Adding more Yields? [IMPLEMENTED]

[raystuttgart]

So ok, this here is the final status:

Links to previous explanations:
Yield Packages A) to D)
Yield Packages E) and F)
Yield Package G)
Yield Package H)
Yield Package I)
Yield Package J)
Yield Package K)
Yield Package H)

A) 4 new Yields (Feathers, Pillows, Padded Leather Coats, Padded Furniture)
B) 3 new Yields (Pigs, Cheap Skin, Cheap Leather)
C) 2 new Yields (Fruits, Hooch)
D) 2 new Yields (Logwood, Coloured Wool Cloth)
E) 2 new Yields (Wet Peat, Dried Peat)
F) 1 new Yield (Clay - strategic like Stone)
G) 2 new Yields (Peanuts, Roasted Peanuts)
H) 2 new Yields (Rice, Cassava)
I) 6 new Yields (Olives, Olive Oil, Yerba Leaves, Yerba de Coca, Vanilla Pods, Vanilla)
J) 4 new Yields (Linen Fibers, Rapeseeds, Rapeseed Oil, Maple Sirup)
K) 2 new Yields (Coal and Gunpowder)
H) 2 new Yields (Ship Planks and Poultry)

----

WTP alread has 52 old tradable Yields.
My concept would add 32 new tradable Yields.

84 Yields is my goal as Total Number of Yields because it allows best UI options.

Option A) 84 Yields ---> for UI it is possible to have 2 rows (42) or 3 rows (28) or 4 rows (21)

 

[Cueball252]

I’m generally in favour of everything you are suggesting. I would love to see some more three step resources like coloured cloth and the coloured wool cloth you are suggesting. I know there is a reluctance to add any new buildings and professions so I think your current suggestions are a nice compromise. My worry would be exacerbating large trade route lag in the late game?

 

[Nightinggale]

(Anything I can split in 2 rows or 3 rows would work - 66 is perfect for both options.)

66 Yields so I can nicely balance in 3 rows of each having 22 Yields (or 2 rows of 33 Yields).

Sounds good as we should ideally be able to support both 4:3 resolutions and ultra wide. Supporting both at once might be an issue if we want logical placement between rows, but that's not worse than it can be solved with some xml setup. The only issue is the drawing code itself because once drawn, the code acts on the widget ID given while drawing and as such the rest of the code doesn't care about order, only the clicked widget.

If we are going to do major changes to yields and professions then I would like to point out my proposal about xml configurable yield input/output for professions. In short it should allow professions to produce multiple yields, each set with a modifier in xml. This modifier can be 1, 0.42 or 2.5. Same for inputs, also with a modifier for each.

 

[raystuttgart]

If we are going to do major changes to yields and professions then I would like to point out my proposal about xml configurable yield input/output for professions.
In short it should allow professions to produce multiple yields, each set with a modifier in xml. This modifier can be 1, 0.42 or 2.5. Same for inputs, also with a modifier for each.

Sounds good to me.
Especially the Professions that also give Food could benefit from it.
(Especially if we can balance both Yields, primary and secondary separately.)

So it is about both variants:

• Mulitple Yields Produced (per Profession)
• Multiple Yields Consumed (per Profession)

 

[Nightinggale]

(Especially if we can balance both Yields, primary and secondary separately.)

It will be something like this:

<YieldsProduced>
    <YieldProduced>
        <eYield>YIELD_FUR</eYield>
        <fMultiplier>1</fMultiplier>
    </YieldProduced>
    <YieldProduced>
        <eYield>YIELD_FOOD</eYield>
        <fMultiplier>0.5</fMultiplier>
    </YieldProduced>
</YieldsProduced>

That will result in the current implementation for hunters. This concept will however unlock that we can set any number of yields and set the multipliers independently from each other. Same concept for input yield(s).

Obviously it can also be used to set a single yield for both input and output, but with multipliers different than 1.

 

[XSamatan]

I voted no.

WtP already has a lot of features, large and small, another set of sub features is not needed IMHO. Tagging all those new terrains to existing systems would be a preferred option.

