builds a theater well only people interest in culture and such are likely to be attracted by that and there are only so many people in the area. So next you build a pub and again there are a lot of people who are drawn to the city because they can have a good time drinking but eventual that pool of people are exhausted as well. The diminishing prestige setup effectively achieves this without over complicating the game by having to measure things like local population densities and such. I mean after all those people have to be coming from some where.

Any city in real life eventual slows down on it's draw of new residents because it has it's drawing potential (prestige) is fairly well matched with other cities. As people don't see that city as being better then the one they currently live in. Again though this breaks down to population densities and local population amounts which would just over complicate the game. Though the devs did mention something about your prestige effecting other cities so who knows they may be considering some mechanic along those lines.

Also prestige covers both birth rate and immigration into the city. While time has not yet been nailed down it would be a bit odd to think of a city of 100 as having 10 kids every turn and those kids are suddenly of age. Since on your own dynasty chart several turns is a year.

In larger cities you could consider the slow increase from diminishing prestige as the result of people seeking better opportunities else where. Take the move to the Americans for example. These huge European cities with lots of creature comfort opportunities available yet still hundreds and then thousands of people were leaving to look for opportunities in the New World. Some of the European cities may of even had negative population grow during these times because of all the people leaving.

Again I don't want to over complicate anything but these kind of regional and global dynamics are the reason behind the diminishing prestige suggestion. As it accomplishes the goal of representing that in a simple gameplay mechanic without the need for complex population migration models which would only confuse the player.

 

Reply #81 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 74

Beware of designing game mechanics to deal with balance issues.  How "scarce" something is happens to be purely a matter of balance. Food to plentiful? Then fewer fertile land spots and such.  Higher levels not providing enough benefit? Have more buildings that require those high levels.

The scarcity of a given thing is a matter of balance. The game mechanic shouldn't come into play.

 

Not so sure about this, FB.  Within certain limits, I'd agree.  But if food bonuses are scarce, then starting position can be unbalancing if someone hits on a magical "two food" start point.  More resource availability limits the differential imposed by bad starting position.

I see your point, though, that we should focus on mechanic, rather than balance.  I'm satisfied that it will take a combination of good economic construction plus advantageous geographic position to get a good L5 city.  I like that geography will limit, PROVIDED I can change the geography.  If I need to be on the coast, I need to be able to lower land to make coastline near the city I want to push to L5. Don't make it a fluke of position and luck to get L5 cities, make it something we can work towards.  Maybe at the cost of other resources.  I can cast a spell to bring a river to a city I choose to grow, but maybe there's a chance another river will dry up, and starve out another of my cities that was on that river.  Maybe we pick a "one hand giveth, the other taketh away" mechanic.

Like this as an example:

I see a wheat field outside of my city's range.  My options are to send a pioneer and take a food production and security hit, or spend mana to teleport the wheat field within my city's reach, but it destroys the original wheat field, and maybe makes that original land barren for good (the toxic waste mechanic, you can still expend essence to heal that land).  Or maybe you implement a weather mechanic; I can raise and lower land, but where wheat grows and rivers flow are influenced by that, I can't control it directly.  Raising land might just shift my much needed croplands away from my city, because rainfall patterns have been shifted.

Anyway, more food for thought.  I'm okay with food for housing; it's as good a mechanic as any other, and does limit population through limiting housing.

Reply #82 Top

Here is an idea for a different approach to pop control and prestige/growth rate.

I had thought of a global pop limit at one point but that would never work because eventually attrition would take it's toll on everyone.

But what about a Turn based Growth pop limit..

I.E. Depending on map size the worlds pop grows by X people a turn.

So say on a very small map turn pop growth is set to a max of 10.

