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.
Why? Because civ value increases pop output and aqueducts allow for more POPs? They have synergies, do not break those.
It was mostly because of the new definition, which in the end doesn't matter that much, but damn I want the two to work together one way or another :mad:

Sure there are other more civilized ways to tackle this issue.
Eh, civilized.

But yeah thankfully I'm not the designer and I truly believe Arheo will be able to solve this problem sooner or later.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Does theatres and temples convert/assimilate in all territories of the province, or just the city where they are?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
6.png
I really appreciate the reorganisation of buildings in a logical manner! Having buildings relating to particular Pop types (Library-Academy, Market/Court, Camp-Forum, Tax Office-Mill) aligned is much more satisfying.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
While I appreciate some of the changes to building, I have a question regarding the HoA DLC and the Macedonian mission tree. As I understand, the latter Macedonian missions are unavailable if Macedon is still ruled by the Antipatrids, yes? So if someone wants the full Macedon experience, they have to start out as a country which can form Macedon, not Macedon itself?
 
  • 1
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?
I like this a lot.
It does feel like the Cliffs of Dover port again though. Perhaps people should make their point with examples that aren't showing counterexamples to their point ;) .
34_large.png
 
  • 5Haha
Reactions:
While I appreciate some of the changes to building, I have a question regarding the HoA DLC and the Macedonian mission tree. As I understand, the latter Macedonian missions are unavailable if Macedon is still ruled by the Antipatrids, yes? So if someone wants the full Macedon experience, they have to start out as a country which can form Macedon, not Macedon itself?

Ah I didn't make this very clear, the latter missions are available to Antipatrid Macedon AND any other Macedonian country who takes Pella while the original tag no longer exists.
 
  • 11
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Another meaty DD; a good way to start off the year.

I like this new approach to Civ value. With the focus on infrastructure and sanitation, it makes sense to reduce the happiness impact, possibly even de-coupling this from happiness all together. If you haven't done so already I recommend an experiment to see what happens if you remove happiness entirely. Even if it doesn't work out, it should help establish what the lower bound is on happiness impact from civ value.

There isn't much discussion of what these changes will mean for tribals, but one part we see is there is still the negative happiness modifier for tribesman. With civ value now more explicitly about sanitation, it seems weird that tribesmen would not appreciate good sanitation :) . I realize the underlying reason is the game is attempting to simulate that tribesman are not happy in cities, which is still reasonable. Perhaps tribesman unhappiness in cities could come from a different source, like total pops (they don't like crowds).

Also, you mentioned that with the changes civ value gained a place of prominence in the territory UI. I have to admit I had to look over the screenshot for a while before I noticed it. Maybe this is because the green of the bar blended too much with the green of the farmland in the image above it. It also lacks a number without checking the tool tip and my personal quick-scan rubric is to look for key numbers.

The building changes look good, especially with how they are now linked to civ value. Does this mean the civ increase button is gone and buildings are now your primary method of influencing civ value? I am definitely a gardener, as you put it, so I like making the building choices more meaningful. As for aqueducts, my problem is that they are the only building I feel is required. All other buildings involve interesting choices or trade-offs. Your choice with aqueduct is "do I want this city to keep growing?" for which the answer is almost always yes. This means they just end up being a building-slot tax; a certain percentage of your building slots will always need to be dedicated to aqueducts.

Overall I am very happy with these changes and can't wait to get my hands on them.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I the only one that has the feeling that the 2.0 patch still has a lot of content that has to be revealed yet?

Love all the changes so far! Kudos to all the devs!
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Greetings all!

Today, @Chopmist will be taking you through the mission trees for the final nation we’re covering in the Heirs of Alexander content pack: Macedon.

Before we deal with the bloodthirsty Kassander however, it’s time to explain some of the mechanics I’ve been teasing on twitter over the holidays.

Civilization Value

There are some significant changes coming to civ value. As an abstraction, it has never quite resonated with me - it is used at various points in the game to represent different things, and can be largely ignored beyond a certain point.

For the purposes of this rework, local civilization value is being more explicitly defined as the state of the infrastructure and sanitation of any given location. The monthly growth of civilization is not being changed explicitly, and this represents the education level and tradition of learning in a location. A territory with low growth will take longer to reach the cap, as before.

Where previously, civilization had a significant impact on the happiness of poptypes, this is being reduced. This is in part due to the cultural rework which focused on cultural poptypes and citizenship - after all, why should a citizen or noble resent living in a low infrastructure province if that is the norm for the area? Instead, the cultural impact of your pops will be far more important to the stability of your nation.

Civilization will now have a significant impact on the output capabilities of a province, and should be regarded as one of the most important local values. As such, we’re giving it pride of place in the new territory UI:

View attachment 669127

The effects of civilization are similarly important:

View attachment 669128

As you can see, the civilization value of a territory still has some effect on happiness, but far more impact on the overall output. Population output is now also tracked in the territory UI:

View attachment 669129

A territory will ‘break even’ at 30 civilization value, assuming no other modifiers are present. The output of territories where the dominant culture is not integrated will be subject to a further penalty, as will settlements:

View attachment 669130

(nb: the current starting max civilization level has not yet been adjusted for any territories - it will appear as over the cap in many of these WIP screenshots)

Pops will be relatively happy living in rural provinces, but will produce less compared to their urban brethren. This can of course be offset, as we will find out later.