If you do increase the yields by 14 (!) entries please take time to balance the created inflation very carefully, the 2-plot version already makes it too easy for a player to amass and/or produce huge quantities of resources.

Kind regards
XSamatan

 

[Gladi]

I voted no. There is no amount of granularity that is going to be perfect representation without a complete match up to real word - which is unplayable. You need to keep to abstraction. Maybe it is silly to use a farmer on ducks bonus resource - but there is already turkeys bonus resource. It would be weird for woadmaker to produce indigo cargo, but already a lot of cargoes are undifferentiated. Ore is tin and copper and iron, timber does not recognize difference between construction and ship timber - latter of which was also extremely important export of NA colonies.

Vote NO. This is the path to saw cargo, nails cargo, pine twig cargo, mussels cargo and venison cargo.

 

[raystuttgart]

I voted no.

Perfectly ok.

I was not expecting that everybody would like that idea.
I know how controversial adding more Yields is even in the team.

That is why I did it like this:

However:

1. We would hardly add any new Building / Experts. (I would use mostly existing Buildings / existing Experts)
2. We could improve balancing of existing Buildings, new Terrains, new Terrain Features, new Bonus Ressources, ...
3. We could add some important historic trade goods of that time.
4. We could further diversify economy.
5. We could use these Yields for further features.

I do not just "dump cash Yields" if you take the time to read my suggestion.
(They all have quite specific purposes for gameplay.)

-------------

... another set of sub features is not needed IMHO.

The question is never if something is "needed", it is just if we "want" it.
And I hope that this community would still like me to create new content for this mod.

This "new features are not needed anymore" is just nothing I can accept as a modder.
Becuase then I would need to quit this project and start creating new features in my private mod.

Tagging all those new terrains to existing systems would be a preferred option.

Then there would be little point to introduce them at all.
They are supposed to feel and play a bit different.

.... please take time to balance ...

I always take time to balance.
I want to have this so I can better balance the new Terrains / new Terrain Features / new Ressources.

... the created inflation very carefully ...

There is little to no "inflation" there actually, becaue the pure absolute number of Yields you can produce is the same, there is just more diversitiy.
Inflation of deflation in a market only exist if the absolute wealth either decreases or decreases. Not if there is just more diversity.

Kind regards
XSamatan

Thanks for the feedback.

It is good to hear the fears of the most loyal players.
But they are often just "fear of change" actually.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

In the city view is there enough space that all new resources/yields are able to be displayed without having an additional row or to extend the row with a scroll bar?

If the number of squares in a map stays the same, would the new bonus resources mean that we have less of the old bonus resources? Or will we have more bonus resources in a map of the same size than before (e.g. so that founding cities with 3 or more bonus resources would become viable)?

 

[Nightinggale]

In the city view is there enough space that all new resources/yields are able to be displayed without having an additional row or to extend the row with a scroll bar?

I'm pretty sure a scrollbar would be a bad idea. Technically possible, but not something I want. We have other options like resizing the boxes. We have full control of the drawing code meaning it's about what we want rather than what we can trick the game to do.

 

[raystuttgart]

In the city view is there enough space that all new resources/yields are able to be displayed without having an additional row ...

• I could make all the Yield Buttons smaller ...
• A third row would maybe look better though ...

Both options should be available.
That is why I tried to get 66 to be able to test both.

I can not know what looks better without having tried.
Nobody ever tried to add that many Yields in Civ4Col.

... would the new bonus resources mean that we have less of the old bonus resources? Or will we have more bonus resources in a map of the same size ...

Both is possible, that is just a matter of XML configuration (at the Bonus Ressources).

 

[raystuttgart]

I'm pretty sure a scrollbar would be a bad idea. Technically possible, but not something I want.

Fully agree.
I will never ever make this scrollable because that would ruin usability.

