Hi! I'm Viridian, also known as Anthony Salter, and I just finished a major revamp of the citybuilding system. I'd like to talk today about our design goals for citybuilding and how the system currently works.First, let's look at how our major inspirations, Civilization and Master of Magic, handled cities. In both games, cities were fairly abstract. They consisted of a single icon on the map and a screen full of sprites and numbers.
And you would end up with dozens of the things as the game progressed; to the point where you'd probably end up ignoring some because they were too small or unproductive to help you win the game. (Didn't prevent them from falling into civil disorder and bringing your whole empire to a grinding halt...grr...)
As strategy games developed, a genre of incredibly detailed citybuilding games emerged, including the Caesar series, the Settlers series, and the Anno series.
In these games, everything is simulated practically down to the atomic level. These are the kinds of games where you need to mine ore to make tools to cut down trees to gather lumber to take to the sawmill to make planks to build new buildings.Now, there's no doubt this can be fun. I've enjoyed both the Settlers and the Anno series of games myself. The only problem is that citybuilding, while important, isn't the only thing you do in Elemental, and thus we can't allow it to dominate the game the way it does in Anno-style games. (I can hear certain people weeping on the forums already but it's true.) So what we've tried to do is create a happy medium.I've spent all this time telling you how citybuilding won't work; it might be a good idea to tell you how it will.What exactly did we want when we set out to create our citybuilding system?Well, first, we didn't want city spam. Thus, we created a system where building a smaller number of larger, older cities is rewarded.As you probably know, Sovereigns can create cities, thus creating a town hub. There are five levels a hub can go through - they start as outposts, then upgrade to hamlets, villages, towns, and cities. At each upgrade point you'll get eight new tiles to build improvements on - and your city will be able to support more efficient improvements that it couldn't before.Another feature of cities is that they are (mostly) auto-upgrading. If you expand your city to a village and you have the Housing technology researched, then all your huts will upgrade to houses - instantly, and for free. Your city needs to be at the proper level and you must have the technology researched in order for this to happen. Again, I can hear the cries of some forum-goers who think that this will negatively impact the game, but we're facing facts here. Ninety percent of the time when we get a new housing tech we simply demolish our old houses and build new ones right where the old ones were. Because of the hard forty-tile limit you can't just throw more out there - non-optimal improvements will literally be a detriment to your city.Indeed, crafting a good city is going to be a continual series of trade-offs rather than a forever-growing list of improvements. And as the city grows and the game progresses, you will find yourself continually repurposing your cities rather than building new ones.
Our goal is to strike a balance, so that we aren't overwhelming the player with city management, but we still provide a robust enough experience that you don't just think of your city as numbers and sprites. When someone attacks your city and your little people start running around screaming, we want you thinking, "Hey! Stop picking on them! How 'bout a little FIRE, Scarecrow?!"
EDIT: I originally stated that Sovereigns needed to expend essence to create cities. This is incorrect; they expend essence to bring the land back to life so the city can be built. I have fixed the error in the article.
I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. The "colony" solution being proposed is very much like a GalCiv2 map with only a handful of good-quality planets but a huge amount of those little glowing crystals scattered all over.
I think Tridus is really onto something here. Historically, most large cities were founded in areas with access to fertile land and clean water. Smaller settlements might crop up elsewhere to exploit specific resources, but these rarely grew into large population centers because the land couldn't support it. Instead, they would harvest the resource and trade it to the big cities for food and other necessities.
In addition to solving the "snake city" and endgame micromanagement problems, this would also provide a number of soft targets that can be attacked. That encourages smaller, more mobile forces on both sides, and doesn't allow you to just turtle in your cities and roll over your opponents with a single giant stack'o'doom.
