Remove or rebalance lumbermill?

[raystuttgart]

But I'm fine with a re-balancing.

That is all I want to do.
Basically to make it a bit more consistent with the rest of the mod.

Nevertheless I would not like to see it removed in total.

I do not want to do that either.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

ooooh. oops. I haven't used the lodge in so long that I forgot.

Maybe large>large lodge>lumber camp?

I think renaming it to sawmill would work. Since the icon is already a saw I had wondered why it was named lumbermill and not sawmill, since they are essentially the same thing.

> lodge > lumberjack camp > sawmill

Alternatively it might be a better idea to rename the Lumber Mill building since it doesn't reflect what the building does.

As a suggestion:

Carpenters Shop > Lumber Mill > Wheelwrights Workshop > Large Wheelwrights Workshop could become something like:

> Carpenters House > Carpenters Shop > Wheelwrights Workshop > Large Wheelwrights Workshop

And since lodge is also questionable, the improvements could become something like:

> lumberjack camp > lumber mill > sawmill

 

[devolution]

I agree that the lumber mill plot improvement should be renamed to "sawmill" to clear up any potential confusion with the city improvement "lumber mill".
As for the sawmill being an upgrade, I think that would simply be too generous to "hand it out for" free considering that it currently costs 500g and that it boosts lumber production significantly.
It would be better if the AI could build it directly, otherwise the lodge may be replaced by another improvement due to how the AI responds to random price fluctuations.
The Civ4 mod AND2 allows plot improvement upgrades to be built directly by charging a gold cost, which is a mechanism that allows a meaningful trade-off between time (as in waiting for the improvement to upgrade) and the direct gold cost.

 

[raystuttgart]

I agree that the lumber mill plot improvement should be renamed ...

Genrally sounds good to rename to prevent any confusions.

I think that would simply be too generous to "hand it out for" free considering that it currently costs 500g and that it boosts lumber production significantly.

It is not "that" for free, since you have to wait for it until it grows to final stage.
I would also rebalance it a bit (and the lumber improvement level before) so it is not that overpowered anymore.

It would be better if the AI could build it directly, otherwise the lodge may be replaced ...

I thought that I had forbidden AI in RaR to simply replace improvements pointlessly.
Maybe I remember wrong though.

The Civ4 mod AND2 allows plot improvement upgrades to be built directly by charging a gold cost, which is a mechanism that allows a meaningful trade-off between time (as in waiting for the improvement to upgrade) and the direct gold cost.

Interesting, we could add that to the current "Growing Improvements System" as well.
And also, we should make the lower levels be a prerequisite to upgrade to the next level by Pioniers.
Of course we also need to make sure that the gold price for upgrading is balanced.

My main argument is and was:
I want to keep systems consistent and balanced without special exceptions for one single instance.
But what you suggest would be consistent and balanced as well and also add new choices.

 

[raystuttgart]

This is done, see here.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

This is done, see here.

It is much better.

I still think the upgrade paths could be improved since a lumber mill doesn't really fit between a carpenters shop and a wheelwrights workshop, but it would involve renaming buildings which is probably not a priority just now. Currently it is a good compromise but I would refer you to what I posted earlier as a solution I think would be better:

Buildings (lumbermill removed) : Carpenters House > Carpenters Shop > Wheelwrights Workshop > Large Wheelwrights Workshop

Improvements (lodge removed) : lumberjack camp > lumber mill > sawmill

 

[raystuttgart]

@Tugboatspotter

Sorry, but I will leave the Buildings and Improvements as they are for now.
The discussion is basically just about personal taste details.

People have already gotten used to the names and until now nobody else has ever complained about that.
For me it is also fine as it is.

I am currently again drowning in todos and have much more important things on my list than that.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

No problem. I agree it is not important.

 

[devolution]

Regarding the sawmill being an upgraded(x2) lodge:
This is effectively an AI nerf. The AI is currently not able to determine that a lodge will eventually turn into a highly productive sawmill. The AI may end up building another improvement instead, if it appears to have a greater immediate value.
Letting the AI build the sawmill directly would circumvent this issue OR we could teach the AI to determine the future value of improvements (BTS does this, and K-Mod\AdvCiv goes even further)

 

[raystuttgart]

The easiest thing is probably to simply disallow AI to replace Improvements it has already built.

Why should it do that at all?
I personally also do not replace any improvements already built.

And I even think that I had already implemented that in RaR.
(But will need to check again.)

By the way:
There are already some other rules for AI building Improvements implemented. e.g.:
AI can not build an Improvement (that would remove the Terrain Feature) on a plot
if that would make a Bonus Ressource on the plot useless (that needs the Terrain Feature).

Unless of course all my old AI code for these things was removed.

 

[devolution]

I'm sorry if I worded myself badly. I was referring to the AI deciding that, for instance, a fur trapper's hut may be more valuable than the lodge. In this case the construction of the trapper's hut would prevent a sawmill from ever emerging because the AI did not "see far enough ahead". In this example it may be even more unfortunate if the AI was not allowed to replace existing improvements. What if fur plummets in value and lumber is needed ?

 

[raystuttgart]

I was referring to the AI deciding that, for instance, a fur trapper's hut may be more valuable than the lodge.

If it always decided like that without and thus destroys balance of Improvements, it will be really bad.
If it decides it reasonably by checking current situation, that that is good.

Generally AI needs to have a good balance of Improvements.
A) It will need some Food
B) It will need some Lumber
C) It will need Cash Yields
D) It should then worry about Ore (but also Cash Yield) <-- Already in C
E) It might then worry about Stone.

All we need to do is to teach AI how to balance the amounts of different Improvements it builds.

It does not really need to consider at all how these improvements will look in 50 Turns ...
(Since ALL of them will grow over time.)

Summary:
AI should not be messing around by replacing Improvements it already built.
AI should be concerned about building more Improvements in a balanced sequence.

Example:
Priority 1: Food --> If (Low Food): Find best plot (without any other Improvement and not destroying Bonus Ressource) to build next Farm.
Priority 2: Lumber --> Else If (Low Lumber): Find best plot (without any other Improvement and not destroying Bonus Ressource) to build next Lodge.
Priority 3: Cash Yields --> Else if (a Plot worked but no Improvement on Plot): Find best plot (without any other Improvement and not destroying Bonus Ressource) to Improvement for most valuable Cash Yield.
Priority 4: Stone --> Else if (no Stone and Plot with Bonus Ressource Stone): build Quarry

So basically we just need to set up a good priority list.
(And have some good decision factors what AI should build next. If it starts replacing it will just loose time inefficiently anyways.)