There are atm 3 players and a total of 7 cities on the map. So the the system makes a prestige check roll for each city (higher prestige obviously increasing the chance of acquiring some population that turn.) and then each city gets 1 roll per level against the pool.

so an Example

City 1: Level 4 Prestige 6 

City 2: Level 2 Prestige 4 

City 3: Level 3 Prsstige 10

City 4: Level 1 Prestige 0

City 5: Level 1 Prestige 1

City 6: Level 2 Prestige 4

City 7: Level 4 Prestige 6

Then the system rolls off so City 1 for example would get 4 rolls (level) with a plus 6 modifier to each roll (Prestige). The system does that for every city in the game. and then assign the 10 pop to the 10 highest rolls.

Pro's

It really makes prestige and city level matter

It makes How many cities you want matter alot more because more cities = fewer chances for any particular one to grow.

It makes the placement of housing in this or that city matter and truly makes you want to control the flow of pop to a particular city.

It will stop unit training spam and make the decision of where to recruit from and how many  even more of a strategic choice (least this is a pro for me)

It makes a L5 city truly a thing of wonder.

Con's

 It definitely isn't simple and mabey not intuitive (Though I am not sure on that last one)

 It will definitely slow the overall growth of cities

 It is a larger departure from what is already in place.

Anyways that was an idea kicking around my head.

*Edit* something else, if people thought that would make pop growth way to slow. Would be add in every city gets its level or its level x2 in flat pop growth (Call it birth rate) and then rolled prestige for additional growth. that  little fix would increase speed of city growth without sending it over the top I think and still maintaining the strategic aspect of pop growth control.

Reply #83 Top

Quoting XeronX, reply 82

I had thought of a global pop limit at one point but that would never work because eventually attrition would take it's toll on everyone.

But what about a Turn based Growth pop limit..

I.E. Depending on map size the worlds pop grows by X people a turn.

So say on a very small map turn pop growth is set to a max of 10.

There are atm 3 players and a total of 7 cities on the map. So the the system makes a prestige check roll for each city (higher prestige obviously increasing the chance of acquiring some population that turn.) and then each city gets 1 roll per level against the pool.

so an Example

City 1: Level 4 Prestige 6 

City 2: Level 2 Prestige 4 

City 3: Level 3 Prsstige 10

City 4: Level 1 Prestige 0

City 5: Level 1 Prestige 1

City 6: Level 2 Prestige 4

City 7: Level 4 Prestige 6

Then the system rolls off so City 1 for example would get 4 rolls (level) with a plus 6 modifier to each roll (Prestige). The system does that for every city in the game. and then assign the 10 pop to the 10 highest rolls.

Global population I think would end up over complicating the game. It's kinda what I was getting at in my last post how there is only a set number of people that would be attracted by the improvements(aka prestige) you do. Thus the diminishing prestige growth rate.

As for your idea I think it would make large cities more desirable and potentially easier to get. If a city gets a number of rolls based on their level then larger cities are going to roll more times and having a higher chance of out rolling low level cities meaning they grow faster. It would get to the point where small cities can't even grow at all cause the larger cities can spare more room for more prestige. If you wanted to truly make larger cities a rarity then they should end up with some kind of penalty on the roll since there is a limited population given out each turn.

This setup also takes growth out of players hands. You have to be very careful with any kind of "random" system as it may sound like a good idea but often it ends up pissing off players. I've read a lot of articles on game design becomes I hope to get into the industry one day. Well it seems players tend to think the AI is "cheating" if they constantly get bad rolls on random rolls, random events, and etc. They have no problem when the reverse is true though and they get a ton of lucky things happen. Players, especially in TBS, tend to expect specific returns for specific investments and thus easy math and not some random chance for their setup.

One of your Pros was it will stop unit spam but I don't really see this. Units take 1 pop and 5 turns to train. Even under your system it is easy to get 1 pop every 5 turns. It would require you to have like the worst luck possible to not be able to meet that goal. Plus this is suppose to be a war game so making it even harder to train a militiary doesn't really help that and only really helps the turtle, pacifist, culture/diplomacy victory style player. Especially since late game your suppose to be able to train units with hundreds of soldiers in them. The amount of growth on the map would be a huge balance issue that would require a lot of fine tuning to ensure cities grow fast enough and you have enough for troops.

