Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nirur Torir]

The cost of a shrine is 2 labor and 2 building materials. If I started building it right as I hit 4 population, it would take 16 turns to pay off if I did nothing but work towards raising my population after building it. This counts any labor used to get the building materials. It's not worth it when compared with building terrain improvements.


How will recruiting units to the military work? Do they even have a population cost?

[lemon10]

I think that population growth shouldn't be tied to food like this, and food should cost like a quarter what it does.
Eg. the barren gives one food, and but each labor needs 1/2 food instead of 2 to maintain, while glass feilds give no food, but give the glass.

[Criptfeind]

I think that population growth shouldn't be tied to food like this, and food should cost like a quarter what it does.
Eg. the barren gives one food, and but each labor needs 1/2 food instead of 2 to maintain, while glass feilds give no food, but give the glass.

Eh. You need to walk a balance, I think what you are saying is way to much food.

On the other hand... what we have may be too little. Also, how whould you have pop growth work?

[lemon10]

no clue, but if it's tied to population, and we are able to get a excess of food, population will take off until it reaches maximum sustainable, if we can't get a excess, then we spend the whole game having our whole population getting ONLY food, instead of building or researching or making armies.

I think that we shouldn't have to spend more then half our population getting and maintaining food , i mean sure, someone could get a food excess, but if it isn't tied to population then it would be fine.

Mabey have pop growth be percenage based of a absolute(eg. everyone gets a constant 10% pop growth as long as they are fed and morale is above 3), or mabey have it morale based like it used to be (would be big for those with morale bonuses but whatever).
but the way it is, it will take me having 15 food at the end of the turn (9 for growth and 6 for food consumption with three population, 3 getting 2 per land, and the 3 bonus food i get), and that would take me 5 turns of doing nothing else at all (starting from 0 food), and if i spend 1 turn building something with 2 labor, then i would take a additional 2 turns.
While on the other hand, if we got a large excess (eg. barrens produced 4 food instead of 2), then while our pop would grow really fast, we still wouldn't anything besides farming either, because assuming the same pop and food reqs, it would take me only one turn to get to 4 population, so a building would mean it would take me take a extra turn to grow pop as well, meaning it wouldn't be worth the cost either.
No matter what the food reqs are, in this system we  spend all our labor on farming, and not even on building farms, since it would screw up our population growth.

[abculatter_2]

Hmmmm... I now realize why Civ had land-based production... It seems tempting to add it in, but then we'd just be one step closer to Civ. Also, I decreased building and improvement costs.
Maybe we could have two labor pools? One which is used to build buildings and armies and such and grows more slowly, the other used to work the land.
That doesn't really seem like too appealing an option... but the only other one I can think of is to do away with this simplified population and go back to the original version (though with 100s instead of 1000s).

[Vanigo]

That doesn't really seem like too appealing an option... but the only other one I can think of is to do away with this simplified population and go back to the original version (though with 100s instead of 1000s).

That wouldn't solve anything. We would still need to put 75% of our labor to getting food. No, the solution is very very simple: more food. Or less food needed. Unless the food-gained-per-labor:food-eaten-per-labor ratio improves, there's very little that will make an impact.
(Adding some building materials to barren lands would help a little, since we wouldn't have to go out of our way to get them. Not enough, though.)

[Nirur Torir]

The point of the low food ratio seems to be to make starting out harder, and to make the world feel more like an alien wasteland. Unfortunately, the low food ratio mostly just makes it repetitive. How else could this be accomplished?

Perhaps we could have limited harvestable building materials in the areas surrounding the central hex? After gathering them, we'd have to send out armed expeditions to gather more. (Or unarmed, if we want to risk it.)

Having limited 'bonus' food (Maybe some wild animals that we could potentially domesticate, slowing food growth, or some edible tree-like vegetation?) on some hexes might also work.

[lemon10]

no, changing how food works is the only way i can see the game really working. As i said, even if we only need to put 10% of labor into staying alive, but having 100% would make our pop grow really fast, then we would put all our labor into food, because having buildings which help make more is worth much less then having more people who can produce more.
Personally i think that quartering food consumption (.5 per labor) and lowering harvesting (1 per barren, 0 for glass), while changing how pop growth works would really help.

Yeah, it makes it seem more like a alien wastleland, but that is kinda boring as you point out. If it takes 30 turns to get our pop up and we just harvest for those turns, then the game will stall and end pretty fast.

Also, abculatter_2, do i know what the thing in the hex above my base is?

[Criptfeind]

Also, abculatter_2, do i know what the thing in the hex above my base is?

It says right on your sheet they are Essence Shards.

[IronyOwl]

Well, if you can keep researching food-producing techs it could avoid a certain amount of repetitiveness once you get up and running. This also gives you a choice at some point, since eventually two extra food per turn increases your population miserably slowly, so you have to figure out whether you want to increase population or work on other things.

It also has the "advantage" of making your farms and such critically important, since razing them absolutely cripples your food production. This is probably better if they're relatively easy to build/rebuild, however, since otherwise it just means everyone's very fragile.

[Nirur Torir]

I've seen so much death. We must take steps to prevent this thread from dying before its rightful time. (Which, by the way, is after I bring civilization to this desolate world.)

[Cheddarius]

But what can men do against such reckless bumping?

[lemon10]

Yeah, this thread is sorta dead, sad since it had lots of potential, but unless abclatter decides to try to revive this, then bumping it is kinda pointless.
EDIT: translation, start revamping the rules abclatter, because this could be very awsome.

[abculatter_2]

Yeah, this thread is sorta dead, sad since it had lots of potential, but unless abclatter decides to try to revive this, then bumping it is kinda pointless.
EDIT: translation, start revamping the rules abclatter, because this could be very awsome.

Sure, if you guys want it to go on so badly... I don't see the potential in it, but I don't see the potential in a lot of things I make, so...

Alright, first, the population and farming. I'm thinking of either returning to the original's method, or ripping from Civ and making production a resource. Or, we could go with the idea I had earlier and have two separate labor pools, one which works the land, one which builds things. Both labor pools are dependent on population (maybe we could have each population gained have to be chosen which pool they should go to, then they can only work in that labor pool).

Or, I could make population harder to get (or perhaps this is hard enough) , and have all buildings only require building materials to be built. It also seems like I should scatter a few more building materials around, but I was planning on having building materials crop up from technology.

EDIT: Oh, and I'll have to devise how whatever new method we use will be affected by morale, or think of a new morale system or a new way for morale to affect things. Maybe we could make morale decrease with population? maybe -1 or -.5 for every pop? That would also discourage people from spamming pop.

[Vanigo]

Sure, if you guys want it to go on so badly... I don't see the potential in it, but I don't see the potential in a lot of things I make, so...

Well, an apathetic mod is probably the worst thing one of these games can have... I do think there's potential here, but if you don't really want to do it I don't think there's much point.

Alright, first, the population and farming. I'm thinking of either returning to the original's method, or ripping from Civ and making production a resource. Or, we could go with the idea I had earlier and have two separate labor pools, one which works the land, one which builds things. Both labor pools are dependent on population (maybe we could have each population gained have to be chosen which pool they should go to, then they can only work in that labor pool).

I think having each population point grant one field labor and one city labor would work okay. You'd have to rebalance labor costs for everything, of course.

It also seems like I should scatter a few more building materials around, but I was planning on having building materials crop up from technology.

There is some sense to that - having things be harder to build at first and get easier later is quite logical - but you have to be careful not to make things too slow-paced at the beginning. In Civilization this isn't really an issue because you can run through the first hundred turns in an hour, but when even uneventful turns take days to go through...