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 7 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 121 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #173379

    Nodor
    Member

    The lack of carryover production makes AoW 3 a much better game than it would be otherwise.

    #1. Optimal production for a city is usually different than every other city in your empire due to treasures, production buildings, and city size.

    #2. Military unit production is currently balanced based on “average city production w/o rollover”.

    #3. Building cost is balanced based on “average city production w/o rollover”.

    Because of the lack of “rollover” as noted with the shrines, there is a 55 production point gap where effectiveness is “reduced”. That gap, gives Triumph a 55 point window to balance tier 4 production speed. Players who notice and exploit map resources can get a major production boost out of doing so and overcome this gap for some cities. Players who notice that they can pump out 4 tier three units vs. their opponents 2 tier 4’s get an advantage from doing so.

    I am not interested in a “rollover production mechanic” because it severely damages the strategies players can employ to over come it through: City site selection, City Morale, Racial production, City Growth, and City Build Orders.

    This change would eliminate or reduce the value of 5 different strategic choices I make on a regular basis. Ergo, this proposed change would greatly diminish gameplay.

    It’s these kind of simple systems with interlocking interfaces where loss frequently occurs if you are not actively thinking about how to minimize those losses that makes this a great strategy game.

    In Civ:BE, where nothing is lost, the optimal build order has been identified. The game is now who lands next to the best resource nodes. You fill your “buckets” (production/science/whatever required to get the next bonus)faster and with the starting advantage combined with return on resource investments, the results are a foregone conclusion. This is not a good game. Having to proactively adjust how you play based on what is happening right now, is one of the reasons that Age of Wonders 3 is an excellent game.

    I am not arguing with any of the analysis above, about how you experience a loss by building things inefficiently, nor am I denying that a production rollover would reduce that loss. However, I am convinced it would be a very bad idea for the reasons listed above.

    #173383

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jolly Joker wrote:</div>
    I also think, that your Grand Palace point isn’t working, since you play that way only WITH rollover. The way it is now you will make sure you build it when it’s either not unconvenient, or you will Hurry the last turn.

    Why would Hurry on the last turn? If you’re going to Hurry, you might as well eat the Hurry cost right away. You pay more Gold upfront but the Happiness effect is the same, and if the building has some secondary effect you get it right away instead of waiting. Then if the Gold is an issue you just go into Produce Merchandise mode and get it most or all of it back.

    Every turn you spend building a building or unit you lose out on +50% Gold (or mana or research or population). That is partly why the Production rounding error has such a huge impact on gameplay. A city has to do something every turn and cities that are stuck dealing with fractional leftover hammers miss the chance to Produce something else. A city that produces a unit in 1 turn and merchandise on the second is superior to one that takes 2 turns to build the same unit.

    For buildings, this is why 50 production is loads better than 45, simply because most buildings are exactly divisible by 50. Even if you end up slowing down a little due to Gold or Mana and can’t build buildings back to back, you still end up with more resources in the end because you didn’t miss a chance to Produce Merchandise/Mana like the city that got stuck constructing the building for an extra turn just to polish off the last 5 hammers.

    Look, you seem to be quite intelligent. YOU complain about missing rollover. Fine. But why do I have ro pay FULL production cost upfront, when production is divided? Say, I have 60 gold and 60 mana and 60 production. I want to do a Priest, but that costs 70 Gold and 20 Mana, so even though I have only 60 production and need 2 turns I can’t even start, since I’m missing a 10 gold I don’t use this turn.

    Same thing. Same answer. Everyone is affected. No problem.

    #173397

    Well…I hadn’t really expected to spark a debate this long, but is suppose it is for the best, since the devs could use this to see the pros and cons of implementing the feature or not. I personally am in favor of the rollover being added, with the “lapping” some people reffered to of building multiple units in one go (i.e. city has 100 production, infantry costs 50 gold, you cna build 2 at once) becuase i think it would add more to end game unit variety and choice as you could either build that high tier unit, or several low tier units. I do however understand a lot of the points the counterargument makes, so i suppose I’ll just wait and see what, if anything, triumph does in respect to this.

    #173416

    quo
    Member

    #2. Military unit production is currently balanced based on “average city production w/o rollover”.

    #3. Building cost is balanced based on “average city production w/o rollover”.

    It’s not really “balanced” around this. It’s “balanced” in the sense that players seem unable to break the system. But trying adding a bonus anywhere in there. The whole thing is a house of cards that tips a 0% bonus over to a 50% one with the slightest adjustment. That’s why games use production carryover. It’s why fractions were invented, really.

