Turn Time & Aging

[Sir Robin]

Well considering they are including an unpacker for the files I would say yes...

True but we are still getting "maybe" and "we're looking into it"from CA about altering or adding unit models. Even with RTW it ended up being a member of the community that made that possible.

Kind of pointless to create a faction if you cannot create any unique faction units.

[Xaziv]

Hello.

Was reading the post.

Noticed that the only downfall to .5 timesclae is the event triggering.

So I was looking through descr_events.txt

Couldn't I just cut all the dates of the events in half, and than they would be triggered at the same time?

That semes to be the simple solution for this problem, but it seems like if it were so easy that someone else besides me would have tried this first?

[Lord Condormanius]

Well the ease with which it can be modded makes me thin they are doing good job. I restarted my England game with the 0.5 setting and I am having a great time. The rate of movement on the map feels better this way

And I am sure it will not be long before some Era mods come out with different start dates and Europe setup for the more advanced tech...

As for timing, I feel it has so far worked better on the 0.5 setting... For me the Frist Crusade (won by the English.. ) occured in a relatively accurate 1102... That is 44 turns into the game for me... 44 turns at timescale 2.0 would have been 88 years, the crusade would have occured in 1168...

I guess if the above does not matter to you then you should leave the settings as they are...

If it does bother you then you are a member of the second group who should really alter the setting...

All I can say is that with the 0.5 setting (and leaving the build times as default) so far everything seems to be working fine...

I couldn't agree more. The game feels so much better. I also don't feel like I'm being rushed to get things done.

Also, I don't know how the income is generated in the game, but it seems to be according to time, rather than turns. Again, I don't know if this is actually the case, but I seem to have less money each turn, which has slowed down the pace...which is good for me.

After 15 turns in the 0.50 timescale (1087) I feel like I am not moving along as fast as I was after 15 turns at 2.00 (1110). I strongly recommend doing this if you enjoy a slower paced game. I also like the option of deleting the line that makes the tiem show as turns.

I am also rather proud of myself for finding the file and all that stuff that most of you consider elementary. This was my first attempt at modding anything. I was shocked at how simple it was.

[Daveybaby]

Building times are by turns, not by years. A upgrade that takes 2 turns to build at timescale 2 still takes 2 turns to build at timescale 0.5.

Yeeeesssss.... that was my point. If you keep building times the same then youre going to have built everything by 1/4 of the way through the game (compared to normal). Thus to keep the tech tree progressing gradually throughout the game you will have to multiply build times by 4, divide pop growth by 4 etc.

Then you will have large castles taking 24 turns to build. Tedious in the extreme. Chances are you will have finished the game before you finish building the biggest castle. Not good.

As i said, there is no self consistent method which doesnt result in some aspect of the game being badly paced. Hence CAs decision to have the best of both worlds.

[Lord Condormanius]

Well...

I am 30 turns into my first campaign using the 0.50 timescale, playing as England. It is now winter 1094 and the first crusade to Jerusalem has just been called. Not bad timing, only a year early. Wm. the Conqueror has just died the previous summer at age 62, I think. The pacing of the game seems perfect right now. I have 2 fewer territories than I did after 20 turns on the 2.00 timescale.

I think it has to do with money. I seem to remember monet generating more per turn at the 2.00 timescale, which leads me to believe that the game generates florins by year rather than by turn.

So far I like it a lot better this way. We'll see how it turns out after another 500 or 600 turns. My slogan is going to be "Byzantium by 1453" ... or maybe not.

LC

[Bob the Insane]

Yeeeesssss.... that was my point. If you keep building times the same then youre going to have built everything by 1/4 of the way through the game (compared to normal). Thus to keep the tech tree progressing gradually throughout the game you will have to multiply build times by 4, divide pop growth by 4 etc.

Then you will have large castles taking 24 turns to build. Tedious in the extreme. Chances are you will have finished the game before you finish building the biggest castle. Not good.

As i said, there is no self consistent method which doesnt result in some aspect of the game being badly paced. Hence CAs decision to have the best of both worlds.

This is a good point...

My campaign is progressing nice and I am in the winter of 1123... That is the 86th turn... If I was playing the default time scale I would be in 1252...

No factions have kicked the bucket yet and while the Polish, Spainish and Turkish are doing well there are no super powers...

Overall the pacing is working well but I have to admit that there are a lot of huge cities and citadels already... The only thing limiting the exapansion is money...

Populations are growing pretty fast which seems to encourage the trend to build the larger cities and castles with the tech building inside them lagging behind (again because of money I think)... I mean in theory I have another 800+ turns to play and I already have two cities with populations over 30000... But with a decent garrsion these are controlable... hmmm

Still undecided, but I do like the way the aging all adds up now...

It would be interesting to try a game with the build times at x4 to see how that worked.

[Lord Condormanius]

The only thing limiting the exapansion is money...

Populations are growing pretty fast which seems to encourage the trend to build the larger cities and castles with the tech building inside them lagging behind (again because of money I think)... I mean in theory I have another 800+ turns to play and I already have two cities with populations over 30000... But with a decent garrsion these are controlable... hmmm

Still undecided, but I do like the way the aging all adds up now...

It would be interesting to try a game with the build times at x4 to see how that worked.

Well...

I am 30 turns into my first campaign using the 0.50 timescale, playing as England. It is now winter 1094 and the first crusade to Jerusalem has just been called. Not bad timing, only a year early. Wm. the Conqueror has just died the previous summer at age 62, I think. The pacing of the game seems perfect right now. I have 2 fewer territories than I did after 20 turns on the 2.00 timescale.

I think it has to do with money. I seem to remember monet generating more per turn at the 2.00 timescale, which leads me to believe that the game generates florins by year rather than by turn.

So far I like it a lot better this way. We'll see how it turns out after another 500 or 600 turns.

A few more thoughts:

Is it possible to adjust the population limit (set it higher) that determines when your Cities/castles can be upgraded?

How about only increasing build times X2? If the game is flowing well enough, with the money factor, it may not be neccessary to adjust everything incrementally. That is, it may not be a staight math equation that works. Am I making any sense?