I did not think so. In the past I have had 2 buildings at 20%, put the culture slider at 10% and I get 2 happiness in the city (one from the pure culture, one from the 2 buildings).
Vokarya's Workshop: Buildings
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
I think I get it. The city screen rounds down for displaying individual buildings, but retains the fractions and adds them together to calculate the total happiness.
This is what I was looking at:
Ulundi gets +2 happiness from the difficulty level (Noble) and +1 happiness from Palace. With Culture spending at 30%, the left panel says Arena gives +3 happiness (+2 innate, +1 from cultural spending) and Theatre gives +2 (+1 innate, +1 from cultural spending).
But that isn't exactly true. The top panel says 12 total happiness. I can see these sources of happiness:
- 2 from difficulty level
- 1 from Palace
- 3 from Cultural spending at 1/10%
- 3 from Arena
- 2 from Theatre
I don't know if I would call this a bug, but it does result in unexpected behavior based on where you're looking.
I have never noticed the happy faces by the building change. I have looked at the happy faces by the culture slider, which does report correctly (6, 3 from pure culture and 3 from 2 * 20% buildings). This is the same in other mods, so certainly not a ROM-AND2 bug.
Yes, civic buildings don't have to be part of upgrade chains; the status of civic building is enough of a group that I don't see as much of a need to link them to anything else. The only thing I don't like about Free Port is it being limited to coastal cities.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Also, in all honesty, Free Port is one of the best civic buildings in this game and it's why I usually stick to Free Market until the end of the game.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
Free port for rivers too? Why not?
As Tolni noted, Free Port is a very good building. It's keeping me in Free Market also. If it's made available for River cities, then I would suggest its benefits be reduced somewhat. Even as it is, it's a very powerful building.
Also, separate question: why does the city say I have three employed citizens when two of the buildings which employ citizens are not active because the relevant civics are obsolete (i.e. I am no longer using them)? If the Manor and Estate (or was it Villa, can't remember...) are not active (red in the city's building list), they shouldn't employ citizens...
Cheers, A.
Also, separate question: why does the city say I have three employed citizens when two of the buildings which employ citizens are not active because the relevant civics are obsolete (i.e. I am no longer using them)? If the Manor and Estate (or was it Villa, can't remember...) are not active (red in the city's building list), they shouldn't employ citizens...
Cheers, A.
I noticed that too in my 1046 game. Some buildings that should have a red fist do not. I'm going to look into this myself.
Here's another building linkage I think we should do. Ceremonial Altar should upgrade to Universal Church (Secular civic building); Universal Church gets an additional +1 happiness and +1 Priest slot.
I tried to remove obsoleting for most buildings that get replaced. As long as you get some kind of benefit from upgrading your buildings, you should be allowed to keep using the old building until you are ready to upgrade. One of the things I removed was the obsoleting of the Ceremonial Altar at Humanism. I still want to stand by this design rule when the whole building concept doesn't get invalidated, such as what happens with Walls and Castles. Those are supposed to obsolete. Castle to Star Fort is a rare example of an actual "paradigm shift". The Castle is a military and government center, while the Star Fort is purely military.
The purpose of Ceremonial Altar is to serve as a proto-Temple for cities without a religion, especially in the early game. The problem is that Ceremonial Altar will also appear on the build list for a newly-founded city in the late eras, and if you aren't running State Church or Free Church, you may have a hard time spreading a religion to that city. I don't mind it if you're running a civic that will eventually allow you to spread your religion to the city, but if you are running any of the No State Religion later civics (Secular/Personality Cult/Atheist) then that's not very good. It also doesn't make much sense that a Modern Era city would still build an Ancient Era building. (There are a few stragglers from the Ancient Era still around in the Modern, like Apiary and Butchery; I'd like to consider doing something with them.)
With Secular, I think the obvious solution is to link together the Ceremonial Altar and the Universal Church. The UC needs 1 extra happiness so it isn't a downgrade from a Hemp-boosted CA, and the same goes for the 1 Priest slot. Culturally, the UC's flat +1 culture and +10% culture is an improvement over Ceremonial Altar's flat +1.
