Inquery about production carryover

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Inquery about production carryover

This topic contains 120 replies, has 28 voices, and was last updated by  shangrila1040 6 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 121 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #171923

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    *Sigh*

    Ok, I’ll be constructive, so bear with me:

    Hammers are only POTENTIAL production, not an “output”; a CAPACITY to produce something. You can’t store hammers somewhere.

    “Hammers” are the bottleneck your resources are pushed through, and they are a measure of how many resources you can use up each turn.

    In AoW the general way to handle this is that you can’t start a new production the turn you end one. This is the rule that leads to “CAPACITY LOSS”, and I gave some reasons why that has positive effects. In reality, there is no logical reason, why it “should” or “must” be one way or another. All examples given above are true for EVERYONE, and everyone knows the rules, so everyone can adjust.

    Secondly, there IS a way to avoid this, and that is HURRY PRODUCTION: If you have 65 production and you want an Archer, instead wasting 60 production in turn 2 – HURRY production. I mean, EVERYONE did it in Shadow Magic, right? 65 Gold for a Priest? You’d ALWAYS hurry production with prod 60, saving a turn.

    Same thing here. So you don’t NEED to “waste” Hammers.

    Then there is building Merchandise, Knowledge, Mana. Should HAMMER production play a role here?
    Well, production of Gold, Mana and Knowledge is actually independent from Hammers: if you produce something, the city’s Gold, Mana and Knowledge income isn’t affected. It’s difficult to see how HAMMERS would actually support a RESOURCE production, since they are only used to USE UP resources.

    So HAMMERS are an ABILITY of a town to work with resources – a TURN LIMIT, actually, and there is no need whatsoever to change anything, because the mechanism to allow full use is already in place: it’s called HURRY PRODUCTION. The only open question is this:

    Should Hurry Production mechanism be changed in any way?

    How does it work?

    In AoW 2 SM it worked that way that you had to pay the “hurried” gold cost extra. If you had a production of 60, and you wanted to build a Priest in one turn, you would “hurry” 5 production, so the Priest would cost 70 instead of 65. Fair enough.

    In AoW 3, there is the following rule: you pay a “penalty” of 50 Gold for each turn saved (70 for dwellings) and you get -100 Happiness for 5 turns.
    That’s a different ballgame. The effect here is, that you can’t afford to hurry production in the beginning: if you want to build an Archer with production 65, huryying that Archer would make the Archer cost 120 – plus the Happiness loss for 5 turns which may translate into a very real loss as well.

    Let’s say we want to produce something that costs 150. We have two towns, one with a production of 80 and another with a production of 130. Both will need two turns to finish. Both will pay the same penalty of 50 gold and 100 Happiness for 5 turns, if they hurry production.
    Is that fair?
    Obviously, it’s not.

    Here is a formula that should work better:

    penalty = [(production hurried + “flat sum”) x (# of turns saved)] in Gold AND Happiness loss.

    The “flat sum” is simply something like a “fee” to make it happen. It could be something like 10% of the actual value of what is produced, for example.

    So in the above example, town A with a production of 80 would pay
    (70 + 15) x 1 = 85 Gold and Happiness penalty, while town B with production 130 would pay (20 + 15) x 1 = 35 Gold and Happiness each.

    It gets interesting when you look at what will happen EARLY; say your Village with Production 25 will rush the Builder’s Hall which costs 100. Penalty would be
    (75 + 10) x 3 = 255.
    Now say you have production 33 (happens) and after 2 turns you want to rush the last Hammer, saving 1 turn:
    (1 + 10) x 1 = 11.

    I think, this would solve the problem insofar, that it would make everyone happy, allowing everyone to make full use of everything, without actually changing much.

    Of course, you’d have to allow hurrying RESEARCH as well, in much the same way, except that Research might involve a Mana penalty, instead of a happiness penalty.

    #172032

    The biggest downside of the current system is in my opinion the fact that it favors high tier unit spam which uses your production to the fullest. If gold is not a factor, your only decision is to built the highest tier unit if you want the “strongest military”. Building anything that doesnt use the maximum production is a waste. This reduces late game production queues into boring high tier unit spam. You never have to make a decision, the system determines the best choice. There might be very few exceptions where a lower tier unit might be more benefitial but those are rather the exceptions not the norm. I find that very boring since possibly meaningfull decisions decline as the game progresses.
    I understand why the current system is in use since it is easier to balance. And i dont expect it to change, but i do think change would be for the better, offering more diversity.

    #172047

    Look at how wrong I am about everything

    Ok so let’s go over each of your points. Again.

    Hammers are a resource just like everything else. You’re right, you don’t HAVE to spend them any more than you have to spend any resource. You can sit there not spending gold all game if you want. While technically true this is also really pointless, you are saying “well you don’t have to play the game”.

    Hurry production does not equal production rollover. It never has. Yes, you can pay extra gold and happiness to build things faster. No, this has nothing to do with rollover.

    Building merchandise, knowledge, etc: as wuffy pointed out, hammers probably SHOULD have an impact on those abilities. That is how it works in every other 4x ever pretty much, including Moo and MoM that AoW has built its legacy copying in pretty much every way right down to the icons. Also it makes sense that a town focused on production would get more use out of production than a town with crappy production. This isn’t even in question, it is like wondering if one plus one should equal two.

    Lastly, your own math explains just how silly the current system is. You are actually doing a great job explaining why so many people would like to see it changed.

    #172064

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I clearly do not understand what I’m talking about.

    There, I can ,mutilate quotes as well, satisfied now?
    If you don’t see that hurry production is a quasi-rollover and production is not a resource like gold, then you really don’t see much, do you?
    Explains a lot, actually.

    #172067

    Gentleman, please keep civilized, mutilating quotes is really childish.

    but I think I going to grant the honor of my support on this topic to lord TheInternetJanitor. I think that the rushing system can use an little overhaul. but nothing to fancy. we don’t want to change the game to much.

    #172076

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You do get that a production rollover would mean a massive game change requiring a massive balance overhaul, right? :P)

    #172080

    yea lord Jolly_joker that is right, but I don’t want to completely change the system. but I still think that the system we have now can use some improvement. so not an complete rollover system, but more an don’t completely lose the “hammers” you overuse system. (make the hammers you have left produce merchandise instead or something like that.)

    #172114

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Earnestly spoken, that would mean, in case you wouldn’t use up FULL production, but only PART, the rest of the production would be used to produce that much of a part of what you would produce.

    Example: your town has a regular gold income of 40. Production is 80. You produce a Cav for 100. In turn 2 of the production you use only 20 of the 80 you have – 25%, leaving 75%. In that case the town would produce 75% merchandise. 100 % merchandise would give 50% of the gold income or 20 Gold. 75% of this would be 15 Gold.

    The snag here is, that the gain depends on how good the income is – production is somewhat unimportant.

    Otherwise, there is no connection between Hammers and income – you cannot use your production for an income.

    However, there might be a building for that, say, a Manufacture. You could build that, the Manufacture might produce Goods, and Goods would be automatically produced each turn with the overhang – say, 50% of the overhang.

    That would be easily possible.

    #172116

    well Lord Jolly_joker, look add this, an solution without completely overhauling the production system. add the cost of 1 new building I think that both parties will be happy with this correct?

    #172134

    How about adding the remaining production as happiness bonus for 1 round ? Im kinda glad if get some free time without work 🙂

    #172135

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I don’t think so. While it would give something for a price, it would do nothing about the actual problem some see, and that is the fact that they can’t just “string-produce”. You’d still not be able to produce 5 Archers in 6 turns with a 60 production (except with Hurry Production) – which is what the whole argument is more or less about. Or, in other words, if this was just about making sure you can SOMEHOW profit from a high production town value, from my side there would have never been argument.
    However, it’s about production rollover.

    SOME, would be happy, though, at least. 🙂

    #172139

    hmm my friend, to be honest I think that our last solution is an better option than an complete rollover.

    gameplay wise I think that production classes will become even more superior against summoning classes in late game.

    logical wise it is quite odd to train an unit and tell them to wait an day because the “bows are not finished yet”.

    ow and lord Blutwurstritter , I think it is quite an good idea to give an happiness bonus when some workers can just “stay home”, they also get upset when you make them work overtime (rushing production).

