Qitai
.
I made this request in conquest bugs and fixes thread before. But I like to know how many support my idea.
Vote on and comment.
Vote on and comment.
Should Excess shield/food overflow to next production?
- Thread starter Qitai
- Start date
Grille
panel insect
Yes.
Maybe this could also apply to beakers.
Maybe this could also apply to beakers.
Justin_Sane
Chieftain
I think so, and I think it should be taken one step farther, too, at least with the Food production. There should be an option, in each city or just general empire, to share food between cities that have an excess to ones that are in need. Or at least, just in Communism government.
general_kill
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,870
Yea I thought about that before too, in my current game my capitol is producing 82 shield per turn and I hate how 200 shield units/buildings takes 3 turns. 46 shield wasted!!! thats 4 workers, half a rifleman. I mean in factories, if they are building tanks and they build the armor with 40 ton iron blocks or something, they wouldn't throw away the extra iron left over, they'd melt it and build the next tanks with it.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
I voted yes too. Not so much because it bugs me that shields/food gets lost, but because the way I can fight it in the current version is by a type of micromanagement that are neither interesting nor any challenge - its only tedious.
Grille
panel insect
How?
You mean that a strong civ comparably wastes more stuff than a weak civ?
Say if build cost for something was 10 shields, the weak civ with 2spt has zero waste (in 5 turns) and the strong civ with 9spt wastes 8 shields (in 2 turns).
You mean that a strong civ comparably wastes more stuff than a weak civ?
Say if build cost for something was 10 shields, the weak civ with 2spt has zero waste (in 5 turns) and the strong civ with 9spt wastes 8 shields (in 2 turns).
Things won't change too much, in fact it makes things un-managable. The waste is just transfered to the next turn.
Say you have 99 shield, and want to make tanks, the first tank waste 98 shield, the second would be 97 etc etc. Till the 98th tank, you eventually don't waste anything. But that's no point. And there's no way to stop it.
This example is a bit extreme, but the principle is the same. To micromanage a 80 shield city so it produce two MA in three turns is the same as micromanage a 60 shield city.
Say you have 99 shield, and want to make tanks, the first tank waste 98 shield, the second would be 97 etc etc. Till the 98th tank, you eventually don't waste anything. But that's no point. And there's no way to stop it.
This example is a bit extreme, but the principle is the same. To micromanage a 80 shield city so it produce two MA in three turns is the same as micromanage a 60 shield city.
Iz14: what about a town that produces 16 shield and build things that cost around 40?
16 - 16
32 - 32
40 (-8) - 40 +8
16 - 24
32 - 40 unit 1 turn earlier!
40 (-8) - 16
16 - 32
32 - 40 +8, unit 1 turn earlier
40 (-8), 24
16 - 40 unit 2 turns earlier
32 - 16
40 (-8) - 32
just carry on.......
left is as is, right is if carried over....
in my opinion a HUGE difference! you lose 8 out of 48 shields, that is over 15%!!!!!! Actually, as the result counts, you gain 20% (8 out of 40) if you can carry over!
16 - 16
32 - 32
40 (-8) - 40 +8
16 - 24
32 - 40 unit 1 turn earlier!
40 (-8) - 16
16 - 32
32 - 40 +8, unit 1 turn earlier
40 (-8), 24
16 - 40 unit 2 turns earlier
32 - 16
40 (-8) - 32
just carry on.......
left is as is, right is if carried over....
in my opinion a HUGE difference! you lose 8 out of 48 shields, that is over 15%!!!!!! Actually, as the result counts, you gain 20% (8 out of 40) if you can carry over!
Ai, I hate get into people's post.
As I said, it just make things more mad. Say your city is producing 70 shields. As before, you know either 50 or 100 is good for tanks. But now, it's more calculation!!! You would go 3 turns 2 tanks, 10 shields left, ok, next turn I'll make an artillery. No waste in 4 turns !!! GREAT. But that's MORE micromanagement. Maybe it's just me, but I'll be really mad if it's implemented. It's definitely going to save shields, no question, but it won't reduce micromanagement.
As I said, it just make things more mad. Say your city is producing 70 shields. As before, you know either 50 or 100 is good for tanks. But now, it's more calculation!!! You would go 3 turns 2 tanks, 10 shields left, ok, next turn I'll make an artillery. No waste in 4 turns !!! GREAT. But that's MORE micromanagement. Maybe it's just me, but I'll be really mad if it's implemented. It's definitely going to save shields, no question, but it won't reduce micromanagement.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I'd like this.
However, shields carried over should only last one turn. Say you're 40s city is building workers. First turn, one worker is built, and 30s carries over. Next turn, ten of those carried over shields buys a new Worker, twenty burns, and the forty new ones carries over.
Why? 'Cause otherwise you could amass essentially infinite piles of shields in a city by building something costing less than the city's spt count, and then building a wonder instantly when it comes available.
And carrying over really, really , really ought to apply to beakers!
However, shields carried over should only last one turn. Say you're 40s city is building workers. First turn, one worker is built, and 30s carries over. Next turn, ten of those carried over shields buys a new Worker, twenty burns, and the forty new ones carries over.
Why? 'Cause otherwise you could amass essentially infinite piles of shields in a city by building something costing less than the city's spt count, and then building a wonder instantly when it comes available.
And carrying over really, really , really ought to apply to beakers!
Perhaps I won't. But if I'm hoping so much my 70 shields city to be a 100 shield city, I'll be hoping as much that my 70 shields city is 75 shields(so 2 tanks in 3 turns) Hopefully the engineers in Conquest can solve this problem better.
And it would be good if science beakers are saved. Otherwise scientists are useless, coz you know they'll be wasted.
And don't forget a tank represents a whole regiments. So it makes a BIT more sense to waste shields. So you order 100 tanks at a time, maybe it won't be saved for your next ordering.
And they always save spare parts for repair too.
And it would be good if science beakers are saved. Otherwise scientists are useless, coz you know they'll be wasted.
And don't forget a tank represents a whole regiments. So it makes a BIT more sense to waste shields. So you order 100 tanks at a time, maybe it won't be saved for your next ordering.
And they always save spare parts for repair too.
Oystein
Warlord
Why? 75 is not much better than 70. The diffrence is 1 tank in 20 turns. Just the same diffrence as going from 75 to 80 shields. There is no point in micromanage so that no shields are carried over.
One scientist made the diffrence of one turn for me
But of course I would like the beakers to carry over.baldeagle
Copper Miner
I agree with Justin that cities should be able to share food (like in Civ 2).
For the rest, just keep it as is.
For the rest, just keep it as is.
Gengis Khan
Deity
Keep it the way it is. Microing separates the pesants from the kings.
I honestly don't like that in a 90 spt town thats producing tanks I'm burning 80 sheilds every 2 turns. You just have to understand that & produce other things there(artillary, infantry, ect...).
I honestly don't like that in a 90 spt town thats producing tanks I'm burning 80 sheilds every 2 turns. You just have to understand that & produce other things there(artillary, infantry, ect...).
OK I aren't going to build tanks forever. Plus 75x6=100x3 is enough for me to calculate, *75 shields have one more tank in 20 turns than 70 shields* etc is just beyond me. It feels the same to have 70 shields city produce tank in 2 turns than having 70 shields city produce 4 tanks in 6 turns and have 20 shields left over. In fact it feels worse.
Similar threads