    Right now, the way production works, you could basically describe the Human production bonus like this in the tooltip, because it’s how the mechanic works in most instances: “Humans can either build a unit twice as fast as other civilizations, or exactly as fast.”

    In Civ:BE, where nothing is lost, the optimal build order has been identified.

    Civ: BE is a game with many, many issues. Production roll over is not one of them. The games it is cloned from (Civ 5 and Civ 4) both have production roll over and it works fine. Those games beat the pants off of AoW 3 in terms of the strategic element, where AoW beats them in tactical. If AoW wants to take a step toward taking Civ 5’s crown, production roll over has to happen. It probably won’t happen, as I’ve noted. But the main reason it won’t isn’t that non-roll over is anyway sensible, balanced, or balanceable it’s just the way it’s always been done because the AoW series has never valued the strategic/map portion of the game like games that lead in that field have.

    #173505

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Look, let me tell you for the umptieth time: NEITHER system poses a problem. Production rollover isn’t wrong or right, it’s a more or less intuitive system that can be used just fine.
    The main – I shy away from writing “issue” with this, because it actually isn’t one, but just something the system would have to cater and game would have to be balanced for – is MULTIPLE production. If there IS production rollover, there is no reason in the world NOT to allow to produce as many things per turn as are producable and in the queue. I don’t really want to discuss that – is has been discussed somewhat already, as far as I know -, but let me just say, that, this basically works best with games where things are STACKABLE. The first Master of Orion is a classic example for that; in later stages of the game, a really big ship would take 2 turns or something, while you might produce 50 of the smallest – makes sense considering the vast scope and so on, and worked.
    In this game, though, with single units and stack limit of 6 this kind of mass production is doubtful and you’d need to do a lot of testing to really see what this would mean for the game as a whole – not that this wouldn’t be possible, mind you; it’s just a lot of work.

    The system that we have is also not wrong or right – however, it works. You describe it the wrong way, though, because you come with “averages” and so on, but with this system that doesn’t make sense. You might describe rollover as continuous and the actual one as granular. Your “tooltip” about human production is wrong as well; it would have to say: SOMETIMES Humans can build SOMETHING 1 TURN FASTER than all other races.

    The difference between the 2 systems is mainly, that in the current system there can never be finished more than one build per turn – and that actual town production may be less than the production potential, which more or less introduces another game parameter to consider: you won’t win the map when you constantly waste a large part of your town’s production potential – which cannot happen with rollover. With the current system you can actually waste a lot: if you have production 130 and you build T1 Irregs, you can’t win – BUT:

    For production rollover to actually produce a different result, you always need your gold amount to be able to make full use of your production capacity.

    I mean, that at least should be obvious: If you have 6 towns with production value 40, 60, 80, 100, 100, 110, you need to have over 400 gold and some Mana to make full use of them. If you don’t – well, there you go.
    In other words – you can’t make full use of your production potential anyway, at least a sizable part of the game you can’t.

    Which means – in practise? Non-issue.

    #173521

    Brandon_354
    Member

    after finally reading this entire thread it seems that those supporting the current illogical system simply want to keep the status quo with the the only remotely reasonable reason to keep it being you don’t want the devs to have to spend time on it. I’m completely baffled as to how anyone could defend the current system and its flaws otherwise. The current system has no value or merit to it.

    This system is the equivalent to making a single nail and then quitting for the day even though you have plenty of time left just because you already did one thing that day. It simply doesn’t make sense.

    For production rollover to actually produce a different result, you always need your gold amount to be able to make full use of your production capacity.

    …Which is a non issue so that point is invalid. I can easily support pumping out more units than i do in most games. If I couldn’t then my gold would stay the same (or even decrease) not increase like it often does.

    The system that we have is also not wrong or right

    you are correct…but being stupid isn’t wrong either, yet none the less people would rather not be stupid

    SOMETIMES Humans can build SOMETHING 1 TURN FASTER than all other races.

    Except this is also wrong as (especially early game) it can be more than 1 turn

    If there IS production rollover, there is no reason in the world NOT to allow to produce as many things per turn as are producable and in the queue

    there is no reason for it not to do so now, and yet it doesn’t. If i want 2 make 2 40 production units and i have 100 production in the city then even under the current system i should be able to make both without rolling over to the next turn. Even with rollover you can set limits, there is nothing stopping the devs from implementing a system that says you cant make more than x units per turn, assuming that mass producing irregulars would even be problematic in the first place. Even if you make 1000 irregulars they cant all fight at once and if the enemy has aoe or chain spells those cheap units aren’t going to last long at all (a good unit with tireless could keep a massive number of cheap units away also if the enemy units lack a ranged ability).

