BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Topic started by: Galvez on May 09, 2011, 01:10:43 PM
-
#Annoying.. Tons of investments (ok, not that much), but a lot of gold has been wasted becuase our infrastructure breaks down. Everything we built seems to dissappear. Recruitment centres, armour/weapon smith, house of healing and what not. I don't understand it, while our production might be low, we have enough gold to pay for the maintenance for these buildings. Does anyone know why this happens?
-
#Annoying.. Tons of investments (ok, not that much), but a lot of gold has been wasted becuase our infrastructure breaks down. Everything we built seems to dissappear. Recruitment centres, armour/weapon smith, house of healing and what not. I don't understand it, while our production might be low, we have enough gold to pay for the maintenance for these buildings. Does anyone know why this happens?
I think the code works as to inflict damage on every building if production is not at least a certain absolute amount. I really don't like this: the threshold should be set as a function of the maximum production achievable given the population.
Low production with high population means degraded infrastructures and badly taken care of structures, and this can rightfully lead to building damage. But low production just because there is little population, to me, means that vast areas of the region are left wild due to lack of manpower, but the few inhabited zones are well taken care of. I believe there should be no damage in the latter case.
Usually one can avoid losing a very nice RC by keeping it at lvl 2. When it reaches 100% damage it should just lose a level and not lose the entire building, but still it's a painful waste of money.
-
Low population.
-
#Annoying.. Tons of investments (ok, not that much), but a lot of gold has been wasted becuase our infrastructure breaks down. Everything we built seems to dissappear. Recruitment centres, armour/weapon smith, house of healing and what not. I don't understand it, while our production might be low, we have enough gold to pay for the maintenance for these buildings. Does anyone know why this happens?
Ah yes, I was wondering if you/your character knew about this. Brackern was in Ordenstaat once or twice, and got reports from there another few times. They had a range 4, 85/55 archer center. Sweet! Unfortunately it also fell apart. Took me a while to figure out how that happened. Now I saw your barracks disappear in Rettleville, just confirmed my theory.
Which was pretty much what has already been said ;)
And yes, I find it somewhat silly that one cannot repair the center if given (enough) gold. Unless it is a matter of there not being enough labour to effect the repairs (or something).
-
Exactly. Haven't you paid attention to the times when you can't do civil work or organize repairs, stating that infrastructure is the best it can be for this population? Or when the daily region reports state lowered manpower drains production? As always, it doesn't matter how rich you are. Gold is just a pretty element if you don't have the labor to do something practical in exchange for the gold.
-
Exactly. Haven't you paid attention to the times when you can't do civil work or organize repairs, stating that infrastructure is the best it can be for this population? Or when the daily region reports state lowered manpower drains production? As always, it doesn't matter how rich you are. Gold is just a pretty element if you don't have the labor to do something practical in exchange for the gold.
Sure, but how many people would it take to repair and maintain a few buildings? If the resources and labour can be found for it to be built, it can be maintained. Same argument for necessary expertise.
Rather make it impossible to build the stuff below a certain percentage production or a certain population, and then if one or both drop below that, then make them take damage.
-
As was noted, if you bump it up to level 2, you should be fine, you just have to keep it at level 2. As soon as it downgrades, upgrade it again.
-
I know that medieval buildings aren't as architectural advanced as modern buildings, but it makes no sense that the buildings would fall apart due to low population. And the maintenance cost most likely include payments as well, as otherwise the costs are ridiculously high for just the upkeep of a building each week. And is it population or production related? Because of the 1500 commoners in Rettleville, you aren't going to tell me that non of them is a blacksmith. And with the same production, but given a bigger city, e.g. Giask, you would have around 11.500 commoners at the same productivity level.
I can understand that the infrastructure would not run at full capacity due to lowered population, but that the buildings would 'disappear' is just unrealistic. And I hope one of the devs can take a look at it.
-
As was noted, if you bump it up to level 2, you should be fine, you just have to keep it at level 2. As soon as it downgrades, upgrade it again.
We do not have the gold for such continues investments, and I am certain that Hireshmont shouldn't want to finance that for us as well.
