|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Dec 24, 2015 23:07:02 GMT
I have had a few requests to make provinces grow faster. So I thought I would take the time to set up a poll.
Changing the growth rate modifier is a fairly easy one time fix, but I haven't thought of an easy way to factor in prosperity other than manually checking and adding it to the province growth each turn, so the tradeoff there is more impact of prosperity on the game, but more work for me each turn.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Dec 25, 2015 11:45:21 GMT
I voted 25%, but prosperity is fine as well. Maybe even better, but lets go eady on our awesome gm
|
|
|
Post by x - Dumonia (OD) on Dec 25, 2015 19:04:19 GMT
I would tend to favour options slowing province growth AND easing our DM' slife. Voted for the 50% discount but confess to be supportive of everything that does the trick. Which reminds me that the soon I will have to stop fooling around with the fun of background stuff and moving on to grinding through the rules
|
|
|
Post by Eastern Traders on Dec 25, 2015 19:58:54 GMT
I like the idea of making growth a strategic choice through research and spending money on buildings consuming resources which leavers them vulnerable early on but hopefully benefits them long term, i think i all ready mentioned this.
|
|
|
Post by X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) on Dec 25, 2015 23:21:16 GMT
Err... This might not be obvious, but the 50% option speeds growth up by 50%. Halving the growth rate multiplier increases growth, as half as many growth points are needed to grow.
There is literally no option in this poll that slows growth.
Buildings that increase growth exist, though the increases are marginal... Buildings that mean you see growth early would have to be very expensive indeed, IG they are to be balanced with existing ones (like ports).
Using my lvl 2 province as an example, here is how it currently works: My growth rate multiplier is 9. Amaca is growing from lvl 2 to 3, so it requires 3*3*9 = 81 growth points. Each turn it generates (province lvl) 2 growth points, so it takes 40.5 turns for it to grow.
The typical human growth rate is 6, so it only takes a human lvl 2 province 3*3*6/2=27 turns.
At the rate of 1 turn/5 weeks, that means the fastest growing provinces might see growth in 135 weeks or someone in the beginning of 2018, to put things into perspective. A port adds +1 growth, which for a lvl 1 province is a lot, cutting it down to 18 turns. Having it blessed all the time would make it only 13.5 turns.
A lvl 3 province takes 4*4*6/3=48 turns, a lvl 4 75 turns and so on. So... It takes a while, is my point. Tbh, even with halving the rate multiplier, don't expect anything over lvl 3 to ever grow.
You can speed this up though, by spending gold to grow, at 1-1 rate.
TL;DR: growth is slow, to.
|
|
|
Post by Eastern Traders on Dec 25, 2015 23:49:46 GMT
I would still rather see a buff to growth building then lowering the growth modifier
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Dec 26, 2015 0:00:12 GMT
I personally voted to see the multiplier halved. (Figuring in prosperity modifier would be ideal but I do not want the extra burden on the GM.) Another solution would be 25% speed up + a couple of building options. The probability of province reduction is great to certain, if there is no possible province growth in a realistic time frame on the other hand it takes a lot out of the game in my opinion. It basicaly would limit the game to a fight over existing resources and we'd have a WW1 Trench War Quarter reduction + buildings (say one or two, possible for Guilds, and the same for Landed and Temple would increase the need for cooperation and the player intrigue to try and achieve or stop this.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Dec 26, 2015 14:03:48 GMT
What I am thinking about doing right now:
1) Reducing required growth by 25%
2) Increasing starting growth of provinces by 400% (both to give a larger buffer to avoid province level decrease, and to quicken the growth of provinces)
3) Pricing growth structures at roughly 5GB per growth point per year. So a structure that grant 1GB growth each turn would cost 20GB to construct, provided the structure did nothing else. No such structure is available pre game, but can be researched during the course of the game.
How does this sound?
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Dec 26, 2015 15:33:48 GMT
This sounds perfectly fine by me!
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Dec 26, 2015 15:54:11 GMT
Sounds good!
However, personally i would make it 4 GB per year growth, otherwise it would take 5 years to make it worth it compared to rule province.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Dec 26, 2015 16:58:18 GMT
It is 4GB per year, so it will take 5 years before it generates a profit. The choice is betwen steady seasonal growth that generate profit on the long run at the cost of 1 court action and an initial investment, compared to turning GB into Growth at a 1:1 rate with no delay at the cost of a domain action.
A 20% return on an investment is IMO a great investment.
|
|
|
Post by Eastern Traders on Dec 26, 2015 19:00:16 GMT
Still think elves and dwarf kingdoms should have some ekstra help think the growth penalty they receive is a bit harsh
|
|
|
Post by x - Dumonia (OD) on Dec 27, 2015 11:50:44 GMT
Sounds good to me Linde. As to the point made by the Eastern Traders, why not provide the Dwarves and Pointed Ears with other buffs (did not get there in the rules, maybe my comment is redundant).
|
|
|
Post by X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) on Dec 28, 2015 17:33:35 GMT
Another option we could consider is the option to transfer growth from one province to another. This is neither totally unrealistic not unhistoric, the ability to move people around being one of the advantages of the serf-bond. I'm not sure how it would work - some permutation of the Rule Province action, that instead of transforming gold into growth would transfer growth from one province to another. It might even be possible to combine it with temporarily seizing a province (through martial law) and transfering growth out of it, to represent indentured servitude/slavery.
It would only really benefit those who have more than one province and would be really awesome for those who depend on magic level - such as me - as I could prevent one province from growing and speed up another.
Perhaps... basically a Rule Province action, where every GB spent allows you to transfer 3GBs of growth from other provinces, with DDC scaling of the number of GB spent. So if you spent 3 GB transfering growth to a province, it would cost 3 GB, and the DDC would be province level + 3, and you could transfer 9 growth from other provinces. Instinct tells me that the exchange rate should be better than the 1-1 of normal rule actions (as you are transfering a resource, not generating it), but 1-3 might be too high... or too low. This means that those with 2+ provinces could spend an action or two per year highly optimizing their growth. Perhaps there should be a loss of growth? To provide 2 GB of growth, you need to consume 3GB elsewhere, to make it less efficient.
This option would not create additional work for the gm, at the least, as it would just be part of normal action resolution.
Dunno, decrees and such might also serve this purpose, with a decree setting up a "channel" of growth from one province to another.
And yeah, elves get a benefit in return for slower growth. I don't get the most important one, as mine is a realm of half-bred mongrels, but [redacted] bonus is nice, as are elven units.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Dec 28, 2015 20:48:43 GMT
Having recently reviewed a bunch of real-world growth and ecology stuff, I have a solution re: raiding and war.
Obviously incessant raids and war would most definitely wreak havoc, as would disease and warhammer-equivalent warps from spells.
However, assuming minor raids and skirmish rather than total war, then it is entirely reasonable that the population rapidly grows to fill the gap, thus leading most negative province growth to be somewhat temporary in nature.
I'm sure there's an easy way to do that, but I haven't thought about it, and I'm also not sure about how balanced it would be, but it would be both somewhat historically and scientifically accurate.
|
|