Author Topic: Taking new regions becoming historically harder  (Read 30720 times)

Phellan

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
I think one of the issues with dropping production values to mid-low levels as "normal" is that the game play already established relies on regions being able to provide the 100% levels for food / gold production.

This again falls under the punishment idea - it doesn't matter if you reduce the normal gold output or not.   You're fundamentally altering the game play because of the changes to food and gold incomes from regions and cities.

I still think there should be a variety of estate types and that these should provide minimal bonuses to the regions in different areas - production, maximum tax level, travel speed, loyalty, food output, cost to repair, cost to train (effectiveness of training), or religious conversion / happiness.   There could be all sorts of secondary bonuses for fielding different combinations of estates as well.   It provides a larger set of "options" for players, can make each region unique (a city with say estates that boosts training effectiveness for a unit type and decreased repair costs would make for a more military oriented city, then one which had estates that provided a small bonus to tax collection unhappiness levels and production facilities and focused on making money.

Small, beneficial effects to the region that provide incentive to have estates - INCENTIVES.

None of this "well just take stuff away and make it normalized".   That's the same idea that was running around when estates first went into the game.    Put benefits in to estates - rather than taking away things and make estates readjust them to the way they were previously.   Its not a benefit if it just makes up for something we reduced that was there previously.

Sure - make 80% a normal - but maybe then there should be a 25% increase to gold and food productions for all regions?  THAT makes it equal and normalizes the game play - that way if you get to a 100% there actually is some positive effect on the net outcome as it stands now, rather than just having the net outcome of reducing all food and gold supplies by 20% as it stands proposed.