RFC Europe - Buildings Thread

[3Miro]

No offense 3Miro, but Disenfrancised got it more understandable. Thanks anyway

None taken. Disenfrancised's idea works when powers are rational numbers (i.e. one integer divided by another). My method (not that it is really mine) works for any positive number x to any power (i.e. x^pi, where pi = 3.14.....). Also, the way computers work (also all calculators), tenth toot of a number is computed as: e^( 0.1 * ln(x) ).

 

[sedna17]

Thanks Disenfrancised, these comments are very useful and much in line with my current thinking about buildings. I'm collecting a few more comments about specific buildings from the Wonders thread for future reference:

St. Lucifer

The buildings which I rarely/ever build are the tanner (never - the health penalty is a killer for those small bonuses), the weaver, the brewery (sometimes one or the other, but they're very low priority), and the coffee house. I haven't played many games which ran late enough for the coffee house, but I rarely have happiness problems even with 20+ population cities. It seems like we could eliminate some of those without taking much away.

Disenfrancised

For Northern Europe the brewery is pretty useful - its one of cheaper ways to get quick happiness before the Colonial Era, and generally the first happy building I get once all the religion buildings have been built.

I do like the philosophy of every resource having two buildings that provide a bonus, but I think it'd be better if they were slightly more distinctive and varied than the +5% commerce.

Another possibility to explore is having more unhappiness penalities to mitigate the happiness surplus most cities get - have certain civics generate unhappiness (say Beaurocracy gives +1 unhappy in every city without a palace for example), and the +XP buildings give unhappiness (to show the citizenry's dislike at being recruited/pressganged and hard trained) so you don't just build them everywhere.

 

[Disenfrancised]

None taken. Disenfrancised's idea works when powers are rational numbers (i.e. one integer divided by another). My method (not that it is really mine) works for any positive number x to any power (i.e. x^pi, where pi = 3.14.....). Also, the way computers work (also all calculators), tenth toot of a number is computed as: e^( 0.1 * ln(x) ).

Well he asked for the manual operator way rather than the algorithmic way (and besides pi would effectively be done as (X^3141592)^1/1000000 if you're using floats after all ).

That C++ sounds complicated, this is why I prefer python and perl with their nice defined power operator ('**') to do the heavy lifting for you .

 

[micbic]

Well, I was asking for RL use, not for programming one
Anyway, lets close it. This is a Buildings thread, not an Advanced Mathematics one

 

[3Miro]

Well he asked for the manual operator way rather than the algorithmic way (and besides pi would effectively be done as (X^3141592)^1/1000000 if you're using floats after all ).

That C++ sounds complicated, this is why I prefer python and perl with their nice defined power operator ('**') to do the heavy lifting for you .

2^pi is about 8.825, while 2^3141592 cannot fit in memory (integers store up to 2^32 ~ 4.2 billion, and doubles can go further, but with loss of precision, i.e. there is too much rounding). There is no stable way to compute x^(1/1000000) other then the logarithmic way. Python ** operator does the obvious for integers and the logarithms for floats and doubles.

As a Mathematician my job is to work with this kind of algorithms and as a teacher I get carried away when someone shows even a shred of interest in Math. I promise I will leave the subject alone now.

 

[sedna17]

The one other relevant fact to consider is that we might be revisiting the distribution of resources of the map. I believe St. Lucifer is looking into that?

Lowering the total number of resources would lower the number typically available to a give Civ (through trade). This would, in turn, make the resources gained from colonies relatively more valuable.

 

[st.lucifer]

The one other relevant fact to consider is that we might be revisiting the distribution of resources of the map. I believe St. Lucifer is looking into that?

Lowering the total number of resources would lower the number typically available to a give Civ (through trade). This would, in turn, make the resources gained from colonies relatively more valuable.

I've changed the distribution of several resources, but could take it further - as things currently stand, there's much less salt available than there was previously; barley has been moved to the eastern half of the map and Scotland, grain resources have been removed from Scandinavia, gold has been concentrated in Hungary, copper has been removed from many extraneous places, furs and timber have been concentrated in the eastern half of the map (although I missed one in Normandy, which I intend to move), and silver has been concentrated in Bohemia/Swabia. I'm planning to take out the wines in eastern Europe (although I may leave the one in the Crimea, which doesn't get settled nearly often enough for its historical importance), and I keep meaning to give Genoa some sort of luxury resource to prevent its growth from being so badly stunted.

I'm reluctant to distribute iron, horses, and sulfur in their historical locations, but Atlantic access and timber should definitely be kept scarce (and in many cases, separate). I feel like some resources - particularly wheat and fish - should probably be available near-universally, but most of the others can be tweaked as necessary. I'm open to suggestions.

 

[jessiecat]

Why concentrate timber in the eastern half of the map? Of course it was fairly scarce in the Mediteranean but the rest of Europe had forests in abundance, specially in Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, N. Spain, France and Britain. I was surprised recently to find the last remaining timber in the British Isles is now gone, which severely hampers shipbuilding. The Royal Navy was created from the oak felled from the vast Caledonian forests. The ones in France and Germany at least should remain as should the one we used to have in Scotland.

 

[embryodead]

Why concentrate timber in the eastern half of the map? Of course it was fairly scarce in the Mediteranean but the rest of Europe had forests in abundance, specially in Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, N. Spain, France and Britain.

Since it was my suggestion I'm compelled to answer Half of what you mentioned is "eastern half" already, and the other half didn't have timber in abundance, not nearly enough for their needs. With the exception of Germany, most of Western Europe became quite deforested during the middle ages, especially Britain (we're talking about quality timber such as oaks not just any forests). There are historical accounts of early shortages of timber for shipbuilding and construction (see this for instance). It was therefore imported from Scandinavia, Baltic area and Eastern Europe, becoming one of the major commodities traded by the Hanseatic League.

This change facilitates in-game trade of a resource that was previously abundant everywhere and hardly "strategic", and it reflects the Western maritime powers' struggle for shipbuilding timber and historical exploitation of Baltic/Eastern European forests...

 

[st.lucifer]

Why concentrate timber in the eastern half of the map? Of course it was fairly scarce in the Mediteranean but the rest of Europe had forests in abundance, specially in Scandinavia, Germany, Poland, N. Spain, France and Britain. I was surprised recently to find the last remaining timber in the British Isles is now gone, which severely hampers shipbuilding. The Royal Navy was created from the oak felled from the vast Caledonian forests. The ones in France and Germany at least should remain as should the one we used to have in Scotland.

Since it was my suggestion I'm compelled to answer Half of what you mentioned is "eastern half" already, and the other half didn't have timber in abundance, not nearly enough for their needs. With the exception of Germany, most of Western Europe became quite deforested during the middle ages, especially Britain (we're talking about quality timber such as oaks not just any forests). There are historical accounts of early shortages of timber for shipbuilding and construction (see this for instance). It was therefore imported from Scandinavia, Baltic area and Eastern Europe, becoming one of the major commodities traded by the Hanseatic League.

This change facilitates in-game trade of a resource that was previously abundant everywhere and hardly "strategic", and it reflects the Western maritime powers' struggle for shipbuilding timber and historical exploitation of Baltic/Eastern European forests...

