View Full Version : Should contruction times be decreased?
Mithrandir
11-30-2002, 09:50
I ask because I think they should be decreased, and would like your opinion on it.
Personally I dislike having to wait 16 turns just to get a higher level of castle, after which you have to wait yet another 12 years (to construct additional required buildings)to train a certain unit.
I'd very much like it if all construction times would be decreased by 25% and in cases of the big castles a max. construction time of 10 years...
It may not always be historicly acurate, but how acurate is it for a full unit of Chivaric knights to be trained and equipped in just one year, or the spearmakers shop which needs 4 ( ? ) years to be build...tis just a hut http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
Your turn.
IMO, fine as is because:
1) You are not just building one castle; in provinces of vast sizes such as these you are really building a supporting network of dozens of castles, most likely with a fortified city at its center. The game for playablity purposes does not show you the fortifified city or all the dozens of castles, but during siege battles abstracts the whole province reduction process into a representative assault and/or siege on ONE castle.
This "abstraction" theory also not only explains the high build times, but also the high siege times (ie, multi-year) as well. You are not really sieging just one castle, but dozens of cities and castles.
2) In the same vein, you are not just building a "hut" for a kindly old spearmaker. Think scale here guys, the provinces we are talking about have names like "Normandy" and "Wessex." You are really creating the infrastructure for a mammoth area-wide weapons procurement, distribution, and troop recruitment and training network. Which the game, in a quaint little abstraction, entitles a "Spearmaker." And merely pictures it as one little hut.
Hakonarson
12-01-2002, 04:02
Nicely put Coucy
Actually, the buildings don't bother me and by in large I agree with Coucy. What I think might take too long are certain units, ie Ballista's and Naval units.
Even if Barques and whatnot represent a "fleet", I don't see it taking three years. That amount of time should produce a Nelson at Trafalgar type fleet. 2 years is even too much IMHO but I can understand it for gameplay reasons. 3 is too much.
Can't figure out why simple siege weopons take two years. Just some wood a little rope and some rocks/cattle/prisoners.
GameDesigner
12-01-2002, 05:50
Putting aside historical accuracy, it's an interesting design decision to have no ability to accelerate production. Many games have options to either build construction enhancing infrastructure or to buy accelerated production. There is nothing in this game that accelerates build rates. This makes the consequences of losing provinces very serious. It can be especially grevious to have a province change hands a few times. It also means that the game has pretty strict control of when something becomes available.
One major effect it has is make for easier AI programming. SInce the AI doesn't have to try to figure out wether to spend resources on production acclereation versus production itself.
Its frustrating to me that the times get longer as the game progresses. Generally I have more going on as the game progresses so turns start to take more time on average so you end up having long real time waits to develop new units. I would be interested to see how a flater model would work.
Hakonarson
12-01-2002, 08:23
Why would you want to put aside historical accuracy???
War DID devastate provinces - heck we only need to look at recent wars to see that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Mithrandir
12-01-2002, 14:45
ah, but a game is about fun, if I wanted historical accuracy I'd read a history book.
*runs from rotten tomato's being thrown at me*
the historical aspect is ofcourse a nice addition and it may very well be a huge reason for a lot of people to play the game, but the long building times do take away a bit of the fun for me, and clearly, from the poll results ,also for others.
With the huge number of units, I dislike having to wait ages for a new one to be enabled...
I'd like add a bit to Coucy's original post.
Castle and Cathedral construction times are fine. Places like Krak des Chevaliers, Harlech Castle and Notre Dame did take a long time to build.
One of the things I love about this game is its mod-ability. And construction times are one of the easier things to mod to your fancy I believe (never tried, but its just a tweak to a number in the buildings file, right?).
If any SP players do mod down the building times for buildings, let us know how it works out
I have modded the standard buildings to 50% (rounding up to nearest 2, 2 min). All rulers tended to get the Magnificient Builder v&v very quickly and civil wars were few and far between except for Germany which seems to go into civil war if it rains.
Hakonarson
12-01-2002, 22:36
Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ Dec. 01 2002,07:45)]ah, but a game is about fun, if I wanted historical accuracy I'd read a history book.
*runs from rotten tomato's being thrown at me*
the historical aspect is ofcourse a nice addition and it may very well be a huge reason for a lot of people to play the game, but the long building times do take away a bit of the fun for me, and clearly, from the poll results ,also for others.
With the huge number of units, I dislike having to wait ages for a new one to be enabled...
