Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
It's have to be balanced out, perhaps lowering both cost and income across the board, but to achieve and end result of a higher income per province than there is currently.
Ah, so you mean lower the build cost & income for mines, while raising the build cost & income for the Smith buildings (so that they're closer to being equal)?


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
Well when some better names can be though of then yes, though in my opinion the names as they are make more sense than anything else I can think. They imply weapons manufacture and not weapons training.
To you and me they do, yes. What I'm wondering, however, is whether other players will make that same distinction. Sorry, I know I'm probably just making a mountain out of a molehill....


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
The Salter can still be added, and dependent on the salt mine, which in turn would depend on the Salt resource. Some other interdependency examples would include:

Leatherworker [Tanner?] <- Hides (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Mason <- No dependency* -> Keep and above??
Vintner <- Wine (resource), Improved Farmland ??%
Yeah, I like that. For the Leatherworker/Tanner, I'd say go with just the 20% Improved Farmland -- I don't think the requirements should be super-high for that. I'd say the Mason should depend on either the Keep or *maybe* the Castle, depending on how much income it'll bring in (a mere Fort is definitely too low). With the Vintner, I'd suggest the 40% farmland, maybe even 60% (again, depending on how lucrative it would be).


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
*I don't want to introduce quarries but it might be an idea?
That, I'm not sure of. I guess it would probably depend on how common they were during the time period: Were there quarries all over the place, or were they relatively rare? If it's the latter, then I'd say it could be worth looking at adding them in. If it's the former and quarries were a dime a dozen, then I'd say we shouldn't bother with them.


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
To summarise the above: The Tanner would depend on the Hides resource and Improved Farmland of a particular level. Perhaps each level of Tanner (Workshop, Guild, Master) could be tied to each level of Farmland upgrade. The exact same would go for the Vintner except that it would depend on the Wine resource.
Agreed.


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
The Mason could just be another low income generating building, perhaps present in most developed provinces at the start of the campaign. (I now have the "capitals" with at least a keep for every faction). As the castle needs upgrading the mason would also need it.
Well since I'd already guessed that that's how we'd do it anyway, I'm definitely all for it.


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
It would also be, indirectly, the prerequisite for buildings such as Cathedrals, Grand Mosques, Military Academies etc etc. The masons would also be a way of ensuring that the AI reaches a certain income level before upgrading the castle (Re: YLC's idea earlier).

Examples:

Keep <- Mason
Castle <- Masons' Workshop
Citadel <- Masons' Guild
Fortress <- Master Mason
Excellent idea. With any luck, doing so could also help prevent the AI from upgrading castles for which it can't justify the cost (i.e., upgrading to a Citadel in Scotland before upgrading to a Citadel in Aquitaine).


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
Well as I've said before, Muster Field and Inn, or Inn and Muster Field?? (I'm assuming, as was usually the case that all local troops were effectively mercenaries at that time requiring pay either in land, loot, wenches, ale or titles. The Inn would be the first step, the muster field would be the later step for levying better troops OR the muster field would be the first step for low class militias and the Inn would be the next for meeting with the local leaders of various militias, clans etc.
I would say put the Muster Field first, and then upgrade to the Inn. I couldn't say why exactly, except that it just "feels" right.


Quote Originally Posted by Caravel View Post
First and last are ok by me, but the second and third are too restrictive culturally.
Yeah, I'm not keen on the 2nd and 3rd ones either, but I've been stuck on finding better names for them.

The only alternatives I can think of right now would be Yeomenry Stables and Guard Stables, but I'm not wild about those either -- aside from those names not making a whole lot of sense IMO, I'm also trying to avoid copying too much from the Barracks & Range buildings. I briefly considered Militia Stables, but I think that could really only be applied to the 1st-tier stables anyway, and is therefore a moot point.

Out of curiosity, do you have a rough idea as to which cavalry units will be dependent on which Stables? That might help me with coming up with ideas.