If we had civic buildings for Personality Cult and Atheist, then those would also be ideal replacements for the CA. I'd like an Atheist civic building to invalidate all religious buildings, but that would bloat its statistics to crazy levels.
I tried to remove obsoleting for most buildings that get replaced. As long as you get some kind of benefit from upgrading your buildings, you should be allowed to keep using the old building until you are ready to upgrade. One of the things I removed was the obsoleting of the Ceremonial Altar at Humanism. I still want to stand by this design rule when the whole building concept doesn't get invalidated, such as what happens with Walls and Castles. Those are supposed to obsolete. Castle to Star Fort is a rare example of an actual "paradigm shift". The Castle is a military and government center, while the Star Fort is purely military.
The purpose of Ceremonial Altar is to serve as a proto-Temple for cities without a religion, especially in the early game. The problem is that Ceremonial Altar will also appear on the build list for a newly-founded city in the late eras, and if you aren't running State Church or Free Church, you may have a hard time spreading a religion to that city. I don't mind it if you're running a civic that will eventually allow you to spread your religion to the city, but if you are running any of the No State Religion later civics (Secular/Personality Cult/Atheist) then that's not very good. It also doesn't make much sense that a Modern Era city would still build an Ancient Era building. (There are a few stragglers from the Ancient Era still around in the Modern, like Apiary and Butchery; I'd like to consider doing something with them.)
With Secular, I think the obvious solution is to link together the Ceremonial Altar and the Universal Church. The UC needs 1 extra happiness so it isn't a downgrade from a Hemp-boosted CA, and the same goes for the 1 Priest slot. Culturally, the UC's flat +1 culture and +10% culture is an improvement over Ceremonial Altar's flat +1.
If we had civic buildings for Personality Cult and Atheist, then those would also be ideal replacements for the CA. I'd like an Atheist civic building to invalidate all religious buildings, but that would bloat its statistics to crazy levels.
Does building a star fort block the action of the castle gatehouse? It seems like it would, and I think this would reduce the defence of a city, especially against the AI who frequently will not have seige when attacking. This always puts me off building a star fort, though I cannot think how to test if my castle gatehouses are still working.
I did some testing in WB. Adding a Star Fort to a city with a Castle Gatehouse did not turn off the Gatehouse. My unit targeting a rival city with Castle Gatehouse could not attack either with Castle or Star Fort present.
However, if a city can build a Star Fort, then naturally they won't be able to build a Castle Gatehouse because there won't be a Castle to build it with.
Could the Star Fort inherit the Gatehouse's ability? Or do we just live with the downgrade? The Moat, restricting movement around the city, would be in a similar position I imagine.
It always bothers me when supposed technical advancements result in loss of abilities. Like the loss of Flanking-Damage-capable units when horses go obsolete....
Regarding the Apiary and Butchery and Bakery, etc...: surely we could 'upgrade' those into Supermarkets or similar... I agree that they seem very out of place in the later eras.
Cheers, A.
It always bothers me when supposed technical advancements result in loss of abilities. Like the loss of Flanking-Damage-capable units when horses go obsolete....
Regarding the Apiary and Butchery and Bakery, etc...: surely we could 'upgrade' those into Supermarkets or similar... I agree that they seem very out of place in the later eras.
Cheers, A.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
I think you really should revert that change. This rule clearly hurt more than helps, especially in this particular case.
Maybe in this particular case. I don't think it hurts all the time. For example, I don't see a need for the Storyteller Circle or Elder Council to go formally obsolete if they're going to be replaced by better buildings. The obsolete points we have now seem to work, although there might be some that I consider questionable.
This particular situation is the result of an unintended interaction between late-game city founding, the anti-religion civics (because they combine No State Religion with No Non-State Religion Spread) and the Ceremonial Altar being a fallback building for Temples but never formally going obsolete. So I can see putting obsoleting back on the CA in this case.
