RifE 1.20 Ideas, Requests, and Feedback

[smithroadtrip]

Cottage/Town improvements are not just "people in houses". A town in a mini city, complete with shops, farmer's markets, vendors, and craftsmen.

The situation where a "suburb" is simply a bunch of houses occurs in real life, so I can see how people might associate that to RifE, but even there we have at least some businesses, grocery stores and such. But the only reason the businesses are limited in real life is that we have mass and long distance transportation (cars, buses, light rail). In RifE such do not exist, so the more appropriate analogue is a small rural town (not a suburb) or go back in time 200 years. In 1700, both independent town as well as suburbs (what there were) truly had just about everything you could find in a city.

So I guess I'm saying the Town=commerce model doesn't bother me all that much.

What bothers me is that the difference between a small city and a large town in real life is pretty small. They are both large centers of people, that especially depending on the time period, exert considerable influence on the surroundings. I like the way cities work in civ 4 and RifE, I have no problem with that. The problem is the towns. Towns are large population centers, yet in civ 4 and RifE, they just make money.

It would make more sense to replace hamlets/cottages/villages/towns with small coin minting facility/coin minting facility/large coin minting facility/industrial sized coin minting facility.

We would need new art, but the effect would remain exactly the same.

Towns are fundamentally different then other types of improvements. They should act different as well.

 

[Wodan]

It would make more sense to replace hamlets/cottages/villages/towns with small coin minting facility/coin minting facility/large coin minting facility/industrial sized coin minting facility.

We would need new art, but the effect would remain exactly the same.

Aren't you confusing with ?

 

[odalrick]

Aren't you confusing with ?

He said it would make "more sense", not "actual sense". That is: it's still silly, just not as silly as before.

I think the upgrading mechanic should be reserved for special improvements, like Pirate Ports, Forts and Dwarven Halls. Not regular improvements that can be built right next to each other. By that logic; Cottages should either not upgrade, or be special.

 

[nutranurse]

Here's a suggesting: Get rid of the Muris Goblin clan event. It does nothing but hurt the player it fires for and I see no point to that as 1) We have enough black/white events like that, 2) Your barbs and animals hurt us enough already.

 

[smithroadtrip]

Aren't you confusing with ?

No, not quite. What I am saying, is that cities in RifE can do all sorts of things. Even size 1 cities. They can control the surrounding land, they can build units and buildings. They can be the birthplace of great people and mighty heroes. Towns however, which are just moderately smaller versions of cities, only make gold. They do nothing else. I'm saying I think it would make more sense to implement my idea then have towns do what they keep doing.

My comment about the money minting line of upgrades is kind of sarcastic. It will of course never be implementing; I'm just poking fun at the fact that towns, large collections of people, only make money. Nothing else. Just money.

I think the upgrading mechanic should be reserved for special improvements, like Pirate Ports, Forts and Dwarven Halls. Not regular improvements that can be built right next to each other. By that logic; Cottages should either not upgrade, or be special.

One of the aspect's of my suggestion was to make towns like dwarvern mines in the sense that they are more powerful, but can't be built next to each other.

My thinking for this is that in real life, a small city and a large town are pretty similar. If we can't build cities in RifE to close to each other (something I think makes sense), then we shouldn't be able to make towns to close to each other either.

We would need to rebalanced some things, like the exact yields towns give, but I think that a system like the one I proposed in my above posts would make more sense then the way towns are currently implemented.

I have several sizable posts on the previous page outlining how I think it would be cool if towns worked.

This whole discussion though is now a moot point though, as Valkrionn has already said that he dislikes the system because it would be too complex.

 

[Valkrionn]

No, I dislike the multiple different improvements. Changing the way towns work is fine if we get good ideas.

Honestly, having an improvement grant higher yields to the plots around it will be possible with Xienwolf's aspect system, so that may happen eventually. For now, higher yields and a distance between them would work.

 

[Schwarzbart]

Is it intended that tolerant (usurper in my chase) Civs build the non Relgion Spreading Adeptus when building them in a Mechanos City that have the Religion?

 

[Valkrionn]

Pretty much, given that it's a Mechanos UU; All Machinarum cities can build an adeptus, the Mechanos just get a stronger version.

 

[Schwarzbart]

Yes but usual Tolerant Civs can build UUs of other Civs in the captuerd citys (except World Units) thats why I was wondering that the Adeptus that can spread Ordo Machinarium couldend build in a captured Mechanos city.

 

[Wodan]

He said it would make "more sense", not "actual sense". That is: it's still silly, just not as silly as before.

I guess, but given that Commerce can be transformed to science, gold, or culture, I don't really buy the argument.

I think the upgrading mechanic should be reserved for special improvements, like Pirate Ports, Forts and Dwarven Halls. Not regular improvements that can be built right next to each other. By that logic; Cottages should either not upgrade, or be special.

May I ask the rationale behind your opinion?

Towns however, which are just moderately smaller versions of cities, only make gold.

You mean Commerce.

The fact that you say "gold" tells me you probably ARE indeed confusing and .

I'm just poking fun at the fact that towns, large collections of people, only make money. Nothing else. Just money.

Again, they make commerce, not money.

(The commerce can be transformed to Money, depending on your sliders, but it can also be transformed to beakers or culture.)

My thinking for this is that in real life, a small city and a large town are pretty similar. If we can't build cities in RifE to close to each other (something I think makes sense), then we shouldn't be able to make towns to close to each other either.

Frankly, I'm not sure that not being able to build cities next to each other does make sense.

 

[Kraydak]

No, I dislike the multiple different improvements. Changing the way towns work is fine if we get good ideas.

Honestly, having an improvement grant higher yields to the plots around it will be possible with Xienwolf's aspect system, so that may happen eventually. For now, higher yields and a distance between them would work.

Random idea number something (too complicated, unfortunately): cottages (like cities) set the base yield of their plot to something flat and lowish, probably nil. This yield would scale upwards in some combination of hammers/commerce/GPP along the development. A used cottage provides 1 free (freely settable) specialist.

 

[odalrick]

I think the upgrading mechanic should be reserved for special improvements, like Pirate Ports, Forts and Dwarven Halls. Not regular improvements that can be built right next to each other. By that logic; Cottages should either not upgrade, or be special.

May I ask the rationale behind your opinion?

Expensive things should be important, important things should be rare.

Upgrading improvements are expensive in time to upgrade, protection against pillagers, opportunity cost while they upgrade and locking the tile to a single improvement.

Important things should be rare so that I can give each thing the attention it requires.

Cottages are currently expensive, but not very important.

Random idea number something (too complicated, unfortunately): cottages (like cities) set the base yield of their plot to something flat and lowish, probably nil. This yield would scale upwards in some combination of hammers/commerce/GPP along the development. A used cottage provides 1 free (freely settable) specialist.

A slight modification of this idea should be possible to do now, even in a module.

Improvements can upgrade unconditionally, like forts; and improvements can give free specialists in nearby cities, like the National Park wonder from Beyond the Sword.

So make the Cottage-line upgrade unconditionally and let them give a free specialist. Probably from Hamlet and upwards. The Cottage would reduce yields, at least -2, the Town would be a marginal improvement, maybe.

This would move Cottages from a improvement to a way to evade happy caps or . They represent mini-cities growing on their own, their population is assigned as a specialist in the nearby city.

 

[Wodan]

Expensive things should be important, important things should be rare.

Upgrading improvements are expensive in time to upgrade, protection against pillagers, opportunity cost while they upgrade and locking the tile to a single improvement.

Important things should be rare so that I can give each thing the attention it requires.

Cottages are currently expensive, but not very important.

Hrmm, I guess that makes sense.

Cottages serve a pretty vital game function, scaling commerce income with game progression. If we got rid of them without a comparable replacement, then we probably should go through the entire tech tree and reduce research costs.

But a comparable replacement, using a terrain improvement mechanism, would suffer from the same problem as cottages (or it wouldn't be comprable in terms of commerce generated; unless it got really wacky like a progression such as 1/3/7/15).