-
I don't know what it would be "realistically", but I'm going to say that it works out in terms of a strategy game. An invading army could do some damage while they're in the region, but the deaths they cause, and the fear and other lasting impacts will leave a place in ruins. Likewise, your peasants of Rettleville have been living in fear of monsters for a long time, and have seen their former human noble rulers fail them. Realistic or not, this does make sense, in a twisted way on Dwilight. Don't go for a new place unless you have a buddy to protect you while you build up population to maintain your investments. Don't like it? Well, there are over a dozen realms on Dwilight. Downsizing the number of human realms isn't a big deal.
-
Don't go for a new place unless you have a buddy to protect you while you build up population to maintain your investments.
Our walls and own troops are very sufficient in keeping the monsters out of Rettleville, and we have Terran and D'Hara add our side to protect us.
But that the buildings disappear just doesn't sound logical, nor realistic. I know you can't do anything about it, but I do not appreciate the attitude; "Don't like it, then just abandon Barca."
-
Tch, that is not what I said.
I said: Don't go for it in the first place if you can't be protected. And there's a good reason I said that.
Why do you need outside help? Because you didn't build your own RCs because you know they will disappear before they can hit the necessary population to remain stable! It all makes sense now, doesn't it?
To summarize: If you can't get help before you make the realm, don't make the realm in the first place unless you're really that intent on it. Once you do set up the realm though, and it has very low population that will remain so for a while, and you have outside support to protect you (note the "and", which implies conjunction, meaning both conditions must be true), then you should refrain from building anything if you're really that worried about decay. That's why you have your buddies protecting you while you get to the point where you can safely keep your own facilities. It doesn't mean you have to wait until you hit the necessary number. You can even time it if you are that diligent such that your RCs and whatnot get to be about 90% damaged by the time you hit the "stable/repair point".
That was what I suggested, by far not to abandon it. Rather, it was to think a little about how to lessen the damage if you cared about it.
-
Still, I think it would make sense if a region with 5'000 commoners could fitted out like a rural region with max 5'000 peasants. It doesn't matter if there is room for 95'000 commoners in the city.
-
Yeah, if you have enough people to fit some town in Montana you still can't run New York City, not even in part, nor as some strange analogue of that Montana town. There's this thing called infrastructure that is not very good with being forced to operate differently. A city planner, or civil engineer, could give a heck lot better talk than me, but the end point is that, generally speaking, there is a certain cut-off point for the type of sectors you have. Er, in other words, no, having 5000 people who can work fields in some rural region does not mean you can run your city like that. For one thing, there's a lot more to run in a city to make it satisfy the minimum...level. Yeah, my technical language in this is lacking, meh. Maybe Medieval towns could downsize, who knows. But the "does it make sense" part can run both ways.
And if nothing else, it's a game mechanic that basically says, "Dude, use your brain before you take actions."
-
But that's exactly what I mean. 5'000 pop rurals can withstand recruitment centers; why can't "cities" do so unless they're full?
It would make sense that a city can only hold level 1 RCs when it's small, and can hold bigger and bigger RC's when they get bigger. It doesn't make sense that the lvl 1 RC falls apart only because there is room left in the city.
And I know not everything has to make sense; I'm just pointing out that it would.
-
Well, one consideration is that the recruitment centers aren't the same in both regions. Yes, technically they're the "same" in terms of cost and size. But if we're talking about whether it makes sense, one would think design, material, space, maintenance, would differ. You're talking about different environments here, where people have different requirements to keep the region actually working, different exposures to the buildings. For example, in a rural region you might have problems with lots of animals relieving themselves next to the RC, or maybe those tenacious ivy plants keep climbing up the walls. In a city, you instead have those darn vandals thinking they're cool by inscribing their names on the walls using a hammer and chisel, or homeless commoners relieving themselves next to the RC.
So...why does it work in a rural and not a city? Because they are inherently different, even if not in terms of game mechanics. Game mechanics just uses the population, so it seems. And it makes sense that if you can fill up a rural region with 5000 people, that means you have exactly enough, or perhaps slightly more, people who actually can maintain RCs and such buildings. In a city, you get 5000 people, most of whom must fill in the bare minimum to keep the city running. The rest? Who knows what they are. You wouldn't trust a barber to fix the walls of your RC, would you? That's the point I think. Rather than do the rather difficult task of tracking down just what each peasant in your city does, it uses probabilities. At that percentage of total population, then it is likely that you have enough masons, builders, architects, thatchers, whatever, to maintain your infrastructure. Before that, there is a low probability of having the right people, and so the game just considers it as you don't have them, and you suffer decay.