    #172155

    quo
    Member

    Hammers are only POTENTIAL production, not an “output”; a CAPACITY to produce something. You can’t store hammers somewhere.

    I don’t understand what you mean. It’s not a matter of “storing” hammers somewhere. You need to get that idea out of your head.

    This issue arises because of a rounding error that occurs due to the game being divided into turns. Specifically, to use your language, it’s a matter of correcting the fact that hammers that aren’t used actually vanish into thin air due to the Turn system not being granular enough to track them. It’s not that those hammers truly need to be “stored” in a physical sense, its the fact that they simply disappear.

    Not convinced yet? Consider this: the quicker the game speed is, the worse this rounding error gets. There is no logical reason for this to happen. But it does happen, because turns are an arbitrary way to break up the game. Steady-stream resources like hammers need to carry over to provide a proper representation, otherwise the game loses track of the value of its own bonuses and penalties.

    This isn’t the first turn based RTS or board game to encounter this problem. It’s a problem inherent to turn based games. A problem that many of those games have corrected by allowing hammers to roll over to fix the rounding error.

    In AoW the general way to handle this is that you can’t start a new production the turn you end one. This is the rule that leads to “CAPACITY LOSS”, and I gave some reasons why that has positive effects. In reality, there is no logical reason, why it “should” or “must” be one way or another.

    Actually, there is a very good mathematical reason why it “should” roll over, and that is so that when you give out a bonus number of hammers you know how much of a bonus you are actually handing out. Under the current system, you are shooting blind. There is really no way to justify this from a balance standpoint other than to say games have flaws, sometimes shocking ones. The game is still basically functional despite this huge oversight, but there is really no point in defending it, nor would fixing it cause a catastrophe.

    Someone earlier posted that if hammers rolled over that the Human +10 hammer bonus would be overpowered if roll over existed. But they are mistaken. The Human + 10 hammer bonus is overpowered right now because it gives you the ability to powergame the system and conditionally produce a 33% or 50% bonus where a much smaller bonus was actually intended. This is due to the fact that the extra hammers provide a better chance of tipping a 1/2 or 1/3 build down to 1/1 or 1/2 respectively.

    Secondly, there IS a way to avoid this, and that is HURRY PRODUCTION:…

    The existence of Hurry Production makes the problem worse, not better. What Hurry Production means is that from a powergame standpoint you get to bypass any rounding errors that don’t work out in your favor, while still benefitting from the ones that do. The only thing keeping Hurry Production in check is that it affects Happiness which can affect Hammers. A badly timed Hurry followed by an unexpected drop in Global Happiness could mace you hard due to falling below a critical breakpoint.

    #172167

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jolly Joker wrote:</div>
    Hammers are only POTENTIAL production, not an “output”; a CAPACITY to produce something. You can’t store hammers somewhere.

    I don’t understand what you mean. It’s not a matter of “storing” hammers somewhere. You need to get that idea out of your head.

    This issue arises because of a rounding error that occurs due to the game being divided into turns. Specifically, to use your language, it’s a matter of correcting the fact that hammers that aren’t used actually vanish into thin air due to the Turn system not being granular enough to track them. It’s not that those hammers truly need to be “stored” in a physical sense, its the fact that they simply disappear.

    Not convinced yet? Consider this: the quicker the game speed is, the worse this rounding error gets.

    What exactly is rounded when and what kind of error are we talking about?
    If you can initiate a rollover, the game must obviously memorize how many hammers are still left after production of one thing finishes before beginning the new one. If the leftover hammers would simply disappear, a rollover wouldn’t be possible.

    #172169

    lord quo, I have to give you some points for the long post. it was quite informative How you think about this situation.

    But the game is not broken like this. The so called “hammers” are not really an recourses.

