Jump to content

Economy bonus ideas


Recommended Posts

Or add a fence around the house so it is clearer why it has a bigger footprint. Since (I guess) many people had some kind of animal back then, they maybe also liked to fence their property to make sure the animals don't run away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About reintroducing the bonus as it was in A23, I too would like it given to an urbanised civ, and in particular romans. Romans were a very popolous faction, and that was one of its greatest strength, during punic wars, but they still lack a substantial population related bonus. Also roman dropsites look a lot more welcoming than briton ones, and you would think that italian climate would better allow workers to sleep in the barn there than upper north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, the concept of buildings that solely function as houses, storehouses, granaries, corrals, forges or markets seem like a gamification to me. I tend to believe that many cultures grew some vegetables and had some cattle around the house. For houses we can say that people did not commute much and tended to live and work in the same building. The storehouse/forge also possibly overlap historically. Furthermore it seems plausible that cultures would not transport raw iron ore, but rather transport purified versions as they were considerably easier/cheaper to transport. It seems awkward to me to give a bonus on something that is a gamification to begin with. Neither do I think a market would really count as a building, rather it would be something that develops itself in an urban centre.

I might have it wrong on the gamification element. If it is a gamification element, it seems weird to give a bonus on something which is a gamification element to begin with. Also I am not a fan of food related bonuses, as having food was important for all cultures.

3 hours ago, alre said:

Romans were a very popolous faction, and that was one of its greatest strength, during punic wars, but they still lack a substantial population related bonus

Romans do get the team bonus where they can raise armies faster. Judging numbers by battle records is tricky, but the Romans did not always have the superior numbers in battle. What characterizes the Romans more is that for every lost army they were able to raise another.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow you. Everything in the game is a gamification, buildings having precise functions, soldiers having precise weaponry, and just everything basically. Bonuses are too part of the game and you give them to some civ because they fit the civ, which means they have some (possibly good) justification outside of the game, but the game stays a game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

about romans team bonus: because it's a team bonus, it doesn't feel as much characteristic to the civ, I think. we should not confuse team bonuses with the proper distinguishing features of the civ.

In any case, persians also have unique techs for raising armies faster (plus the population bonus), I still think romans are quite lacking in this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alre said:

In any case, persians also have unique techs for raising armies faster (plus the population bonus), I still think romans are quite lacking in this matter

In a24, persians are much slower to attack usually, since they would usually want cavalry and their economic advantage is only present in the late-game. Again, I think being a highly urban civilization would mean it is a contender not to have that bonus, since urbanization mostly relates to residences purposes built to contain people. A more rural civ or a civ that historically had to abandon its cities every now and then would be a great contender, because those storehouses/farmsteads would be needed to house the excess population once the city was evacuated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alre said:

I don't follow you. Everything in the game is a gamification

This is a very valid point. Howeverwhat storehouses and such represent in a historical sense is not really clear for me, so I would find it odd to base a bonus on that. Also a bonus that is not directed at any particular strategy feels bland to me.

 

2 hours ago, alre said:

Bonuses are too part of the game and you give them to some civ because they fit the civ, which means they have some (possibly good) justification outside of the game, but the game stays a game.

Especially the good justification is something I find problematic for the population on storehouse bonus.

2 hours ago, alre said:

about romans team bonus: because it's a team bonus, it doesn't feel as much characteristic to the civ, I think. we should not confuse team bonuses with the proper distinguishing features of the civ.

In any case, persians also have unique techs for raising armies faster (plus the population bonus), I still think romans are quite lacking in this matter.

I agree with the statement, but our conclusions probably differ. Training Citizen soldiers 10% faster is a major boost. Not only could you produce more, but even when producing the same amount of infantry it has advantages. If you produce a batch of 6 soldiers, then the romans get the batch 4 seconds earlier meaning that they get to work 4 seconds earlier. That allows them to collect some resources (about 6*3) in the saved time and makes them about 3% "cheaper". So it is a very impactful bonus both for the extra units trained and the extra gathering. If I think of Roman advantages, I think of this bonus. So I feel if it was a civilization bonus, it would be fine. However since all their allies also get it, it makes it feel less unique. So in my eyes the bonus is not bad, but it should be a civilization bonus (and there should be a new fitting team bonus).

1 hour ago, alre said:

well Rome was sacked by gauls for like 7 years straight during 0 AD timeframe.

That is true, but if we think about Rome, we do not think about a city that got sacked very often. 7 years of trouble for a period from 500 BC to 0AD is not that substantial and Athens seems to be a better candidate for being sacked/sieged (Who were sacked/sieged by the persia, sparta, Macedon and the Romans in the 0ad time frame).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Also a bonus that is not directed at any particular strategy feels bland to me.

Be careful to not disregard nice bonuses that doesn't seem to point towards a strategy. It may very well be that someone devices some clever (e.g.) boom strategy with it that we could not think of before implementing it. (As a general comment.)

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...