-
It would make sense that a city can only hold level 1 RCs when it's small, and can hold bigger and bigger RC's when they get bigger. It doesn't make sense that the lvl 1 RC falls apart only because there is room left in the city.
That is the point I am trying to make. And restricting the size of RC's might be a good alternative.
-
Still, I think it would make sense if a region with 5'000 commoners could fitted out like a rural region with max 5'000 peasants. It doesn't matter if there is room for 95'000 commoners in the city.
Thing is, when you've got the 5000 people in a city built for 95000, they're not all concentrated in one part of the city. They're spread out all around it, trying to keep as much of it running as they can.
So yeah, maybe we could make it so you could keep an RC going in a city without enough population to normally sustain it—but the price for that is that you can't cash bonds. Or you can't actually trade any food, because the warehouse managers were conscripted to help maintain the RC. Or the food all rots, because the people trying to maintain the warehouse itself were pressed into service, and now the warehouse has fallen down.
You see, it's just not that simple.
The one change that would make some sense—and we're considering something like it as part of a near-future feature—would be letting you allocate some extra gold to repairs, so you make less money, but at least your RC doesn't fall down.
Yet.
-
If population is the problem, I can not get to it with some common sense that the building would deteriorate so fast that it is not usable any more. The rate at which you will train soldiers is already reduced due to lowered population, and additional to that the buildings will decay as well. Then I would say as well, restrict the amount of RC's (and there level) and/or workshops you can build. To allocate extra gold for repairs would help greatly, but is does not take away that the buildings deteriorate just too fast, and the cost for repairs and maintenance would be insanely high. That's just my opinion.
But for the moment, Anaris, do you know at what population/production can we successfully construct workshops and RC's without having to fear that the gold will be wasted?
-
If population is the problem, I can not get to it with some common sense that the building would deteriorate so fast that it is not usable any more. The rate at which you will train soldiers is already reduced due to lowered population, and additional to that the buildings will decay as well. Then I would say as well, restrict the amount of RC's (and there level) and/or workshops you can build. To allocate extra gold for repairs would help greatly, but is does not take away that the buildings deteriorate just too fast, and the cost for repairs and maintenance would be insanely high. That's just my opinion.
This game's philosophy is not to hold your hand, but rather to give you enough rope to hang yourself. If you want to build RCs when they're just going to fall down, that's your problem.
But for the moment, Anaris, do you know at what population/production can we successfully construct workshops and RC's without having to fear that the gold will be wasted?
Not offhand, I'm afraid.
-
Haha, sure, don't believe Artemesia when he says the same thing Anaris basically said. ::)
-
Haha, sure, don't believe Artemesia when he says the same thing Anaris basically said. ::)
You are a dubious source.
And aligned with the Zuma. Even OOC.
-
As was noted, if you bump it up to level 2, you should be fine, you just have to keep it at level 2. As soon as it downgrades, upgrade it again.
We do not have the gold for such continues investments, and I am certain that Hireshmont shouldn't want to finance that for us as well.
That's what we had to do in Astrum. Several of our RCs broke down from size 2 to 1, and we built them back up to keep them around. Same with the smithies, too. We lost at least 2 in Libidizedd before the production grew enough to sustain one.
The lord can see the damage level of buildings. So have the lord check it every now and then. Keep track of how fast they deteriorate, so you know when to bump them up to lvl 2. It's basically the same thing as ordering your population to maintain building while producing less gold. The end results are the same: A level 1 center that sticks around, and less gold in your pocket.
-
You are a dubious source.
And aligned with the Zuma. Even OOC.
That is a mighty big assumption you're making there, and a rather incorrect one. Now when have I ever been misleading on mechanics?
-
This game's philosophy is not to hold your hand, but rather to give you enough rope to hang yourself. If you want to build RCs when they're just going to fall down, that's your problem.
