Divine Wind - Developer Diary #5

[Junuxx]

I'm not sure if this has been answered in the thread already, but will it be possible to destroy buildings? And will doing so require magistrates (hopefully not). I can see annexing a vassal for instance, and then suddenly having a huge negative magistrate income because that vassal of yours had a number of buildings that are suddenly draining your magistrate pool.

Yes this has been answered, yes this will be possible.
I don't think buildings reduce your magistrate income (unless I misunderstood), you just need to expend magistrates for building them, as you do now when taking decisions.

[pjcrowe]

it just doesn't make sense to station them in every unfortified province if the reason is to keep a ridiculously small fleeing stack from taking over the province before your main army arrives on the same day.

You certainly enjoy hyperbole, don't you? So you won't mind if I take you literally. If a "ridiculously small" stack and "your main army" arrive on the same day, and you don't instantly win due to the 10:1 rule, your main army is ridiculously small.

-Pat

[lordkestrel]

Yes this has been answered, yes this will be possible.
I don't think buildings reduce your magistratie income (unless I misunderstood), you just need to expand magistrates for building them, as you do now when taking decisions.

Thank you! I thought it was mentioned that buildings would drain income, but if not than it isn't really an issue. I can still see the need to destroy unique buildings if you didn't want them in that province, but it's not a pressing need like a building that had a magistrate income penalty associated with it would be.

[Romtos]

Dear Besuchov, Captain Gars, Birken, or any other from the Divine Team, i got another question : i get it, some decisions (like post offices and census) have been merged and moved to the buildings area. But are there still other province decisions (like local customs or cultural unity) ? or was the feature scrapped all together ?

Decisions are still there for some things like the HRE. Fear not modders out there.

I asked it for you.

[gigau]

I asked it for you.

My mistake... sorry for missing your post

Thanks a lot

[Malurous]

You certainly enjoy hyperbole, don't you?

Hehe, it's not that I enjoy it - like I said I tried (and failed, obviously) to make a point by exaggerating.

So you won't mind if I take you literally. If a "ridiculously small" stack and "your main army" arrive on the same day, and you don't instantly win due to the 10:1 rule, your main army is ridiculously small.

-Pat

It doesn't matter if the battle is instantly won as occupation happens before the battle - remember all those times when you've chased a rebel or an enemy to a province, arrived on the same day but had the offensive side? You do get the "province is under siege" message in that situation, or lose the province if it has no fort.

[The_Hypnotoad]

I just want to add my voice that these changes sound fantastic. I think it is going to be fun and interesting to develop one's country now. Maybe it'll even get rid of boredom wars.

[tului]

Other than the magistrates being required for certain buildings, the changes sound good.

[Grosshaus]

Looks great!

While changing the interface regarding city view and buildings screen, please also consider having the messages/history log to appear outside that interface. There looks to be ample room a bit to the right of centre on lower part of the screen.

[Malurous]

While changing the interface regarding city view and buildings screen, please also consider having the messages/history log to appear outside that interface. There looks to be ample room a bit to the right of centre on lower part of the screen.

This is a very good point. Same applies to siege and battle screens - playing on a widescreen, half the lower part is free but those screens cover the messages.

Especially a long and pivotal battle has this effect: you want to follow the battle to react if necessary, but all sorts of things happen during that long clash that you miss unless you just pause all the time.

[Tyler #18]

This is a very good point. Same applies to siege and battle screens - playing on a widescreen, half the lower part is free but those screens cover the messages.

Especially a long and pivotal battle has this effect: you want to follow the battle to react if necessary, but all sorts of things happen during that long clash that you miss unless you just pause all the time.

+1

[Birken]

Thank you! I thought it was mentioned that buildings would drain income, but if not than it isn't really an issue. I can still see the need to destroy unique buildings if you didn't want them in that province, but it's not a pressing need like a building that had a magistrate income penalty associated with it would be.

Unique, manufactory and high level buildings (the ones that are exclusive) can be destroyed the 'x' buttons in the interface.

Other than the magistrates being required for certain buildings, the changes sound good.

It's scriptable, I'm sure there will be a "Fort level 1 without the cost of a magistrate"-mod pretty soon if people find it to be an actual problem after launch.