Easy: You don't have to spend gold building houses, etc. for that city, and you don't have to provide food for the growing city. (meaning you have money and food free for the expansion of other cities)
I do like the general direction SD is going. However there are some important features/functions coming from Citybuilding does not seem to show in OP (& I have not read all posts above)Location based building bonus: Cities built surrounded by forests should be given productivity bonus for its lumber mill; cities surrounded by other major cities will be naturally better at trading. This allow specialization of a city because the city is naturally good at it. Achievement based building bonus: Some buildings (and Units) should receive a huge bonus when your empire achieve a meaningful (& multiple dozen turns) milestones . These milestones maybe be Ranked, or come in first-come-first serve bases (sort of like 1 per world Wonder, but different in terms of the condition). Mid game will become more fun, because each empire is trying to achieve these milestones, and the game will become no longer restrained by land = power. The first 10 turns of land-grab is important, but its importance is lessened somewhat.Production-center based building bonus: A medium productivity bonus should be given the lumber mill, when you squeeze more and more lumber mill into the same city (of course, other buildings that are required to support its working population should be there, providing enuf food, prestige, protection etc). When a player want to specialize in one type of a product, let them do so. Give enuf bonus that 1 hugely focused metropolitan can provide enuf of that stuff to the whole empire. Let player decide if they want a centralized production pattern or a dispersed pattern in his empire.Reversed population based bonus: Some buildings should receive a huge bonus when the area is quiet, peaceful, and less polluted etc. Or, instead of a huge bonus, certain higher-end technology can only produce bonus when the city is at village level but not anything above. These buildings can be farming related, magic-related, academy, hunting, horse-breeding facility. This give player reasons that huge cities is not always the goal. Some stuff works better outside huge cities.Tile based building placement is not what I like. I feel that individual building placement inside city is not all that fun. And there are also a micromanagement aspect of placing 40 tiles over some many cities in the game. Unless individual placement significantly affect how your city defence, I'll prefer a Slot-based city-building instead. The actual placement of buildings are handled by AI. The only concern a gamer has should only be on the composition of various buildings in the city. Spending time placing buildings on tile will because tedious after a while.I like the auto-upgrade idea when your pop/tech/$ allows it because potentially it minimize micro. I am at the camp that strictly hate AI governors, I wonder how will SD resolve the issue, when a humble hut can branched out into 10 different buildings when the game progresses, without the use of AI governors? I am suggesting a goal based building but this is just a rough idea for your further improvement. Is it possible that on a particular tile/slot, the player decide the highest tier/most advanced building on turn 1? As the game progress, the game auto-upgrade/downgrade the building due to the pop/tech/$ factors. I am aware there are some disadvantage (that I am too lazy to write), but in general I prefer this that the "mostly (upgrading). I want FULL upgrading without the use of AI governor. Can that be possibly done? Is there a good way?
There is no morale or approval or what have you.
You want a mining outpost? No problem, plop down your keep, build the mine and you're done. Your entire civilization gets a benefit. Want to increase that benefit? Build a road to it.
Like Sarudak said, what is the advantage of not turning the mining outpost into a huge city? Especially if founding said outpost required expending the same amount of essence as you'd need to found a full-on city that you intend to develop.
The whole colony/outpost idea has been floating around for a while and I have yet to see a good reason for not implementing it or something like it. Now, if you come up with some as-yet unmentioned mechanism that discourages you from developing all of your cities as far as possible, then perhaps outposts would be redundant. But as it stands, I see no reason not to develop every one of your cities as far as you can take them...
Outposts could differ from 'base' settlements in significant ways, too. For one, maybe they'd be less efficient at generating resources (or maybe they'd be more efficient, discouraging city spam). They would probably be much less defendable - juicy targets for your enemies.
Of course, we'll get a much better idea of how things work in the next beta hopefully. Maybe this will all be moot. But right now empire building is not at all where I'd like it to be. Cities are far too plentiful at the moment, and resource/shard placement forces you to do strange things to gain access to them.
Based on how things work right now, I agree with the other comments about this. I proposed the colony system simply because in playing Elemental so far, I've *never* had a reason to NOT turn anything I build into a huge city. Now it's possible the numbers aren't tweaked or I've been lucky with fertile land, but right now a city is always better then an outpost. So you always upgrade it. Sure, you can choose not to, but why would you?
The downside is that when you can effectively plop down a city everywhere just because you happen to want to control the mine near it, cities themselves become less interesting. Each city is "just another city", and not something you're particularly investing in (since as the game moves on you can create more and more cities without spending essence).
My idea largely rests on food being more valuable then it is right now. When it is, you can't build 50 cities without a huge empire to support them, so you use the cheaper colonies to feed resources into the few great cities you can build. It makes your few cities feel special and important, because you're committing a lot of resources from smaller colonies into supporting them.
It also increases tactical choices. Do I try to build a new city on the border at this shard (and thus take food away from my core cities), or a colony? How big do I want my existing cities to grow before I build another one? Where do I focus my defenses? And against the other guy, do I try to take one of his few great cities (which if big cities are uncommon and special is a major blow), or try to do fast raids on his resource colonies and weaken him that way instead?
In the currently released beta, the essence expenditure is to restore life to the wasteland, which lets you build on it. Over time as the city grows, the "restored land" spreads out from the city. In that area, you can build another city without spending essence.
It's not a terribly fast process, but since essence is scarce and the radius around a developed city is pretty big, I've managed to build a lot of cities without spending anything.
I'm not sure making a city build always cost essence is practical, given that you need a city to harvest resources right now. It would be, if you used a colony system where you can build small settlements without the essence cost that can gather resources but not grow.
Problem I forsee is cities capping out too soon. Because a city it limited to a certain number of tiles, and your city is basically your buildings, you'll be unable to grow in power without gaining more cities which means... you need to build as many as you can... and if you can't build them to due to essence useage, then the emphasis of the game turns toward... conquering new cities. And now we're back to the same problem we're trying to avoid. Cities need to be able to grow in a way other than through extra buildings and tech. I made some suggestions here. Something along these lines I think would allow you to continue advancing your city and giving them a unique quality without hard caps or stringent "this or that" decisions.
But as it is, it costs essence to build (unless, from what I understand, the place is right for city building without the use of essence, but I suspect it'll be difficult since you state you want "large cities but only a small number").
I actually like some of the ideas you've introduced in Elemental's city building, but I think some of the posters here raised some valid issues, and gave good ideas of potential solutions/improvment. I like the "outpost/colony" system one of the posters presented quite a lot. It would allow for the player to have both a large empire and many strategic objectives to defend, while keeping the core, the large cities, to a small number.
Another issue is the hard-cap on city size. Whether it's in the real world or in fantasy worlds, even major urban centers varied wildly in population and size. Late-empire Rome was a 1 million-people sprawl, 10th century Paris was below 100k. As it is, now, in elemental, all cities have the same size - the maximum one. Not in population (because you can always increase the number of houses), but at least in "townsize": cities. It would be nice to implement a city growth system which would be slower than the current one (early game cities should be small), slightly more demanding, and not capped, or with a cap that's hard to reach, to introduce some variation and the need for players to make tough decisions in the game.
One of the posters proposed a system in which the difficulty of increasing city size would become exponentially harder at each step. It is an interesting idea, but it encourages the creation of a large number of small cities, which was one if the things the devs wanted to avoid (with good reasons, IMO). What about making the beginning hard, then have an "easy sweet spot" where cities grow to an ideal size (which could even be random or a function of environmental conditions!), and then it becomes increasingly harder in an exponential manner...
Since Frogboy and company are such fans of MoM and various other 4x games, why not have cities as some suggested have an area of influence around them. This area of influence as seen in Civilization and Master of Magic that caps resources around the city plop, or whatever you wanna call it, be introduced here?
It would mean as your villages eventually transform into cities, you'll have choices.
Say for example, at level 5, your largest city has wheat fields within the city limits and wheat fields in the AoI outside the city limits. You'll still gain food bonuses from the wheat inside your walls, but it will not prosper as much it will in the AoI because as your city grows larger, resources of all types will need to expand. Thus in early games wheat fields in your walls will be fine, but in the long-term, having more resources out in the open will be more important. This could be the trade-off as enemy units and you can disrupt and destroy city "villages" on outlying resources.
I prefer city building similar to GC2 or X-Com or Alpha Centari. Not a big fan of the Civ style city building, although it is simplistic and makes it easier to spam cities.
EDIT: I like the idea to be able to continually grow your cities. So that you can have a 20x20 square city at some point say 1000 turns into the game. Truly massive, although it shouldn't be done in a vacuum. If one city is growing that means that others are not, since there are only so many people in the world, and only so many people in that area.
My one hope is that there is an option that allows you to change the growth/building turn speeds of settlements in bigger games. For some reason games developers are very unimaginative when it comes to difficulty options. I'd prefer more than just 'easy' 'medium' and 'hard', give me custom options, damnit! (SoaSE was on the right track). I want to play a huge map that takes me real-time hours to build cities up, it helps emotional investment as well.
Resource Management... I think it was in CIV 3 that a player could send a Worker unit to a strategic resource, such as Iron. There, the Worker would be transformed into a Colony. As long as that colony was connected to a city via a road/harbor, without passing through enemy lines, then the player owns the resource! Of course, this colony was susceptible to being culture-attacked, but it was still a wonderful way to grab a resource in a crappy location, without going to the trouble/expense of founding a city. I hope Elemental will allow for this method.
More regarding resources... Sometimes I like to micro-manage resources, so I have to mine, then parcel out x tons of iron ore to a particular city, so that it can make the best weapons. Other times, I like the CIV 4 method- once I own Iron, then it is automatically available in all connected cities. I can enjoy either, so long as the implementation is fun!
I agree with slot based, especially if actual building location has far less strategic value than in an RTS game.
....I need to stop reading all comments because those I don't like just work me up....
Some things need to be stated right away:
If a university produces 2 research points/turn then I DON'T want to keep track of having enough population to "make use" (lol....) of those universities. They're just some friggin buildings that give researchpoints! Realism is a nice thing but absolutely non-essential.
NO! Me too
Now, about the topic at hand....
Just don't copy MoMs foodsystem since you could only have like 1 stack of troops if had a village there. It was so restricted. I want to see large armies of lowlvl units a viable choice like in Age of Wonders.
Limiting the amount of cities sound good but then we need something else to build around a map. Like in Age of Mytholgy where I build military structures at several places around the map to deny my opponent access to resources (goldmines in particular), secure territory and to have newly produced troops join the fray earlier.
....Imagine a huge map in Elemental where you got 4 cities on one side of the world and you have to trek with troops AAALLL the way across the map to get to the enemy capital....I'm certain that will not be the case though.
No, it's not. This works me up because its a comment I don't like. Balance can be done with anything, regardless of whether the system is "gamey" or not. Gamey is referring to something that is obviously unrealistic to the point that immersion takes a hit. I'll agree that complete realism is not necessary. But there needs to be enough for the player to be immersed and feel that they are part of an actual world.
What most people complain about in the Civilization games is the unrealistic combat simulation. This is because it is a "gamey" system used to make it "simpler". If they would have done something like tactical combat in Civ, it could have been balanced all the same. It would have made it less gamey because there would be an actual reason you lost a battle rather than just one bad luck percentage roll...
The point I'm trying to make is that I understand the need for simplicity. Because simple systems can come together to make a deep game. However you shouldn't just sell it short. And selling it short is making a system "gamey" for simplicity's sake rather than just fleshing it out and balancing it to fit in the game. I'm not saying Elemental is going to be like that, I'm just referring to the fact that being "gamey" is NOT a good thing...
"Gamey" comes from "gaming the system," which means to use the rules in a way that wasn't intended or forseen by the creator of the system, for the purpose of bypassing the spirit or intent of the rules and gaining an advantage. It is not a good thing. In practice, it usually involves doing something that would otherwise be considered absurd, but which the rules unintentionally allow or reward.
Actually, I always thought a better idea for outpost/structures/resource extraction point is a similar concept to the structures in Heroes of Might and Magic 3 - They are not obviously cities (And for HOMM3, not buildable.), but once you own them, they will produce a steady stream of whatever they specialize in, be it gold/money or resources. Age of Wonders had a similar idea, but you can not build them and they only produce gold and mana. However, AoW avoided the dumb problem with HOMM3 of having some structures require you to send an army (The number of which you were limited to by the number of heroes you had.) to collect the said resources. Also, AoW1 had structures that served as factories for units, and HOMM had 'dwellings' you could recruit units, from canon fodder to the most powerful units in each faction, every once in a while.
Alpha Centauri actually had a very good idea for extracting resources that are situated outside the radius of a city, by allowing you to build a unit that would go out, setup on the target square (Any square.) and you could choose what resources you wanted them to extract and convoy to the unit's home city. Obviously AC's execution will not work here, but it seems worthwhile to look from.
(I never had much problems with city spam, namely because I just put my less productive cities producing income. Having lots of cities is something that favor.)
Perhaps the simplest expedient for encouraging people to not upgrade every city is cost with diminishing returns. if you really only need a mining outpost, why spend capital on building infrastructure that doesn't support that goal?
I like the notion of trying something new. The Civ model is fun, but... been there, done that.
I also really like the notion of limiting the number of cities. It reduces micromanagement, it adds more character to individual places, and it makes players evaluate trade-offs--I LOVE computer games that make me make tough choices and live with the trade-offs, rather than having enough of all things.
I wonder how they'll balance that with conquest? What happens if each player only has a half-dozen cities, and you start conquering them?
I think that Civ IV actually had a very good dynamic for limiting the number of cities--you just impose a massive "corruption" tax on any player who builds too many cities (e.g., upon building your 5th city, every city pays 2 gold per turn, upon building your 6th city, every city pays 4 gold per turn, etc.). It's entirely reasonable to me that a medieval civil structure couldn't support governance and taxation of 25 major cities, and the Civ IV folks came up with a solution that was simple yet elegant.
I also agree that cities should have a mix of wealthy and not-so-wealthy types. The game is ages old, but Imperialism 2 did a great job of tying resource production to loftier classes of citizens. Luxury resources were key to transforming peasants into citizens, and citizens into merchants or nobles. This could turn into a micromanagement fest, but you get the idea.
Lastly, I love cities that grow organically. The Railroad Tycoon series did this nicely. It seems unreasonable to me that I, as ruler, could dictate exactly what structure gets built next. Except for totalitarian governments, you have to rely on the citizens to build their own mills, smiths, etc. As a lord, you can finance the construction of individual buildings, but only a small handful of them.
Based on the discussion I've seen, it sounds like that's a design decision that the Stardock folks have already moved past and it won't be included, but I wanted to make the suggestion.
Limiting the number of cities is a good idea, yet then I feel like the AI should also have the same penalties a player would. In Civ there are quite a few cases in which the player finds himself boxed in on a continent between two AI, where on another continent an AI has enough room to found 20ish cities where every other AI and the player all have 6 to 8 cities. When you play on deity and you meet the other AI - who has become quite a powerhouse - you know the game is over well before you ever get to the end of it. Only in rare cases you can win a cultural - if the land allows it - or diplomatic victory - if you can conquer the rest of the world and the monster AI holds less that 40% of the worlds population.
If the AI has the same limits as the player does, then the AI that expands like mad would get punished severely so it can never grow huge and be advanced. It can then be huge with the ability to grow strong given enough time, but there will be the option for the player to check the AI, stopping it's development into a monster. As it is in Civ, the AI can just become a monster with the player on the sidelines. You can do nothing about it.
Elemental would need a system where the AI has limitations like the player does, without choking the AI so that it can never ever keep up with the player. Meeting the AI and knowing you are dead right from the start is hardly the way to go imo.
I like the general tone of your posts and the general gist of what you are saying. I think you are headed in the right direction.
If I may, I would like to offer constructive criticism and questions on 2 things you mention:
Good. Smaller numbers of cities means more personality to each. Yet how will the rewards be done exactly?
non-optimal improvements will literally be a detriment to your city.
This seems very dangerous if taken literally.
IF you mean that a suboptimally organized city (characterized primarily? by suboptimal improvements within the city) will be detrimental in the sense that your city will fall behind because it will be unable to produce what it needs to produce in the best way (because, for example, you cannot be producing any wombats if your tiles are all full of clunker-producers), then that sounds reasonable, but basically only means that suboptimally organized cities will be suboptimal.
But IF you mean that suboptimal city improvements will drain your resources without providing you with benefits, then I think this is the wrong track to take for sure, because it would introduce no-brainers into the game. More no-brainers = less real polyvalent strategic choices, and less choices = less fun (in a strategy game).
I'm a bit confused by this whole post. The Deity difficulty in Civ IV cheats, big time. If it didn't, people like you probably wouldn't find it very difficult at all. In order to create a difficulty setting that would challenge players like you, the Civ IV team had to resort to giving the AI all sorts of advantages. Of course the AI on a cheating difficulty setting won't have the same limitations as the player. But if you bump your difficulty down a few notches to where the AI loses its cheating advantages, then it does become subject to the same limitations as the player.
So it sounds to me like you're suggesting one of the following: either that the toughest AI setting should be as good as the best human players without cheating, or that the AI should never cheat on any difficulty setting... The former is not remotely practical, and the latter would be silly. There is no good reason why Stardock shouldn't include some cheating difficulty levels above their highest non-cheating one; it gives sadistic people the challenge they want and it doesn't affect anyone else (and can't be very hard to implement).
@ Onamostikon
The OP clearly stated that available upgrades would be automatically applied. This is to optimize/simplify city development. Essentially its automatically turning all your Longswords into Longswords +1, and later turn them into Longswords +2. Or rather, in the case of cities, its House turns to House +1, turns to House +2.
This is primarily to lend attention to other, less tedius parts of the game. Assume that every time you gain the tech for House +X effieciency, you have to build House +X over your House N, where N = house X-1. Sure, in specific city builders there are different sizes with all House values of X, different pros and cons. In these cases, such as Anno, or (from personal experience) Black and White, all buildings are valid choices due to resources available, ect.
When a building takes the same amount of space, as well as require roughly the same resources, its set to an Auto-Upgrade system. You still have some choice. You can choose where to place houses, and wether its a Commoner's house or a Wealthy house. Commoner's Houses hold large population capacity, while Wealthy houses provide prestige to a city.
Its an elegant system that only leads to less "boring moments" and less tedium. You can build a house being confident that it will always exist as the best possible house for its enviroment. Its environment is taken in Two Variables. Tech and City level. No matter what type of Governor, all cities can reach level 5 (it would seem), however with a high Governing level, any city level can grow to a larger city size ... totally dependent on Governance. Perhaps some exceptions, although this seems to be the overall trend.
pigeonpigeon,
The AI at deity Civ IV does not 'cheat', it just have very more loose rules to play with than the player has. It pays next to no upkeep for having lots and lots of cities, it pays less hammers for units, it starts with a lot of bonus techs where the player has only two, etc. This makes it so that if the AI has enough room to exland, it will have 15+ cities up in no time and then it will be more advanced than the player when you two make contact. This happens on immortal - one step below deity - as well, and on the lower difficulties too although there you can still smack the Ai around because it will not be all that advanced.
I agree the Ai needs these bonusses because otherwise it would not be very much challenging to play against it. In fact, it is not very hard to program an AI such that it could beat a player every single time, it is hard to make the AI very very powerful but still weak enough that good players have a shot at winning.
What I tried to say was that I would like a solid AI that is limited like the player in terms of development. I liked Civ IV in the sense that the 'masochistic' people like me could have a real challenge on deity. I still lose quite a few games on that level which is cool. What I do not like about that level is that the AI can expand like mad because it pays no upkeep, and when you spend several hours surviving and getting ahead a bit, you find that an AI on another continent had all the space to get 15+ cities where you have 6 or 8 or so, and that that AI is ahead in techs, and that you have no real chance to win any war against that AI. You are then basically screwed unless there is the odd chance you can cheese out a win.
Maybe what I describe is more a map-script issue than an AI issue, but I would love to see balanced gameplay in terms of solid players being able to maybe be slightly behind the AI yet win because they rock and all that, rather than finding myself hopelessly behind because the map decided right from the start the AI can have some slack and have lots of land + no maintenance + peaceful or no neighbors.
I still make very little sense maybe, but I feel the major flaw in Civ IV was that the AI could run away with the game before you ever met them making the game a foregone conclusion when the renaissance era arrives. It did not happen every time, but when it did it always felt like the win was not rightfully with the AI.
In the end all I wanted to say was that I want Elemental to not have that frustration.
Thank you. Yes, that all makes sense, and I am for it -- under three conditions. These being
1. that there be no *disadvantage* to a suboptimally organized city other than or in addition to its own suboptimality
2. that there be various ways that a city might be optimized; there should be no "exclusively one single correct optimal" plan. (Of course that doesnt mean that some choices are just not as good as others, but there should not be only ONE way of (at least always) building a city.)
3. I would like to see automatic upgrades have different options for their resolution. Example: Your House+1 gets upgraded automatically at no cost once the tech (and/or whatever other prereqs need be met) gets available IF you have also invested in Quick Building (or whatever you want to call something, be it a Governor or be it a Tech, which gets you that bonus), otherwise, they upgrade automatically AT COST X (cost might be reduced by other factors), and they take Y turns to upgrade depending on how good your Governor and/or synergetic techs and/or special buildings also present might be (example: advanced forges with a very good Governor or however Boogie called them gets you free immediate better swordsmen once prereqs are met, advanced carpentry with very good Governor and special Groovy Woodshack building gets you free immediate House+1s when prereqs are met, otherwise, costs time and money). I just want there to be DIFFERENT WAYS for things to work out depending on what STYLE of Builder you are. Note that ALL of the options I list here require no micromanagement, they merely make the automatic upgrades better/quicker/cheaper.
What say you?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
