Buildings in Cicero
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Okay, with grain on farmland + decent ratio of granaries you can bump your pop cap with more than 10 per 10 slave pops . But you need to grow very big to get notable room for other things, than granary + aqueduct (esp if youre not tempo switching your aqueducts lateron).
youll also predominantly have slaves; the lesser your slave ratio the lesser grain produced the more granaries you need. Townhalls will be very efficient for such cities, in the same way as marketplaces are now, but for efficiency from other building types i think a province wide build will be better.
... if you can have several big cities in one province it may be best to dedicate your grain-city for that purpose , so you dont need as many granaries in your province capital, while the prov capital uses more freemen / citizen and more efficiency-buildings +aqueducts.
This is facinating stuff.
i looked closer at the numbers in 1.1 and im converging a bit in my opinoin on this; you can have +200% pop capacity from modifiers by midgame in many places without too much trouble, meaning +15 pop capacity per granary, meaning enough slaves to produce +1 grain for 5% higher pop cap...
i think the efficacy of this will come down to numbers tweaking, more so on pop-gowth modifiers than on pop capacity. 1.00 % growth per month per aqueduct cant be right, unless the thing is also very expensive or whatever (even then, it just makes any and all otehr growth modifiers comparitivel irrelevant, since the're just additive anyway). ... 1% per month is 20x what you get from an invention or a surplus unit of fish or livestock. 0.01 seems more approprate, though thats very insignificant; that would make aqueducts primary purpose to attract migration (witch could be a big deal across some province borders or to a port)
May I ask, I assume buildings have costs to produce, but do they also have maintenance costs ?
Update is in December but it sounds like people are assuming final numbers... would you rather wait until they balance test the buildings before telling you about them?
Great work Johan this is just what we need to specialise and give flavour to individual provinces. Out of curiosity is X number of the same building per Y number of pops on the table? For example 5 pops per fort level would curb possible super fort issues a couple people have mentioned
Great work Johan this is just what we need to specialise and give flavour to individual provinces. Out of curiosity is X number of the same building per Y number of pops on the table? For example 5 pops per fort level would curb possible super fort issues a couple people have mentioned
.png){kind=avatar}
The Cicero update is actually planned for September, not December.
I think aqueduct give 0.01 pop growth but the migration is very important if you want cities with alot of citizens and freemen. The goal may be to setup a migration chain towards ports and towards the capital.
early access will be completed with 1.3 when we get flavor , but this 1.2 is certainly a great improvement
I believe now more than ever that having freemen is going to be unavoidable since you cannot magically instantly promote them into freemen, that they should give some tax and commerce income or one of the two, or increase surpluse of trade goods. But they should have sole economic advantage as manpower is usless already as it is, since you can quickly sit at 200k and go to 1M manpower, as a medium size country, not having to worry again about manpower. So having freemen dont matter anymore and feels like a waste of space.
in 1.1 buildings other than forts do not have any maintenance costs
I really liked mainly the effect of these 4 constructions
There would be the possibility of adding some construction that gave "Wrong Culture-Group Happiness"? I know I'm being selfish but knows how and: "I love people from different cultures and religions"
Last edited:
Just one suggestion: forts shouldn't be restricted by population
Unlike all the other buildings which need a population to support them, the whole idea of forts is to be self sufficient. Historically forts would be placed in strategic locations, which were not necessarily populated. See Hadrian's Wall. A fort guarding a mountain pass doesn't need a large population living in the mountains. The upkeep costs we pay for the forts already simulate their supply needs.
Unlike all the other buildings which need a population to support them, the whole idea of forts is to be self sufficient. Historically forts would be placed in strategic locations, which were not necessarily populated. See Hadrian's Wall. A fort guarding a mountain pass doesn't need a large population living in the mountains. The upkeep costs we pay for the forts already simulate their supply needs.
i think this is part reason why there unit abilties like hill fort (roman) and millitary colonies; armies can spawn forts and spwan freemen pops at will witch can help set up infrastructure for a larger fort (im not sure how well millitary colonies work for this purpose thoguh; the conditions for it were buged in 1.0.x iirc)
This is great, however the UI presentation of buildings needs to be completely reorganized In identifiable categories (like, happyness,military, growth, development...). it's too cluttered in those preview screenshots. Maybe add a toggable screen like EU4 ?