The recent discussions on 1.3 in the dev journals (about limiting the number of buildings you can have by settlement level, and increasing the citizen costs of buildings exponentially in this journal https://forums.elementalgame.com/408950 ) have got me thinking once again about the biggest problem with elemental, to my mind.
In elemental, settlements (like characters) have levels, which they achieve by crossing certain population thresholds. These allow you to build certain new special buildings with a level prerequisite, choose a level-up bonus, give you some free housing and (if you have the technologies) upgrade your research or housing buildings to superior versions that produce twice as much per head.
However, we also have a second system, whereby population allows you to construct buildings (and i know it sounds like i just said this above, but bear with me) through the citizen system. Every research or materials producing building has a citizen cost (usually 5), that stops you from building anything new until your population is 5 greater than the current number of citizens already accounted for.
While it makes sense that buildings require people to operate them, the sticking point is in numbers. While a settlement at the beginning of the game may have around 20 people, a settlement at the end of the game has around 1000, a 50 fold increase. Population increases at an increasing rate and this is why the gaps between level requirements increase each time. This means that it is impossible to charge a fixed amount of citizens per building without either 1) making buildings prohibitively expensive in the early game or 2) resulting in the potential for around 200 (1000 / 5) studies per city at the end of the game. To escape this fact, Brad is now proposing that citizen costs of buildings increase each time (5 for the first, 10 for the second, and so on). So the costs now grow exponentially like the population. Aside from whether this will work or not (or whether it makes intuitive sense, which it clearly doesn’t), essentially, this allows the game to take one step forward for the one step back we just took by introducing citizen costs.
What’s more, we have many other ways of limiting how many buildings you can support. Firstly, you have to pay to support them, and in the early stages of the game, this is almost always far more significant than the citizens required to run the buildings. By the end of the game, you’re more likely to be constricted by the tile limit. Essentially this is a hard-coded engine limitation that stops cities from getting too huge, taking over the map and slowing performance. It is not supposed to be a gameplay feature, and that players should ever run into it is evidence of BAD DESIGN.
But assuming the system is working. This means that, as well as building things when a town levels up, every time my cities population increases by 5, i should go back and build another freaking study to add to the 20 I have there already. Essentially, it’s the equivalent of getting another ability point every time i gain 20 xp AS WELL as adding points every time I level up. The whole point of a level up process is that it breaks up the allocation of points so you only have to do it now and again. The idea that population gives you levels and these give you buildings is fine, and this is an established staple of strategy. But then adding to that by saying that population allows you to build buildings, is just a pointless, redundant way of saying the exact same thing twice.
And the list of problems go on. Because we have a system where the number of buildings is (supposedly) proportionate to population, but their production PER building is based on settlement level (ie, you get super studies at level 3), we get ridiculous situations like your research production doubling when you reach level 3 settlements, at no extra costs. Worse still is the catch 22 of not having enough housing to increase your population to level 3, so that your hovels can become houses – ie, you can’t increase your population BECAUSE you can’t increase your population.
In short, the citizen system is totally redundant that just adds confusion and micro, when it even works at all. You’re never going to be able to make fixed costs / building that will work at all stages of the game. And even if you could, what would it possibly add beyond limiting you in the same way twice, and forcing you to build a new study every time population went up by 5?
There is no point increasing the citizen cost of buildings exponentially when we already have something that increases exponentially: settlement level requirements. The only way settlements can be ultimately fixed with the best overall system is to ditch citizen costs and just limit the number of buildings by settlement level directly. So level 3 settlements get up to 7 buildings, level 4s get up to 9 and so forth. Add more levels with smaller gaps if necessary.
That way you can make sure the player never gets anywhere near the tile limit, and the player can queue up all his buildings after levelling up instead of coming back every 5 turns to build another goddamn study. Instead of using level to determine the production of buildings (ie, super studies at level 3) and population to determine the number of buildings (which is ridiculous when population varies between 50 and 1000 and you thus go from 1 to 50 studies), use levels to determine the number of buildings, and use population to determine the production per building (ie, 0.1 research per study per person). That way you can still get the benefit of population after you hit the limit on buildings.
Elemental is not a game about city management. They should just be the means to fund our armies and adventures. At the moment however, the city system is full of redundancy, flawed concepts and pointless micro. As a result the game has become a contest to cheese the system and get decent cities first, rather than about a war of magic. Ditch citizens and limit buildings by level, because citizens are what give you levels. That is all.
