Should building stacking have diminishing return?

[Denkt]

As far as we have seen we will be to build a building at every 10 pops and keep stacking them with all buildings give full values. This mean that for example if you have a city with 100 pop you can build 10 buildings. If you build 10 training camps with each training camp give +20% Manpower, this city will produce 200% additional Manpower and the more buildings you can build the more extreme the values can become.

Granaries for example may let a city grow to arbitary size as the +10% growth from granaries counter the -10% growth from the 10 pops needing to support it which make it rather easy to support massive slave population to mass produce goods such as gems.

Maybe there should be some sort of diminishing return, like the first training camp give +20% Manpower and at some Point an additional training camp may increase Manpower by only +5%.

 

[CaptinObvious]

Definitely the HECK no, that is literally the opposite of how urbanisation works.

 

[bpgrozny]

Nope. Bad idea bud. Let me specialize my province. Buldings are province wide and there are provinces with like a dozen or more cities. At 10 granaries jn a province = 1 granary per city seems pretty OK to me. Logical even.

 

[Denkt]

Nope. Bad idea bud. Let me specialize my province. Buldings are province wide and there are provinces with like a dozen or more cities. At 10 granaries jn a province = 1 granary per city seems pretty OK to me. Logical even.

No buildings are city based in Imperator: Rome. You would be correct about resources as the work on a province level (but are produced on city level).

Definitely the HECK no, that is literally the opposite of how urbanisation works.

Civilization value represent how urbanized your population are.

As mentioned in an earlier development diary Civilization Value is a rating that exists in all locations on the map, and it represents the level of infrastructure and urbanisation in that location.

​

​

 

[CaptinObvious]

Civilization value represent how urbanized your population are.​

sigh, diminishing returns on infrastructure and development is the opposite of how urbanisation work, as bigger cites generate disproportionately more and more 'stuff' (be it money, manpower, or goods) as they grow bigger, not the opposite, if anything, it should have a staking modifier.

 

[Denkt]

it should have a staking modifier.

It already do stack.

 

[CaptinObvious]

It already do stack.

as in it increases with more building, so granary 1 gives 10% POP growth, granary 2 gives 11% more POP growth, which is fucking op as heck, and they won't do it, but that is how IRL cities work.

 

[Denkt]

as in it increases with more building so granary 1 gives 10% POP growth, granary 2 gives 11% more POP growth, which is fucking op as heck, and they won't do it, but that is how IRL cities work.

No the effect do not increase but do not decrease either which I why I said it stack.

Each granary increase pop growth by 10% so if you have 10 granaries it increase pop growth by 100%, if you have 100 granaries you get 1000% pops growth.

You can build cities that hold the World population in Imperator: Rome if you cheat and move all people to a single city and build granaries. This however assume that the negative pop growth from population is constant per each pop.

One thing that is missed is that population will be more and more productive per building. So if you have a city with 100 freemen (no other pops) and as many training camps as possible, each freeman will produce alot more Manpower than a city with 10 freemen (no other pops). So what you are asking for is in the game in this form.

Even if we abstract the system as much as possible should a freeman pop be able to produce potentially such massive amount of Manpower, yes I know that certain places was set up as military colonies but at some Point if you take the system to the extreame, wont a city produce more Manpower than what a freeman pop can actually represent?

Consider that goods stacking work with diminishing returns, the first good give a large bonus and after that you get a smaller bonus for surplus goods so that is basically something I think maybe should be done with buildings so not the multipliers become extreme.

sigh, diminishing returns on infrastructure and development is the opposite of how urbanisation work, as bigger cites generate disproportionately more and more 'stuff' (be it money, manpower, or goods) as they grow bigger, not the opposite, if anything, it should have a staking modifier.

That is already the case and will be the case even if the building system is changed. A freeman pop in a big city full of training camps and goods will be much more productive than a freeman pop in a small village. The question is how extreme the difference should be. Buildings and goods improve the productivity of your pops, they do not produce stuff on their own unlike for example EUIV.​