Reply #84 Top

Yeah growing small units would be no problem, But when you start growing regiments and companies and larger numbers where the number of troops trained per turn is alot higher. then you would see the slowdown of troop spam. Last time I checked it took me 18 turns to build a company of 10 which requires what .9 pop a turn to cover growth wise. so when you got to platoon, regiment  or legion I would assume the growth per turn would exceed a value of 1. (again just an assupmtion and could be wrong)

As for small cities not growing I think that would depend more on the varible used in the roll. If you roll d10 and add prestige yeah not much chance, but if you were to roll a d50 not so much, and a d100 would make it a more even split while still allowing prestige to factor in as a meaningful bonus.

But again this was just an idea I had been kicking around for sometime. The chance of it being implemented is remote as hell lol. It does throw a new angle in to look at and possibly build from. But I was trying for an idea that was more about mechanics and less about balance as froggy has warned us to concentrate more on.

Reply #85 Top

I think it is viable to make people value Specialized cities but without the need to add overly complicated mechanics to the game. And here are some suggestions.

1) Increase the number of unique buildings and reduce the number of duplicate buildings a city can have. This way if a city wants to say go heavy research their would be several types of R&D buildings that are kind of limited but also a lot of buildings that instead of adding a set amount like libraries, schools, and universities do they add a percentage like the conclave. How much each buildings produces and how much % bonus they give of course is a balance issue.

2) Building "requirements" such as you need a school to build a university could help this. The university already has more R&D points and is the same size as a school. So requiring the school to be built and is a great mechanic to help focus people into specializing for added benifit.

3) Negative Prestige buildings that give production bonuses. This combined with the my dimishing growth rates would make is so that a person could intentionally focus on making their smaller cities more productive at the cost of hindering their future growth. The potential for negative prestige causing population decline is really needed for this to work though. But otherwise it could still work under the static prestige growth system just not really as well.

4) Resources that give % bonuses instead of static ones. For example the lost library instead of giving X amount of RP it would give +X% to Research then it would make having a R&D specialized town near that location even more important. This would make city placement with resource access also potentially more important rather then just having a pioneer grab it.

 

The underlining mechanics on most of this is already in the game it would be on par with simply modding of building stats. But the end result I think would be drive a system that helps motivate players to focus their city production. You don't really need special mechanics like bonuses/penalties based on the city level to encourage players to want to focus on specializing a city. For example you could have several buildings that boost farming/food production but have lots of prestige penalties which would make it harder to have a large city at the farming location.

This way it's much more obvious to the player the trade offs for going for a large city vs a smaller more focused city. Rather then complicating things with different bonus amounts for different level cities. Sure someone could still make a large farming city but it would be difficult and not as practical.

 

Reply #86 Top

Quoting PyroMancer2k, reply 85


1) Increase the number of unique buildings and reduce the number of duplicate buildings a city can have. This way if a city wants to say go heavy research their would be several types of R&D buildings that are kind of limited but also a lot of buildings that instead of adding a set amount like libraries, schools, and universities do they add a percentage like the conclave. How much each buildings produces and how much % bonus they give of course is a balance issue.
 

Okay, that'sa good idea worth building on; instead of limiting the number of buildings, though, how about giving bonuses for certain building groupings within "x" tiles of each other?  With proper balance, it would be better to have 3 specialized cities (production, research, food, say) vs. 3 generalist cities, because say a farm, a granary, and 3 gardens together in a certain area give a 20% bonus to food, or some such.  Depending on how you group it, you could actually build bonuses up to large ones, because the 3 gardens might be in range of another farm and granary, allowing you to get those tiles double counted for the bonus.  That way, city strategy is more than just defensive; it has economic impact as well.  It would drive you toward specialist cities, because you'd want to double count as many tiles as possible.

