Printable View
The building description for the "Large Granary" says that it increases tradeable goods, yet when it is put in the building lineup the settlement details actually state that trade money will actually decrease. After the large Granary is built I haven't actually seen if the above actually occurs, but it scares me enough to make me rarely built large granaries. Does this bug occur in anyone else's games and has it already been discussed? If so, is there a fix for it?
Known issue that we can't fix. The text will say it increases, regardless of whether it is a bonus or malus. The large granary will decrease trade because more of the agriculture products are stored locally instead of being traded. This will probably have an entirely different mechanic in EB2.
So it it even worth building the large granary at all?
If you want higher population growth, yes. If you're struggling with overpopulation, definitely not.
.
Do granaries have to do with health anyway?
.
Health? What are you talking about?
They should, More granaries mean more food and choise of 'quality' of the food for the people; and that mean's better health - Think about it even this way:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Granaries storage food that is mostly 'healthy' like (oliv oil and agricultural products).. So you have + to food = + to population = + to health! Even if there is no granaries the population is going to storage food - by in a much 'unhealthy' condition's and in smaller amount's:shrug:
I think you are talking about it in terms of the effect that granaries have realistically, but I think the question had to do with their effect in the game in which they provide no public health bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maksimus
.
No public health bonus, thanks. :bow: Large ones provide some happiness but the excess population is a pain in foreign culture settlements and I caught myself typing add_population "My City" -10000 more than once. :gah2:
.
Well, you shouldn't reduce population like that. That's part of the difficulty in dealing with large settlements of different culture or far away from your capital. You can let them rebel and after retaking the city, exile most of the population or exterminate them (if you have a particularly evil governor).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
The bottom line is, we don't want your (human) faction to roll over the AI factions, so these "distractions" are a necessity to reduce your "speed" in the campaign map.
.
I'm all for those speed brakes, as I've expressed many times around. ~:) But when things get repetitive and illogical due to hardcode you get bored. ~:handball:
I'm talking about 150 game years here. You crush (eliminate) SPQR, take all of her cities. You have already exterminated their population upon conquest. They rebelled once (they always do at least once if they're at the top core building level). You exterminated again. Now they have a village's population.
Now, logically you settle your own people and they intermingle with the remaining minority and the city adopts your culture. But no, the core building is Roman and they revolt because of like 45% unavoidable culture penalty, because our dear devs decided that you cannot destroy your enemy's palace building. Very historically accurate indeed!
On the contrary, the next town won't experience these troubles because you have taken it at an upgradable stage and once you convert the palace building everybody is happy within their wooden barbarian houses surrounded with green.
It actually urges the human player to rush. You think that you should take all those settlements at once before the AI upgrades them to the top level and so on.
Population growth and building time of upgraded core buildings should be drastically slowed down, IMHO. Thanks for your time. :bow:
.