Not offhand, I'm afraid.
I thank you for that stimulating answer. But it says nothing about how it is possible the centres decay when they are barely used.
-
You know, if you would like to make a feature request about some way to offset RC and other facility decay when the requisite population numbers are not reached, then please by all means. Continuing to go on this line in this thread will probably end in...one way. Someone with authority will basically say "That's just the way it is. I'm not going to change it. End of story."
It has happened before, please don't make me dig up examples in the old Dlist archives...But yeah *points to the Feature Requests board*
-
If anyone could tell me why and how the current system works as it does, I might be able to come up with an alternative. I can only conclude at the moment that it makes little sense. And some have been so kind to explain how we can circumvent game mechanics, yet when the latest is required, I believe there is something wrong.
-
Uh, I think it's been made pretty clear, unless there's something I'm reading wrong. Low population below a certain point, possibly a percentage of the maximum population, will lead to decay.
That's the end explanation in terms of the mechanic.
Now, if you think it makes no sense realistically, we can discuss that, but perhaps Feature Requests (if you think it deserves changes) or Background (if you just want to talk about how exactly those Medieval commoners maintained buildings) might yield more focused results.
Here, in this thread? At any moment now we could go back to talking about some other topic regarding Barca.
-
You can attest to it that it is only a result of low population. That it will not happen when production has stopped for a month, while there is enough population. I heard a higher production will repair your buildings. Then it might work the other way around as well. And you still do not cover the 'why'. I believe everything is implanted for a reason. So why does the current system work as it does?
And if a forum moderator would be willing to place our recent discussion about the decay of buildings among the feature request, we already have a base to build on. But given the attitude of one of the dev members, I've little hope changing from forum would help anything if the devs do not recognize it as a 'fault' within the current system.
-
The final answer to any questions of why ultimately lend to Tom's reply, if it comes to that.
The answer I can come up with is because of possible fairness. Let's remember that this is still a game about competing against other realms to win battles. It would be fair that those who are capable of protecting their population would benefit from more stable infrastructure. This is quite obvious, in fact, as those who allow themselves to get looted will obviously run the risk of losing out in the region. Damaging infrastructure can directly damage an RC.
Ok, now let's say that we have two regions, A and B. A's lord is getting his region utterly pounded left and right by the enemy. There is nothing he can do, and the realm is not exactly helpful either. Oh well, that's tough. Note this doesn't have to mean lowered population due to fighting necessarily. If the lord doesn't know how to take care of his own region's food supply, then he also deserves the negative consequences of his negligence/ineptitude. Now let's say B's lord is diligent and belongs to a strong realm that can protect his region. He looks after his warehouses as well such that the peasants never starve. Good for him, he gets to have nice shiny buildings.
So my take is that in essence it allows a difference to appear between those who are able to take care of their regions, and those who aren't. Now you will most likely point out that Barca isn't in that situation, for which I will say you are quite correct. But therein also lies the original point: A clear difference between those who are capable of taking care of their regions and those who aren't.
Barca has allies who can protect Rettleville, who might also be capable of supplying it with food. That way, while Rettleville is essentially empty of Barcan facilities, foreign aid can keep it alive. That should be the essence of a colony, you know. The British didn't stay in America for almost two hundred years just because they thought it was fun, yeah?
Now, if on the other hand, you were swimming on your own, then it simply is an added hardship that punishes you for making the mistake of setting off unprepared for a colony. This is something I think some people don't quite get on Dwilight. Colonies, in the usual sense of the word, does not mean "fire and forget". It means you cultivate it meticulously for a fairly long time, like a personal garden, which you protect from the elements, from disease, from pests, until one day your seeds sprout into plants that actually bear fruit.
-
That is a mighty big assumption you're making there, and a rather incorrect one. Now when have I ever been misleading on mechanics?
No, it's correct. I saw that blood-stained altar in your closet.
It was a joke.
-
I have an itching feeling that some people actually think that seriously though. ...Both parts. And that is a bit unsettling. Not sure if they're aware that I am in fact capable of OOC/IC separation (Woah, shock, huh?) for the latter. And for the former...Let's just say I know how lots of links work (Because I've tried them out and recorded what happened on a notepad file...) and what happens in certain situations (Did I mention notepad is your friend?), even without having access to the code like Anaris and Foundation and Tom, because I make wild guesses that happen to be less incorrect than somewhat correct. I also keep notes of observations that are obscure (So no, I'm not that obsessed that I would actually make a spreadsheet of links corresponding to their game-mechanics effects with subsheets linked to the different options for some pages with a dropdown menu. No, I'm not using strangely specific denial either. I really don't have such a spreadsheet, and even if I did I wouldn't share it with you.)
-
I thank you for that stimulating answer. But it says nothing about how it is possible the centres decay when they are barely used.
If you aren't using a building, it is fair to assume that no one is up keeping it either. Similar to decrepit unused buildings in almost any city in the world. The game is assuming that the production of the region is being put to other uses, and as no one is doing building maintenance, the building is decaying. Pretty simple.
-
Alternatively, grues.
That probably explains it.
-
Alternatively, grues.
That probably explains it.
I would only believe that if there are different decay rates between the day and night turn. Also, there should be a phase offset between the different continents to account for time zones, and polar zones should see a seasonal effect on top. By looking at the decay rates, maybe we can finally figure out the exact latitude and longitude of the different continents?
-
Barca has allies who can protect Rettleville, who might also be capable of supplying it with food. That way, while Rettleville is essentially empty of Barcan facilities, foreign aid can keep it alive. That should be the essence of a colony, you know. The British didn't stay in America for almost two hundred years just because they thought it was fun, yeah?
Foreign aid keeps us alive. But after almost 100 days still not being able to have at least one recruitment centre of your own and a blacksmith. That is the bare minimum any realm should have.
If you aren't using a building, it is fair to assume that no one is up keeping it either. Similar to decrepit unused buildings in almost any city in the world. The game is assuming that the production of the region is being put to other uses, and as no one is doing building maintenance, the building is decaying. Pretty simple.
We are using it, only due to the lowered production, we do not acquire new recruits at the same rate as other regions/realms. And while the building exists, we are paying for its maintenance. If there are not enough people to maintain the building, how could we have constructed it in the first place?
-
Save Thysan, save the world! That's the region that will have to support some recruitment centers, not Rettleville. Rettleville won't be doing anything until you got the City's support settled. Of course, not the easiest task with the Rogue Forces having a party in Rettlewood.
-
You might want to delay your arrival. Some rogue forces are moving to Rettleville and we will have to defend our walls. Of course, I do not know how much cs you bring, but we can not aid you if you arrive in Rettlewood at sunset.
-
I should be fine in Echiur then ;)
Anyway, that probably should be handled IC.
-
Foreign aid keeps us alive. But after almost 100 days still not being able to have at least one recruitment centre of your own and a blacksmith. That is the bare minimum any realm should have.
We are using it, only due to the lowered production, we do not acquire new recruits at the same rate as other regions/realms. And while the building exists, we are paying for its maintenance. If there are not enough people to maintain the building, how could we have constructed it in the first place?
If you have a large manor, but are only utilising a few rooms, then without a regular and extensive maintenance program it is likely those rooms will fall into disrepair. The damage may be so significant that it would cause structural damage to the rest of the building. If you MUST have a RP reason for something that is place for game balance reasons, then perhaps something along those lines will suit. Building and Maintenance are two very different task by the way. Building is a finite task, after which the work force can be tasked to other jobs. Maintenance is ongoing. It is quite plausible to be able to build something and then find you cannot spare the required workforce to maintain it.
-
That is a mighty big assumption you're making there, and a rather incorrect one. Now when have I ever been misleading on mechanics?
Its not in what you say, but how you say it. Put it down to your anti-charisma ;)
-
Am I hearing a challenge? I think I am.
-
A challenge good sir? Nay, 'tis but a banana. Rather oddly shaped, but still, there it is.
-
My flesh wounds will heal fast enough. I'll be back. To buy food from Barca.
-
I completely agree that the whole string of posts relating to "How does population/production affect building damage/repair" should be discussed somewhere else. Perhaps the Helpline forum.