[steveh11]

It's scriptable, I'm sure there will be a "Fort level 1 without the cost of a magistrate"-mod pretty soon if people find it to be an actual problem after launch.

LOL! There's practically a 'rule 34' for such things - if the possibility exists, someone will do it - probably at the beta stage!

[The Zealot]

It's scriptable, I'm sure there will be a "Fort level 1 without the cost of a magistrate"-mod pretty soon if people find it to be an actual problem after launch.

I don't mean to be condescending or patronising, but I think we already got enough people in this thread alone saying that it will be an actual problem before launch.
It's obvious people don't mind the AI getting a level 1 fort anywhere it wants, as long as it doesn't prevent us from having them wherever we want.
And it makes sense really, I have to agree with them. Everybody loves conquering land from other nations, and yet everybody hates re-conquering their land from rebels. Making life easier for rebels is not really the way things should be heading to.

Otherwise we'd play with Ethiopia (which still needs to be properly nerfed btw ).

[Birken]

I don't mean to be condescending or patronising, but I think we already got enough people in this thread alone saying that it will be an actual problem before launch.
It's obvious people don't mind the AI getting a level 1 fort anywhere it wants, as long as it doesn't prevent us from having them wherever we want.
And it makes sense really, I have to agree with them. Everybody loves conquering land from other nations, and yet everybody hates re-conquering their land from rebels. Making life easier for rebels is not really the way things should be heading to.

Otherwise we'd play with Ethiopia (which still needs to be properly nerfed btw ).

Enough people for what?
Why do you think the ai will get them for free?

[DreadLindwyrm]

We have had quite a few people saying they'd like to be able to build basic defenses (Fort level 1) without magistrates. Personally I'm in favour of this, if only because I've had revolts happen in captured territory that have resulted in chasing rebels for quite a while and through territory that I've not been able to afford/not had the time to build forts in and it really isn't fun. I'd also think of that as being the sort of level the townsmen would try to arrange as soon as they had the cash on hand, even if this consists of wooden walls and a ditch around a village.

As far as I can see from The Zealot's post he isn't saying the AI should get them for free, just that they should also be able to build level 1 forts without magistrates, just as the player(s) should otherwise AI conquests of (for example) the American tribes will probably just collapse, and the early Russian game will involve a lot of provinces changing hands very rapidly as, from memory, quite a bit of Novgorod starts of without forts.

[TheLoneGunman]

I don't mean to be condescending or patronising, but I think we already got enough people in this thread alone saying that it will be an actual problem before launch.
It's obvious people don't mind the AI getting a level 1 fort anywhere it wants, as long as it doesn't prevent us from having them wherever we want.
And it makes sense really, I have to agree with them. Everybody loves conquering land from other nations, and yet everybody hates re-conquering their land from rebels. Making life easier for rebels is not really the way things should be heading to.

Otherwise we'd play with Ethiopia (which still needs to be properly nerfed btw ).

There've been quite a few of us in this thread that are actually in support of making forts (even level 1 forts) cost a magistrate.

A poll might be in order now!

[steveh11]

I actually feel fine with having to pay magistrates to get Level 1 Forts, provided there's a mechanism like Vicky's where there's a delay in actually gaining control of a province. There's been no word on this idea yet, though.

[The Zealot]

As far as I can see from The Zealot's post he isn't saying the AI should get them for free, just that they should also be able to build level 1 forts without magistrates, just as the player(s) should otherwise AI conquests of (for example) the American tribes will probably just collapse, and the early Russian game will involve a lot of provinces changing hands very rapidly as, from memory, quite a bit of Novgorod starts of without forts.

Exactly my point. I never said that the AI should get free anything, they follow the rules the same way everyone else does. The issue is with the rules limiting Level 1 forts.

Enough people for what?

Enough people saying that it will be a problem if Magistrates are mandatory to build a level 1 fort, based on current knowledge of the game so far.

[The Zealot]

There've been quite a few of us in this thread that are actually in support of making forts (even level 1 forts) cost a magistrate.

A poll might be in order now!

I have no problems with following the dictatorship of the majority.