One of the most valuable resources of the American colonies was timber - particularly trees large enough to use as masts and keels for great ships. The Royal Navy may have been made of Caledonian oak, but its masts and keels were made from the largest trees in the forests of New England and Quebec, or the forests of the Baltic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_timber_trade

 

[jessiecat]

One of the most valuable resources of the American colonies was timber - particularly trees large enough to use as masts and keels for great ships. The Royal Navy may have been made of Caledonian oak, but its masts and keels were made from the largest trees in the forests of New England and Quebec, or the forests of the Baltic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_timber_trade

Both your points are well-taken and it is true that Britain depended almost entirely on Baltic timber imports from the 1660's onward. Supplies from New England and Quebec were 3 times as expensive to import, as the wiki article points out, except for masts. But Britain remained mostly self-sufficient for oak ship planking until the end of the 18thC. (which is of course when our mod ends).
So I agree that most timber resources should be placed in the Baltic region and the east but I'd argue in favour of retaining 1 timber resource in each of Spain, France and Scotland to represent domestic supplies.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Both your points are well-taken and it is true that Britain depended almost entirely on Baltic timber imports from the 1660's onward. Supplies from New England and Quebec were 3 times as expensive to import, as the wiki article points out, except for masts. But Britain remained mostly self-sufficient for oak ship planking until the end of the 18thC. (which is of course when our mod ends).
So I agree that most timber resources should be placed in the Baltic region and the east but I'd argue in favour of retaining 1 timber resource in each of Spain, France and Scotland to represent domestic supplies.

Well the problem is that the CIV resource model is binary (except for corporations), you either have it or you don't - any resource in a western state would completely remove the impetus by that state to trade/gain control of the Baltic shipping stores, a struggle that influenced commerce and strategic thinking on the North Sea littoral from the 15th century on.

If we shift to some model where the number of Timber resources matters then its fine to have a few in the west.

@St Lucifer: I think fish should be mainly in the Atlantic and North Sea, whilst clams form the Mediterranean staple (5:1 ratio each way). This is vaguely realistic as bivalves were much more important in the med and there was much more fish shoals in the Atlantic that could be show by resource, but more importantly is good for gameplay; encouraging trade, restricting health, and making the Hanseatic League more valuable in its original location.

You could give Genoa Olive Oil - an important Ligurian product. Wine and Dyes would also be appropriate.

On another note, and appropriate here in the building thread - would it be possible to code random event based spread of corporations? They weren't entirely under the states control after all, and could easily end up working against their founder. The rules for spread could be a) they'll go to a city with their resource in its fat cross, b) the owner of the city isn't running mercantilism, and c) a corporation specific limiter:
-Hanseatic League would only go to coastal cities that have >X trade with a current Hanse city
-Ausburg Families would go to cities over size X that has trade with a current AF cities
-Bank of St George would go to cities with over X commerce per turn and trade with a current St George City
-Medici Bank would go to cities with over X culture per turn and trade with a current Medici city
-Monastic Orders would possibly go to a non-Christian city that has just been conquered by a Catholic civ.

 

[embryodead]

Both your points are well-taken and it is true that Britain depended almost entirely on Baltic timber imports from the 1660's onward. Supplies from New England and Quebec were 3 times as expensive to import, as the wiki article points out, except for masts. But Britain remained mostly self-sufficient for oak ship planking until the end of the 18thC. (which is of course when our mod ends).
So I agree that most timber resources should be placed in the Baltic region and the east but I'd argue in favour of retaining 1 timber resource in each of Spain, France and Scotland to represent domestic supplies.

The link in my post was about shortages of timber and subsequent Baltic trade since 12th C. That, and as Disenfrancised said, if you put just one timber in a civ's region, it'll have all the timber it needs and there's no strategy or trade involved.

There's still one timber in Iberian peninsula I think which just is about right for the two civs that need it.

 

[jessiecat]

The link in my post was about shortages of timber and subsequent Baltic trade since 12th C. That, and as Disenfrancised said, if you put just one timber in a civ's region, it'll have all the timber it needs and there's no strategy or trade involved.

There's still one timber in Iberian peninsula I think which just is about right for the two civs that need it.

Yes. I was referring to the link on st. lucifer's post. It's true to say that shortages can be traced to an earlier period but it wasn't until the 16thC. that they became acute due to the great expansion of the navy under Elizabeth I and the Baltic trade became of vital strategic importance.
On the general point, I understand Disenfrancise's point about the need to trade for stategic resources. That suggests that all such resources, like iron, coal and copper etc. should also be restricted to the main historic locations. And be related to their historic time period as well. Is that how you see it?

 

[embryodead]

Yes. I was referring to the link on st. lucifer's post. It's true to say that shortages can be traced to an earlier period but it wasn't until the 16thC. that they became acute due to the great expansion of the navy under Elizabeth I and the Baltic trade became of vital strategic importance.
On the general point, I understand Disenfrancise's point about the need to trade for stategic resources. That suggests that all such resources, like iron, coal and copper etc. should also be restricted to the main historic locations. And be related to their historic time period as well. Is that how you see it?

I used the word "concentration" rather than "restriction" but generally yes, with the exception of resources that are absolutely vital to survive through eras (timber, coal, and copper certainly aren't).

BTW the current map has 2 timber in Iberia, 1 in France so it's hardly restricting. It's still there, just not enough for everyone.

 

[micbic]

In this case, I agree; we should lessen all resources, except the very critical ones (eg Iron)

 

[sedna17]

Like St. Lucifer, I've been thinking of our timber resource as representing (strategically) the tall trees required for main masts on large sailing vessels; timber is only required for later sailing ships.

We have the options, therefore, to tweak which sailing ships require timber in order to bring about the struggle for timber at the appropriate time. Currently I think Galleons are the first ships to require timber.

I'd have no problem having Quebec or New England provide a single source of timber, thus providing another route for England to achieve self-sufficiency.

 

[jessiecat]

Like St. Lucifer, I've been thinking of our timber resource as representing (strategically) the tall trees required for main masts on large sailing vessels; timber is only required for later sailing ships.

We have the options, therefore, to tweak which sailing ships require timber in order to bring about the struggle for timber at the appropriate time. Currently I think Galleons are the first ships to require timber.

I'd have no problem having Quebec or New England provide a single source of timber, thus providing another route for England to achieve self-sufficiency.

On that basis, I agree too. Currently timber is required for Galleons, Frigates and Privateers. That seems about right to me. The only colonial sources for timber should be New England and Quebec, as you say. In the same way that copper should be fairly limited to certain areas and would enable the building of later bronze cannons.

 

[st.lucifer]

I used the word "concentration" rather than "restriction" but generally yes, with the exception of resources that are absolutely vital to survive through eras (timber, coal, and copper certainly aren't).

BTW the current map has 2 timber in Iberia, 1 in France so it's hardly restricting. It's still there, just not enough for everyone.

Yeah, I missed the one in Normandy. I'll take out one of the ones in Iberia, but I plan to leave the one in the Alps for Burgundy/France/Genoa/Germany to fight over. I didn't make any effort to redistribute coal historically, but I can work on that for the next version. The timber resource next to the Dutch is an issue - it definitely doesn't belong there, but they desperately need both production and shipbuilding capabilities, so I'm reluctant to take it out. I can't think of another way of handling it, other than a possible resource spawn after the Dutch spawn giving them extra something (probably dyes) to trade. Even then, the AI values strategic resources more highly... I'm very much in favor of adding timber to Quebec and New England.

The fish/clam switch would be fairly easy to enact, and makes a lot of sense. I'll probably leave fish in places where there are no ready-made cities - off Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, etc. Leave crabs at their current distribution - more in northern waters, but some available in the Mediterranean as well?

I'll add olives to the Genoan BFC. They've got wine west of Milano, which gives them two easy ones - Genoa ends up with Milan about 2/3 of the time in the recent games I've played.

I'm not in favor of corporations spreading like religions - I can see the logic for it, but many of our corporations are really powerful, and that implies a lack of control or central planning. The Hanseatic League, for example, wouldn't take just anyone....

 

[jessiecat]

Can we have some fish near Cornwall, please?