Log in

View Full Version : Granary - second upgrade


Praxil
03-01-2007, 17:09
I already asked this in TWC but so far didn't got answer I was looking for.

This question is firstly for EB Team of course.


grain_silo
}
}
grain_silo requires factions { all, }
{
capability
{
population_growth_bonus bonus 2
happiness_bonus bonus 1
trade_base_income_bonus bonus -1
}
construction 8
cost 6400


What is the reason or explanation for income penalty?



Of course I can edit it to whatever I like but... I don't get the logic of the penalty.
blacksnail
03-01-2007, 17:18
Of course I can edit it to whatever I like but... I don't get the logic of the penalty.
My immediate assumption is that it is because you are diverting grain you would otherwise export and sell, which means you lose out on potential profit. Unfortunately it looks like a bonus in the game, which is an engine-based falsehood due to the way that Trade Base Income works. That's pretty lame.

Bonuses and such are getting a hard look for the next version. We hope to make them consistent across all buildings and not have penalties reported as bonuses.
Praxil
03-01-2007, 19:28
My immediate assumption is that it is because you are diverting grain you would otherwise export and sell, which means you lose out on potential profit.

Right, I just see historical effect of Granaries a bit differently than EB Team. In the end It's all good.
Danest
03-01-2007, 19:30
Crap, the granaries are taking away from my income? All these years, after building markets and ports,etc. and looking for a way to make more money... and I've been putting in granaries that are accomplishing the opposite? Argh! Man that's a serious (well, annoying, at least) oversight by CA to not have made that more clear in vanilla.
Empty
03-01-2007, 19:51
Crap, the granaries are taking away from my income? All these years, after building markets and ports,etc. and looking for a way to make more money... and I've been putting in granaries that are accomplishing the opposite?
Hell yeah, a nasty surprise.
blacksnail
03-01-2007, 21:15
Yeah, that was just my guess - I'm not sure about the history of it. But that would seem to be the most logical explanation.
Danest
03-01-2007, 23:02
I'm no programmer, but how long would that have taken CA to stick that into their last patch? What, an extra 10 minutes? I've been quiet about all their other bugs, but this one really...uh... bugs me. :p
blacksnail
03-02-2007, 05:05
They did not do any negative values in Vanilla, nor was the program really set up to handle/display negatives, so it makes sense why it would happen that way.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
03-02-2007, 05:21
Considering vanilla didn't use negative values, modders are lucky that they work at all. Cudos to CA for making it mostly work even though they themselves didn't really need it to.