Various proposals after playtesting 2.9

[raystuttgart]

... anyone ever thought about allowing Customs Houses the ability to purchase goods in addition to selling? I'm thinking about buying goods for the local market that I can't manufacture due to terrain, whathaveyou. Obviously, it'd be at a markup, similar to the discount on goods sold through the CH.

Well, you can suggest this in a new thread.
Maybe somebody is interested to implement it.

Personally I am not interested to implement it because I like to use Transports manually for Domestic Market.
For my style of gameplay there is no value in it - actually consider it a bit boring.

----

Generally though:

If the "markup" is high enough - e.g. at least +50% it would be ok for gameplay.
(So instead of 12 for Cigars bought in Europe, you would need to pay 16.)

It is quite a huge effort though.
Not only for UI but also to catch all the issues e.g. not running out of money.

----

If somebody wants to implement it with good UI and possibities for XML balancing are given, I have no issues with it.
It could then also become part of WTP. Considering gameplay there is no real reason to "not have it".

 

[Mr. ZorG]

You capture a City and Pillage every Improvement / Road it has.
Until the other Player comes back to have a chance to recapture it is all burnt down to ashes ...
I have seen already how MP players react to such things ... they hate it and scream if it is possible.

in 1812, the French probably also complained ...)
the capture of enemy territory or the defense of their own, it does not matter. cutting transport arteries has always played an important role in any war. this is logical. I personally do not understand why this leads to indignation.
but I heard your point of view on this issue.

 

[raystuttgart]

this is logical. I personally do not understand why this leads to indignation.

Yes it is "logical" and yes it is realistic. Nobody doubts that.
But not everything that is "realistic" or "logical" is a good idea in a game.

• In MP games these tactics are not fun to must players. I have seen MP players complain often enough about such things.
  
• It is unfair to AI. AI can simply not use it and has absolutely no idea how to counter it.

I personally do not understand why this leads to indignation.

There is no "indignation" from my side.

I just try to explain the consequences this might / will have.
I also want to prevent myself from getting complaints (from e.g. @devolution or MP players) in the future, nothing more.

So sorry if this here and this here sounded like I am idignated.

----

Summary:

I have never discussed about "realistic" or "logical".
I have discussed about "is it a good idea" considering gameplay for MP and AI / War of Independence - to implement something to be used as exploit.

I am also not discussing about effort or risk to implement this "human only feature" / "exploit" - because it will never be understood by AI anyways.
Because effort and ristk to make it is really low. So if the rest of the team really thinks it is a good idea, I would even implement it ...

 

[Mr. ZorG]

no, no, no, @raystuttgart , I didn’t talk about you, I meant the players)
sorry, but I remember about AI in the very last place, because I am a player, not a programmer) I’m learning to remember him, but so far it’s not working out very well))

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Ray, there are plenty of things to do, but if you don't discuss them, they'll end) in the end, a topic for small discussions...

about roads: I captured a city, the road to which runs through the mountains. if you leave a road there, the enemy can cross the mountains using the road. but if I have the opportunity to remove this road on my territory, then in the passage between the mountains I will put a fort and the enemy will have to try to pass through it.
...

Does an own road prevent you from building a fort?

 

[Nightinggale]

Does an own road prevent you from building a fort?

No. Forts are improvements and roads are routetypes. Those two can coexist just as a farm and a road can coexist.

 

[raystuttgart]

Does an own road prevent you from building a fort?

No, you misunderstood @Mr. ZorG

He wants to remove a Road on a Mountain because that Road on the Mountain allows to bypass a "Valley".
Then he can build a Fort in the "Valley" and create a "bottleneck" in the "Valley" to defend his borders.

 

[historix69]

A Mountain Fort could guard the mountain road and should be more powerful than a Valley Fort, e.g. when bombarding troops passing by in the valley below.

 

[Derek Brown]

Read the replies. Understood on the scrapping buildings. No further comments, and agree it wasn't a real gameplay issue, just a nice creature feature for looks.

I just thought of another one while playing just now, maybe this one is easy. Should be very valuable. The total production screen for all settlements combined, I like that, especially how it shows total in storage below it. Can there be another row below it showing total domestic demand? That way you can best help plan your finished goods production growth. Hopefully that one is worthwhile with regard to programming time.

 

[raystuttgart]

@Mr. ZorG

Sat down yesterday and analyzed the problem "Pillaging Road is Exploit" vs. "Pillaging Road is Strategical Choice".
The solution is actually incredibly simple once you systematically analyze it.

All that needs to be done:

• Remove the Exploit (by making it less efficient)
  
• Add more Strategic Decision (by price for benefit)

We can simply do it like this:

• We call it "Remove Road" (not "Pillage Road")
• It will of course only remove Roads (not Improvements)
• It will only be available on Plots with Roads in own Cultural Borders
• It will take some time (and not happen instanty) <-- Remove Exploit
  
• Since it takes time, the Player can also undo if he accidently clicked wrong <-- Prevent UI errors
  
• It will also cost some Gold (but less than building Road) <-- Add Strategic Decision
  
• It will stay "Human Only" but that is no problem because cases are really rare

Effects:

• It will not be interesting as exploit anymore (since it takes time and costs gold)
• It will still allow you to strategically remove Roads (on e.g. mountains to create bottle necks in valleys)

----

Summary:

I will implement it this weekend.
I like it that way and it is little effort to implement.
Will create a button for it myself, if I do not get support of a graphical modder ...