-
If you have a large manor, but are only utilising a few rooms, then without a regular and extensive maintenance program it is likely those rooms will fall into disrepair. The damage may be so significant that it would cause structural damage to the rest of the building. If you MUST have a RP reason for something that is place for game balance reasons, then perhaps something along those lines will suit. Building and Maintenance are two very different task by the way. Building is a finite task, after which the work force can be tasked to other jobs. Maintenance is ongoing. It is quite plausible to be able to build something and then find you cannot spare the required workforce to maintain it.
How long does it take for a building to decay, in-game probable two seasons, half a year. It can be longer, it can be shorter. I do not know the exact numbers. Unless acid rain is pouring down upon the building, I can not see how a building becomes damaged beyond repair with half a year.
And we are paying gold for the maintenance of these buildings each week. Whom are we paying it to if there isn't any maintenance ongoing?
I completely agree that the whole string of posts relating to "How does population/production affect building damage/repair" should be discussed somewhere else. Perhaps the Helpline forum.
I'll pm a mod to move it to an appropriate forum.
-
How long does it take for a building to decay, in-game probable two seasons, half a year. It can be longer, it can be shorter. I do not know the exact numbers. Unless acid rain is pouring down upon the building, I can not see how a building becomes damaged beyond repair with half a year.
OK, so then we need to make the time scales more realistic. Does that include making food take 5 or 6 RL months to grow? And how about maybe a year or two to fully recover from being knifed in the back? And how about multiple *decades* for a region to grow from 100 pop to 60,000?
-
Good point. :) Then again, my latest question. We are paying gold for maintenance, yet the workshops aren't being maintained.
-
Good point. :) Then again, my latest question. We are paying gold for maintenance, yet the workshops aren't being maintained.
This I think is a good point. If the stuff isn't being maintained, then maintenance payments make little sense.
-
This I think is a good point. If the stuff isn't being maintained, then maintenance payments make little sense.
Where do you live? I want to move there if you don't have to pay for maintenance when nothing gets maintained. ;D
-
Where do you live? I want to move there if you don't have to pay for maintenance when nothing gets maintained. ;D
Haha, true. But then again, you don't hold the power of life or death over the people that 'maintain' your building.
-
Maybe they're those extreme building maintenance workers who'd rather die than not get paid as per the Peasants' Pseudo-Union League?
It is at first illogical, but if you think about it, the building does cost something to keep it open. And it is technically open. You can draft for RCs. Not much you can do about the other buildings. You can force a tournament to be held in a decrepit Tournament Grounds though. So I think that cost could reflect the mere fact of its existence. Maybe some sort of contract among nobles that goes unsaid is that any commercial or military facilities that are sanctioned by the nobility cost the region money to maintain?
Hm, that does offer an analogy. Some city parks look like utter wastelands. Nevertheless, the city does spend money on them. What exactly that money is doing, who knows.
-
My only suggestion would be that you are paying a team of workers to maintain the building but due to there being so few people and such a big city to maintain in addition to the recruitment center they are working on, they just do not get around to doing it.
I kind of envision each city/town/region having a pool of individuals capable of doing this kind of maintenance work. These people are responsible for maintaining roads, residences, places of business, recruitment centers, smithies and all that. The simple fact it that by default these little worker bees are scrambling to accomplish 100 tasks with only enough time to complete 20 of them. By paying them to care for our recruitment centers we are simply adding more to their list.
The thing is we can not prioritize things for them. We can not say "Keep these 10 blocks in good repair for yourselves, take care of all noble and governmental establishments and all recruitment centers and buildings and such. Let the rest be. We know that will make it difficult for new immigrant to establish themselves, just do as you are told." It does suck but I kind of get it.
On the flip side one could look it as saying "I pay an initial lump of money for materials and manpower to build a structure. Once built I pay maintenance fees. Theses fees provide the materials for repairs and fund a dedicated work force that takes care of all upkeep for this structure." This could work and could provide justification for allowing recruitment centers to keep kicking when the population is very low. The mechanics of the game, however, do not seem to support this view.
-
We're not talking big money here, even to a fledgling realm. If you have two size 1 RCs and a smithy, that's only 6 gold a week. Not even a brand new realm is going to be seriously inconvenienced by 6 gold a week.