Personally I like it that this game does NOT pander to the lowest common denominator - that is the gamer with an interest only in the "fun" aspects of the game - there are enough of those out there already - games that is.
Well those gamers too I probably
I mean why have building times at all - why not just instantly create whatever you want? Heck - if hte game takes too long to play then why not make it a RTS FPS??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Go away and leave us serious old farts this little piece of almost-but-not-really-close-to-history gaming will ya http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
FesterShinetop
12-02-2002, 01:07
I don't mind the initial building times are so long, and I totally agree with Coucy; I just think they should reduce the time it takes to rebuild something after it has been destroyed. As I mentioned in another post I once saw a big building (one that takes 16 years to build) being wiped away in the same turn it was finally completed
I think building times should be halved if rebuilding stuff and the original building times are just fine, as the old fart http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif before me said: it shouldn't be too easy
chunkynut
12-03-2002, 12:33
I also am not greatly bothered about building times but i think, like coucy and apache, that you should be able to build a cheaper development if it was damaged or destroyed because as coucy says the infrastructure is still there.
Another thing that i cant stand is when you build a fortification improvement (ie with keep,a curtain wall, and balista towers) no discount is given on then building a castle (in either build times or cost). But i think that these improvements have gone some way towards completing the castle. Just a pet hate, thats all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Buidling times for castles are fine (even a tad short perhaps), but taking 8 years to build a smithy or seems somewhat extravagant.
I'd like to see all the 'minor' buildings like armourer, bowyer, spearmaker, gunsmith, brothel, tavern etc reduced to 2 years each.
The large buildings like castles, cathedral etc are fine as it is.
The_Dude
12-03-2002, 18:42
I also think that it's fine like this, if the time are reduced, planning construction will be less important (when you build a citadelle you have to think that you cannot build other building during a long time) and the player will be able to do some building rush to have the most powerfull armie in less time... It's fine like that, if the time are reduced, what are going to do when you have conquer everything you need? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Daveybaby
12-03-2002, 19:19
I think that when playing an early game the times are fine as they are, but when playing a late game you dont really have enough time to build anything from scratch, youre stuck with upgrading the provinces which are part-built when you start.
My idea: have different building times for each period (say to reflect improved building technology). E.g. In high period build times are reduced by 25%, in the Late Period reduce by a further 25%.
Or just apply the bonuses to certain levels of upgrade, e.g. in High period all level 1 & 2 workshops build times are reduced by 1/3. In late period all level 3 workshops are reduced by 1/3, and level 1 & 2 are reduced by a further 1/3. This would allow players to rapidly build up a province to a basic level, and still allow enough time to fully upgrade before the game ends.
I think the construction times are fine. I would like to build more than one thing at a time in a region so long as prerequisites are met. Putting up a church and a bowyer simultaneously should be doable.
MonkeyMan
12-03-2002, 21:11
well i vote that some should be reduced but others not. something that would sort it out is to be able to buildmore than one thing at once assuming you had the money. Parhaps divide the buildings into types - military, farm, financial, administration and be able to build one of each type at a time. But then perhaps if you want a castle to have to put all the regions efforts and labout into it.
MagyarKhans Cham
12-03-2002, 21:59
let production time depend on teh number of men u have in teh province
Cooperman
12-06-2002, 08:59
Building times are ok as they are, you just have to prioritise development initially on a single line of the tech tree if you want to be able to produce certain high level units in a reasonable time. Although post-patch it isn't usually a problem getting the buildings built before you get to the late era and can make the units.
The biggest problem with buildings is that the AI doesnt' build enough so when you have all citadels and fortresses the AI factions still have forts. In part this is due to the frequency the provinces change hands but this is especially a problem with factions like denmark and novgorod that only have the 1 province and dont have the income to support all the armies for their heirs. The AI neeeds to disband military if it can't support them so that it still has money to develop it's provinces.
You're right about Denmark Cooperman. They never seem to DO anything but turn down my marriage proposals.
Now that I think of it,the Danish oughta be able to be modded into viability pretty easily. Just increase Denmarks income and give them Sweden or Finland or both.
Gonna try that now by God If your power goes out I've probably done something wrong.
Giving Sweden to the Danes adds a northern version of the Sicilians (catholic_naval_psychopath).
Another option is lowering the build times, but adding an era requirement like with units.
For example -
Fort, keep and castle in all eras, citadel only in high/late and fortress only in late.
Level 1/2 in all eras, level 3 buildings only in high/late and level 4 only in late.
Cathedral only in high/late.
