+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Warlock would be freakin' awesome if...

  1. #21
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    I've disabled the +100% food for 8 gold building. If you have excess food, you still don't get the same money for it.
    Also as mentioned the mana generating structures. Can't really spend hundreds of mana in a row, so just building a stash, disable, use up, re-enable.

    It will be used... believe you me

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    I've disabled the +100% food for 8 gold building.
    Yes, that's possible, if your base food is less than 16. This makes sense, although not so common - building such thing in a city with low base food is not good idea after all.

  3. #23
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    I generally do first the whole +50/75/100 thing before adding additional farms... just think it's more convenient that way

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    I generally do first the whole +50/75/100 thing before adding additional farms... just think it's more convenient that way
    That's not optimal. If you calculate gold output, you could see what without additional resources it's not worth building +100% building before 2 craftsmen district. For food +100% building pays itself only after you have 3 farms (humans, no food resources), even if not taking its gold upkeep into account.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthnsk View Post
    That's not optimal. If you calculate gold output, you could see what without additional resources it's not worth building +100% building before 2 craftsmen district. For food +100% building pays itself only after you have 3 farms (humans, no food resources), even if not taking its gold upkeep into account.
    It's not optimal if you have a lot of food and are just converting it to gold. It is optimal however if you need more food. Even with 1 farm the city produces 5 food when you include the castle. Then add extra 5 from the 100% bonus at cost of 8 gold is better food production then just building an extra farm which is only +3. Sure it cost more gold but if your short on food you might need it more then the gold. Also that is the bare minimum for food production. I usually use monster cities to produce food and build the Pub first so that city has base food production of 10 and that 8 gold for 10 more food is a pretty big difference.

    It really depends on your strategy though. If your humans which require more Gold for upkeep then you probably don't care much about food. Same goes for Undead as they use mana. However most of the monster units have very high food upkeep cost and it's easy to get into a shortage as basic tier two units cost 4 food upkeep. If you run a food shortage your cities will suffer starvation and grow at a much slower rate.

  6. #26
    Let's say you have Farm, Granary and Mill. At this point you could either build Farm or Bakery. Bakery will bring you 3 food, Farm will bring you 6.25.
    Let's say you have 2 Farms, Granary and Mill. Bakery will bring you 6 food, Farm will bring you the same 6.25.

    So, even without counting the upkeep cost in gold, it's worth building Bakery instead of Farm only if you have 7+ base food output.

    Edit: Actually, it's good to build third farm (or increase food production to 7+ with resources) even before the Granary or Mill. With 6 base food Granary will add the same 3 and Mill will add the same 4.5 as additional farm, but they require upkeep and Farm doesn't.
    Last edited by stealthnsk; 14-06-2012 at 07:59.

  7. #27
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    You're not takinh into account using the Harvest spell, which gives an additional +50% food for 2 mana. Which will lower it again from 16.

    Although I am swimming in my game in money, I just want more food to not starve off all those cities.
    Also just farms are really ineffective. I generally try to build my food source cities with pigs or pumpkins or so... or fishing.

  8. #28
    Or magic gardens (human option on the Magic Fields special), or the Cheese Cave (Monster on magic Node). If I'm lucky, I only have 2 or 3 dedicated food cities out of 60.
    Feel free to call me App. It's shorter.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    You're not takinh into account using the Harvest spell, which gives an additional +50% food for 2 mana. Which will lower it again from 16.
    No, that's actually argument to my point. In regular city it's not worth disabling Bakery if base production is 16+ and it's not worth building Bakery if base production is less than 7.
    If you have Harvest spell, it's not worth building Bakery if base production is less than 9, so the room there disabling Bakery is worth, is even less.

    Although I am swimming in my game in money, I just want more food to not starve off all those cities.
    So, disabling Bakeries is just unnecessary micromanagement, as I wrote.

    Also just farms are really ineffective. I generally try to build my food source cities with pigs or pumpkins or so... or fishing.
    Doesn't matter where the base production comes from.