Would it be nice to not have to pay it if it's not going to be maintained anyway? Sure. Why not. I don't think the way the mechanics are now is the perfect balance. The implications of paying maintenance when you weren't getting any was probably never even considered when the two separate mechanics were implemented. But to be honest, the return on the coding effort is, let's be polite here, negligible.
What would be better, perhaps, is a system where a region has the ability to maintain X sizes/points/levels of buildings, with each building costing a preset number of points. The lord can choose to build whatever he wants, but if he goes over the limit, then the buildings slowly start to take damage, just as they do now. The higher the pop, the more you can support. But that's a blue-sky idea. Don't count on it ever getting implemented. :(
-
What would be better, perhaps, is a system where a region has the ability to maintain X sizes/points/levels of buildings, with each building costing a preset number of points. The lord can choose to build whatever he wants, but if he goes over the limit, then the buildings slowly start to take damage, just as they do now. The higher the pop, the more you can support. But that's a blue-sky idea. Don't count on it ever getting implemented. :(
I'll settle for it. On this rate (20-35 immigrants a day), it could take another 100 days before we can successfully maintain anything in Rettleville.
-
Think about a basically abandoned city. A squatter sees an RC as a nice place to hunker down for the night. He can sneak in because there's not enough people to patrol at night. Once he's in, he lights a cozy fire, and dozes off. Unfortunately, the fire escapes the hearth and spreads to the building. Since there aren't enough people to man the bucket bigrade, the RC burns to the ground.
Or, you could say that people stole the building, piece by piece, to build their own houses. Etc etc.
Basically, Rettleville's population is like New Orleans a day after Katrina hit.
-
Although, we are not recovering from a natural disaster. And we have a happy and loyal population.
-
just think of the paid maintenance as guards/fuel, etc, rather than fixing stuff maintenance i guess
-
Although, we are not recovering from a natural disaster. And we have a happy and loyal population.
I would consider hordes of undead and werebears to be a supernatural disaster, actually. And just because your army killed the organized ones, doesn't mean that there aren't a few shamblers locked in a forgotten cellar, to be discovered by new tenants, who drop a lantern in terror and burn a square mile of city.
-
What I personally don't like is that a 2500 population rural (out of 2500) could have "enough manpower" to maintain a ton of RCs and other buildings, while a 2500 population city (out of a maximum of 250 000 for example) could not. Especially in a city where people are closer together and are more likely to be the type to work in construction/maintenance than would be those farmer peasants in rurals.
That if, if I understand it all correctly and that damage is related to production, and not population count.
-
You aren't mentioning other ways cities are different from regions, namely they gain peasants faster.
-
I'd like to argue that. I do not know if it is because of the new immigration system, but Rettleville receives 20-35 peasants per day, while Rettlewood, when still under our control had counts above the 100 per day.
-
I'd like to argue that. I do not know if it is because of the new immigration system, but Rettleville receives 20-35 peasants per day, while Rettlewood, when still under our control had counts above the 100 per day.
Cities on Dwilight can suffer badly under the new immigration code. Apart from births, they rely on the surrounding townsland to provide immigrants. If that townsland is under populated I would assume immigration can be rather slow. For Rettlwville to grow at its maximum potential you will need to hold Rettlewood and some other surrounding regions in order to secure a steady immigrant supply. If you can grab some regions that border fully populated regions, then they should grow even faster and that should trickle through your realm as well.
-
You would be surprised at how fast cities can grow if surrounded by well populated regions or if it itself is semi-well populated. They naturally grow faster than regions, but that doesn't mean they grow faster at all times or in all circumstances.
-
You aren't mentioning other ways cities are different from regions, namely they gain peasants faster.
I completely reject this notion. Cities grow in population number faster only, but much, much slower for population ratio. And it's the ratio that determines production. Between a 1500 max pop rural and a 500000 max pop city, which do you think will reach 100% population and production first? The rural. It may be dirt poor, but it'll be able to handle much more infrastructure than the city for an extremely long period of time.
Which is, imho, absurd.