    You cant collect it, cant gather it, cant store it, it is an combination from the sheer man hours your city can spend producing the selected product. That the whole population of an city can just focus and work on 1 thing is an bit questionable. and that an man that is first building an barrack is now training knights is as skillful as it is amazing.

    but can we really call it broken? nah I don’t think so. why? because everyone is “suffering” of it. that is why I think that the solution joker and I came up with (that the remaining man-hours get turned intro an recourses you can use, gold) as an viable solution.

    you get your stackable and spendable recourses for your missed “hammers”. and we don’t have to see the complete production system change for such an small issue as this.

    any objections my friend?

    #172177

    quo
    Member

    What exactly is rounded when and what kind of error are we talking about?<If you can initiate a rollover, the game must obviously memorize how many hammers are still left after production of one thing finishes before beginning the new one. If the leftover hammers would simply disappear, a rollover wouldn’t be possible.

    What do you mean “memorize”? Do you mean the fact that to accomplish rollover from a programming standpoint you’d likely create a property at the city level to track how many hammers were rolled over?

    If so, I think your issue is a conceptual one and not a mathematical one. You are having trouble because you are hearing “store the value” and think that somehow that program operation has a conceptual relationship to an in-game scenario, like the player is physically storing up a bunch of hammers in a tent to use for later. But that is not what people are saying, or what the issue is.

    The real issue is turns are arbitrary. There is no rational basis for a hammers left over from a previous production to be wiped out at the start of a new turn. That is why strategy games track them into the next turn.

    It’s not that there is a little warehouse in the city where extra production is being hoarded, like Gold or Mana, like some posters seem to be envisioning. It’s that the time when the player is allowed to make a decision with what to do with hammers available to them comes at an arbitrary time determined by game speed, which if not accounted for produces a rounding error where the player loses an opportunity to spend hammers they actually had available.

    #172180

    Quo makes really good points and explains them quite well. As he mentioned earlier, a system of production rollover (used by most games similar to this, even earlier games in the series and the master games they are based on as people have already pointed out) actually makes balancing costs of units much *easier* since players get a predictable amount of use out of their hammers. As Quo pointed out, the current broken system can make a single hammer worth a 50% increase, and 50 hammers can be worth 0%.

    Rollover makes judging the costs and balancing much easier on everyone involved and should probably have been that way from the start. There is a reason other games do it, and even within AoW 3 there is rollover on other resources so it isn’t even consistent in itself. Rollover makes sense to players and makes the dev’s job of balance consideration easier. If anything needs cost adjustment because it is too cheap or expensive then it would need that *anyway* even with the current system because you still have to pay those costs.

    #172252

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I understand now that I tried to read too much into the post. It doesn’t actually say anything new, except that now suddenly the game is supposed to be completely flawed.

    Useless discussion – some would like overspill, some wouldn’t, but that doesn’t change anything about what BBB said, that overspill would make a massive balance change necessary, which costs a lot of time and effort – for which there is no need whatsoever.

    #172275

    Joni
    Member

    Useless discussion – some would like overspill, some wouldn’t, but that doesn’t change anything about what BBB said, that overspill would make a massive balance change necessary, which costs a lot of time and effort – for which there is no need whatsoever.

    Sorry, but I quite strongly disagree – this is a very useful discussion because it allows us – or rather, the devs – to boil down the pros and cons of introducing production carryover. So far from what I’ve gathered (probably missed a few items here and there, so feel free to add them as briefly as possible):

    Cons:
    – requires some development resources to implement
    – one-time balance check (although this should not be too much as you’d still have to pay the gold/mana costs for all buildings/units which should already be balanced)
    – removes one aspect of optimizing/powergaming/decision-making
    – could get out of hand if a big city can put out 3 or 4 units per turn (although this could be limited perhaps if necessary)
    – (what else?)

    Pros:
    + much more intuitive and in line with other in-game systems as well as what most other games of this genre offer
    + less prone to power-gaming, which isn’t very fun/strategically challenging to begin with, but rather gets frustrating at times if you are missing that one hammer
    + long-term balancing should be easier since players get a predictable amount of use out of their hammers
    + may increase unit variety as even high production cities could still produce T1/T2’s without being suboptimal
    – (what else?)

