founding new cities

**Sarkiss** · 09-29-2007, 12:27

with permanent forts, new Kingdoms feature, will it possible to exploit it to a bigger extand to represent building of an entirely new city?

**Foot** · 09-29-2007, 13:51

Not really, as they wouldn't be able to do anything. Allowing the player to just plant permanent forts wherever he wants would be silly. We might be able to link it to a building, so that the building's bonuses would add income and population growth, and a script could place the permanent fort in a pre-chosen place (or a random choice of places).

Personally I'm going to look into the idea of having permanent forts placed at the beginning coupled with a "city" resource. Capturing the "lesser city" will spawn one of your merchants on the resource to generate income, losing it will kill your merchant and replace it with an enemy one. We could then reduce income at the main settlement by a third (maybe), which would make the economy of a province reliant on maintaining a garrison in this "lesser city". This would be great for those large provinces of the east, and would also work well for those provinces where the starting faction didn't have complete control. It would also give a more permeable province boundary to the game as well.

Of course, we wouldn't have to place the "lesser city" resource next to the permanent fort, but could use the sahara (locked off) as a home for the placement of all these "merchants-as-cities". Or we could redo the model of the merchant to make it look like a city, and have the permanent fort adjacent to it to represent the military garrison. It might be possible to make it so that the permanent fort comes with no proper walls, but represents the defensive position of the military garrison on a field of battle, so we don't have to increase the number of siege battles (though that would require some Ai tweaking I imagine).

Foot

**Sarkiss** · 09-29-2007, 21:25

yeah, im kind of worried about siege fest too. thats what happens in RTR where in some regions imo too many cities are planted...
permanent forts as it is now would piss many people off too. it is enough to say that it is frustrating to see watch towers being undemolisheble. AI builds them in rather unsuiteble places sometimes.
so did i get it right that we might have more than 1 "settlement" per province and these would be there from the start of the game? that would remove the abilitiy to constact forts all together?

P.S. Foot, what do you think of Ervandid's factional coat of arms i PMed?

**Bootsiuv** · 09-29-2007, 22:08

I've always wished there was a way to take a part of a province....when someone attacked another kingdom, they would usually gradually gain control of an area, as they're armies moved closer to the provincial capital. The fact that a province still retains control of it's western holdings when an enemy army is between the capital and the aforementioned holdings is not really historically accurate.

At least with permanent forts representing cities, conquest will seem a little more realistic and fluid.

**Puupertti Ruma** · 09-30-2007, 18:19

Can those minor towns be named in any way?

**Bellum** · 10-01-2007, 04:59

Could you not just tie the bonuses to the forts? That'd do away with a lot of extra work.

**HistoryProf** · 10-01-2007, 23:21

Originally Posted by Foot

Personally I'm going to look into the idea of having permanent forts placed at the beginning coupled with a "city" resource. Capturing the "lesser city" will spawn one of your merchants on the resource to generate income, losing it will kill your merchant and replace it with an enemy one. We could then reduce income at the main settlement by a third (maybe), which would make the economy of a province reliant on maintaining a garrison in this "lesser city". This would be great for those large provinces of the east, and would also work well for those provinces where the starting faction didn't have complete control. It would also give a more permeable province boundary to the game as well.

Of course, we wouldn't have to place the "lesser city" resource next to the permanent fort, but could use the sahara (locked off) as a home for the placement of all these "merchants-as-cities". Or we could redo the model of the merchant to make it look like a city, and have the permanent fort adjacent to it to represent the military garrison. It might be possible to make it so that the permanent fort comes with no proper walls, but represents the defensive position of the military garrison on a field of battle, so we don't have to increase the number of siege battles (though that would require some Ai tweaking I imagine).

Foot

Brilliant! The 'permeable province boundry' reminds me of the old William Shepard maps, where he would use a stratified mixing of two colors that represented the different factions both having claims on the same territory.

The re-skinned merchant idea is interesting. Can you remove the aspect of 'getting bumped off' a resource by armies moving through?

I'm excited to see where you take this.

**Bootsiuv** · 10-02-2007, 04:15

I too pictured the old maps in history books with the lines in alternating colors, signifying two factions claiming control over an area, and always wished this was somewhat possible to signify with the R:TW engine.

This was often the real cause of wars....and it would be strangely gratifying to see the minimap change from those alternating lines to your factions color alone following a successful war.

It's a minor qualm though, really.