Gunpowder buildings only in late.
etc
In this way, building is faster, but not everything is available. However, there is some conflict with certain GAs. (such as citadel in Tripoli in early era for French)
EDIT - oops, hit enter and it posted before I finished.
Cooperman
12-07-2002, 01:59
but it's already possible in provinces where you dont build the unique buildings that you can only have 1 of per faction to build all buildings and this is easier in non-coastal non-trading provinces. If construction times were reduced there would be no strategy to building, no thought would need to go into it and no need to specialise provinces.
The main improvements to buildings need to be to repairing buildings damaged/destroyed when a province is attacked as well as to the way the AI builds so that it has a strong economy and stand a chance against a human opponent. The aim of these changes to help the AI and not a human opponent who already has far too easy a time of it.
With the current build times, the only provinces that have a chance at specializing for a particular unit are those you start with or gain in the first 40-50 years. The rest will be little more than gold production. This all assumes you never lose them to invasions. This problem gets amplified for those factions with few starting provinces (such as Danes or Poles).
Considering how many times provinces change ownership with all the resultant damage, a reduced rebuild time would have little or no effect. Adding a rebuild feature would simply add complexity and possibly bugs as well as consuming valuable developement time which could be better spent on areas that actually need work.
EDIT - fixed typo
HopAlongBunny
12-08-2002, 07:55
Quote[/b] (Mithrandir @ Dec. 01 2002,07:45)]ah, but a game is about fun, if I wanted historical accuracy I'd read a history book.
hehehe
Very good point Mith http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Cooperman
12-08-2002, 10:53
but a game is also about challenge, perhaps if they were decreased on easy lvl for those that have a problem with them and left as they are for the harder dificulty lvl's
Well the game's not hard no matter how you slice it, and I don't see how decreasing build times would make it less hard, since the AI would be able to keep right up with you, and money would limit how fast you could build anyway.
In my opinion yes, they're too long. Nothing to do with historical accuracy or challenge, it's just boring waiting 20 turns for your fortress to be finished.
-Musashi
Cooperman is right about the problems with the AI not building enough. I think that reducing the build times somewhat might help and I'm currently mod testing to see if it does (so far, so good). I've paid attention to this using the .matteosartori. cheat in my modding efforts and I 've noted the following:
1. The biggest AI problem is that it doesn't build enough and doesn't emphasize trade/naval development enough. This gives the human such a huge advantage (generally an uncontested naval/trade empire) as to amount almost to a broken feature. This is currently the focus of some modding efforts by +DOC+, Kraellin, myself and others (you can read about their mods in the Dungeon).
2. "Desertification". This is problem framiliar from Shogun where the AI provinces become progressively barren as the game goes along. I believe that the AI doesn't empahasize holding on to its provinces (esp. its home provinces) enough. It will often attack with ALL its units in a province, leaving the home province undefended. The province is captured, often with only a few enemy troops, and then the AI counter-attacks and regains the province. Rinse and repeat over and over again. End result: the AI provinces become less and less competitive with the player's (except for 1 mega-faction that takes over the other half of the map). You then have a fight between 2 super-empires, yours and 1 AI faction. After you win a few battles and defeat that faction's main armies they don't have a chance. At this point boredom sets in and I generally lose interest.
Historically, it's difficult to argue that the build times are inaccurate, but we can't revise the code to make rebuilding easier on the AI. We CAN mod the crusader_build_prod13.txt file to reduce the build times. Some of us have done that and it seems to work well. Results: 1. Factions seem to last longer (this is also the result of a series of modifications). 2. The AI seems more competitive with the player in building up its provinces.
The jury's still out on both points however.
Katasaki Hirojima
12-10-2002, 06:50
Simply put: I wanted to use Byzantine Cavalry along with my Kataphraktoi. COnstantinople is busy building Katas so I built up another province to get other kinds of cavalry. This took FOREVER. BY the time I had some Byzantine Cavalry I HAD THE GAME WON. That blows, seriously. I'm playing strictly late campaign from here on so I can conqueror province and get a leg up, may also mod buildtimes.
Lord TangMo
12-10-2002, 17:58
I think building time is quite right. If there is any change, it must be the way it was built. If possible, I would like to have the sturctures built in parallel. It was so boring to wait 16 years to have castle built and build port and so afterward. Can both be done in the same time in the same province? Then it will be really nice.
SmokWawelski
12-11-2002, 03:44
All good points but back to the castles: I am not happy when I conquer a province and plan to make it a strong point of my border and build a citadel. By the time it is finished the border is probably moved ten times already. The defensive role of castels is removed...
