BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Charles on June 22, 2012, 06:39:29 AM
-
Title: New Estate Buildings Ideas
Summary: Tom requested a list of ideas. Here are the ones I found or came up with.
Details:
Shrine - (Some religious benefit or purely RP)
Weapon smith - Improve the weapons of RCs
Armour smith - Improve the armour of RCs
Ale Maker/Brewer/Winery - Improve moral, increase population
Mason's guild - decrease damage rate on fortifications
Paper mill - Increase loyalty/literacy of a region, schools, universities.
Mine - increase ore production (gold/iron/etc)
Lumber mill - increase production of lumber
Grain Mill - (not sure, something to do with food)
Road Crew - increases road repair.
Hostel/inn - Room for rent for advies.
Bar/Tavern/whorehouse - Increase entertainment value for troops
Benefits: Some of the buildings would also bring an increase in income to the estate. The new construction could cause an increase in imigrants to the region (caused by the increase labour demands.
Possible Exploits: I think technically each of the buildings is an exploit.
These are all the ones I found. Please add if I missed or if there are other ideas. Remove those that don't work.
-
Possible Exploits: I think technically each of the buildings is an exploit.
I think you misunderstand what "exploit" means. It doesn't mean "benefit". :-)
-
I like these ideas. I think it gives the game more customization. At the moment, everything is fixed as it is. But if this gets added it will make each region somewhat unique.
-
Shrine - (Some religious benefit or purely RP)
Chapel, rather than shrine. Shrines already exist after all, and it is common for nobles to have chapels to their faith along with their manor.
Would love to see more options in general for religious characters (monasteries, etc). Yet as always, requires specific thought on the matter. Especially knowing how any of these things will end up truly working!
Will certainly prove interesting should a new landlord decide to close a chapel/rededicate it to some other faith...
-
There should surely be downsides we have to take into account as well, right? Otherwise I think we'll all start stacking estate buildings like there is no tomorrow. If we use the Road Crew for an example, there ought to be a cost to better maintenance in that perhaps occasionally the work crews have to draft in extra peasants with a consequence on production/estate efficiency. Or maybe an estate will experience higher emigration as the peasantry look to dodge being drafted into manual labour.
-
There should surely be downsides we have to take into account as well, right?
Besides time and money for construction and maintainance like all other buildings? I don't see the need for more downsides.
-
Besides time and money for construction and maintainance like all other buildings? I don't see the need for more downsides.
Mostly, I think it should be made such that a choice is necessary, and building everything is a losing proposition; otherwise most people will actually build everything, and the only thing achieved will be to create a new gold and time sink when you take a new region before it is productive again.
If the price for building climbs exponentially to extortionate prices, this should do the trick.
-
Why not just limit number of buildings by estate age or something? You would have to choose which to build then.
-
Why not just limit number of buildings by estate age or something? You would have to choose which to build then.
That works too!
-
Wouldn't it also make sense to tie the available buildings to the region types? I don't think a mountain region would benefit from a grain mill, for instance.
Will these additions be permanent? I figure that, in the case of a peasant uprising/looting, things should get destroyed (not always, a certain chance).
Lastly, I think regions should be able to work towards two different ends: economy or military. Eg. a more military oriented rural on the border can invest in road management, something to do with scouts and lessened equipment damage (just spitballing), whereas unexposed strongholds could focus on improving their poor production capacities. If not I fear most regions will have some 'optimal', objective building set they can achieve, whereas a dual system would provide subjective choices of management, a deeper layer of strategic developement, ... This wouldn't have to mean a lot is changed to the feature request, just that both military and economic buildings are available for all regions (so far it's only armour/weapons improvements and road crews for the former)
-
What if having a building in estate required a certain amount of peasants to function with top efficiency? So some are taken away from actual gold production, or food production or whatever, and the more buildings you have, the less efficient each of them is.
So the estate size would matter in this too.
-
Estate limitations and efficiencies should be fair for both city knights and rural knights. We have enough benefits for city estates already, less discrimination. :)
-
I imagine some buildings adding to revenue and others requiring gold to function.
As to limiting the buildings, perhaps each would become less effective as new ones are added. So if you want to build all of them, then they all would be minimaly effective. I would say they should start to decrease after a number greater than one, three maybe? Perhaps it should also be dependent on estate age, or something else.