 

[Mr. ZorG]

it's great)
and yes, I probably put it wrong - I needed the opportunity not to Pillage, but to remove only the road)

A Mountain Fort could guard the mountain road and should be more powerful than a Valley Fort, e.g. when bombarding troops passing by in the valley below.

forts cannot be built on mountains, only on hills and valleys ...

By the way, @raystuttgart , why was it forbidden to build forts on the mountains?

 

[raystuttgart]

By the way, @raystuttgart , why was it forbidden to build forts on the mountains?

1. Considering immersion (Hills would be ok, but real Mountains? )
2. AI would have problems using it like that (due to Mountain Movement Rules needing Roads and "Forts" being one of the most complex AI logics in the game.)
3. The graphics would look really ugly on Mountains (You can try that in Worldbuilder)
4. You could easily exploit it now* by building a Fort on a Mountain first then remove the Road (AI could never get you out of there again)
...

now*: The change for "Remove Road" would now make this possible.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

the fact is that I had roads on the mountain, but I could not build a fort - there was no button. I will of course check it again. but it will only be next week. if you have the opportunity, check it out too.

 

[modmod]

Road removing as strategic decision are fine, love it.

So I do not even understand the need to have some "scrap buildings" ...

I easily imagine it from a pure economic perspective.

Let`s say XY goods price are fallen greatly because of overproduction - no longer worth it.
Jet another is still expensive in Europe so worth to have instead of the previous, so instead of import again stone/ other materials simple better to scrap a non-profutable building and create a profitable one.

As for AI:
Can determine it also from an economic prospective.
Yield prices can used as basis, like difference in <iBuyPriceHigh> and actual, if the later less than 50% then do not build further levels, if under 25% even start to scrap.

Well... after the second look of goods prices in the original mod... yuk, I forget how bad those were... with so little differences.

 

[raystuttgart]

I easily imagine it from a pure economic perspective.

As already explained, we will not do that in WTP.

Definitely a "nogo" for me ! --> Team Member "Veto"
It would simply allow "burned soil" exploits against AI and Multiplayer.

I will not change my "Team Member" veto on that one.
(This "scapping idea" is still an exploit, outrageous effort and unreasonable risk.)

 

[raystuttgart]

the fact is that I had roads on the mountain, but I could not build a fort - there was no button. I will of course check it again. but it will only be next week. if you have the opportunity, check it out too.

I know that there is no button, I had forbidden Forts on Mountains on purpose.
It is not a bug, it is working as designed.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Those are the reasons why I did that:

1. Considering immersion (Hills would be ok, but real Mountains? )
2. AI would have problems using it like that (due to Mountain Movement Rules needing Roads and "Forts" being one of the most complex AI logics in the game.)
3. The graphics would look really ugly on Mountains (You can try that in Worldbuilder)

And now we even have one more reason to forbid it (as I had already done):

You could easily exploit it now* by building a Fort on a Mountain first then remove the Road (AI could never get you out of there again)
...

Summary:

I never wanted to have Forts on Mountains.
(And I would definitly put a Veto to it because it really is a very bad idea - see reasons above)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Yes, probably)

 

[Nightinggale]

I just thought of another one while playing just now, maybe this one is easy. Should be very valuable. The total production screen for all settlements combined, I like that, especially how it shows total in storage below it. Can there be another row below it showing total domestic demand? That way you can best help plan your finished goods production growth. Hopefully that one is worthwhile with regard to programming time.

My plan is to remove that page and then make some pages display two tables, one is the current one and the other has just one line displaying the total. I started rewriting all pages to a new system, but I didn't finish it before getting sidetracked and started to work on other tasks.

An interesting note is that I store the columns in an InfoArray. This mean cargo and building columns basically use the same drawing code and it's prepared to show fewer columns like the domestic market while still using the same drawing code.

If people have ideas for what the domestic advisor should do, then I propose starting a new thread about it where it can be discussed.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

1. Considering immersion (Hills would be ok, but real Mountains? )
2. AI would have problems using it like that (due to Mountain Movement Rules needing Roads and "Forts" being one of the most complex AI logics in the game.)
3. The graphics would look really ugly on Mountains (You can try that in Worldbuilder)
4. You could easily exploit it now* by building a Fort on a Mountain first then remove the Road (AI could never get you out of there again)
...

now*: The change for "Remove Road" would now make this possible.

Isn´t that how they tried to exile Dracula in the movie Van Helsing?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I know that there is no button, I had forbidden Forts on Mountains on purpose.
It is not a bug, it is working as designed.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Those are the reasons why I did that:


And now we even have one more reason to forbid it (as I had already done):


Summary:

I never wanted to have Forts on Mountains.
(And I would definitly put a Veto to it because it really is a very bad idea - see reasons above)