 

[Derek Brown]

I voted yes, more would be good, but with some comments:

1 - Peanuts / rice. Could this also be done by raising the value of food and just exporting regular food? Since food also includes fish, this simulates dried fish exports, which was one of the top 5 exported commodities. My thought is just keeping food into a broad catchall commodity just like 'tools' is a grouping for gun parts, actual tools, processing machinery, etc saving some micromanagement. I'd say apply that to any food items if they're not processed like tobacco or barley.
2 - I'm really in favor of adding more materials that need to go into ships. Allow me to get off topic for a second here... However, can the total cost of making ships be reduced. Maybe cut hammers / cannons / tools by 30% or so. Since the colonies built TONS of ships. In fact they had a competitive advantage over England so built tons of ships for English merchants. I think it would be cool where you need access to a lot of resources (and I would add valuable wood instead of common wood for warships) to set up your shipbuilding industry, so it would take a while to get set up, but then once you have them you could turn out larger fleets than we can make now. In fact, what if it was economical to build merchant ships and then sail them to Europe and sell them for a decent profit? Or have a button like the treasure chest where you could sell it directly from the port
3 - Potash? Was a big export item to England plus there is historical significance - America's first ever patent was an improved method for potash, signed by George Washington. If I understand correctly saltpeter is derived from potash so potash could simulate both.

As always, thanks for considering

 

[Elirector]

Fully agree.
I will never ever make this scrollable because that would ruin usability.

we already have scrolls in trade popup and it is quite a painful expirience

 

[Nightinggale]

we already have scrolls in trade popup and it is quite a painful expirience

Off topic for this thread, but ideas for a non-scrolling window would be welcome. It is however hard to code something for a number of yields, which isn't defined in the code itself without "cheats" like scrolling.

 

[historix69]

What about hammers (construction timber) as transportable and tradeable YIELD?

At the moment the player can only Hurry Construction using cash, lumber, stone and tools (depending on construction costs) so that every building can be completed in 1 turn if the player has enough cash to pay for missing hammers and missing resources. However these costs can get very high (ca. 35,000 or more) for late game buildings on marathon. On the other side if the player does not use the Hurry option, a city usually has to take the long way and even if all resources are available has to produce every hammer on its own which can take a very long time (on marathon). Without hurrying it can take a couple hundred turns to develop a city, making late founded cities less relevant in the game.

Transportable hammers are a known concept, e.g. caravan units in Civ 1 could transfer production (shields) from one city to another, allowing teamwork of several cities to build a wonder of the world.

In wtp the new commodity Construction Timber could be handled similar to stones and tools, allowing to (manually) finish a construction project if all resources are available, substituting missing hammers with Construction Timber.

 

[raystuttgart]

Guys, this concept / suggestion will not make it into WTP core mod.
Sadly but expected it is just too controversial to add more Yields.

There is no clear community majority. (40% of community voting against it is too much.)
Team members also voted with "no". ("Team member vetos" can not be overruled.)

Since it seems to be a "general issue" with more Yields there is no reason to even try to improve this concept.
If it was just about "exchanging some Yields" for better ones, we could have still found a compromise ...
(But again, that does not seem to be the case.)

 

[historix69]

"Ammunition (produced of Coal and Salpeter)"

This looks like gun powder but is missing the bullets.
AfaIk : Historically during WoI the americans received gunpowder from europe via the caribbean (e.g. dutch smugglers) or got it from their french allies. Producing Salpeter from organic wastes and excrements is a hard and stinky work.

Imho : Ammunition would only make sense if unit upkeep and supply system would be added, making the game much more complex.

 

[modmod]

It will be something like this:

<YieldsProduced>
    <YieldProduced>
        <eYield>YIELD_FUR</eYield>
        <fMultiplier>1</fMultiplier>
    </YieldProduced>
    <YieldProduced>
        <eYield>YIELD_FOOD</eYield>
        <fMultiplier>0.5</fMultiplier>
    </YieldProduced>
</YieldsProduced>

That will result in the current implementation for hunters. This concept will however unlock that we can set any number of yields and set the multipliers independently from each other. Same concept for input yield(s).

Obviously it can also be used to set a single yield for both input and output, but with multipliers different than 1.

This part can get into the mod (independently from the new yields)?

 

[raystuttgart]

This part can get into the mod (independently from the new yields)?

Yes, @Nightinggale told that he wants to implement it.