Question about buildings

[ngppgn]

I love all the depth and inmersion these mods provide and I love you guys for doing them.

I was wondering, however, if you would consider a expansion on the building side of the game. I mean, the tweaks done to the buildings as they are in PB help to make them more realists but more variety and specialisation options, so to say, would never hurt (thing for example in Magnate lords, or Master builders). I imagine that this, if ever done, would be low priority, but I think that the players that want to focus in the economic side of the game would be very gratefull.

Your work is amazing.

 

[Maria Theresa]

I support this petition! :happy:

 

[zijistark]

I love all the depth and inmersion these mods provide and I love you guys for doing them.

I was wondering, however, if you would consider a expansion on the building side of the game. I mean, the tweaks done to the buildings as they are in PB help to make them more realists but more variety and specialisation options, so to say, would never hurt (thing for example in Magnate lords, or Master builders). I imagine that this, if ever done, would be low priority, but I think that the players that want to focus in the economic side of the game would be very gratefull.

Your work is amazing.

I want to focus on the economic side as a player (and, of course, vanilla is terrible about this), and I'm a relevant developer. What ideas, specifically, did you have in mind for the economic system / buildings? I'm not familiar with Magnate Lords or Master Builders. How would you like to see things changed, if possible? There is only so much we can do that remains a lightweight and clean mod over vanilla (or, honestly, even if we made economy our #1 priority simply due to the very static economic system in CKII, one of the game's only critical flaws IMO), but I wouldn't know the difference until you spelled-out some suggestions.

 

[Synge316]

Well you could take a page from the "Better Armies" mod for CK2Plus and introduce a system were players can forced to choose between military and economic growth. Also having different building chains that are mutually exclusive, allowing you to better develop a particular style of army and its make-up.

 

[zijistark]

Well you could take a page from the "Better Armies" mod for CK2Plus and introduce a system were players can forced to choose between military and economic growth. Also having different building chains that are mutually exclusive, allowing you to better develop a particular style of army and its make-up.

Hmm, yeah, I think we'd need some explicit inspiration to institute branching of the building trees (and smart AI choice between pivotal buildings that branch the trees). In PB, they are already balanced and tweaked pretty heavily for just the right amount of trade-off between military and economic development. Nothing is mutually exclusive, but the tax income vs. levies vs. specialized levies trade-off is there.

 

[Jaidal]

I want to focus on the economic side as a player (and, of course, vanilla is terrible about this), and I'm a relevant developer. What ideas, specifically, did you have in mind for the economic system / buildings? I'm not familiar with Magnate Lords or Master Builders. How would you like to see things changed, if possible? There is only so much we can do that remains a lightweight and clean mod over vanilla (or, honestly, even if we made economy our #1 priority simply due to the very static economic system in CKII, one of the game's only critical flaws IMO), but I wouldn't know the difference until you spelled-out some suggestions.

Magnate Lords is quite awesome! It's too bad it's no longer being updated, I suppose that's because it's based on the previous tech system. I would recommend checking it out. The basic of it is that each province had its own resource focus, which you need to develop over time, and the economy of your province is boosted by improving the level of finished goods produced. There's alot more to it than that, but it's quite neat.

 

[zijistark]

Magnate Lords is quite awesome! It's too bad it's no longer being updated, I suppose that's because it's based on the previous tech system. I would recommend checking it out. The basic of it is that each province had its own resource focus, which you need to develop over time, and the economy of your province is boosted by improving the level of finished goods produced. There's alot more to it than that, but it's quite neat.

Sounds like it may be out of PB's scope, unfortunately. I'll let any of the other mods speak for themselves, but I'd venture to guess they'll say the same. HIP definitely takes a minimalist approach to things. However, there's always the ability to use HIP with external mods (in this case unfortunate that Magnate Lords is no longer updated...).

 

[Arko]

Sounds like it may be out of PB's scope, unfortunately. I'll let any of the other mods speak for themselves, but I'd venture to guess they'll say the same. HIP definitely takes a minimalist approach to things. However, there's always the ability to use HIP with external mods (in this case unfortunate that Magnate Lords is no longer updated...).

i do have some plans and some base work done but it would probably be to far for a HIP approach. Magnate Lords was very good with immersion but really to heavy, too deterministic, not flexible (to be f.e. ex compatible with both vanilla and SWMH).
one big feature lacking is inter-exclusive building chains to lead to a real specialisation,so, choices or even building strategy. it is a great mod i really loved anyway.

 

[ngppgn]

I want to focus on the economic side as a player (and, of course, vanilla is terrible about this), and I'm a relevant developer. What ideas, specifically, did you have in mind for the economic system / buildings? I'm not familiar with Magnate Lords or Master Builders. How would you like to see things changed, if possible? There is only so much we can do that remains a lightweight and clean mod over vanilla (or, honestly, even if we made economy our #1 priority simply due to the very static economic system in CKII, one of the game's only critical flaws IMO), but I wouldn't know the difference until you spelled-out some suggestions.

The ideas I was considering are quite simple, since they are quite general:

-Improve the localisation of building lines. Vanilla made a great step back in inmersion introduciong the generic localisation (fortification I, fortification II) instead of the "flavoured" one (castle moot, arrow slits, etc). Reverting back to it, or better yet, making the localisation of building culture- or religiom-dependent would be great. Little flavour bits aid a lot, believe me.

-Improve the sense of unity of developement of a holding. If some buildings required other from other lines to be built as a prerrequisite, it would feel like you are building parts of a bigger whole, not independent things. For example, make it so that you need some levels of castle town to have acce to the high-end levys buildings (in helps inmersion if you only can have the best armies in the most populated or prosperous paces). -It is already implemented in one case: each level of castle keep need a level of castle wall. It should be generalised, in my opinion.