-
Can you add something like barracks. They would be used to stall the knights current unit (upto a size), and later let the unit less knight to again take control of them. It would be really helpful to those who are wanting to lead a particular type of unit, say SF, but don't want to abandon his/her current unit. As for payment issues, like militia are paid from region income, the stalled unit is paid from the knights income.
Possible Exploits: What if the knight's income is less than unit payment? And what will happen if the knight leaves his estate (or kicked out) with his unit still kept in barracks?
-
I've long thought that it would be good to have a barracks that houses the men when the lord is there, and eliminates the normal wear & tear over time.
-
I would actually like to see all buildings moved to estates. Some of them, like tournament grounds, would only be allowed on a lord's estate, or perhaps only a Duke's estate. The whole region is already split up into estates, so all buildings need to be somewhere. Giving the lord the option of choosing what buildings are in which estate would be neat. Allowing the lord to gift buildings to knights, as well as take buildings away.
-
The problem with a "barracks" to "store" a unit is that it allows a realm to prepare a massive double-hit during war time. A realm could all recruit to max, store the units on their estate, then recruit another for an attack. After the attack they just pick up the stored unit and hit again. You get a massive double punch, a huge advantage over any realm that did not have one of their own ready.
Wasn't something like this possible many, many years ago with militia? Maybe someone who played 7-8 years ago can remember better...
-
The problem with a "barracks" to "store" a unit is that it allows a realm to prepare a massive double-hit during war time. A realm could all recruit to max, store the units on their estate, then recruit another for an attack. After the attack they just pick up the stored unit and hit again. You get a massive double punch, a huge advantage over any realm that did not have one of their own ready.
Wasn't something like this possible many, many years ago with militia? Maybe someone who played 7-8 years ago can remember better...
I'm pretty sure that you can still do this, with the General assigning militia. It may cost an hour per militia assignment, however. not sure. Also not sure if they did away with this.
(you know...I have two generals...I'll check the next time I find some militia)
-
Assigning militia is supremely unreliable, for exactly this reason.
-
There are a lot of restrictions on assigning militia. Including time limits on multiple asignments in the same region. Assignment is more of a convenience for special units, rather than a rapid re-equipping of an army.
-
As for storing units, I would be more interested in being able to store recruits from RCs from the region. You could then have priority in getting those recruits. The units would not have been recruited, they would just be reserved for that person.
Another idea would be that a barracks decreases/eliminates militia desertion.
-
As for storing units, I would be more interested in being able to store recruits from RCs from the region. You could then have priority in getting those recruits. The units would not have been recruited, they would just be reserved for that person.
That's...way too open to exploitation. Want to screw your own realm over? Just reserve a ton of the best infantry during wartime and never use it. Not to mention rich dukes preventing anyone else from hiring SF, for example.
-
That is easy to restrict. Restrict the rate at which you can reserve; only one man per day, if there are more than two.
Restrict the number of men that can be stored; 1/5 of the RC capacity.
-
I dislike all the thing about storing people.
Barracks must do something else, like preventing militia from desert, as was already said here. Also this is something that only a city/stronghold will have.
About limitations, if you give a small bonus to each building, only those regions with a lot of that kind o building will have significant bonuses.
I think that this will encourage people to have more knights, since you will need many estates to have many buildings in your region. The efficiency of the estate must also influence the building bonus. Ex: I have a Grain Mill hat give a bonus of 10%, in a estate with 80% efficiency, my final bonus will be 8% only. So, more knights better results. This also may make interesting to the realm don't have tons of knights in cities while only 1 knight in rural regions.
Also if you have a rural region completely focused in food production, or whatever good it produces, that region may also have a bigger income through trade. And this will give opportunities to realms trade between themselves. Since, at least in EC, there are not so much food.
As said by someone in the above posts, this will make regions unique. Will give personality and endless possibilities of RP.
I really wait for the day this will happens.
-
Why not give each estate 3-5 slots depending on the size of the region and allow them to build same buildings? Make the bonuses of each buildings not very significant.
Maybe each time you build courtier's office or something, you will improve the estate efficiency by 5-10%? Make it simple and help knights with estate as large as 50% improve their efficiency.
I also dislike storing units. We can already do something similar with our militia units.
-
Why not give each estate 3-5 slots depending on the size of the region and allow them to build same buildings? Make the bonuses of each buildings not very significant.