So that leaves some other mechanism. Such as more buildings which generate commerce.

So make the Cottage-line upgrade unconditionally and let them give a free specialist. Probably from Hamlet and upwards. The Cottage would reduce yields, at least -2, the Town would be a marginal improvement, maybe.

This would move Cottages from a improvement to a way to evade happy caps or . They represent mini-cities growing on their own, their population is assigned as a specialist in the nearby city.

That seems interesting. But could get out of hand. You could pretty easily have 50 or more specialists in a city. You'd generate GPP out the wazoo. Probably we would have to put a distance limit on them like pirate coves have (can't build within 2 or 3 tiles of each other).

 

[Valkrionn]

Expensive things should be important, important things should be rare.

Upgrading improvements are expensive in time to upgrade, protection against pillagers, opportunity cost while they upgrade and locking the tile to a single improvement.

Important things should be rare so that I can give each thing the attention it requires.

Cottages are currently expensive, but not very important.



A slight modification of this idea should be possible to do now, even in a module.

Improvements can upgrade unconditionally, like forts; and improvements can give free specialists in nearby cities, like the National Park wonder from Beyond the Sword.

So make the Cottage-line upgrade unconditionally and let them give a free specialist. Probably from Hamlet and upwards. The Cottage would reduce yields, at least -2, the Town would be a marginal improvement, maybe.

This would move Cottages from a improvement to a way to evade happy caps or . They represent mini-cities growing on their own, their population is assigned as a specialist in the nearby city.

That idea would also pretty well prevent the AI from building it I think, unless there is AI for the specialist tag and the AI only considers the final form of the improvement. In which case they could be hurting themselves by building it too often.

 

[odalrick]

Cottages serve a pretty vital game function, scaling commerce income with game progression. If we got rid of them without a comparable replacement, then we probably should go through the entire tech tree and reduce research costs.

I disagree. Cottages have a vital game function, but that function is giving commerce when there aren't any commerce resources around.

Aristogracy doesn't use Cottages as the main income, nor does specialist economies. If Cottages had a vital effect on the entire game, those economies would ruin it or be uncompetitive.

In fact, I think cottages are the thing you build when you have no other choice. If you have a resource, build something to harvest that. If you can grow, build a -improvement. If it is a production city, build a -improvement. Only if you have nothing better to build, waste time on a Cottage.

Even if I accept that Cottages work to scale over time, the same effect could easily be replaced by giving a static improvement a few + with some key techs.

That seems interesting. But could get out of hand. You could pretty easily have 50 or more specialists in a city. You'd generate GPP out the wazoo. Probably we would have to put a distance limit on them like pirate coves have (can't build within 2 or 3 tiles of each other).

Where do you get 50 specialists from? A normal city could have 20 free specialists from improvements, a three tier city 36. But then the entire surrounding area would be covered in cottages, so there wouldn't be much left for population in the city. Not that different from a surrounding area covered with farms.

20 free specialists does sound excessive, especially since it should be available early. At one tile separation, I can get 6 cottages into a fat cross which sound more reasonable. I think Enclaves should get a little bonus then. They could easily give two or more free specialists.

The idea is that the Cottage line is an improvement that you'd rather not work. As it upgrades to a Town it manages just enough yield that you'll think twice about replacing it when you have the happycap to support a regular improvement. (Obviously the yields I suggested would be subject to balancing.)

The one issue I can see is that you could seed an area with Cottages ahead of time, plop down a city and instantly have dozens of specialists. Even just citizens would be pretty neat. But then again, each Cottage-upgrade actually represents people in this plan. Why wouldn't you get something for settling in an already inhabited area?

That idea would also pretty well prevent the AI from building it I think, unless there is AI for the specialist tag and the AI only considers the final form of the improvement. In which case they could be hurting themselves by building it too often.