    Personally, I am very much in favour of introducing rollover as I am generally a strong advocate for intuitive and logical game design translating into more newbie-friendly and steamlined gameplay. However, I admit that if the development effort turns out to be unreasonably high, it should not get a very high priority tag. Other than that, I have a hard time seeing many cons that could not be taken care of with a careful balance brush.

    #172285

    quo
    Member

    I think we need to separate the discussion about production “lapping” from the one about narrowly missing a production cutoff. Generally speaking, most strategy games don’t let you lap a unit (e.g. if you could build that unit twice you don’t get 2 copies of the unit). There will likely always be some element of powergaming because of this. But significantly less of one than there is currently. The biggest issue that needs fixing is the wall between +10 production meaning either double or nothing in so many cases.

    A bonus to fixing this is it will likely make the AI play much smarter. I assume the AI isn’t currently built to consider this piece of the decision (altho its possible I’m wrong). So ironically the one way it might require rebalancing is taking away some of the AIs bonuses when it is suddenly no longer throwing its actual production capacity into the ether.

    #172296

    There is no way that rollover of production or research would be hard to implement since it is already in the game. Ground pickups and happiness events already allow rollover, so the ability to do it is already there.

    As for needing a balance pass, units already have a cost and are balanced around that. It makes it *easier* to balance, since 1 hammer always is worth 1 hammer with rollover.

    If there is a very real fear that spamming garbage tier irregulars would become a strategy so dominant as to eclipse everything else….you could always limit rollover to only happening once per turn. That would still allow you to keep hammers in 99% of cases while only stopping that one exact strategy. Seriously though who fears an army of civic guards showing up at their city when you can only bring a few stacks into the fight? The equivalent cost even in other tier 1 units can split stack them to death without breaking a sweat even without abusing simultaneous turns, simply because there is a limit to how many stacks you can bring into a fight.

    As for making the AI a better player it usually needs all the help it can get just to keep its head above water in my experience, though it is much improved with the beta patch!

    #172302

    quo
    Member

    The other potential fix would be to have there be a chance to complete the build one turn early, with the chance equal to the remainder. Programatically, you find this with Modulo. E.g.:

    [edit: slightly corrected math]
    You are building a unit that costs 100 hammers, and you have 90 hammers. The game tells you it takes 2 turns to build. 100 mod 90 = .10 to not autocomplete. or stated reversely, you have a 90% chance to autocomplete this unit in 1 turn.

    This would fix the issue on average although you would get streaks of hits and misses.

    #172305

    jb
    Member

    You are building a unit that costs 100 hammers, and you have 90 hammers. The game tells you it takes 2 turns to build. But since 90 mod 100 = .90, you have a 90% chance to autocomplete the unit in 1 turn instead of 2.

    Winner winner chicken dinner. Perfect compromise.

    #172336

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Why? You have hurry production for these cases – it has just to be adjusted to better fit this.

    Some of the points mentioned here are none. You have to invest a lot of effort into getting to higher tier units, so they must necessarily be advantageous to produce – otherwise why invest into buildings and/or tech? (That has been overlooked consequently by some here).
    Secondly, that your towns have a higher production value than is needed for T2s EVENTUALLY, is choice – you don’t HAVE to invest in racial or class T3+ or in production increase. If you do, however, it MUST pay, otherwise it would be a losing stratehy, wasting gold and production time. So not only higher production vales has to gain, building higher-ties units has to gain as well.

    Same thing with the T4 discussion – if they are too weak, why go for them?

    That said – and before someone gets a fit – the way things are now, with a highly developed town plus or minus 10 production may indeed not make much of a difference in reality, but a different hurry production mechanism would change that just as certainly as a way to transfer unused production into gold (see my suggestion about an additional building that lets your overhang produce “goods” (gold).

    The biggest problem for production overspill is multi-production: 4 Goblin Irregs per turn? Keep in mind how easy you get medals for them – a lot has been done to make low-level tiers “valid”; if you could mass-produce them, you’d have to make the higher tiers stronger, it’s that simple.

    The nice thing, however, is, that at this time you can play with ALL units – there is kind of a “balance”. SMALL things really make a difference. City upgrades, turn losses or penalties with production. That’s good. Risking that on principle wouldn’t be good.

