.
- Thread starter member66170
- Start date
Hans Lemurson
Prince
I just ran accross this in your signiature Olleus, and I have a question: You said that Towns give -1 food. Does this apply to the whole cottage-series, or only to the final stage? The latter option would seem to be stupid, so I'm assuming the former, but I just want clarification.
Hans Lemurson
Prince
If it's just for towns, then wouldn't a nice, happy heavily-cottaged region suddenly be reduced to terrible famine by the sudden maturation of its cottages? It makes towns seem a bad thing. Who would want to exchange the food-neutrality of a grassland site for 1-2 extra commerce?
If it were for all the cottage-lineage, I could understand that as urbanization displacing farmland. It would however severely curtail the efficacy of using cottages to generate commers; you'd need a farm for every cottage you have, making them like commerce-mines more than anything else. This could have interesting effects on the game, slowing research by increasing the price of commerce generation. Natural sources of commerce would become even more important (rivers, luxuries). It would be interesting to say the least. Maybe not bad.
Perhaps my doom and gloom assessment of the Town's food penalty might be misplaced. It will be rare that many towns will mature within a short span. In fact, by the very nature of city-growth and worker construction abilities, maturation is almost invariably staggered. This would get you some time to start building farmlands to compensate. Still, I don't like that for the simple reason that it makes towns worse than villages. Your lucrative cash-center begins to rot over time...
If you decide to keep the implementation of food-penalties for any of the cottage-lineage, I think that it should be done for all of them, not just towns. Further, to compensate for the increased expense (in food) associated with cottage-commerce, I think that their commerce yields should be raised. Maybe not doubled, but perhaps a 50% increase? That might be difficult though, due to rounding.
Alternately, instead of assessing a direct food-penalty to Towns and their ilk, how about just make them mild generators of unhealth? Fundamentally, unhealth is just a miniature food-cost, and you could assign the development penalties with more finesse this way. Furthermore, unhealth associated with urban sprawl fits it just fine thematicly, doesn't it? The only issue is that you may have to tweak-up some of the health-providing options to compensate for the new unaccounted-for influx of filth and vermin.
If it were for all the cottage-lineage, I could understand that as urbanization displacing farmland. It would however severely curtail the efficacy of using cottages to generate commers; you'd need a farm for every cottage you have, making them like commerce-mines more than anything else. This could have interesting effects on the game, slowing research by increasing the price of commerce generation. Natural sources of commerce would become even more important (rivers, luxuries). It would be interesting to say the least. Maybe not bad.
Perhaps my doom and gloom assessment of the Town's food penalty might be misplaced. It will be rare that many towns will mature within a short span. In fact, by the very nature of city-growth and worker construction abilities, maturation is almost invariably staggered. This would get you some time to start building farmlands to compensate. Still, I don't like that for the simple reason that it makes towns worse than villages. Your lucrative cash-center begins to rot over time...
If you decide to keep the implementation of food-penalties for any of the cottage-lineage, I think that it should be done for all of them, not just towns. Further, to compensate for the increased expense (in food) associated with cottage-commerce, I think that their commerce yields should be raised. Maybe not doubled, but perhaps a 50% increase? That might be difficult though, due to rounding.
Alternately, instead of assessing a direct food-penalty to Towns and their ilk, how about just make them mild generators of unhealth? Fundamentally, unhealth is just a miniature food-cost, and you could assign the development penalties with more finesse this way. Furthermore, unhealth associated with urban sprawl fits it just fine thematicly, doesn't it? The only issue is that you may have to tweak-up some of the health-providing options to compensate for the new unaccounted-for influx of filth and vermin.
Psycadelic_Magi
Hippie/Philosopher/Peanut
I havent played this, but it would be interesting to see if the fact that on most games, keeping your existing troops up to date will usually cripple your economy
I always disliked this, I wonder if you've changed it?
I always disliked this, I wonder if you've changed it?
Mongolia
Khan
It looks good, a few things though, why is a marine and a grenadier a melee unit? Melee means fighting without range, both a grenadier and a marine fight almost completly with range, and they both use gunpowder, whats more, they are just like other gunpowder units so I have no idea why you introduced this change. Why would there be a soldier specialist? You can already garrison soldiers in a city anyway.
Mongolia
Khan
I see you are focusing more on gameplay than realistic-ness (if thats a word) May I suggest in your next one you could call the soldier specialist the "Tactician Specialist" because a soldier would actually go out onto the battlefield, and maybe (if you can) you could make a new unit class called "Specialized Gunpowder" or something like that, and put Grenadiers and Marines in there, because they are not melee units. Dont mean to be pickey just throwing ideas around 
Vehem
Modmod Monkey
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3,219
Mongolia said:I see you are focusing more on gameplay than realistic-ness (if thats a word) ...
"Specialized Gunpowder" or something like that, and put Grenadiers and Marines in there, because they are not melee units. Dont mean to be pickey just throwing ideas around
Rather the opposite I feel. He's not concerned about the game tags of "Melee" and "Gunpowder" - but is instead grouping them according to how they actually perform in reality. The "Gunpowder" units he has assume a "stand-off-and-shoot" tactic, whilst the "Melee" units tend to get in close to the enemy in order to do damage (axes need to be very close, grenades can only be thrown so far and marines are most often involved in close action combats than being deployed on some battle line or in a trench).
The "Melee" and "Gunpowder" tags are purely internal to the game (or the 'pedia) and if you're playing it for the sake of realism, you shouldn't really be caring what the numbers or tags are - just that they perform the way you expect when you attack the enemy. There is no real advantage either to mechanics or realism to adding another unit class that acts in the same way as Melee.
Mongolia
Khan
However you argue this, no way are grenadiers or marines melee units, melee means right up against the foe, not moderatly close, or, closer than other gunpowder units, and they both use gunpowder anyway. Cant u see how a Marine and a grenadier is extremely different to a Axeman, swordsman, or a spearman? And about the shock thing, if you made your own unit class, you could make it so the shock promotions were not obsolete.
Similar threads
- Locked