Excellent analysis, sir, I agree! Population limits felt like someone hitting me in the legs all the time while I try to run.
Aside from whether this will work or not (or whether it makes intuitive sense, which it clearly doesn’t) - well, you can rationalize that with increasing number of studies, you must pay extra cost for the increasing complexity in the form of scribes/administrators/clerks/bureaucrats/whatever. It happens to companies and states, it should happen to cities in Elemental.
But I agree with your conclusion, your system is simpler, better and more intuitive.
Somewhat agree.
Reducing micromanagement= good and necessary.
While more studies might produce more knowledge, the MoM method of having more advanced buildings required to get advanced benefits seems less micro and more like 'important choices you get to make' to me. Somewhat specializing of cities, which has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum.
Building 25 studies seems tedious to me. Building a study first then upgrading (or adding) a knowledge center (+x% benefits) then an open school (+x+y% benefits) makes more sense to me than the current system, doesn't require as much management, and can have the city size limits described above. However, I don't even really see why the arbitrary limit. If you have a desire to super specialize a city, I'm ok with that.
I do see that you should approximate the limited flow of communication of specialization somehow. If you build the first city to be an Uber-center for tech knowledge, maybe the other cities can't leverage that knowledge until they have built some similar buildings. I know this makes some tech be city based rather than universal, BUT, if you don't have scholars in City Y then City X's research can't really easily be applied there, can it?
With regards to specialization, wouldn't it make sense to get a bonus for having more of a specific building type in a city?
I guess that's what the % bonus buildings and level up bonuses are for: you get more bang out of them if you have more of the basic production buildings in the first place. so this change doesn't really make much difference to the incentive to specialize.
I'm not sure is specialization is really a great doctrine for this kind of game though. I don't see the fantasy precident: what was minas tirith specialized in? or king's landing? if nothing else, if specialization is required, it encourages people to have lots of cities to cover all the bases. i always thought the idea behind this game was to have one main city surrounded by small farming and mining outposts - that's how most fantasy kingdoms seem to be. if every settlement ends up developed then the game becomes very much one where power is proportional to territory (the blob effect), whereas if it is a game of competing city states then everyone has a fighting chance until the end.
But the size of cities is more of a population growth issue. right now every town ends up growing into a city because there pop growth rates are largely independent of one another (other than the awkward multi-city-penalty workaround). ultimately population growth needs to be a global or factionwide system.
But i'm getting away from the point.
Sethai, you make some very good points.
Best regards,Steven.
Well I perfer the specilized city approch. I don't want the game to only have one big city and a few little towns. After all you are taking over a world so there should be lots of cities and to be able to specilize would enhance the game. Oh and Lord Stannis city was specilized in building ships in Game of Thrones.
What about population growth via prestige? As it currently works you gain say 1 per season per city. The population growth could be a global for your faction where the city prestige decides the ratio of distribution. It would mean that building more cities doesn't increase your population gain rate. It would then become a choice of deciding if the gains in territory, build ques and such are worth slowing down your capital's advancement. I'm not really sure how much it would fix or not though.
Maybe at a stretch. And maybe Venice had more trade and Constantinople had more religion. But medieval london still has more in common with either of them than it did with the farming hamlet of Little Piddlington. Cities are centres of human production, whether that's military, technological or economic. Whether one has a bigger port or cathedral is largely secondary.
I'm not saying that there should be room to specialize, but you can't make that a dogma. This isn't GalCiv 2. Specialization means you have to have more than one city for a balanced mix, and that means city spam. Cities are the most efficient ways of organising human activities, that's why they exist. The only reason we don't just have one huge city in real life is largely because of distance issues. Some medium sized towns will also be a good idea, for reasons of self defence, influence, and to make better use of resouces (ie, you grow a village to level 2 so you can irrigate it's farms: it's a material resource vs. human resource decision). I'm not advocating every faction be just a city + orbital resource villages. Ideally the ratio would probably be 3 farming villages to every 2 medium sized towns to every 1 city, where each of those settlements sits on either 1 or 2 resources.
@crystlshake: prestige would be one way of distributing population, but you're right population needs to global. I always thought the best way to calculate growth would be by the ratio of food/person, and then just only allow the towns with housing to grow, but prestige would also be a good way of dividing it up. Love this idea.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account