| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Rhea 
New Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
 Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 18:44 |
|
It would be nice if somehow food production could be raised since they won't be decoupling it. Maybe another food building or more food sov. squares --or increase production output from the farms.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:03 |
|
What happened with the account sitting changes?
|
|
Faldrin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:06 |
 Rill wrote:
What happened with the account sitting changes? |
Was wondering the same. That was a very good change that is needed 
|
|
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:11 |
I would push for a decoupling of basic resource produced from sovereign claims to occur so that the disparity between settling on a 5 farm square vs. a 7 farm square is lessened rather than enhanced by nearby food claims. As it stands currently, just settling on a 7 farm square settlement nets you ~2.5K more food per hour at 100% tax rate with no sovereignty claims over a 5 farm square settlement. Every plus ten bonus sovereignty claims adds another 465 food per hour disparity.
I suggest that the sovereign square bonuses for basic resources (wood, clay, iron, stone and food) be a set amount based on the individual rating of the claimed square resources instead of linking the output amount based on a particular settlements output. This might encourage earlier sovereign claims to help boost resource production as it will be more economical in some instances.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 19:21 |
Anjire wrote:
I would push for a decoupling of basic resource produced from sovereign claims to occur so that the disparity between settling on a 5 farm square vs. a 7 farm square is lessened rather than enhanced by nearby food claims. As it stands currently, just settling on a 7 farm square settlement nets you ~2.5K more food per hour at 100% tax rate with no sovereignty claims over a 5 farm square settlement. Every plus ten bonus sovereignty claims adds another 465 food per hour disparity.
I suggest that the sovereign square bonuses for basic resources (wood, clay, iron, stone and food) be a set amount based on the individual rating of the claimed square resources instead of linking the output amount based on a particular settlements output. This might encourage earlier sovereign claims to help boost resource production as it will be more economical in some instances.
|
Interesting point. It would also tend to even out race-based disparities in sov production related to plot distribution. However, the devs have been preaching specialization and differentiation lately, so I'm not sure this is a goal of theirs. I haven't thought it through well enough to know whether that's a good thing or not.
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 20:54 |
When they first mentioned new buildings, I was guessing that one of them would be some sort of "super flourmill" that would further enhance food output. Oh well. 
|
|
tallica
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:00 |
Rill wrote:
Interesting point. It would also tend to even out race-based disparities in sov production related to plot distribution. However, the devs have been preaching specialization and differentiation lately, so I'm not sure this is a goal of theirs. I haven't thought it through well enough to know whether that's a good thing or not. |
plot distribution in capital cities will be easily changed once we can move cities, since underlying won't follow us. still will need to place a second city, but players should be able to send settlers to where they want to live before (or after relocating capital) then move capital onto a "good" location that will give better resource plot allocation.
|
|
Sloter
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:02 |
|
I like TDs idea of super flourmill.
No need to punish players that were farsighted enough to settle 7 farm spot.Illy is not comunist world where everyone has to be equal in terms of res production , namely food in this case.I would like to see some solution that would be fair for 5 farms city players but i would not liked to be forced to be equal with them.It was not hard for me to calculate that 7 farms are better for pop growt and army size when i settled my second city more then year ago, everyone was free to make same decision.
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:12 |
The problem with a super flourmill is that it will only further enhance the disparity since it works on percentage increase. And with the new buildings it looks like the max population will likely be raised making a 7 farm settlement all the more necessary.
Many of the veterans that started within the first month of the games release did not have "sovereign" etc. to guide their city placement choices. The ability to move cities is a step in the right direction but only as a band-aid.
|
|
tallica
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 378
|
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 at 21:33 |
Anjire wrote:
The problem with a super flourmill is that it will only further enhance the disparity since it works on percentage increase. And with the new buildings it looks like the max population will likely be raised making a 7 farm settlement all the more necessary.
Many of the veterans that started within the first month of the games release did not have "sovereign" etc. to guide their city placement choices. The ability to move cities is a step in the right direction but only as a band-aid. |
What do you feel the decoupling of food from taxation would do? At larger populations, players have armies and so need to have taxes set higher than 0% (likely even higher than 25%) which means that decoupling would actually provide more available food regardless of being on a 7 plot or a 5 plot. Still obviously being on a spot with more available food allows for a higher overall population that can be supported, provided that our buildings can give us enough pop to max out. I'm wondering how much the decoupling will change the 'need' for all towns to be placed on a 7 food plot near a 15+ food plot. I know that decoupling has been put on hold due to problems, but it is still being planned. Also if building level cap is ever increased to say level 30, things may change as well. Then again, perhaps it will always be more beneficial to have a town placed on a 7-food plot...
|
|
Tweet
Progress Update