Vokarya's Workshop: Buildings

Iam ok with than change if you will set the same production cost for both. Now i often chose coal power plant because it is cheaper
 
I noticed that Oil Power Plant is superior to Coal Plant if you have access to both Coal and Oil.

Er, yes, this is the case in the real world too.


Coal power provides a total of +8 unhealth (2 from power, 4 from dirty power, 2 inherent) while Oil is only +6 (same 2 from power and 4 from dirty power, but no 2 inherent). It doesn't make much sense to have both of them be buildable at once.

I disagree, I see no problem with having multiple power options. I am happy with the way oil and coal power plants are right now.
 
I'm doing a comprehensive spreadsheet of all of AND's buildings, and I noticed that Body Exchange Clinic has both a number of cities requirement and a number of Cloning Factories requirement. I think the intent is that only your biggest cities get to build and benefit from Clinics, as it removes all unhealth from population with no other real requirements (it is NOT civic-limited), but I do think the city requirement is unnecessary and the number of Cloning Factories is a sufficient limit. Only on the largest map sizes (Giant and Gigantic) are more cities than Cloning Factories required per Body Exchange Clinic. I'd like to take off the city requirement.

Also, a few of the Corporate Store buildings list a City more likely to produce Great Merchant without providing any GPP towards said Merchants. I'm going to remove these from buildings that produce 0 GPP. Most GPP sources list a GP type to "flavor" the points, which determines what GP is eventually generated. Monument produces a GPP without a flavor; this actually cannot generate a GP on its own without another source of flavored GPP. It's just one less thing to clutter up the Civilopedia. A building without GPP won't be able to contribute any flavor at all.
 
@Vokarya

What do you think about about tweak up revolutions a bit and add punishment buildings line that gives stability but causes a bit of unhappines. In C2C exists that kind of solution and i like it because it gives better revolution management on city level not only on entire Empire from civics.
 
@Vokarya

What do you think about about tweak up revolutions a bit and add punishment buildings line that gives stability but causes a bit of unhappines. In C2C exists that kind of solution and i like it because it gives better revolution management on city level not only on entire Empire from civics.
Adding crime and/or punishment isn't so easy. I'm testing some revolution changes but I think current system for handling revolts is working well. Let's see what Vokarya has to say about it anyway.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13809959 said:
Adding crime and/or punishment isn't so easy. I'm testing some revolution changes but I think current system for handling revolts is working well. Let's see what Vokarya has to say about it anyway.

I think he was more referring to an opposite of the Tax Office building. Rather than a new mechanic entirely, it'd just be a building that adds like +1/+2 Local Stability in the city it's built in. Something I didn't really understand why never existed before really - we have a building that makes things worse, but nothing to make them better.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13809959 said:
Adding crime and/or punishment isn't so easy. I'm testing some revolution changes but I think current system for handling revolts is working well. Let's see what Vokarya has to say about it anyway.

My experience with the current Revolution system has been that revolutions are almost always in conquered cities and are near-constant in those cities throughout the Classical to Renaissance Eras. I feel the current level is more an ANNOYANCE than a solid gameplay mechanic. I can understand turning up the frequency of revolutions, but I think it's gone a little too far and it feels like conquering cities is getting set up to fail, which I don't like. I don't mind having to work to keep revolutions under control, but I would like to have another tool in the box to do so.

I personally do want to see stability bonuses on current buildings (Courthouse, Jail, Village Hall line); I don't see a need to add more buildings just for stability. I also would like there to be a benefit for defeating a revolution. There should be a small drop in the revolution level for destroying a rebel unit; if there is, I'm not seeing it.
 
My experience with the current Revolution system has been that revolutions are almost always in conquered cities and are near-constant in those cities throughout the Classical to Renaissance Eras. I feel the current level is more an ANNOYANCE than a solid gameplay mechanic. I can understand turning up the frequency of revolutions, but I think it's gone a little too far and it feels like conquering cities is getting set up to fail, which I don't like. I don't mind having to work to keep revolutions under control, but I would like to have another tool in the box to do so.

I personally do want to see stability bonuses on current buildings (Courthouse, Jail, Village Hall line); I don't see a need to add more buildings just for stability. I also would like there to be a benefit for defeating a revolution. There should be a small drop in the revolution level for destroying a rebel unit; if there is, I'm not seeing it.
If we only have to add stability to some existing building, that's OK with me and we can do it straight away. I'm currently tweaking some revolution parameters, there's a lot of hidden parameters and testing isn't that quick. I agree with you on current revolution problems. I'll release an update next days, mostly balancing research, handicap and fixing the expansion problem. Then I'll work some more on revolution.
 
45°38'N-13°47'E;13810181 said:
If we only have to add stability to some existing building, that's OK with me and we can do it straight away. I'm currently tweaking some revolution parameters, there's a lot of hidden parameters and testing isn't that quick. I agree with you on current revolution problems. I'll release an update next days, mostly balancing research, handicap and fixing the expansion problem. Then I'll work some more on revolution.

Buildings like the Town Watch, Jail... Could be able to benefit?
 
We have a couple of situations where we have a building that both requires a previous building and also replaces it: I am specifically looking at Walls to High Walls and Stable to Knight's Stable.

I think we can cut the building requirement off of High Walls and Knight's Stable without causing any problems. Once the newer building is available, it feels like we are making the player jump through hoops to get to the better building by requiring the earlier building to be built first. I can understand having both if the first building NEEDS to be available as a bootstrap (like Forge or Granary), but in these two cases I don't think it's true. What do you think?
 
We have a couple of situations where we have a building that both requires a previous building and also replaces it: I am specifically looking at Walls to High Walls and Stable to Knight's Stable.

I think we can cut the building requirement off of High Walls and Knight's Stable without causing any problems. Once the newer building is available, it feels like we are making the player jump through hoops to get to the better building by requiring the earlier building to be built first. I can understand having both if the first building NEEDS to be available as a bootstrap (like Forge or Granary), but in these two cases I don't think it's true. What do you think?
Sounds good to me.
 
We have a couple of situations where we have a building that both requires a previous building and also replaces it: I am specifically looking at Walls to High Walls and Stable to Knight's Stable.

I think we can cut the building requirement off of High Walls and Knight's Stable without causing any problems. Once the newer building is available, it feels like we are making the player jump through hoops to get to the better building by requiring the earlier building to be built first. I can understand having both if the first building NEEDS to be available as a bootstrap (like Forge or Granary), but in these two cases I don't think it's true. What do you think?

Makes sense for sure.
I would add a little boost (20%) for production when the having replaced building, just like in the Village line.
 
I have a few ideas about certain buildings to share.

Apiary: Can we make this cost a little less? I hate having brand new cities sit around being only able to slowly chip away at a building until it can grow in size, and Apiary is one of my first builds for new cities, so I think it would be nicer if it didn't cost as much. I think lowering the base cost from 45 to 35 wouldn't hurt.

Carpenter and company: These aren't providing enough of a bonus. I have noticed that when I build Carpenters in the Ancient Era, I don't see any hammer bonus at all (under Actual Effects). I think this is because the % bonus only applies to base hammer production, not to any extra % from other buildings like Forge, so a city needs 10 hammers just from tiles to get even 1 hammer from Carpenter. I would like to increase the bonuses; the current line (Carpenter-Stonemason-Construction Firm-Industrial Park-Citycreche) goes 10/15/20/30/50; I'd like to go 20/30/40/50/75.

Brothel: This building right now is almost not worth building. It gives an espionage % bonus and a small happy bonus if you increase your culture slider high enough (25% just to get 1 happy face), at the cost of 1 unhealth. I think this deserves a flat +1 happiness. It would make it more of a tradeoff building rather than a "only build when there's nothing else if you can handle the unhealth" building.
 
I have a few ideas about certain buildings to share.

Apiary: Can we make this cost a little less? I hate having brand new cities sit around being only able to slowly chip away at a building until it can grow in size, and Apiary is one of my first builds for new cities, so I think it would be nicer if it didn't cost as much. I think lowering the base cost from 45 to 35 wouldn't hurt.

Carpenter and company: These aren't providing enough of a bonus. I have noticed that when I build Carpenters in the Ancient Era, I don't see any hammer bonus at all (under Actual Effects). I think this is because the % bonus only applies to base hammer production, not to any extra % from other buildings like Forge, so a city needs 10 hammers just from tiles to get even 1 hammer from Carpenter. I would like to increase the bonuses; the current line (Carpenter-Stonemason-Construction Firm-Industrial Park-Citycreche) goes 10/15/20/30/50; I'd like to go 20/30/40/50/75.

Brothel: This building right now is almost not worth building. It gives an espionage % bonus and a small happy bonus if you increase your culture slider high enough (25% just to get 1 happy face), at the cost of 1 unhealth. I think this deserves a flat +1 happiness. It would make it more of a tradeoff building rather than a "only build when there's nothing else if you can handle the unhealth" building.

:yup: and :yup: and :yup:
I absolutely agree.
 
Apiary costing less would speed up a bit new cities, especially in ancient-classical eras.
Brothel I don't think I ever built. +1:) would make it useful, either that or make it +1:) per 10% culture slider.
Extra :hammers: for buildings? :woohoo:
 
I agree with all of that, Vokarya. :)
 
Very Good ideas :)

Can you look also at Casino. I never built it because it gives -15% production maybe +1 unhappy will be better since we have a lot of happiness and this new one form brothel
 
Very Good ideas :)

Can you look also at Casino. I never built it because it gives -15% production maybe +1 unhappy will be better since we have a lot of happiness and this new one form brothel

+1
I never understood the :hammers: penalty.
 
+1
I never understood the :hammers: penalty.

I always assumed it to represent all the lost productivity from people spending time and money in casinos.
 
Top Bottom