I know the AI considers the final form of the improvement. I recall governors being reluctant to work Bradeline's Well, since the final form yields nothing. Also, the National Park wonder is from Beyond the Sword, so I can't imagine there isn't some code for building Forest Preserves in the fat cross of the National Park city and at 1 tile distance between them, it would be pretty impossible to build it too often.

 

[Valkrionn]

The one issue I can see is that you could seed an area with Cottages ahead of time, plop down a city and instantly have dozens of specialists. Even just citizens would be pretty neat. But then again, each Cottage-upgrade actually represents people in this plan. Why wouldn't you get something for settling in an already inhabited area?

Build fort, allow to become Citadel, seed area with cottages, allow to become towns, then pillage fort and settle.

I know the AI considers the final form of the improvement. I recall governors being reluctant to work Bradeline's Well, since the final form yields nothing. Also, the National Park wonder is from Beyond the Sword, so I can't imagine there isn't some code for building Forest Preserves in the fat cross of the National Park city and at 1 tile distance between them, it would be pretty impossible to build it too often.

Not sure why I typed too often, meant too early. I was thinking the first but then remembered the spacing, like you said.

It's an interesting idea, but should probably be done via module first so it can be tested out.

 

[Wodan]

I disagree. Cottages have a vital game function, but that function is giving commerce when there aren't any commerce resources around.

Cottages are a commerce resource. You're arguing chicken/egg.

Aristogracy doesn't use Cottages as the main income, nor does specialist economies. If Cottages had a vital effect on the entire game, those economies would ruin it or be uncompetitive.

Two things:
1) If you're correct, then isn't it equally true that if cottages have a vital effect on a part of the game (to wit: one of the most commonly used game strategies), then removing them would ruin those strategies and make them uncompetitive.
2) Frequently, Aristocracy, SE, and other game strategies rely upon a single cottage/commerce specialized city to generate a great deal of the commerce for the entire empire.

In fact, I think cottages are the thing you build when you have no other choice. If you have a resource, build something to harvest that. If you can grow, build a -improvement. If it is a production city, build a -improvement. Only if you have nothing better to build, waste time on a Cottage.

I rather think it's the other way around. Build a cottage whenever you can (special resources aside... obviously I don't advocate building a cottage on a wheat; that's moronic). Build a farm only when required. Build a hammer improvement only as needed to get enough hammers.

Clearly, these are generalizations and city specializations over-ride this kind of thing much of the time (both for you and me, I imagine, unless you don't specialize your cities).

The reason I hold a high opinion of cottages (as well as other generators of commerce and science) is that Tech and research rate is so important to game success.

Even if I accept that Cottages work to scale over time, the same effect could easily be replaced by giving a static improvement a few + with some key techs.

Depends on how your suggested change would interact with the different game strategies. If your suggestions would change SE strategies to be more like some common medium, and change CE strategies to be more like that same common medium, then I think your changes reduce game variety (=enjoyment) and thus would be bad for the game.

I may be doing you a disservice but clearly this kind of tweaking of the system can have drastic and not necessarily obvious impact upon the game.

Where do you get 50 specialists from? A normal city could have 20 free specialists from improvements, a three tier city 36. But then the entire surrounding area would be covered in cottages, so there wouldn't be much left for population in the city. Not that different from a surrounding area covered with farms.

Farms aren't the only way to have more specialists.

 

[Wodan]

All this other debate aside, I feel very strongly about the following.

If your suggestions would change SE strategies to be more like some common medium, and change CE strategies to be more like that same common medium, then I think your changes reduce game variety (=enjoyment) and thus would be bad for the game.

I may be doing you a disservice but clearly this kind of tweaking of the system can have drastic and not necessarily obvious impact upon the game.

I want more different ways to play, not less.

 

[JanusTalaiini]

Any chance of having the "remove X religion" custom game option? Sometimes I just want to have a big Order/AV brawl, and then Runes comes in and takes over everything.

 

[Schwarzbart]

The Option to seperat disable Religions are Hiden Game Options but dont know if it they work in RiFE. (Assets\XML\Gameinfo\CIV4GameOptionInfos.xml)