  10. #30
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    just unnecessary micromanagement
    For you maybe. Having a food supply surplus on demand waiting can be handy in case you finally need it due to city growth.
    Also disable would still be handy for libraries if research is done, since I doubt you can remove them if you already build a cleric/wizards guild. That just allows some major exploits. For example building rogues, getting bank, then removing rogues and use that spot for a more gold producing building. And that's just one of few examples.

  11. #31
    Surely you should be unable to remove buildings if they are required for other buildings you have.

    Speaking of research-producing buildings, the research in converted to Mana 2 to 1. Still it will be worth removing Excavations and Demonologist Workshops after all research is done. I think the best way to fix this is to increase research conversion rate.

  12. #32
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    Food is the same way. I don't think there is anything wrong with the conversion rate. Otherwise it's just too powerful not to research something one turn and get a load of mana. Not that one really needs it atm.

    Yes, removing excevations and demonoligsts would be prudent. Why change that? And then libraries can be disabled if unused, but still be in the way of getting wizards/clerics (another required step).
    Another good reason to have both instead of one or the other...

  13. #33
    The reason why remove disabling building is simple. The only thing it does - gaining minimal resource advantage with lots of micromanagement. I remember in early Civ versions where production overhead was lost on completion, there was a lot of resource relocation to handle this. That's not fun part of the game. I believe that even simple removal of building disabling will make the game better. And replacing it with other mechanics (like building destruction if it will be done in some good way) is even better.

    EDIT: Just to be clear. In current state of the game you could choose whether to use the micromanagement or not. In multiplayer, everyone will be forced to use it, since it gives some advantage. The game will become not fun.
    Last edited by stealthnsk; 15-06-2012 at 11:56.

  14. #34
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    Not really, effective building placement would still be more important (+3 gold is more powerful than 0 gold due to a disabled mana unit). However if population is lost upon destruction, that would take a lot more planning and time. Aka; Micro-management.

    Deleting it for "micro-management" reasons is a bit odd if the solution presented is just another form of micro-management. After deleting the structure you still need to replace it. Which would probably take even more micromanagement than just merely switching on-and-off. Although I suppose the "city needs building" announcement does help a bit doing that management.

    In multiplayer it would still be a stupid thing to keep forts or warrior units far away from the enemy or mana productions when having 3000 mana and hardly a time to spend it. But then if disablement is removed you are FORCED to do it the "longer-gain" route. And maybe restructure cities many times, switching between structures. That's more fun then? Less management? I don't see it...

    EDIT:
    In short, deletion would still allow the same, just in a way more convoluted way. I am not sure "way more convulated" is a good idea all the time. That's less fun for me at least.

  15. #35
    This depends on how building destruction will be implemented. If you loose 1 city level with the building, you'll need really good reasons to destroy them.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthnsk View Post
    This depends on how building destruction will be implemented. If you loose 1 city level with the building, you'll need really good reasons to destroy them.
    Actually no you won't.
    With the lower level your city has a higher growth rate, and lower maintenance costs.
    If you will never use the building again, and it has no maintenance cost, you are still better off destroying it.

    ADDED: With no turning buildings off, and loosing all the pop for 1 level for destroying a building is an improvement on the current system. Loosing population is hard to justify. Perhaps rather than a full level it could be the same as for loosing a fort.
    PoN Beta

  17. #37
    Yes, that's idea. Players will destroy buildings if they don't plan to use them anymore. That's strategic decision an that's good.

  18. #38
    Good suggestions man. I especially sympathize with the city spamming. That has been a problem also very much endemic to the Civilization series.

    I think though that what I would like to see the most are hero units. In fact I would say that this is one place where the Age of Wonders series has it all over Warlock. The hero elements in Age of Wonders help make it very engaging and sort of a hybrid strategy/RPG experience. I suppose in Warlock, not surprisingly heroes would probably best be handled the same way that the great general units are done in Civ5. That is, they help buff up units stacked with and next to them, but are defenseless on their own.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts