|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 16, 2016 11:22:58 GMT
I have been approached and asked if I can allow buildings beyond the hard cap on province level, and perhaps let people pay upkeep for those buildings to justify it.
That solution raises too many questions in regards to what buildings should have upkeep and bookkeeping when keeping track of the various buildings across domains.
I can however easily implement upkeep for all buildings and in doing so, remove the cap on buildings in each province.
Upkeep would then be the same as in the regent guide, with the same rules for garrison and active status.
Income generating buildings that have been updated to reflect lower income due to lack of upkeep will then revert to their original state and provide more money.
What thoughts do you have on this?
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Oct 16, 2016 11:47:41 GMT
I would suggest a different Hard cap, that the total value of buildings in a province cant exceed province(population) GB/2.
Because well a cathedral to the faith is much bigger than a shrine.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Oct 16, 2016 11:54:49 GMT
So suddenly, any castle owner would lose 1GB/turn/castle level. That is rather steep, but it would help balance castles - but it is a huge nerf to small landed domains.
A somewhat related question. How are ports protected from port raids?
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 16, 2016 13:41:05 GMT
You would be able to put buildings like castles on Garrison. Upkeep would then be halved and it would be purely a defensive garrison. In that case the bonus to combat would be void but it would still protect against occupation.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 16, 2016 17:23:19 GMT
I like Mercia's idea.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 16, 2016 23:13:50 GMT
Part of the issue with Mercia's idea is bookkeeping.
I'd prefer to treat it like the base RoE ruleset with building upkeep. So if someone wants to go building crazy they can, it just starts costing them more in terms of upkeep.
It also means that you can build +growth buildings in small provinces (which Mercia's hard cap could stop), and avoids the potential issue of multiple domains in a province blocking each other from building.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Oct 16, 2016 23:23:39 GMT
An alternate solution is that a province can sustain [Province level]/2 GB of upkeep, any further building would pay upkeep as normal.
And the province owner decide whos and what buildings will be sustained by the province.
And adding the operator -x/2 isnt a big addition to the upkeep model.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 17, 2016 3:48:50 GMT
Even at [Province Level]/1GB of upkeep, Mercia's 2nd idea actually resolves a lot of the concerns with filling up a province ridiculously fast.
Let's use Camelot as an example:
NT, ToG and Camelot are all there. Let's assume they each build 1-2 structure. (already exceeded province size if they each build 2)
Now every other Albion-realm builds embassies there for the annual winter court session. There's not enough room to do that as is! Nor is there enough room to do it in any other province (and embassies only take up .5GB in upkeep!)
Now the King of Camelot decides to build highways (not roads) to all neighbouring provinces. Despite only costing .25GB in upkeep, they would take up 6 province slots, with only 5 available.
In comparison, the total upkeep of all of those would probably be about 5-10GB.
It's an extreme example, but the highways are what concern me, as I've already started building two, and I feel awful for filling up valuable slots in the various lvl 4 provinces I'm building them in.
|
|
|
Post by X-Tir Moreth(Alexander) on Oct 17, 2016 8:40:10 GMT
A possible compromomise: If the concern is that the building cap will be filled up with small, cheap buildings, maybe introduce a lower limit? Anything with a maintenance of 0.5 or below simply doesn't count, or maybe only cound as ½ building. Dunno if that would be more trouble than worth. As I understand it, the intent is not to prevent highways and embassies, but instead limit buildings like Shrines, Palaces, etc. The big, impressive stuff. Limit those to province level, let the rest prolifirate would be my idea. Linde can always take this under reconsideration if Camelot ends up with 12 embassies and 7 highways
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 17, 2016 16:13:24 GMT
A possible compromomise: If the concern is that the building cap will be filled up with small, cheap buildings, maybe introduce a lower limit? Anything with a maintenance of 0.5 or below simply doesn't count, or maybe only cound as ½ building. Dunno if that would be more trouble than worth. As I understand it, the intent is not to prevent highways and embassies, but instead limit buildings like Shrines, Palaces, etc. The big, impressive stuff. Limit those to province level, let the rest prolifirate would be my idea. Linde can always take this under reconsideration if Camelot ends up with 12 embassies and 7 highways Mercia's suggestion is actually quite functionally similar to that (although .5GB/turn buildings, which is most, would only take up 1/4th of a slot). It's a minimal addition to bookkeeping, and doesn't require permitting buildings beyond the cap.
Also, I will be very impressed if Camelot builds 7 highways
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Oct 27, 2016 6:02:19 GMT
While I am in no rush, this will eventually be very important to determine which of two actions I end up choosing between. I am guessing it's still under consideration?
My primary concerns are: Nemeth is right. Castle's suddenly getting upkeep could hit a small landed regent hard if they've focused on building up a strong castle, and didn't expect to pay upkeep for it.
Highways as buildings makes it possible for Camelot to have nothing but highways, and still not have a highway to each adjacent realm! That just seems silly to me.
A lvl 4 province getting filled up just as much by 4 embassies as it would be getting filled up by 4 major epic structures also seems a little silly.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Oct 27, 2016 6:05:40 GMT
My primary concerns are: Nemeth is right. Castle's suddenly getting upkeep could hit a small landed regent hard if they've focused on building up a strong castle, and didn't expect to pay upkeep for it. I personally don't feel this is as much of an issue, garrison status for troops should (for most realms) more than counter the upkeep cost of a castle.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Oct 27, 2016 12:11:52 GMT
How about having the province level as cap yet having filled holding levels add to it somehow? A developed and organized province being able to support more.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Oct 27, 2016 13:25:44 GMT
Current idea: A province can sustain upkeep of buildings of a GB value equal to half province level. (Actual level - not modified by spells)
Further buildings must pay upkeep or decay.
Province ruler control the free upkeep but can allocate it to other domains via diplomacy.
This way there is unlimited space. And a pool of free space that can accommodate castles or other structures.
|
|