Maybe we don't need to have both the Castle Gatehouse and the City Gatehouse. I like the Gatehouse mechanic.
Perhaps the following: cut City Gatehouse, rename Castle Gatehouse to Gatehouse. Gatehouse requires High Walls and Castle OR Star Fort. It goes obsolete when Walls go obsolete.
I'm thinking of moving the obsoleting point for Walls & related buildings from Rifling to Artillery. In AND, unlike BTS, basic Gunpowder units and gunpowder cavalry do NOT ignore building defense. Grenadiers and Modern Grenadiers, Bazooka and upgrades, tanks, and gunpowder artillery still do. So I'm thinking Artillery might be more appropriate here.
Regarding the ignoring of building defense: the help text says that units with high explosives ignore building defense, but I haven't seen anywhere what the heck "high explosives" means - your list here is the first I've ever heard of it. I like the AND approach, as you've described, that basic Gunpowder units don't ignore building defense, but there needs to be some better in-game feedback or explanation. Or: it needs to be simplified to "siege units ignore building defense", which is, in my view, much easier to understand and logical. Even some of the later modern units (e.g. infantry), in my view, shouldn't ignore building defense, but that's a separate issue really.
I like the delay of Walls obsoleting.
What about the moat? Allow also with Star Fort? I think the Star Fort itself could perhaps take on the moat's effect (zone of control); seems a bit daft to me to have to build a moat around a Star Fort...
Cheers, A.
How this actually works: there is an XML tag for <bIgnoreBuildingDefense> for each unit. If it's set to 1, that unit ignores defense bonuses from buildings. Cultural defenses and global defense bonuses still count. The ability "Ignores Building Defense" is visible in a unit's Civilopedia entry, but not its mouseover. I think if this was more visible, then we wouldn't need the parenthetical reminder text. The reminder text is trying to be helpful, but I think it's proving to be more confusing and redundant than helpful.
So I'm agreeing the text isn't very helpful. As I said before, there a lot of units that do ignore building defense, so we can't just limit it to one class. I don't think tanks or aircraft are going to be stymied by stone walls. For some reason, the obsoleting mechanic when used on buildings with defense specifically says that the defense bonus stays.
I had an idea for a mechanic of increasing layers of "ignores building defense" and "ignores ignores-building-defense". Buildings like Bunkers would ignore the first level of ignores building defense, but powerful artillery could go right through them, but something like Arcology Shield would cancel that out, but Nanite Swarm and Nanite Cloud could chew through anything. (For those familiar with the tabletop RPG GURPS, this is similar to the Hardened enhancement. In that game, Damage Reduction, from armor or other sources, reduces the damage dealt by an attack. Armor-piercing effects divide the DR by a number before comparing the damage to the DR. Hardened DR reduces the armor-piercing divisor when an armor-piercing effect hits it.)
In terms of the Moat effect; this is actually part of a separate module that Afforess created, specifically around buildings tied to Castles. Moat is one of them. We got rid of some of the more confusing ones (Balistria, Catacombs, Dungeon) but there are still some around. The Star Fort is one of my additions well after the Castles module was added. So I'm not exactly sure which direction to go, but I'm thinking about it.
Regarding building obsoleting: at this point, I don't think that Civil Servants School (Bureaucracy civic building, obsoletes at Relativity) and Shanty Town (Caste civic building, obsoletes at Civil Engineering) really need to obsolete. There are enough options to these civics that by the time you would reach the obsoleting point, you are probably already in another civic. Otherwise, it can be a small bonus for staying in that civic.
Also, Printer does not need to obsolete, as it is replaced by Press Agency. It is a bit of a paradigm shift from culture+science to culture+espionage, but there are enough other science buildings to pick up any losses.
Also, Printer does not need to obsolete, as it is replaced by Press Agency. It is a bit of a paradigm shift from culture+science to culture+espionage, but there are enough other science buildings to pick up any losses.
Now I think about it, seems daft a moat would run out to stop armies seeking to avoid the castle. That's more the function of watchtowers.
Anyway seems consistent if forts have ZOC star forts would too.