    #172357

    Derakarsis
    Member

    The biggest problem for production overspill is multi-production: 4 Goblin Irregs per turn? Keep in mind how easy you get medals for them – a lot has been done to make low-level tiers “valid”; if you could mass-produce them, you’d have to make the higher tiers stronger, it’s that simple.

    Why would this matter at all? They’re not free and the player has to pay the upkeep for the additional units. All the lack of rollover does is needlessly hamstring production focused cities into wasting tremendous amounts of production and time to produce lower tier units.

    #172445

    quo
    Member

    I wasn’t quite ready to post this but it’s relevant so I’ll share. It’s a WIP I’ve been creating for a week or so. My chart for Production value breakpoints.

    table of happiness

    I’m not gonna go into a lot of detail here except to say one area you should pay a lot of attention to is the Common Breakpoints table where 1/1 Turn becomes 1/2 Turn. Those are the breakpoints you need to hit for common units. It can’t be stated enough: dropping the build time from 1/2 to 1/1 represents the biggest power shift in the game, a 50% production rate increase. You should always aim for this for mass production of unless you have very good reason not to.

    For example, for most Archers (70 production) you need 70 production to crank them out in exactly 1 turn, or 35 for exactly 2. Anywhere from 36-69 has no value to you. You can then cross reference this with the table at the top to see how you plan to hit those numbers.

    FWIW almost all buildings have a build cost divisible by 50. The only exceptions to this are the Shrine and the War Hall as far as I’ve seen. For a city you’re racing to build a palace in, you’d want to aim for multiples of 50. 50 itself isn’t that great. Exactly 49 or lower is atrocious and completely unacceptable (it will take you nearly twice as long as if you had 50). 100 is amazing because so many buildings cost exactly 100. But the number to aim for varies a little depending on what units you want to make your bread and butter.

    (NOTE: I still need to double and triple check these values. Like I said, WIP).

    Attachments:
    #172454

    Wuffy
    Member

    If we say that any kind of production overflow fixing would require a balance pass. Then I suggest the game needs a balance pass anyway.

    Now to get on the terrifying scenario of 4 goblin irregulars.

    4 Goblin maurauders will cost you 40 Gold a piece and then become 4 upkeep a turn.

    There’s a bunch of Units that work out to being equivalent in production costs.
    Orc Shocktrooper 160 gold 20 mana
    Racial Flavours of Evangelists 150 gold 30 mana

    Long story short they end up at same upkeep cost but no matter how much I invested into production in my cities I can only ever put out 1 unit of those cheap goblin units a turn.

    And I’m not even advocating for any kind of Lapping or multiproduction. I’m just someone who’s highly frustrated with the capacity getting pissed away into the wind.

    Saying Hurry production solves that, the same way simply walking in through the back door because you lost the keys to your front door. It’s more effort for an approximate result, with the obvious that that it’s not.

    Using Hurry production as a work around does not fix the inherent wasted capacity issue. Not only does it cost more it also gives you a unhappy debuff.

    Worst Hurry production Permits high level units to come out even more often then lower tier units. You can NEVER rush produce a lot of little units, but you can sure as heck crap out 3 tier 4’s instead of 3 of the cheapest units.

    I’m not Asking for capacity to be stuffed into coffers so I can just drop a pile of hammers and mass produce something big.
    But I’m also Asking that because my capacity is 5 short of producing a unit it does not compound into losing more and more production each turn Unless I Spend for Hurry and Give myself Massive unhappiness debuff.

    #172459

    quo
    Member

    Might be worth adding: the hammer cost of a unit is identical to its Gold + Mana cost, at least in every case I’ve looked at. That’s how you can work out your breakpoints for units based on the Wiki.

    #172559

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    At this point, I’m tiring of the discussion, because it doesn’t gain. It’s too theoretical by far, because the perspectives are not focused on the game. The “game dynamic” works the other way round.
    The whole thing about “break points” and so on is looking at things from the wrong side. It’s not like:
    a)I want Archers -> I need to get to 70 prod (or 63).
    It’s like b) I have 60 prod -> what to do?
    If it was a), the game was completely imbalanced, because ARCHERS were the unit needed to win; in that case you would have to build Archers as superior strategy and in THAT case, production break points would be decisive.