    #173527

    Brandon_354
    Member

    The edit button has expired but i apologize Joker about the point where i was talking about being stupid. After rereading it i realized it may have come off wrong, i wasn’t calling you stupid i was just giving an example.

    #173532

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Correct me, if I’m wrong, but isn’t your only point here that without rollover production isn’t working the way you envision it to be in real life?

    That’s a non-point in a game, don’t you think?

    Then you say refute the point about needing as much gold than production value, by saying, in most games you COULD pump out more units than you actually do – but that’s exactly my point. You don’t NEED all that production capacity, once you have a certain number of towns. I mean, all that rollover-no-production-loss crying doesn’t make sense, since on turn 70 it doesn’t matter anymore whether you can produce 3 Phalances in 4 or in 6 turns (which is the reason why even in this thread SOME actually don’t have a problem with rollover or not, but more with the fact that hammers can’t be converted (when you produce merchandise you produce +50% of the town’s gold production, whether you have 10 or 1000 hammers).

    Lastly, about multi production – it should be obvious that you’d need a rebalancing in that case, which is the main reason for supporting the system as it is.

    That something might work more like in real life is no real point in favor of a change.

    #173674

    vyolin
    Member

    TL;DR for all those tuning in late: Current production system is illogical and detrimental, but tradition and changing it being expensive ensure it will stay. News at 11.

    I encourage everyone being opposed to production carrying over to play a couple of turns/rounds of Shadow Magic with the MP Evolution mod to see it in action. You can argue against the violation of nostalgia and for the glorification of non-decisions as much as you like, but I would much prefer rational arguments backed by your experiencing this feature first hand.
    Which would make you realise that it is intuitive and plays to the game’s strengths, instead of imposing ill-conceived economic ‘decisions’ on you. Seriously, what’s the deal with insisting on mechanics that actively detract from what Age of Wonders has always done best, i.e. warfare and combat?

    #173703

    quo
    Member

    I encourage everyone being opposed to production carrying over to play a couple of turns/rounds of Shadow Magic with the MP Evolution mod to see it in action

    The thing about it is, the reason a mod was able to tackle the issue so smoothly is that by carrying over production you make it possible to calculate exactly how fast a player can build anything in the game. That actually makes the calculation super easy. It would not take a major effort to balance.

    Basically all you need to do is basically:

    – Drop the standard hammer bonus provided by structures and racial/spell bonuses from 5/10/20/30 to 4/8/16/22
    – Drop the hammer bonus of construction buildings from 20/10/15 to 16/8/12
    – Implement rollover

    (Ideally instead of dropping bonuses you’d just drop production costs, but in this game hammer cost is equal to gold + mana cost and we don’t want to fool with that).

    Done. You’ve done exactly what the current system is trying to and failing to do and kept speeds in alignment with the game thinks it currently is. Everyone builds around 20% slower but with rollover you get no issues. And you can calculate exactly how fast anyone can build.

    #173713

    quo
    Member

    If there IS production rollover, there is no reason in the world NOT to allow to produce as many things per turn as are producable and in the queue

    Civ 5 is an example of a game that has rollover but not lapping. They are two different concepts.

    Lapping is its own balance question. I think for this game to allow lapping it would require a lot more balancing than simply adding rollover. I have cities in my current capital, which is sitting at approx 200 production, that could produce 200/40 = 5 Martyrs per turn.

    IMO the best way to handle lapping, if they ever decide to allow it, is to require the city to first build a building specific to that unit, at a hammer cost around 4x the cost of one of those units. Henceforth that city becomes dedicated to multi-producing that particular unit. If you want to multiproduce something else, you need to sell the mass training building first. My reason for thinking this is that units have utility beyond combat, the ability to chunk out 4 Scouts in a turn could be really unmanageable. Not incidentally, this is why the Civ series does not allow lapping.

    #173732

    vyolin
    Member

    Lapping is its own balance question. I think for this game to allow lapping it would require a lot more balancing than simply adding rollover. I have cities in my current capital, which is sitting at approx 200 production, that could produce 200/40 = 5 Martyrs per turn.

    IMO the best way to handle lapping, if they ever decide to allow it, is to require the city to first build a building specific to that unit, at a hammer cost around 4x the cost of one of those units. Henceforth that city becomes dedicated to multi-producing that particular unit. If you want to multiproduce something else, you need to sell the mass training building first. My reason for thinking this is that units have utility beyond combat, the ability to chunk out 4 Scouts in a turn could be really unmanageable. Not incidentally, this is why the Civ series does not allow lapping.