Maybe each time you build courtier's office or something, you will improve the estate efficiency by 5-10%? Make it simple and help knights with estate as large as 50% improve their efficiency.
I also dislike storing units. We can already do something similar with our militia units.
agreed,
-
Why not give each estate 3-5 slots depending on the size of the region and allow them to build same buildings? Make the bonuses of each buildings not very significant.
Maybe each time you build courtier's office or something, you will improve the estate efficiency by 5-10%? Make it simple and help knights with estate as large as 50% improve their efficiency.
I also dislike storing units. We can already do something similar with our militia units.
I'd rather you give each estate only one slot and make the building really significant. That way you really need to think about what to build, and this will create diversity in regions.
-
Two slots is better. It allows for more variety while actually making the decision making more difficult. But overall I agree that there should perhaps not be all that many building slots.
Or have different tiers for estate buildings. You could have one building of the first tier, which would be the main focus of the estate. Of the second tier you could have more.
-
The efficiency of the estate must also influence the building bonus. Ex: I have a Grain Mill hat give a bonus of 10%, in a estate with 80% efficiency, my final bonus will be 8% only. So, more knights better results. This also may make interesting to the realm don't have tons of knights in cities while only 1 knight in rural regions.
I really like this.
I don't like restricting the number of buildings so much, not down to one or two. I would prefer their efficiency drop.
-
I really find that this is all adding huge complexities for little gain.
-
It gives knights something to do. Also, help them familiarize building buildings once they become lords.
-
I'm personally a huyge fan of giving nobles a reason to become attached to their estates. Right now, if you're removed by your lord or something else drives you from what SHOULD be considered your home, most just shrug it off. If you've put time and investment into it, I believe most will actually do something about it. Be it conflict between knights and lords or being more fervent in war.
-
I'm personally a huyge fan of giving nobles a reason to become attached to their estates. Right now, if you're removed by your lord or something else drives you from what SHOULD be considered your home, most just shrug it off. If you've put time and investment into it, I believe most will actually do something about it. Be it conflict between knights and lords or being more fervent in war.
Yes. Knights don't give a damn about losing their estates at the moment. It is not like they can't take it again :p. Give knights a way to invest in their regions will surely make them get attached more to their estates. They should act more desperately and feel frustrated when their regions are under assault, not shrug and get another estate to serve.
-
IMO, the reason that knights shrug it off and leave is that getting kicked by your lord would suck. It would make you think your lord is an ass. And who wants to play a game as vassal to someone you think is an ass? I would much rather find a different lord that I think is fair and honest with me, and not likely to kick me out again at any time.
Let's face it, it's just gold. And who really cares about gold? Given the right reasons, you can get all the gold you really want just for the asking.
-
It's a balance. Yes, we want people to be attached to land, but not too strongly, because they also should be somewhat flexible and be able to move elsewhere instead of becoming frustrated.
So a bit of investment and attachment is a good thing. Too much is not.
-
Yes, I agree that some attachment is good. But we also have to keep in mind that as far as knightts go, they are pretty powerless. They can be kicked out at any time with, essentially, no recourse. When the enemy comes to TO the region, they can't do anything to stop it. So losing it shouldn't be such a big deal that they get mad and quit.
-
Yes, I agree that some attachment is good. But we also have to keep in mind that as far as knightts go, they are pretty powerless. They can be kicked out at any time with, essentially, no recourse. When the enemy comes to TO the region, they can't do anything to stop it. So losing it shouldn't be such a big deal that they get mad and quit.
Good point. That is exactly why these buildings should influence the region as a whole.
-
There should be some purely selfish options. Some things that are bonuses for the knight, and do nothing for the region. We have also thought about options that could be detrimental to the region, as well. Knights of poor or unpopular lords could band together and build bandit hideouts or something to drop control and steal taxes.
-
There should be some purely selfish options. Some things that are bonuses for the knight, and do nothing for the region. We have also thought about options that could be detrimental to the region, as well. Knights of poor or unpopular lords could band together and build bandit hideouts or something to drop control and steal taxes.
Remember that extra tax rate that used to exist? Why not give that option to the knights?
-
Zakilevo,
Now that is a brilliant idea! It could be so that the more estates had these bandit caves, the more efficient they would be overall. So angering one knight would be bad, but angering four would really cause some trouble.
