Imperator DD : Civilization, Buildings and Macedon

  • 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.
  • 4
Reactions:
This makes me the big sad.

I'm a fan of these changes, I like the idea of limiting certain buildings, though I would argue that all buildings should be limited (maybe as a ratio? as in you can't build more X until you have more of Y etc) but all the changes are really for nought when the most problematic building in the game is unchanged. The "meta" strategy right now is just to spam aqueducts and these changes really do nothing to address that. People are still going to just make these ahistorical abomination cities with 100 aqueducts pouring enough water in there to make Venice look like a desert. Aqueducts would fit beautifully into that 3 per city catagory, or maybe even X aqueducts per civilisation level... just something to limit the absolute ridiculousness that is right now, and seemingly will still be, encouraged.
Well, for me, somebody who's absolutely no fan of having abominable cities, I would sometimes still build 4 or more Aqueducts. You know, sometimes you just need those extra Pop Cap to get 80 Pops for you to convert to a Metropolis. Of course I'd be demolishing them afterwards.

So I guess Pop Cap is a topic to stand on its own. This update is about military though.

But I don't know. Perhaps enough people yelling, I mean, suggesting Arheo, then perhaps he'd just feel like it and make some last-minute changes for a Beta to be released 2 days after the Patch.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Aqueducts would fit beautifully into that 3 per city catagory, or maybe even X aqueducts per civilisation level...
You know, that would be a fantastic idea given that "local civilization value is being more explicitly defined as the state of the infrastructure and sanitation of any given location".
You get your first Aqueduct at 30 civ (like how it is right now I believe), then get an extra one every 10-15... which seems reasonable enough?
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I am even less keen on an arbitrary 'maximum' capacity. While it may not render them impossible, the new building/civilization system is another step towards reducing how easy or sensible it is to produce them.
I really appreciate hearing this, mostly because I was a little unhappy to see that the building adjustment goes against this way of thinking - it's adding in a bunch of caps to hard-fix some undesriable ways of playing. I take it that it's viewed as a quick fix until a later change, given the above philosophy?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
happy new yer.

i think parcx need to look at it differently with buildings. eg. if a city grows automatically new buildings arise. it's only for the player to determine certain key specialisations and directions.
instead of adding a number say 1 or 2 theathres. better is number 1: small theathre 2: small gladiator ring 3 ampfi 4 etc.
it takes a bit more work also to look what every civilisation needs..
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
This makes me the big sad.

I'm a fan of these changes, I like the idea of limiting certain buildings, though I would argue that all buildings should be limited (maybe as a ratio? as in you can't build more X until you have more of Y etc) but all the changes are really for nought when the most problematic building in the game is unchanged. The "meta" strategy right now is just to spam aqueducts and these changes really do nothing to address that. People are still going to just make these ahistorical abomination cities with 100 aqueducts pouring enough water in there to make Venice look like a desert. Aqueducts would fit beautifully into that 3 per city catagory, or maybe even X aqueducts per civilisation level... just something to limit the absolute ridiculousness that is right now, and seemingly will still be, encouraged.

well. All other buildings will give civ value, and civ value gives pop output. A city with all aqueducs might be at like 50% civ value, while one with a mix will be at 75%, meaning 25% higher pop output across the board.

Colour me optimistic. I think the details of civ value change (especially tick-rate) can become quite interesting in the tracks of these changes.

... to scale up the efficiency of a city you’ll need:

  1. a growing population (presumably still predominantly through migration driven by free pop capacity)
  2. a high or quickly growing civ value (make sure it has room to tick up through buildings)
  3. A majority of pops with integrated culture
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Nice diary, i hope one day you will make it posible to need resources to build, rather than just money. So that way wood, stone, iron & marbel are more important resources.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
You know, that would be a fantastic idea given that "local civilization value is being more explicitly defined as the state of the infrastructure and sanitation of any given location".
You get your first Aqueduct at 30 civ (like how it is right now I believe), then get an extra one every 10-15... which seems reasonable enough?
This artificially limits population with the civ cap.

Aqueducts are required to provide fresh and clean water for your population. If your population increases, you need to provide water for them. Limits should be water sources and enough water flow. If your population outgrows fresh water supply, they will have sanitation problems, drought, deaths and emigration out of the city.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I really like the changes presented :) , though i would also like to know what's the plan for the great wonders DLC @Arheo
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
When patch will be release?
 
  • 1Love
Reactions:
If the purpose of the civ value isn't happiness anymore, please consider removing the link with happiness altogether. It wil make the game less complex and thus easier to understand if you keep the formulas 'lean'.
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
This artificially limits population with the civ cap.

Aqueducts are required to provide fresh and clean water for your population. If your population increases, you need to provide water for them. Limits should be water sources and enough water flow. If your population outgrows fresh water supply, they will have sanitation problems, drought, deaths and emigration out of the city.
Still, I would definetely like civ to be at least a soft cap on aqueducts, maybe getting over the cap could introduce a manteinance cost (maybe -x% pop output) or idk, give reduced pop cap? The new definition is almost too perfect for the two to not interact in some way.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have a question about fate of the Antipatrids: are Cassander and Phillipos doomed to succumb to the scripted diseases , or there is a possibility that it doesn’t happen?

For now this remains unchanged, but he has two others sons and there are other Antipatrids who can inherit.

will the antigonids have access to any of these events if they choose to go the Macedon way?

All content in the latter two trees is available for Antigonids, and other Macedonian nations, if Macedon no longer exists and they own Pella.
 
  • 13
  • 4Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Still, I would definetely like civ to be at least a soft cap on aqueducts, maybe getting over the cap could introduce a manteinance cost (maybe -x% pop output) or idk, give reduced pop cap? The new definition is almost too perfect for the two to not interact in some way.
Why? Because civ value increases pop output and aqueducts allow for more POPs? They have synergies, do not break those.

Megacities are a problem, but having a limit before getting to a megacitiy is similar to castration. Sure there are other more civilized ways to tackle this issue.
 
  • 4
Reactions: