Dwarves and Gold

[Chandrasekhar]

Perhaps in exchange for the lack of magic users, could the Khazad get some better siege equipment? Perhaps a unit like "dwarven cannon" could be enabled by an earlier tech. Or maybe you'd just like to increase the effectiveness of their siege weapons in general?

 

[Sureshot]

I was thinking about mountains, dwarves, and improvements, and thought about which improvements would fit on mountains.

How about Mines (obviously) and Quarries? Mines being there for production and chance of finding metals/gems, and quarries being a small production and trade boost (maybe with a chance to find marble or stone).


After I thought about this I went and tested mountains, cities, resources, improvements and dwarven units.
Some things I've noticed:
-currently all dwarven units have "Double movement(or def?) in peaks" yet not a single one has "can enter impassible terrain" so it does nothing (no mountain climbing for them)
-cities cannot be built on mountains (not an option even if you get a settler on a mountain), BUT if you build a city then change the tile its on to a mountain in worldbuilder, the city remains and shows up on top of the mountain (sometimes takes a few turns for it to show up). Note: the main city tile has 2 food, 1 shield, and 1 trade like most other main city tiles.
-forests and resources can be placed on mountain tiles, but their yield is reduced to 0 of all types (food, production, trade). Resources look fine on mountains (pigs and sheep are so cute walkin up and down the ridges )
-roads can be built on mountain tiles by workers (if you can get them up there)
-other improvements cannot be built on mountain tiles (not an option, even if you place a worker on a mountain tile with a resource), BUT if you create an improvement in worldbuilder (on a mountain tile with [or without] a resource) the tiles yield becomes that which the improvement would usually add to the tile. The improvement is visible and not bugged, though pastures looked bugged to me.

What I think would be nice for the Dwarves would be:
-all Dwarven units being able to "enter impassible terrain" so they can all go on mountain tiles
-dwarf settlers being allowed to build on mountain tiles
-dwarf workers being allowed to build Quarries and Mines on mountains
-mines adding 2 shields
-quarries (building them without a resource) adding 1 shield, 1 trade
-quarries on mountains having a chance of finding marble or stone
-mines on mountains as normal (chance of finding metals/gems/gunpowder)
-map generation adding occasional copper/mithril/gold/gems/stone/marble/gunpowder on mountain tiles, maybe even some tribal villages
-maybe workers being able to build windmills on mountains (a slight source of food), cause there's lots of wind up high in mountains

Mountain towns look so nice! A female dwarven leader might be good (I notice a lot of leader pictures are from icewind dale and such, and I know theres a few halfling/dwarven females in there as I'm playin it now )

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Could a mountain's base yield be improved for dwarves to 3 hammers? This might be sort of like the Lanun being able to work a resource that no one else can, (with plenty of differences, of course, but it's a similar concept). Then mines could be built on top for a nice 5 hammer total, or maybe other improvements could be possible (mushroom farms?).

 

[Sureshot]

Mountains don't seem to be terrain like other terrains... for instance, a mountain can have deserts underneath it, or grasslands, or tundra, etc.
At the moment, they (and Impassible Ice) seem to be a blackhole for yields, regardless of the terrain underneath and any resources, they give 0... the weird thing is that improvements on mountains do give yields.

I'm not sure if the blackhole thing can be changed, but I know that if workers and settlers could walk on mountains like rangers, and had the ability to build cities and certain improvements on mountains unlocked, then they could make cities and they would get some yields and be worthwhile.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Ah, but a desert also appears to be a blackhole at first glance. The difference is that the map script includes resources which improve the 0/0/0 yield of the desert, while mountains don't have any such resources. I suspect that mountains give a penalty similar to fallout (-3/-3/-3) so that they never have any yields. Further, mountains are listed as impassible, so no improvement can be built on them, but I don't think this necessarily will stand in the way of making them viable oppertunities for dwarven Civs to work. Of course, it's all up to the team, but we seem to have a strong pro-mountain sentiment here.

 

[wilboman]

Hey, I'm all for getting mountains in play, and we are discussing ways of making it work for the dwarves. It may have been forgotten along the way, though...

A female dwarven leader might be good (I notice a lot of leader pictures are from icewind dale and such, and I know theres a few halfling/dwarven females in there as I'm playin it now )

How do you know one of the leaders isn't female? It's hard to tell under all that beard

 

[Sureshot]

Ah, but a desert also appears to be a blackhole at first glance. The difference is that the map script includes resources which improve the 0/0/0 yield of the desert, while mountains don't have any such resources. I suspect that mountains give a penalty similar to fallout (-3/-3/-3) so that they never have any yields.

I thought that at first, but I checked for certain using multiple types of terrain+resources on the mountain tile (sheep running around mountains is great). All terrain+resource on mountain tiles gave 0/0/0 but any improvement (any at all) gave the exact bonus amount that that improvement gives alone.

Further, mountains are listed as impassible, so no improvement can be built on them

Nothing can currently be built by workers that isn't allowed, roads are mysteriously allowed, and through the Worldbuilder you can place any you wish (same with placing farm on water or gold in water too, worldbuilder lets you). From what I can tell it seems like the workers just need to be given the option to build the improvements.


And I'm taking a shot in the dark that those leaders aren't female

 

[Maian]

Sounds like a great idea!

I like the dwarven priest and mountain ideas here as well...

 

[Kael]

My only concern is the beginning of the game at higher difficulty levels. As it is I typically play at Prince/Monarch and have 5 happy people by default in my capital (4 in other cities).

Starting with a -2 happy could be rather painful in the very early game. If the vaults all get built based on something happening (i.e. reaching 125 gold or building your third city or researching a tech).

Alternatively if they start with 100 gold it would offset the early penalty without giving a significant bonus.

They start with 50 gold.

 

[userOne]

Good idea, but... what if make it work not with number of cities, but with a number of population in a cities...

* it makes more clear to undestand, that more dwarves need more gold to stay happy...
* reduces impact of newly created cities, but keeping it for large conquered ones
* forces dwarves to accumulate more gold as cities grows up

PS. sorry for my english

 

[Kael]

Good idea, but... what if make it work not with number of cities, but with a number of population in a cities...

* it makes more clear to undestand, that more dwarves need more gold to stay happy...
* reduces impact of newly created cities, but keeping it for large conquered ones
* forces dwarves to accumulate more gold as cities grows up

PS. sorry for my english

We thought about this and decided that it confuses the math. Players dont want to manage based on population size (and have little control over it) and its simpliar for them to calculate based on city count alone.

 

[chocmushroom]

We thought about this and decided that it confuses the math. Players dont want to manage based on population size (and have little control over it) and its simpliar for them to calculate based on city count alone.

Yes, it makes sense to me, you can very easily control the cit count.
I was a bit shocked about starting gold and happiness. When you play on higher levels the money is a problem. In the turns when you are building up your treasury, you will be reducing the chance of early buying of troops/buildings. I Think this will make Dwarfs very very slow at the start of the game.
Which, if you think about most fantasy settings, makes sense. The Dwarfs are famed for ther production, but not for their numbers. For their gold but not spending it.
It all makes sense to me

I don't know how you guy's do it, but you seem to just keep on making things better and better

 

[wilboman]

Not to mention dwarves being famous for being stubborn and traditionalist, which jars pretty well with the research suffering in exchange for the money.

 

[H.GrenadeFrenzy]

Well, I don't know about you, but I tend to have around 5-7 cities before going a-conquerin', and I'd have no problem leaving 3500 gold hanging around in my treasury in exchange for 40% extra hammers in every city.

I'm with wilboman on this for sure I don't trade money away when playing any of the dwarves anyway..........purely for my own sense of flavor...to see it as a benefitial game mechanic is way more than cool........... and that goes for eveybody on the Team.......I just couldn't not comment!

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Now we just need a dwarven leader with raider trait!

 

[Xuenay]

Oh, a question, as compulsive hoarder... is there any chance that you might add a couple of levels more? Something like

1000-1999 GpC: Dwarven Vault (Bursting from Seams): +45% Great People, +5 Happy, +55% Hammers
2000-4999 GpC: Dwarven Vault (Buried Under All the Gold): +65% Great People, +6 Happy, +70% Hammers
5000 or more GpC: Dwarven Vault (It's Not a Kingdom, It's a Giant Gold Pile): +85% Great People, +7 Happy, +85% hammers

You could set the requirments ridiculously high, so that they wouldn't break the game - but I've had a tendency to stockpile huge amounts of gold in my games, and would really enjoy a chance to have a meaningful purpose for doing it. Pretty pretty please? With high enough gold requirments, it won't even seriously unbalance anything, since the dwarves would have to sacrifice a lot in order to reach it... plus as it is now, the bonus progression ends just as the boni are getting nice.

 

[Kael]

Oh, a question, as compulsive hoarder... is there any chance that you might add a couple of levels more? Something like

1000-1999 GpC: Dwarven Vault (Bursting from Seams): +45% Great People, +5 Happy, +55% Hammers
2000-4999 GpC: Dwarven Vault (Buried Under All the Gold): +65% Great People, +6 Happy, +70% Hammers
5000 or more GpC: Dwarven Vault (It's Not a Kingdom, It's a Giant Gold Pile): +85% Great People, +7 Happy, +85% hammers

You could set the requirments ridiculously high, so that they wouldn't break the game - but I've had a tendency to stockpile huge amounts of gold in my games, and would really enjoy a chance to have a meaningful purpose for doing it. Pretty pretty please? With high enough gold requirments, it won't even seriously unbalance anything, since the dwarves would have to sacrifice a lot in order to reach it...

I may have to do it just to use the "It's not a Kingdom, It's a Giant Gold Pile" tag. I got a good laugh out of that.

Seriously, the answer is yes. After the playtest if people would use it then its not a problem to add them. But there is a cost to adding it, the more objects in the game the slower it runs and the more confusing it is to new players. Not a huge deal, one object here or there doesn't matter. But in the overall it all adds up.

 

[wilboman]

I'm a bit worried that adding more levels would make the Khazad such an industrial/happiness powerhouse that once they get rolling, noone can stand in their way... As it is, I felt slightly overpowered with an overflowing vault in each city.

 

[chocmushroom]

Is it going to be modified depending on the difficulty level you are playing on? Or depending on what map size?

Having a blanket GpC rate, does not make sense to me. On a small map and a Huge map, there should be a differance, as having 6 citis on a small map is a lot, but on a huge map is not many.

 

[uberfish]

This is brilliant - I think it's a good thing that each civ should feel close to overpowered in a different way.