Further, the effect should perhaps be impossible to observe directly by the lord. He would only see a drop in regions stats without a way for knowing for sure that one or more of his knights are grabbing gold for themselves.
-
The issue with these "Let's give knights a way to piss off/hurt/damage the income of their lord" is that there's currently no reason at all for a lord to take on knights, other than to help the realm. Having knights does nothing for a lord whatsoever, and in most cases actually reduces the amount of gold they get. So if knights start banding together to hurt their lord, he's just going to boot them all without a second thought.
-
Remember, estates are given to knights for their service and loyalty. They should be able to do what they want in their own estates, like taxing for some extra cash and stuff.
-
Velax,
I beg to differ. The strength of a lord is quite a bit in the strength of his vassals, at least that is how I see it. But then again, there is no strength in vassals that are not loyal, but rather parasitic instead.
Was it not the case before the estate revamp that you needed knights to properly maintain your region? We are not going back there, but something similar in nature could be had with the estate buildings. If a lord needs knights to occupy his estates in order to have the buildings in the said estates to do any good, then there is balance there.
Just as an example you could have only one large building at your estate. A lord could have one large building at his own estate, but if he wanted more large buildings operational, he would need to have a knight for each. If some of the knights then choose to have little extra income on the side, they could do that and perhaps even get away with it, if it is more important for the lord to have the buildings doing whatever they do and if there is a shortage of knights.
As for right now, it would perhaps be silly to offer such options for knights if there is nothing to balance it.
-
I see Velax's point. Currently a lord earns as much without knights as the maximum he can earn with knights... which means if knights can damage his income, might as well not create any estates in the first place. :-/
-
Knights = political power. If all you care about is gold, then sure, don't have knights. If, however, you want the attendant power and implicit political support, you need knights. And since you can get just as much gold with knights as you can without (if you set it up right), only the most greedy money-grubber who worships every last coin, and is completely blinded to the power advantages of having knights, will not have knights. Especially since gold to knights = more secure realm = more secure lordship = longer potential period of income.
-
I like the idea of large buildings and small buildings.
Lords could be limited to X Large Buildings in his estate (paper mill, grain mill, Mine, lumber mill, or wathever gives bonus to the region as a whole) and the knights would be able to build small buildings in their estates (hostels, taverns, shrines, or any other ideas that could give more gold our other benefits to the knight) and one large building.
If the lord want have more large buildings he will need more knights, and he will not kick a knight for no reason, since he needs the building there.
With the small building the knight will be able to have a small additional income, or other benefit that he will chose. This will personalize the character estate and give something to do when you are a knight. I saw something in the realm about Statues. Maybe it could fall in an "artisan" small building. Then if you want a statue you will need request this service from a knight who have it, or have one in your own estate.
I like the idea of things that only who have a kind of building/resource may produce. To me this provide interaction, and interaction is good.
-
How about every RC is associated with an estate. Also, you could have only one RC in any estate. Every region (with a lord) could have at least one, but if you want to keep all those fancy centers online, you need to have a vassal looking after them.
-
How about every RC is associated with an estate. Also, you could have only one RC in any estate. Every region (with a lord) could have at least one, but if you want to keep all those fancy centers online, you need to have a vassal looking after them.
I think its a bad idea for several reasons. First, the lord pays for it so why would the knight get control over it. Second its not realistic and it doesn't add fun/make something better to counter the unrealism. I see no way this will make it anymore fun or better in anyway.
-
I think its a bad idea for several reasons. First, the lord pays for it so why would the knight get control over it.
Why does the lord need to pay for it? If it is in the estate the knight would be able to build them.
Second its not realistic and it doesn't add fun/make something better to counter the unrealism. I see no way this will make it anymore fun or better in anyway.
As for realism, the RC needs to draw people from somewhere, all peasants are in one estate or anther, so why should it not be from a specific estate? To make the game more realistic, ALL buildings should be in estates. If the whole populations split up into estates then it follows that everything else should be as well.
As for fun, that depends on the controls that the knight would get. Allowing them to draft, adjust recruitment levels, set the price(?), etc. would make things very interesting for those who like that type of game. It also would involve a huge change in the mechanics of the game.
-
How about the blacksmiths being added to estates? Each estate could build one, and be able to repair a certain % of the damage. The lord's would be doubly effective. Let's say, each estate adds 20%, 40% for a lord. Rural regions with one knight would be able to repair to 40%. And cities would need three knights to repair completely. It also means that if it is a priority, a rural border region could be assigned multiple estates so that troops do not need to travel to the cities to repair.
Concerns:
Rural lord creates multiple vacant estates to increase efficiency of the smithies.
Have blacksmiths shut down (or my preference work at ~1/5 capacity) if the estate is vacant. Rural regions can still have blacksmiths, but they will be much less efficient unless the realm decides to invest there.
Armies will be able to refit at their borders.
Only if they do not need gold. Banks are still in the cities.
The numbers could obviously change depending on how hard/easy we want it to be to fix 100%. Three knights are needed according to my numbers.
-
There should be some purely selfish options. Some things that are bonuses for the knight, and do nothing for the region. We have also thought about options that could be detrimental to the region, as well. Knights of poor or unpopular lords could band together and build bandit hideouts or something to drop control and steal taxes.
Perhaps 1-2 "secrete slots" that only the Knight could see? You could have a few options to build there such as buildings that would be selfish options only, but also a building that would help the region/realm, or perhaps buildings related to your guild/secrete society/religion.
-
Why does the lord need to pay for it? If it is in the estate the knight would be able to build them. As for realism, the RC needs to draw people from somewhere, all peasants are in one estate or anther, so why should it not be from a specific estate? To make the game more realistic, ALL buildings should be in estates. If the whole populations split up into estates then it follows that everything else should be as well.
As for fun, that depends on the controls that the knight would get. Allowing them to draft, adjust recruitment levels, set the price(?), etc. would make things very interesting for those who like that type of game. It also would involve a huge change in the mechanics of the game.
Making the game more realistic is what got us into the mess in the first place. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that realism crap.
-
Knights = political power. If all you care about is gold, then sure, don't have knights. If, however, you want the attendant power and implicit political support, you need knights. And since you can get just as much gold with knights as you can without (if you set it up right), only the most greedy money-grubber who worships every last coin, and is completely blinded to the power advantages of having knights, will not have knights. Especially since gold to knights = more secure realm = more secure lordship = longer potential period of income.
This, I think, is highly overrated. With the sole exception of realms that have vote systems that allow lords to vote for their knights (meaning more knights equals more votes equals more power), most lords derive little to no power just by having knights. Maybe other people have had a different experience, but honestly I've never had much reason to cultivate close relations with my knights, and I don't expect them to back me. Not that their backing would mean much most of the time. Again, except for realms with voting systems knights are pretty powerless. What kind of backing can they really provide otherwise? A voice of support that no one is obligated to heed? Some back up when you're protesting? Pawns for your rebellion? Thing is, all of these things can be attained just as easily from nobles who are not your knights, and frankly if your knights are the only people you can count on, your protest/rebellion isn't going very far anyway.
-
Statues! Do not forget the statues! How will my ego-flattered noble survive without them?
-
This, I think, is highly overrated. With the sole exception of realms that have vote systems that allow lords to vote for their knights (meaning more knights equals more votes equals more power), most lords derive little to no power just by having knights. Maybe other people have had a different experience, but honestly I've never had much reason to cultivate close relations with my knights, and I don't expect them to back me. Not that their backing would mean much most of the time. Again, except for realms with voting systems knights are pretty powerless. What kind of backing can they really provide otherwise? A voice of support that no one is obligated to heed? Some back up when you're protesting? Pawns for your rebellion? Thing is, all of these things can be attained just as easily from nobles who are not your knights, and frankly if your knights are the only people you can count on, your protest/rebellion isn't going very far anyway.
Kihalin was under Sergio for a long time and they became friends. They supported each other, even when they both ran for the position of Vasilif. Kihalin voted for Sergio in the election even. I think having a loyal knight you can count on really helps if you can put him in a position of power.
-
Statues! Do not forget the statues! How will my ego-flattered noble survive without them?
Don't worry, if it's ego stroking, no one will forget it. :P
-
I think that there should be only two discrete slots for buildings per estate, one to aid production and one for administration. So production buildings can be built in the production slot and vice versa. Ah, for RP and fun purposes there can be some miscellaneous buildings which can be built in any slot.
That would compel lords to create more (effective) estates and to maintain good relationship with his knights.