Connacht
07-26-2008, 18:46
The post is long, so please forgive me if there is any writing mistake. Just an idea that is buzzing in my mind, tell me if you think that it is good or bad, hoping that Rome isn't hardcoded so that it isn't realizable.
Just like many different temples can be built, I thought that there could be also different buildable farms, in example wheat farms, fruit farms... or livestock-focusized estates instead of agricultural ones.
And, if possible, different settlements won't share the same type of buildings, so in example Southern Italy will have grape or olives cultivations while Scandinavia won't allow them and Eastern countries will have typical local products. Different farms will give different results. Grain could improve only population growth, grapes could improve happiness and trading incomes.
I think however that there shouldn't be only one buildable type of farm, but a more complex system, in example the player could build 5 different level 1 farms, 1 farm increased to level 5, or 2 lv1 farms and 1 lv3 farm etc.
Besides, trading and development can be influenced by this system. In example, the region A has a marker that says that this region is famous because it has good quality wine-or-anything-you-want. So, if you build in the settlement of this region a grape cultivation with wineries, you'll get another trading bonus because of the high quality of the product. Furthermore: wine isn't something that fills people's stomachs, so if you build a lv5 grape cultivation you'll get some money from the wine sold, but inhabitans will starve! So balancing is essential and players should consider if improve this thing or that other one, and get so different way of development for their cities. However, by doing only 5 lv1 farms you won't get particular advantages, and everything will remain average.
That's different from the really simple system of Rome, where you only build a farm, wait some turns, then improve it and stop.
And what if the region A has poor small fields that make wheat farms insufficient? Unless doing long time and extensively upgrades (just like docks!), population can't grow quickly and the city won't become large and rich - but you can still exploit it for its wine and get trading bonuses.
There could be also "exchanges" between connected (by sea routes or roads) neighbouring cities represented by ad hoc buildings, so in example the A city could build a structure that decreases trading incomes and increases farming in order to simulate that wine is exchanged for food. Thus the settlement can still be developed in a particular way, however by losing other bonuses. You'll have to decide if doing this or not will give you advantages.
I also though about a sort of role-playing with characters that, when they get inside a settlement, receive a trait that tells what that particular settlement needs and offers, thus if, in example, Rome is training a lot of legionaries, the governor will receive a trait that tells that there is a lack of iron for weapons and armor that will be solved by upgrading the nearest mine or building one in a region, otherwise the player will get some penalties (however this particular example maybe is unrealizable with the engine of Rome).
Any of my games in the end had all the cities (even those in the desert or in the Balearic Islands) at a huge level with all possible structures built in a little time, this isn't historical at all unless you force yourself to ignore buildings and leave construction queues empty for many turns; different city development systems will allow to choose the way you create your empire, and maybe if you don't take care of what you're doing you could see your dominions grow badly towards poorness and/or inefficiency, corruption, squallor etc. (I think that this would introduce more complexity and "deepness" to the game economic/strategic side, instead of simply filling the cq with anything you can build and then wait turns and turns to see them completed and then build something else).
However I don't know if the game is hardcoded so that buildings can't have a regional-construction system as units-training, or so that anything I was thinking about is not possible to add in EB2. If the game is hardcoded, well, alas: this idea should be left away.
If not, what do you think about it? Is here in this post any fault? Or do you think that a more advanced development system like this isn't in your interests or in the spirit of EB?
Just like many different temples can be built, I thought that there could be also different buildable farms, in example wheat farms, fruit farms... or livestock-focusized estates instead of agricultural ones.
And, if possible, different settlements won't share the same type of buildings, so in example Southern Italy will have grape or olives cultivations while Scandinavia won't allow them and Eastern countries will have typical local products. Different farms will give different results. Grain could improve only population growth, grapes could improve happiness and trading incomes.
I think however that there shouldn't be only one buildable type of farm, but a more complex system, in example the player could build 5 different level 1 farms, 1 farm increased to level 5, or 2 lv1 farms and 1 lv3 farm etc.
Besides, trading and development can be influenced by this system. In example, the region A has a marker that says that this region is famous because it has good quality wine-or-anything-you-want. So, if you build in the settlement of this region a grape cultivation with wineries, you'll get another trading bonus because of the high quality of the product. Furthermore: wine isn't something that fills people's stomachs, so if you build a lv5 grape cultivation you'll get some money from the wine sold, but inhabitans will starve! So balancing is essential and players should consider if improve this thing or that other one, and get so different way of development for their cities. However, by doing only 5 lv1 farms you won't get particular advantages, and everything will remain average.
That's different from the really simple system of Rome, where you only build a farm, wait some turns, then improve it and stop.
And what if the region A has poor small fields that make wheat farms insufficient? Unless doing long time and extensively upgrades (just like docks!), population can't grow quickly and the city won't become large and rich - but you can still exploit it for its wine and get trading bonuses.
There could be also "exchanges" between connected (by sea routes or roads) neighbouring cities represented by ad hoc buildings, so in example the A city could build a structure that decreases trading incomes and increases farming in order to simulate that wine is exchanged for food. Thus the settlement can still be developed in a particular way, however by losing other bonuses. You'll have to decide if doing this or not will give you advantages.
I also though about a sort of role-playing with characters that, when they get inside a settlement, receive a trait that tells what that particular settlement needs and offers, thus if, in example, Rome is training a lot of legionaries, the governor will receive a trait that tells that there is a lack of iron for weapons and armor that will be solved by upgrading the nearest mine or building one in a region, otherwise the player will get some penalties (however this particular example maybe is unrealizable with the engine of Rome).
Any of my games in the end had all the cities (even those in the desert or in the Balearic Islands) at a huge level with all possible structures built in a little time, this isn't historical at all unless you force yourself to ignore buildings and leave construction queues empty for many turns; different city development systems will allow to choose the way you create your empire, and maybe if you don't take care of what you're doing you could see your dominions grow badly towards poorness and/or inefficiency, corruption, squallor etc. (I think that this would introduce more complexity and "deepness" to the game economic/strategic side, instead of simply filling the cq with anything you can build and then wait turns and turns to see them completed and then build something else).
However I don't know if the game is hardcoded so that buildings can't have a regional-construction system as units-training, or so that anything I was thinking about is not possible to add in EB2. If the game is hardcoded, well, alas: this idea should be left away.
If not, what do you think about it? Is here in this post any fault? Or do you think that a more advanced development system like this isn't in your interests or in the spirit of EB?