31
Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Royal chest and granary
« on: March 16, 2013, 07:51:10 PM »
Rotating is the same as just decreasing to insignificance, like 10 gold per week. 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
32
Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Royal chest and granary
« on: March 16, 2013, 02:52:10 AM »
300 with 50 to each council member is only 150, not even a city knight's level. -_-
33
Helpline / Re: Rogue Teleport
« on: March 15, 2013, 07:50:29 PM »
Freaky, but necessary. Otherwise tournaments to far away places could take up to three quarters of a month... now there's some boring times, especially since there's nothing going on during the return trip and nothing to look forward to.
34
Helpline / Re: Appointing a Duke
« on: March 15, 2013, 03:06:01 PM »
The argument is not against user friendliness, but that doing it any other way does not increase user friendliness either.
35
Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Royal chest and granary
« on: March 15, 2013, 02:13:57 AM »I was talking to Foundation... your post just got in the way.
Gasp, and here I thought you agreed with me!
36
Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Royal chest and granary
« on: March 14, 2013, 09:38:06 PM »
Why not just send bonds?
37
Feature Requests / Re: Set Battle-Width by Region Type
« on: March 08, 2013, 12:44:49 AM »
The current marshal formations already move everyone around. So you mean to say give no more fine-grained control than there already exists?
38
Helpline / Re: Food Production
« on: March 07, 2013, 07:06:25 PM »
Perhaps D'hara as a realm, long term, with the way it currently manages food, cannot get its hands on sufficient food to make you happy. It does not mean the continent as a whole runs anywhere near a deficit long term.
39
Development / Re: Maximum battle width depends on region type
« on: March 05, 2013, 11:47:16 PM »
If it's separate count, I can see 200-300 being reasonable. So what if a single unit by a battle-worn noble with a gazillion honour is able to take a stand in small mountain regions? There aren't many who are capable of doing this and able to sustain the unit maintenance (have you tried paying/repairing a unit of >100 men?).
40
Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Voluntary Death Option
« on: March 05, 2013, 08:59:34 PM »
If you want benefits, become a Hero.
41
Helpline / Re: Appointing a Duke
« on: March 05, 2013, 08:59:04 PM »
I believe Shizzle meant Kepler wasn't a choice for dukedom because it would disrupt the hierarchy chain. Thus Kepler would have to abandon his estate first.
42
Feature Requests / Re: Feature Request: Voluntary Death Option
« on: March 04, 2013, 04:11:18 AM »
If this feature is accepted, mortality will not be toggled. It will be a permanent choice. I do not believe toggle mortality is being considered.
43
BM General Discussion / Re: Your Thoughts on Food and the Marketplace
« on: March 03, 2013, 01:40:12 PM »The wrench in your assertion is that base production is subject to weather.
The stocks of cities and townslands must buffer for potential droughts, and that has been considered in none of these scenarios. Failure to have a drought buffer will result in the devastation of not only cities, but any region that loses food in a drought, which includes many rurals.
What Indirik meant when he said that food is not being immediately sold in the spring is that the rural regions will themselves build up a buffer -- to protect themselves against droughts. They wont sell food until they feel safe, which is entirely reasonable.
You're forgetting that weather is not a factor as it exists on all islands. Thus is not a consideration at all. Of course regions keep buffers, so do regions on islands without seasons.
44
BM General Discussion / Re: Your Thoughts on Food and the Marketplace
« on: March 03, 2013, 05:56:24 AM »
My last statement was dubious, my apologies. I meant, as was my original purpose in making these calculations, that rot is, at its core, not enough of an influence except a small incentive to sell/buy food quicker when comparing islands having seasons to islands not having seasons.
Have you considered that having such a great amount of surplus while ignoring all production during winter and spring creates dubious numbers at best? If you do not produce enough surplus to cover the majority of your food needs in spring at 75% production, you will not produce enough to stockpile for winter and spring. Thus this is an impossible scenario. Even in this impossible scenario, it is only 20% that is lost due to rot, and in a similar scenario without seasons at least 12-18% of the food will be lost due to rot anyways.
I agree. Stockpiling great amounts of food will cause a sizeable portion to be lost due to rot. Keeping an extra 1000 bushels all year round on top of the X days' worth of buffer will of course produce a ridiculous amount of waste, losing ~10 bushels every day. That's fairly obvious. The formulae are available to all. The theory is sound. If the observations do not match the theory, it simply due to differences in assumptions.
As I have demonstrated, if all lords and margraves are willing to work together to simulate what I described, satisfying my assumptions, the result is clear. Rot does not play a key part in differentiating the food system on islands with season and islands without season. What does differentiate the two is the willingness to part with food as appropriate on the part of the lords and the ability to resist anxiety and gather surpluses as appropriate on the part of the margraves.
I maintain that when base production meets consumption, these formulae hold, and it is human behaviour that is different.
Have you considered that having such a great amount of surplus while ignoring all production during winter and spring creates dubious numbers at best? If you do not produce enough surplus to cover the majority of your food needs in spring at 75% production, you will not produce enough to stockpile for winter and spring. Thus this is an impossible scenario. Even in this impossible scenario, it is only 20% that is lost due to rot, and in a similar scenario without seasons at least 12-18% of the food will be lost due to rot anyways.
I agree. Stockpiling great amounts of food will cause a sizeable portion to be lost due to rot. Keeping an extra 1000 bushels all year round on top of the X days' worth of buffer will of course produce a ridiculous amount of waste, losing ~10 bushels every day. That's fairly obvious. The formulae are available to all. The theory is sound. If the observations do not match the theory, it simply due to differences in assumptions.
As I have demonstrated, if all lords and margraves are willing to work together to simulate what I described, satisfying my assumptions, the result is clear. Rot does not play a key part in differentiating the food system on islands with season and islands without season. What does differentiate the two is the willingness to part with food as appropriate on the part of the lords and the ability to resist anxiety and gather surpluses as appropriate on the part of the margraves.
I maintain that when base production meets consumption, these formulae hold, and it is human behaviour that is different.
45
Development / Re: Multiplying war options without introducing (too much) new code
« on: March 03, 2013, 03:04:31 AM »I'm not a coder so I'm not sure how hard to code my proposal will be but would it be possible to allow units to move back on the battlefield? Make it a setting so that cavalry can charge, withdraw and charge again or so that archers can move away from combat.
Currently anything that involves changing how units interact or behave during battle is very work intensive.