Generating Civilization Cap

Along with these changes, an important change to the way in which we generate civilization cap is being introduced:

View attachment 669131

The contributions from government type and oratory technology have been drastically reduced, and are likely to be reduced even further. Instead, local factors become far more relevant - namely: buildings.

Most buildings will now contribute directly to civilization capacity in a territory, providing a huge amount more local variance in development levels throughout the map. Later in the game, you can expect to see flourishing capitals approaching 70-90% civilization, with values higher than this being reserved for those truly keen on eking the most out of their territories.

Building Changes

Related to the above, the building system is undergoing a minor refactor. As an addendum, I’d like to point out that while I’m aware many of you want a deep cultural building system, that is not something that we have the scope to address in this update.

View attachment 669132

City buildings have now been split into two categories -limited and unlimited. The top row of buildings are theoretically unlimited, and will function similarly to before - albeit with some rebalance, and now adding to civilization cap.

View attachment 669133

Most of the repeatable buildings will grant 2 civilization cap, with the notable exception of Aqueducts, which will function as before, granting flat local population capacity.

The bottom row of buildings are limited to a finite and unmodifiable (during gameplay) quantity. This functionality will of course be available to modders. Many of these limited buildings (with the exception of ratio buildings) will also require unlocking in the invention trees.

View attachment 669134

Pop ratio buildings are limited to 3, somewhat limiting the viability of mono-pop cities:

View attachment 669135

Finite buildings will be ‘capped’ visually to ensure you are aware you’ve reached the cap:

View attachment 669136

All the numbers you’re seeing are still subject to balance, of course. These changes aim to reduce some of the micromanagement and choice paralysis associated with having up to 16 unique buildings in an arbitrary number of cities, as well as adding some depth and progression to city building by tying buildings to the new technology system. In addition, the ‘gardening’ feeling is something that I know many of our players enjoy - playing tall and getting the most out of your pops should be enhanced by many of these changes.

Settlements will not be entirely left untouched by these changes, either. One of the big choices you’ll have to make during your campaign, if you head down the civic invention tree, is likely to interest those with a penchant for construction:

View attachment 669137

While still likely subject to balance, this exclusive choice will enable you to more definitively choose a ‘tall’ or ‘wide’ focus. Note that along with this change, all settlement buildings will still be unique - you are unable to sport a settlement with 2 mines, however you would be able to construct both a mine and a fort, or a barracks and tribal settlement.

/Arheo
Very nice, though I think the UI for buildings could do better to show which ones have limits and which don't.
I feel a work could be done there to better categorize those buildings, simply displaying them in two rows doesn't do much to inform the player, especially with so many buildings there.

Edit: perhaps under the building icon, instead of just the number of buildings built, it could also show the limit.
So, for example, "1/3" for having one built and three possible.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Any chance we can take a look at the marketplace bonuses? +2.5% trade routes is mostly useless because of the large number of marketplaces you need to build to get a decent bonus, as compared to simply increasing the noble's ratio which gives much better bonuses (+research, +trade routes at a flat rate). Could we switch that to just be +Commerce Income as an approximate facsimile of the Tax Office?
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
I think it's pretty much a universal consensus that this is terrible and should never be built by anyone...
1610381151404.png

but allow me to propose a change
1610381486917.png


This way we'd get the historical city walls around many of the cities of this period, it would give a strong reason for an army to fall back and garrison a city, and taking it from a well defended... uhh.. defender, would be much harder.
 
  • 16Like
  • 6
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Shouldn’t aqueducts be a limited building? I don’t remember Rome having 10 aqueducts in just it’s one city.

I'm not sure why the abstraction here is necessarily thought of by some as "10 Individual Aqueducts" vs something like "Level 10 Aqueduct System". I've always thoughts of it as the later. Maybe the way the UI presents it?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I think it's pretty much a universal consensus that this is terrible and should never be built by anyone...
View attachment 669189
but allow me to propose a change
View attachment 669193

This way we'd get the historical city walls around many of the cities of this period, it would give a strong reason for an army to fall back and garrison a city, and taking it from a well defended... uhh.. defender, would be much harder.

Seems like something that would work well with cultural buildings. Or even make them upgradable - or both. Ie you don't expect a celtic/germanic tribe to be throwing up impressive stone walls around their cities, but they would definitely look at earthworks. Romans, Greeks etc would be far more interested in city walls. As the city grows they would be upgraded, made taller, maybe extended to encompass new areas.

These defensive measures obviously limit growth potential a little (at least in terms of physical city footprint - Rome after all started building up with their equivalent of apartment blocks). I reckon they should slightly increase the migration attraction, whilst slightly reducing the max pop size, although probably not by 10% - but later upgrades can reduce that pop malus, whilst getting significantly more expensive with each level...

Tribes etc should be able to upgrade from earthworks to palisade walls, which would work in a similar way, but be cheaper and not as upgradeable (maybe one additional level).
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Changes to civ and the buildings all look good I think, having some buildings be limited and not being able to go too crazy with how much of a certain pop is in a city is a good thing. Honestly I didnt play too much of the last patch. I have a feeling I'll play quite a bit of this one.

I will say it is too bad that the tribal retinue will be gone but makes sense with how the new army mechanics will work (which also look great imo). I will mention it would be nice to have a tribal focused update down the line. However glad were focusing on this stuff 1st!