building notes, weaker ones

[Lord Oden]

I've never understood why barracks also gave instant experience. It would seem more realistic that barracks and MA gave exp/turn to garrisoned units. That way you had the option of sending troops into the field for first hand exp, or keeping your army at home, giving a lot of new recruits one promotion (cycling thru), or one unit a lot of exp over an equal number of turns. This would give more choice rather than a "shortcut".

 

[mystikx21]

I suspect this is because the AI would be much worse at managing XP per turn mechanics versus instant bonuses. But I also don't see a huge realism issue. Having military infrastructure allows units to train, which means new units won't be as inexperienced. Think of it as the difference between conscripting units or having a professional army.

 

[Delekhan]

Agreed, if the armory and academy are having their production points removed, they should at least have a +10%/+20% production for military units bonus applied.

This keeps them narrow and focused, while contributing to military training.

 

[Thalassicus]

If we're thinking about a unit production bonus... why not just merge the forge with barracks & armory? Barracks gets broad value near strategic resources, while armory has narrow value for military production cities, just like we're talking about.

Barracks
01 maintenance
10 XP
01 from strategic resources

Armory
01 maintenance
20 XP
20% for land units

 

[EricB]

Thal,

I like that idea for the armory and barracks. The forge is a pretty useless building right now, so I wouldn't mind eliminating it and merging it's effects with the armory. With that proposal for the armory, I would only build it in a military city.

I also like having a tier 1 building be useful just about everywhere but later buildings being more specialized.

 

[albie_123]

I don't like this idea, I think the military line of buildings and production line are very much two separate things. Don't see the real need for a merge.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I agree with albie_123. Its not like there is finite room to put the building.

If you want it you can build it. If you don't and just want something else, fine.
Too much merging is not good design.

The extra cost/time to build a forge is negligble.

 

[mystikx21]

I'd prefer they remain separated as two different buildings as well.

I do think some kind of bonus is needed on armories and academies for later use alongside the significant XP bonus though. Faster unit production by domains seems like the easiest thing to put on them that would be a niche effect. The advantage of the forge would be the time it is available being sooner, and as an additional bonus on top plus some extra production.

Production is valuable otherwise if no domain bonuses are involved. Maybe some mechanic increasing supply limits (although those rarely came into play in GEM).

Barracks are basically fine as a free upkeep building. You still won't build them everywhere, but they would be less costly for the AI and for conquerors/Hero Epic construction. They can receive bonuses from policies in honor or autocracy instead of other effects.

 

[mitsho]

There's not really a production line though. There's one that boosts unit production, there's one that boosts production in general and then there's one that boosts building buildings. I got confused on the names as they are different from the (BNW) Vanilla game...

Reducing the amount of near useless buildings also clears up the production list and prohibits the AI from building them.

So I like Thal's proposal above.

 

[Thalassicus]

As mitsho pointed out, the forge stands alone like the Caravansary. It's not in a line of requirements. It would be redundant to have two buildings with similar names and effects appear at the same time (forge/armory with unit production bonus).

 

[Hawawaa]

I also like the barracks and armory changes. Some buildings can be wrapped up into others.

 

[Seek]

If we're thinking about a unit production bonus... why not just merge the forge with barracks & armory? Barracks gets broad value near strategic resources, while armory has narrow value for military production cities, just like we're talking about.

Barracks
01 maintenance
10 XP
01 from strategic resources

Armory
01 maintenance
20 XP
20% for land units

How about 20% unit production (just melee and vanguard units?) on the Barracks and +1 production (just on Iron?) on the Armory. Seems like better balance that way: doesn't make Iron and Horse super-tiles early in the game and the small bonus to unit production is more valuable early for warmongers (AI and humans alike).

 

[Ahriman]

If we're thinking about a unit production bonus... why not just merge the forge with barracks & armory?

I don't really have a strong feeling either way. I don't think there is a problem with the barracks line, but I don't mind losing the forge.

I would really want bonuses to be land units or all units though and not try and make them just for melee/vanguard units.

One other thing: are we keeping the maintenance cost on the courthouse, or removing it, as we had in GEM?

 

[mystikx21]

Forgot about the courthouse change.

I'm assuming Thal's suggestion was to apply the bonus to the ores. I'd rather see that go on the forge, but failing that, the barracks is most logical. In order to get a couple bonus production, you shouldn't have to build two buildings (other than factory-power plant late game) and it fulfills the proposed objective of one useful general building and then more specialised tier buildings. Leaving upkeep on the barracks at least makes the option worth considering if it is only an iron tile or coal tile until later in the game where more multipliers are available.

 

[Ahriman]

I think I prefer the ores bonus on barracks and milprod on armory to the reverse.

Also: such a change then poses the question as to whether we really need the stable, or should just drop the production bonus and merge the pasture bonus onto the circus.

I noticed the latest version has the circus improve horses and ivory, which seems really unnecessary to me, the ability to get a cheap zero maintenance 2 happiness building early on is a huge advantage, much stronger than the stables bonuses or forge bonuses or other resource bonuses.

 

[mystikx21]

I assume the circus is to get 1 upkeep cost (at least) at some point.

I'd rather the stable stay independent and impact livestock, but it does pose the question of need if the forge is gone.

 

[Stalker0]

I assume the circus is to get 1 upkeep cost (at least) at some point.

I'd rather the stable stay independent and impact livestock, but it does pose the question of need if the forge is gone.

Well i can say i build currently build the stable much more often than i build the forge.

The pasture bonuses are really good, and horse units are the most expensive hammer units right now so the production bonus is an extra boost

 

[Ahriman]

The pasture bonuses are really good, and horse units are the most expensive hammer units right now so the production bonus is an extra boost

I build them for the pasture bonus, but the pasture bonus doesn't fit very well with the unit production bonus; a city with lots of pastures will probably be on grassland or plains where horses and cows are most common (I rarely see sheep cluster) and so it will tend to be a food city, rather than a unit production city. Whereas iron and coal are usually in hills, so the forge synergies fit well with a high production unit-factory city.

Anyway, all this feels like it is fairly low priority.

 

[Wichtel]

Why are we trying to get rid of buildings? Do you think there are to many? Because its really hard right now to build everything until you have factories or are able to just buy everything. I don't think we should make it easier and making everything more expensive will make building stuff less fun.

I think we should buff theses buildings not get rid of them.

The main problem seems to be with the resource enhancing buildings (forge, mint, stable). But there are two more of those and no one is complaining about them: Granary and Stoneworks. The Granary is amazing because it offers a choice between getting a worker to improve stuff or adding food through the building. Stoneworks come later but the extra happiness makes them worthwhile anyway. I like the resource enhancing buildings a lot because they make city placement more interesting. Should I place my city next to that river or move it two tiles to get one more sheep in it's radius?

I propose to add more early resource enhancing buildings instead of less. Early ones should incorporate resources you need different techs for and later ones should just be good. All of them should enhance at least 3 different resources.

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree resource buildings are very fun. Every resource gets improved by a building. If we increase the bonuses for resources, I'd rather add those effects to existing buildings instead of creating new buildings.

I like emergent gameplay where vast complexity arises from very simple concepts. Portal's a great example. We get just the portal gun, and work past a dozen or so types of objects in our environment. Incredibly deep and rewarding gameplay emerges from those simple concepts. There was a quote for a technology in Civ 4 that echoed my thoughts: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

I look at each unit, building, or policy in the game and ask myself, is this object absolutely necessary? Can we simplify things while keeping gameplay complex? The forge and armory are basically the same concept (arming weapons), in the same part of the tech tree, with the same purpose (unit buffs) and similar bonuses (stronger units vs faster units). Merging them makes the combined building more interesting.