    That’s not the case, however.

    There are other units, with different costs, and
    since production time is an important factor
    the relative value of a unit is shifting.

    It’s actually simple, really.
    a) Hurry Production is a non-option for low-tier units;
    b) the value of a producable thing (unit, building, “goods”) is influenced by production time, that is by production capacity).

    This would be true with rollover as well: with a production of 40 you wouldn’t start building a T3 building and then T3s because it simply would take too many turns to get going, giving you nothing. In case you had ALOT of money you COULD Hurry the building and concentrate on chucking T3s out (but that’s irrelevant for the question here).

    Which means “break points” ARE interesting – but the values between them just “revalue” OTHER units and projects.

    THAT is what makes the game good, actually. And before you protest – rollover would lose a lot of the feeling, because you would simply produce what you want, when you want, and no matter what: with prod 50 you’d crank out 5 Archers in 7 days plus an Infantry on day 8 with rollover for 400 Gold. NOW, you go for 2 plus 2 Irregs and 2 Infs in the same 8 days for 320 Gold, instead of 5 Archers and an Inf in 11.
    You “lost” production, because we can only do integers, so-to-speak,

    You see what this does with “unit balance”? It makes unit balance a variable thing, and THAT is good.
    The OTHER way round is the same thing. Due to the game mechanics like flanking, numerical superiority is a good thing T2 Support is expensive, and Irreg + Inf for the same production amount will pulp a T2 Support. However, once production reaches 90, you need only 1 turn for T2 Support, but 2 for the small ones. So no matter how much better 2 smaller units would be, the more expensive one is advantageous. Which is as it MUST be, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for better units.

    However, it’s not even necessary to debate this. Because the main thing is actually, that the game WORKS. It’s FINE.
    And before changes with drastic consequences are made, we should get mod tools and simply try things out!

    At this stage, game working and all, I would rather like the devs to add (mod tools) CONTENT, instead of making changes with doubtful results and the potential to consume a lot of balancing time.

    #172564

    Wuffy
    Member

    Production capacity vanishing into the ether is not Working fine…

    At this point thats the only thing that needs to be said because you have ignore any and all points to logic as to how this is not “working fine.”

    Points ranging from the fact it’s counter intuitive, all the way to the fact it’s a large amount of non balance.

    If units as they are now can’t function in a way without production capacity loss then they need to be rebalanced anyway.

    A production cap where workers are constantly slacking off every second turn unless you get the last extra 5 capacity isn’t balance in any way shape or form.

    No one is asking that production just soak up like gold. They just don’t want to waist an entire turn of production because they were 5 production short off completion.

    If I have 30 production and want to make BASIC UNITS which require 40 I need two turns… for each one.

    day 1 30
    day 2 10 Unit (20 lost)
    Day 3 30
    Day 4 10 Unit (20 Lost)
    Day 5 30
    Day 6 10 Unit (20 Lost)
    Day 7 30

    At the end of a week I have made 3 units. But I technically had the capacity to create 210 production over that time.

    I just want a system that makes more sense.

    Day 1 30
    Day 2 30 Unit (10 to finish unit, 20 for the next.)
    Day 3 30 Unit (Last 20, 10 roll over.)
    Day 4 30 Unit (Last 30, No roll over.)
    Day 5 30
    Day 6 30 Unit (10, 20 rollover)
    Day 7 30 Unit (20, 10 to spare)

    If actually getting the full capacity out of your city that was supposedly there is game breaking unbalancing. I’m sorry we have a problem.

    If having too many small units is truly a problem put a completion limit to 1 unit project. Heck. I’m fine if the overflow would get turned into something else.

    The problem is my suggestion would the require that the Other production actually be balanced to take into account production. Because right now, Apparently doesn’t matter if my production is 1 guy with a wheelbarrow (1 prod.) Or a Megafactory ( 150 prod.) All I do is increase my Gold/Research/Citizens by 50% regardless.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 121 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.