Lets not forget that even crusaders were able to build fortifications during crusades, among enemy teritory, without infrastructure, workers and sometimes good materials...
Did somebody add up years neede to build a citadel from ground up? I think you should do the math...
I am voting for decreasing the build times by 25% to see how it will work.
I halved all building construction times and I find the AI puts up a significantly harder fight...
-Musashi
SmokWawelski
12-12-2002, 16:54
Mushashi: what is the file that you need to play with and what values are the ones I am looking for?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Teutonic Knight
12-12-2002, 20:49
woah, who dug this thread out of the 6-month old trashbin?
SmokWawelski:
You'd be looking for a file called crusader_build_prod13.txt in your total war folder. Inside it you'll find entries for every building in the game, formatted into a set of values. Basically you're looking for the number that follows the price of the building. On a building that can be upgraded it's going to be a comma separated list of numbers inside of quotation marks, something like this: "2,4,6,8,10". Those should be the build times for the building and it's upgrades. I went through and halved them all, seems to work for me.
Make sure you make a copy of the file before you change anything in the original, so you can put the copy back in it's place if you mess up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
-Musashi
SmokWawelski
12-13-2002, 04:04
Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I will play with it as soon as I am done with current campaign: I am not sure if you can change the build times when you are in a middle of one.
Thanks again M.
I have recently learned that the Haggia Sophia took 6 years to build.
That's a pretty big building for 6 years.
SmokWawelski
12-19-2002, 23:35
Well, I have one radical idea. I was thinking about the build times and about the use of castles behind the border provinces, and also about the build at the same time problem.
Why not make available all the levels of castle from the begining? Exampe, I take the province and decide if I want fortress, castle or a simple keep there, and start building it right away. With the build time left alone, it should speed up the game, yet allow for strategic decisions about what to build where.
What do you think?
Kensai Achilles
12-20-2002, 01:57
an Idea:
how about castle upgrades can be separately built?
but the other infrastructures/units must stay in the current technology.
IMHO this is efficient, that way we don't have to wait 20 yrs to build small buildings
but florins must be adjusted accordingly though, since we don't want it to be too easy ... so yes we can build castle upgrades and farming at the same time as long as we have the florins to do so (not to mention budget for units)
comments anyone?
SmokWawelski
12-20-2002, 03:35
If I understand correctly what you are suggesting, you would need to have two separate building slots at the same time, which I think is impossible to mod.
My change would require removing building requirements from the txt file for the castle alone: 5 minutes of work...
TheViking
12-20-2002, 12:02
Lower the construction time with 50% like they did in MI, MI campain became so much more fun then STW, IMO.
And if they do, it doesnt matter if the ai nuke itself to the stoneage cus it wont take so long time to build up all the damage and destroyed buildings.
They should decrease the amount of buildings damaged and destroyed. If a spearmaker in Mercia means a system of spearmakers in Mercia, I don't think the invading force could destroy all of them. They could probably only take out a few. Invaders generally don't destroy lots of buildings too since they want to use the current infrastructure.
It takes 60 years to create a citadel from scratch. That's a very long time considering that nothing else is built during that time. Improvements are generally built along with the castle.
My suggestion is this: Halve castle build times and cost but require two buildings of the same tier to be built to proceed to the next one.
Just my view on things: the minimal construction time is 1 year. That's too long to train peasant rabble or something easy like an armourer. I want seasons. I also want seasons because they add strategical depth.
60 years to build a large citadel is ok, but it's indeed a pain that it prevents to build anything else in the same time. I can see 2 seperate building queues: one for the normal buildings 1-4 turns, the other for large projects like castles, churches and palaces.
The Last Emperor
01-10-2003, 17:19
I see the best way to this is TI's idea, It makes sense to allow "parallel construction" between a smaller project(eg farms,towers, blacksmith...etc.) alongside a major one like castle that allows any advancement to the next level. The chart that came along with the game is a good example to follow. It clearly listed the castle as THE FACTOR for any level advancement while the rest are available once the required level is attained. This is an interesting alternative CA can look at. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Its simply too long a wait for certain units to be made available and by then u could already win the game before those special units get churn-out.Its unrealistic and frustrating to take a small flood to seriously destroy the tech-tree that took so long to build. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Maybe a short repair period should be imposted instead of total distruction of buildings. Andrewt suggestion sounds sensible considering that the single building symbol on the game panel does indeed represents a network of many similar others in that provience. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.