-Improve the sense of specialisation of a holding: make at least the latest upgrades of several lines mutually exclusive, so that it introduces a feeling of "limit of resources". Say, you cannot have full fleet capacity and full cavalry capacity, so you have to plan ahead. In that way, you also improve the diversifications bethween diferent holdings: you could have one dedicated to taxes and fleet, one to cavalry, one to light troops, etc. It could also more directly guide the ai building cohorently.

-Apply the two previous ideas at a province-level. It make sense, for example that a lonely monastery cannot develop its full potential, but it could if it has a flourishing city in the surroundings. Conversely, it makes sense that the first cathedral or university in a province (or even in a duchy) can develop its full potential, but subsequent ones are limited, since its social function, so to say, is already covered by the first one.

-(A personal favourite, but maybe out of place) Increase the variety of buildings, reducing their effects, for flavour's sake. (Think at the buildings tabs in the Elder Scrolls.... So many posibilities....). For example, having four lines for fortifications: main keep, walls, towers and gates, who are mutually dependent.

As I said, these are very generic principles, but I thinks that if properly apply theioy could explonentially amplify the sense of inmersion and setretegic importance of building-up your holdings, in the mood initiated by project balance levy/taxes tradeoff.

 

[zijistark]

The ideas I was considering are quite simple, since they are quite general:

-Improve the localisation of building lines. Vanilla made a great step back in inmersion introduciong the generic localisation (fortification I, fortification II) instead of the "flavoured" one (castle moot, arrow slits, etc). Reverting back to it, or better yet, making the localisation of building culture- or religiom-dependent would be great. Little flavour bits aid a lot, believe me.

Getting too culture- or religion-dependent would essentially require us to multiply the number of buildings, otherwise duplicate, by, like, a factor of 15 or something, so that part's a little hard. That's why usually only 1 castle building is culture-dependent. However, you're right about vanilla taking a step back in the localisation's flavour. I believe there is a mod which restores the old vanilla localisation. Maybe that'd be a starting point? I'm not committing to anything at all at the moment, though.

-Improve the sense of unity of developement of a holding. If some buildings required other from other lines to be built as a prerrequisite, it would feel like you are building parts of a bigger whole, not independent things. For example, make it so that you need some levels of castle town to have acce to the high-end levys buildings (in helps inmersion if you only can have the best armies in the most populated or prosperous paces). -It is already implemented in one case: each level of castle keep need a level of castle wall. It should be generalised, in my opinion.

That trade-off does already exist in PB buildings. The more levy- or fortification- or solder quality-upgrades you make, the less tax income you generate without also upgrading the income-generating buildings. It provides a flexible trade-off along that dimension (and also a trade-off along the dimension of quality vs. quantity, as an aside). You can have net negative tax income castles if you like (in theory), but well, they'll just reflect a pure military camp that only costs you all the time. Direct building dependencies aren't used for those trade-offs, because a) we do like to minimize changes from vanilla so we may more easily keep astride of new patches and provide a consistent experience, ceteris paribus, and b) so that build orders are more free-form, and there are more options for how to specialize your holdings.

-Improve the sense of specialisation of a holding: make at least the latest upgrades of several lines mutually exclusive, so that it introduces a feeling of "limit of resources". Say, you cannot have full fleet capacity and full cavalry capacity, so you have to plan ahead. In that way, you also improve the diversifications bethween diferent holdings: you could have one dedicated to taxes and fleet, one to cavalry, one to light troops, etc. It could also more directly guide the ai building cohorently.

So what I said for the last point, to some extent, but no, we don't do any mutually exclusive build trees, which might add more of the elements which you mention and be a positive change. The only point I'd raise here is that the AI will actually become totally lost with decision-making regarding mutually-exclusive build trees. The moddable AI weighting of buildings in CKII is really dumb (single chance factor weighed against all other building options uniformly), and mutually exclusive build trees would thus probably hurt the AI a lot more than help (unless there is no big difference / strategy after all to what kind of build choices you make, in which case the point is defeated), something that is a big concern of mine.

-Apply the two previous ideas at a province-level. It make sense, for example that a lonely monastery cannot develop its full potential, but it could if it has a flourishing city in the surroundings. Conversely, it makes sense that the first cathedral or university in a province (or even in a duchy) can develop its full potential, but subsequent ones are limited, since its social function, so to say, is already covered by the first one.

That's smart. I'm not sure how I would implement such a thing cleanly, though it isn't impossible. I mean, it's partially already there: as the local count becomes more wealthy due to, say, a thriving city, the other holdings in the province are also developed. However, that's pretty indirect. Unfortunately, there is no easy, clean way to directly modify the income from one holding based upon the contents of another.

-(A personal favourite, but maybe out of place) Increase the variety of buildings, reducing their effects, for flavour's sake. (Think at the buildings tabs in the Elder Scrolls.... So many posibilities....). For example, having four lines for fortifications: main keep, walls, towers and gates, who are mutually dependent.

We could definitely expand the building set more. There would be no harm in that but the slightly annoying fact that the holding window would require scrolling down. Even then, it may be possible to mod the interface to support more buildings by default.

As I said, these are very generic principles, but I thinks that if properly apply theioy could explonentially amplify the sense of inmersion and setretegic importance of building-up your holdings, in the mood initiated by project balance levy/taxes tradeoff.

Thanks for the input. It is appreciated. Always looking for sparks of a new ideas to add to the list, even if sometimes time/priority constraints or current moddability of the game gets in the way of their implementation at the time of receiving the feedback.