Reply #87 Top

Quoting PyroMancer2k, reply 85
I think it is viable to make people value Specialized cities but without the need to add overly complicated mechanics to the game. And here are some suggestions.

1) Increase the number of unique buildings and reduce the number of duplicate buildings a city can have. This way if a city wants to say go heavy research their would be several types of R&D buildings that are kind of limited but also a lot of buildings that instead of adding a set amount like libraries, schools, and universities do they add a percentage like the conclave. How much each buildings produces and how much % bonus they give of course is a balance issue.

2) Building "requirements" such as you need a school to build a university could help this. The university already has more R&D points and is the same size as a school. So requiring the school to be built and is a great mechanic to help focus people into specializing for added benifit.

3) Negative Prestige buildings that give production bonuses. This combined with the my dimishing growth rates would make is so that a person could intentionally focus on making their smaller cities more productive at the cost of hindering their future growth. The potential for negative prestige causing population decline is really needed for this to work though. But otherwise it could still work under the static prestige growth system just not really as well.

4) Resources that give % bonuses instead of static ones. For example the lost library instead of giving X amount of RP it would give +X% to Research then it would make having a R&D specialized town near that location even more important. This would make city placement with resource access also potentially more important rather then just having a pioneer grab it. 

1) Love this idea.  Very good way to reward players that take the time to specialise cities and plan ahead.  Also nice and simple to learn, hard to master.

2)  I believe I've said this before, having buildings that need prereq buildings is a terrible way to go.  Too steeped in Starcraft and C&C, which works well for RTS games as it stops spam of high level units at the beginning of the game, but for Elemental style game, just requires yuo to remember spreadsheets of building flowcharts.  In the Beta 1Z3 1st balancing pass for  cities, they have used city level to restrict which buildings are buildable.   This is a much simpler, still intuitive, and provides good bonus for dumping all your population in the one city.

3)  I like the core idea here, negative prestige versions of other buildings that provide higher production.  Just to provide an example of what I think this means:  Labour camp:  -ve prestige, production of workshop + 1 (subject to balancing etc).  I'm not a fan of your diminishing growth rates that you've explained earlier. 

4)  I think this is a great idea.  This is the same system MoO 1 and 2 (didn't play 3 enough to remember) used.   Intuitive, can also cause you to completely rejig a couple of cities to take advantage of the lost library etc.

Winnhym, your idea is cool, but I think I'd put it in the same basket as prereq buildings.   More memorising spreadsheets.  Perhaps this could be got around though by having adequate UI output when building.  Letting yuo know  what the bonus is when you have the particular other buildings.  Think Diablo 2 style sets UI output.

To expand on your idea though, instead of using sets of ordinary buildings, perhaps make it that you need a set of unique buildings (see unique building thread).  SO if yuo can get 2 out of a set of unique biuldings you get so much extr stuff, then if you get the third you get that extra stuff plus more (taking heavily from Diablo 2 here).  If it is just ordinary buildings helping each other, your idea is too complex and doesn't add to city building because  - Who wouldn't build all the different types of buildings in a specialised area eg science or food, in that city.

Reply #88 Top

Quoting StillSingle, reply 87

2)  I believe I've said this before, having buildings that need prereq buildings is a terrible way to go.  Too steeped in Starcraft and C&C, which works well for RTS games as it stops spam of high level units at the beginning of the game, but for Elemental style game, just requires yuo to remember spreadsheets of building flowcharts.  In the Beta 1Z3 1st balancing pass for  cities, they have used city level to restrict which buildings are buildable.   This is a much simpler, still intuitive, and provides good bonus for dumping all your population in the one city.

Well the city level restriction only serves to further promote having high level cities. If you can only get curtain high end buildings in high level cities that means people will want to have largers cities even more. But if the restriction is instead by other building requirement it would mean cities would have access to newer buildings as they continue to specialize without the need to reach higher level cities. Thus a highly focused farming town doesn't need to reach level 4 to unlock some new farming improvement.

Quoting Winnihym, reply 86

Okay, that'sa good idea worth building on; instead of limiting the number of buildings, though, how about giving bonuses for certain building groupings within "x" tiles of each other?  With proper balance, it would be better to have 3 specialized cities (production, research, food, say) vs. 3 generalist cities, because say a farm, a granary, and 3 gardens together in a certain area give a 20% bonus to food, or some such.  Depending on how you group it, you could actually build bonuses up to large ones, because the 3 gardens might be in range of another farm and granary, allowing you to get those tiles double counted for the bonus.  That way, city strategy is more than just defensive; it has economic impact as well.  It would drive you toward specialist cities, because you'd want to double count as many tiles as possible.

Sounds like an interesting idea. Only problem is it sounds overly complex as this isn't Sim Fantasy City builder. As people will have to figure out diagrams of various city layouts to maximize their output. Not to mention the potential nightmare of trying to balance it all out given you face off against other empires.

Reply #89 Top

"how about giving bonuses for certain building groupings within "x" tiles of each other?"

Although I too like that idea in principle, the current City Building model may make that difficult, unless you allow the " within X tiles" to be large and that defeats the purpose really.

To group building well currently requires you to wait for enough Tiles to open up due to the perimeter based build model in place.

Now if I could take the Tiles available, say 3 ,and use any 3 tiles, as long as the first was placed adjacent to a city Tile, already in place, and then next to each other, I could plan a grouping.

Now I have to pick 3 tiles along the outside edge, based on available build space, Forests/ Mountains etc. all create barriers to a good grouping scheme.

I don't like the "Spaghetti" city at all and allowing building to be done as I described above would surely promote that but then I also think any building outside the City Center by more than 4 Tiles should be attack-able as a separate entity, unless walled in.

But that is but a pipe dream I fear.

Reply #90 Top

Quoting PyroMancer2k, reply 88
Well the city level restriction only serves to further promote having high level cities. If you can only get curtain high end buildings in high level cities that means people will want to have largers cities even more. But if the restriction is instead by other building requirement it would mean cities would have access to newer buildings as they continue to specialize without the need to reach higher level cities. Thus a highly focused farming town doesn't need to reach level 4 to unlock some new farming improvement.

Only if ont balanced correctly.  So long as only the uber crazy buildings require level 5 cities to build, then having to get a city to level 2 or 3 to "specialise" would be fine. 

Currently all roads lead to getting extra bonuses for level 5 cities.  Evidenced by1) 2 blocks to get to level5 city (+16 minitiles, vs +8 mini tiles, per balancing notes for 1Z3). 2) Building restrictions by building type for each city. 3) Tightened building restrictions by type of building for each cit (from 4 to 3 each per 1Z3 release notes).  4) I keep hearing of a supposed bonus multiplier to production for higher level cities, if that is to be implemented would be another factor adding to super level 5 cities.

It would be interesting to see where the developers are wanting the overall city building equation to go, bonuses for having all your population dumped in one place, or bonuses for only building one type of imporvement for the entire city (eg all science).  As I discussed above, it seems they are heading toward super capital city with outlying feeder towns grabbing some resources.

Oh and if you haven't seen the spaghetti tile thread that just started, the dev basically said its not posible to change the subtiles to 3x3 from the current 2x2.  So perhaps a max distance from city tile may need to be brought in to prevent the spaghetti city.  Civ style build area would work quite well, you'd need one more level though to be able to cope with lvl 5 cities.    The only probelm I see using the civ style system is that it promotes city spamming, whereas the current elemental system doesn't because a lvl 3 city can build on resources at quite a distance.

Reply #91 Top

Okay, I don't want to let this idea go without a fight, since I think it's a good one, and meets the criteria of simple game mechanic that leads to good complexity, and is relatively simple to understand.  Stardock went to a lot of trouble to make a game where you can lay out a city the way you want on the game board; it's one of the innovations they bring to the genre.  Position in a city SHOULD matter, it's just that it doesn't, now.  The only reason you build in certain spots is because of specials nearby that you want to exploit, and then defensive moves to block choke points.  Yuk.

If the grouping idea above is too complex (I personlly don't see that, but I'll take it as feedback), then how about this: rather than having things like granaries and such provide a flat 25% bonus to production, let them produce nothing by themselves, but increase the production of the squares they touch.  Make all such "production bonus" squares 2x2 tiles, and make the 12 tiles around them be bonuses if they contain the appropriate harvester type.  Thus, a farm right next to a granary would produce, say, DOUBLE what it would normally produce (maybe even scaled to the city size; so in a town it would triple production, etc).  Now, the mechanic is really easy, so no trying to figure out radii or bonuses, just what touches.  Make all non special production squares a 1x1 tile (garden, workshop, etc), but have a 2x2 tile that provides a bonus if placed next to it (so, gardens around a granary would double their output, workshops around a lumber mill, which would no longer produce materials on it's own, but amplify the power of a workshop), or quarries placed near stonecutter shops, etc, etc. 

The last good argument: it makes SENSE.  Of course gardens near granaries will be more productive; they don't have to move goods as far to get them stored.  Lumber mills provide enhancements to workshops because the trees don't have to be hauled long distance to turn them into useful lumber.

I think the idea of placement is unique to the game mechanic that EWOM currently has it would be a shame to waste it solely on defense, especially if a simple mechanic like this one could really add to gameplay.

Here's my idea for how it would break down.  I know it's not balanced, I know it's not complete, but I want to get the idea out there so that people will at least THINK about it.

Resource      Basic Production      Special Production      Bonus Generator       Basic Terrain

Food            Garden                   Farm/Wheat Field      Granary                   Open

Materials       Woodcutters           Oak Stand                Lumbermill              Forest

Ore              Stonemason           Mineral Deposit         Quarry                     Open

Medicine       Herbalist                 Wildflowers              Apothecary                Swamp?

 

I know there's currently no special woods like the oak stand, but it could be implemented.  You'd still need to have forest to set up a woodcutters (making it hard to surround a lumbermill with woodcutters, unless you found your city in a forest, but again, it makes sense that that's the case).  Stonemasons might have to have a new basic terrain tile just for them, but you get the picture.

Anyway, as I said, it's too good an idea, at least to me, to just let die.  People will have to tell me why it sucks before I let it go and shut up. :)

Winni

Reply #92 Top

I ... don't know? what to think of it right now. But that's because part of your post distracted me with "base terrain."

Speaking of base terrain ... there better be SOME reason to want swamps, or desert, or plains, or woods. Even if its just tactical battles, and what spells you can cast (fire spells are more effective in desert, water spells are more effective in swamp). Personally I would like some global/map/strategic difference, instead of just a tactical one but maybe that's just me. Eh?

Reply #93 Top

Quoting <span>Winnihym</span>, reply 91
, let them produce nothing by themselves, but increase the production of the squares they touch. 

Now that is a mechanism that I like.   MUCH MUCH simpler.  Should be intuitive to most people, AND does exactly what you say, that is improve on Elemental's unique city building style.  This I am for.   Actually, sunds ike the supreme commander system to try and stop base sprawling....  have production buildings next to unit producing buildings and it would reduce input needed to produce units.

This is also a better mechanism to stop sprawling for defensive positions, well partially anyway. I reckon, with that in place "core cities" will be more bulbous than spaghetti, and the outlying towns will still end up spagheti defense grids.....

Probably having it a 2x2 building will probaly need some balancing, expecially since the last balance pass made the tile increase for lvl 3 and 4 only each tiles per level....

Reply #94 Top

technically levelling up your settlement gives you "Two game tiles" which is 8 squares, while levelling up to a full city (size 5) gives you an additional 16 squares.

Reply #95 Top

A

Quoting Tasunke, reply 92

Speaking of base terrain ... there better be SOME reason to want swamps, or desert, or plains, or woods. Even if its just tactical battles, and what spells you can cast (fire spells are more effective in desert, water spells are more effective in swamp). Personally I would like some global/map/strategic difference, instead of just a tactical one but maybe that's just me. Eh?

Totally agree, Tasunke, that's why I bring it up.  Right now, deserts, plains, and swamps are window dressing, and potentially strategic choices for where to have combat.  But, if swamps have economic value as well...

Or, just racial preferences.  Men can plant gardens on plains, but some Fallen species can grow crops on swamps better, then you have some good strategic choice to play with.  I, for one, think that EVERY tile on the game board should have a function, other than just making it longer for me to get from point A to point B. 

Reply #96 Top

The one true dilemna that allowing for these bonuses to apply is the use of Randomly Generated Maps.

Ex: 4 players hit a Large Map, and only 1 of them, within his first 3-4 turns, finds a sweet spot with 3 resources in real close proximity while the other 3 do not find their own sweet spot right off. From that point forward, that game session has already introduced a BIAS against those players and or for the solo player of good fortune.

Yes, everyone can send out Pioneers to capture remote Resources, but sadly, only with an adjacent City can they then build around those remote sites to gain the bonuses involved in your idea. 

Let's truly ruin things and say that same player moves another 4 more spaces and BINGO, another 3 resource plot, Wild Wheat/Apiary/Wild Flowers, and City 2 goes down and the bonuses for those soon go way up.

And if you want to hunt the map early for a Sweet spot, that may not even exist (random), then that is also time that other players can use to settle in. It is a lose lose situation if some do and some don't get the same chance in the opening minutes.

 

Reply #97 Top

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 96
The one true dilemna that allowing for these bonuses to apply is the use of Randomly Generated Maps.

...snip...


And if you want to hunt the map early for a Sweet spot, that may not even exist (random), then that is also time that other players can use to settle in. It is a lose lose situation if some do and some don't get the same chance in the opening minutes.

This is true of a lot of TBS games though. Just look at Civ4 for example, I can't tell you how many times I've ended up starting on the edge of a swamp or desert which really hindered my start. Heck to improve my game a bit I've read guides on Civ4 and a few of them suggest simply restarting if you get a bad position.

I like Civ4 but it's a different game with different mechanics. Having the terrain have different effects on different buildings I think would over complicate things. Plus there is already some terrain issues as play such a you can only build farms, lumberyard, mines, and so on at curtain locations. You don't have them littering the landscape like in Civ. These resources already matter a lot and play a huge role in starting position viability so adding another layer on top of that seems a bit much.

Reply #98 Top

GalCiv had the Map reset button built right in. Once I found out about it, it was used quite often. Why start in a crappy system, when a quick CTRL-???(forget) simply built a brand new random system. ;)

MP in E:WoM will obviously disallow this of course.

Reply #99 Top

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 98
GalCiv had the Map reset button built right in. Once I found out about it, it was used quite often. Why start in a crappy system, when a quick CTRL-???(forget) simply built a brand new random system.

MP in E:WoM will obviously disallow this of course.

Yea and there in lays the problem. Why should a quick reset button be an excuse to have a setup that increases the chances of screwing over a play at the start of the game? Especially when you consider that could just as easily screw over the AI thus reducing the challenge for the player greatly. As well as cause issues with MP when one person gets a really bad starting location compared to the others.

Again I refer to civ4 as I've had some bad ones. My personal favorite was getting placed on a tiny island while all the other empires were on large continents.

Reply #100 Top

And the reason I was NOT in favor of Bonuses granted to captured Resource Tiles when supplementary buildings are built adjacent to them. Way to wonky to work with any type of Random based elements.