-
I completely reject this notion. Cities grow in population number faster only, but much, much slower for population ratio. And it's the ratio that determines production. Between a 1500 max pop rural and a 500000 max pop city, which do you think will reach 100% population and production first? The rural. It may be dirt poor, but it'll be able to handle much more infrastructure than the city for an extremely long period of time.
Which is, imho, absurd.
This is such a biased comparison. I agree that the ratio is slightly lower, but please, use at least mildly accurate numbers... average rural is around 2500-4000 peasants, and average cities have around 40000-60000 peasants.
-
Cities on Dwilight can suffer badly under the new immigration code. Apart from births, they rely on the surrounding townsland to provide immigrants. If that townsland is under populated I would assume immigration can be rather slow. For Rettlwville to grow at its maximum potential you will need to hold Rettlewood and some other surrounding regions in order to secure a steady immigrant supply. If you can grab some regions that border fully populated regions, then they should grow even faster and that should trickle through your realm as well.
That would make a future colony of Darfix almost impossible unless Astrum first expands towards the city.
-
I'd like to argue that. I do not know if it is because of the new immigration system, but Rettleville receives 20-35 peasants per day, while Rettlewood, when still under our control had counts above the 100 per day.
Rettlewood borders Maeotis, which is half-full. We've seen peasants from Maeotis emigrate away to other lands, so that's why you see higher numbers. Thysan would receive peasants from Paisland and Maeotis and any Terran lands that are recovered.
-
Rettlewood borders Maeotis, which is half-full. We've seen peasants from Maeotis emigrate away to other lands, so that's why you see higher numbers. Thysan would receive peasants from Paisland and Maeotis and any Terran lands that are recovered.
Yes, Thysan is growing incredibly fast.
-
That would make a future colony of Darfix almost impossible unless Astrum first expands towards the city.
That's pretty much the same conclusion we came to a many months ago when we decided to make another try at Darfix.
-
I know that medieval buildings aren't as architectural advanced as modern buildings
Excuse me?
(sorry if someone else reacted on this before, I didn't go through the whole threat - just started on top)
-
Excuse me?
(sorry if someone else reacted on this before, I didn't go through the whole threat - just started on top)
Sprinkler systems, fire alarms, flame-resistant building materials, earthquake-resistant building materials, better locks, glass windows...perhaps those aren't "architectural" advancements, but they are worth mentioning in this thread.
-
Well yes. But there's nothing more 'architectural' about a modern, concrete square building than about a Gothic church.
Though dwellings weren't very durable.
-
Well yes. But there's nothing more 'architectural' about a modern, concrete square building than about a Gothic church.
Though dwellings weren't very durable.
You're comparing the top end of one era against the bottom end of another. Rather compare the church to a sky-scraper.
-
How long will the skyscrapers last? Look at the Tsjernobyl sarcophagus, meant to be very durable: 20 years later it needs urgent repairs or it will fall apart. (though admittedly, that's no skyscraper :) )
I'm really doubting any skyscraper will last 500 years, even if it's left alone. And the gothic church will just stand beside and laugh :)
Besides, modern architecture is all about how much you're going to reinforce the concrete. There's no art in that (though some modern buildings are very beautiful.)
-
I'm really doubting any skyscraper will last 500 years, even if it's left alone. And the gothic church will just stand beside and laugh :)
Do you really think a "gothic church" left completely alone, untended, with no maintenance at all, for 500 years will still be standing?
OK, maybe it will still be there as a pile of tumbled blocks. But I doubt it will be laughing.
-
Well, I suspect some of the walls will be intact, depending on how it was built. The higher structures wouldn't last too long.
But I guess I eggagerated :) The main reason the churches are still standing is of course because they are churches ;)
I suppose I'm just biased... ::)
-
This is such a biased comparison. I agree that the ratio is slightly lower, but please, use at least mildly accurate numbers... average rural is around 2500-4000 peasants, and average cities have around 40000-60000 peasants.
How is it a biased comparison? It's showing extremums, to prove a point.
In D'Hara we have many medium-large cities, and they grow so very SLOWLY. It takes months to recover from starvation waves. Small rurals, on the other hand, easilly attain their max population. New migration codes amplify the existing phenomenon.