    I see your concern in regards to production lapping, and share your view on it being a separate issue entirely. I am of the opinion, though, that production capacity and army size should be balanced via the upkeep mechanic – which they already are, in fact.
    I do dig your idea, though. I am also partial to exploring existing avenues first. I am honestly a bit torn right now.

    #173735

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Except that treating “lapping” as a differnt issue makes no sense.

    You have a town with production 150. You build
    a) an Irreg for 45, followed by Shrine and Merchandise
    b) an Archer, a T1 Inf and starting a Bulding
    c) an Irreg, followed by an Inf, followed by another Irreg and Housing.

    Should all be possible – all in one turn.
    Otherwise, you STILL van’t use things the way you like.

    There is nothing WRONG with the current way, and it’s not silly from a game perspective. It’s just a tight rule.

    #173737

    Brandon_354
    Member

    Correct me, if I’m wrong, but isn’t your only point here that without rollover production isn’t working the way you envision it to be in real life?
    That’s a non-point in a game, don’t you think?

    No that is not my only point but it is the only one i bothered to post, most of my points have been covered by quo and i may as well just copy and past from him if i wanted to say them. My post was mainly attacking your points instead.

    (Quo quoting me quoting joker)
    If there IS production rollover, there is no reason in the world NOT to allow to produce as many things per turn as are producable and in the queue

    That was me quoting joker quo not my thoughts. If both the italicized and the normal print were my opinions I would seem to have a split personality disorder.

    There is nothing WRONG with the current way, and it’s not silly from a game perspective. It’s just a tight rule.

    A mechanic like being able to kill everything in one hit with any attack wouldn’t be wrong either, but it wouldn’t be a good decision to implement this. Borderline nothing is “wrong” in a game and you could argue that just about anything enhances the game and should stay, bugs included.

    #173772

    quo
    Member

    That was me quoting joker quo not my thoughts. If both the italicized and the normal print were my opinions I would seem to have a split personality disorder.

    My apologies Brandon. I didn’t realize my Quote tags were messed up and I false-quoted you.

    #173797

    Brandon_354
    Member

    -Double Post-
    (sorry)

    #173798

    Brandon_354
    Member

    Oh sorry quo I thought you got confused perhaps your monitor/TV was small and it was hard to tell the difference between italicized and non italicized words, and I didn’t quote correctly i just italicized it.

    #173868

    Rollover and the production of multiple things in one turn are different. You could have a system without multi-production but with roll over. Likewise you could have multi-production without rollover. There is nothing that inherently ties them together.
    Production of multiple units without rollover would be rather similar to the current system, you simply would have more options to minimize the unused production. Of course we would run again into the problem of balance.

    #173879

    vyolin
    Member

    Rollover and the production of multiple things in one turn are different. You could have a system without multi-production but with roll over. Likewise you could have multi-production without rollover. There is nothing that inherently ties them together.<br>
    Production of multiple units without rollover would be rather similar to the current system, you simply would have more options to minimize the unused production. Of course we would run again into the problem of balance.

    As you just noted, though, multi-production would be one way to mitigate the effects of production not carrying over. It is thus a valid option to discuss, I think. Not for the purists, probably, but still worth taking a look at.
    As it stands, we could just do away with production and just impose build lengths based on city level and the tier of whatever you want to build, and few people would actually note the difference.

    #173884

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    They are not different. Rollover means: if the production of something is finished and production is left, the next item in queue is started; (if there is no item in queue – the what?).
    That automatically includes multi-production. If you don’t want multi-production you need another rule: in each turn you can finish only one item (this would involve production loss in case of an “automated” production: town has 150 production with a focus chamber. YOu want to produce Flamers; cost 70 – you could produce 2, but since you can finish only 1, the first turn you use up 139 points only, and the next turn exactly 70.
    You’d still not be able to actually produce what you want.

    I also don’t think that rhetorics help, like absurdly overstating points, comparing the current production rule with bugs or “look, I win” mechanics.

    #173893

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    There is another aspect I’d like to stress.

    No resource on its own guarantees an advantage, especially with a view on “random differeneces” (finds, placement of resource givers and so on):
    a) Gold; sure, more gold is good – but you need hammers to spend it;
    b) Mana; same thing, plus you need CPs
    c) Candles; sure more candles is good, but whether you have 450 or 500 may make in practice not much of a difference;
    d) happiness; works in levels; more happiness is good, but random differences may level
    e) Hammers ->
    The good thing here is that things aren’t linear either; you may build a production increase building – but in the end, once the town is a Metropolis, the difference may vanish.
    If it was limear, though – and that it would be with overspill -, hammers would ALWAYS make a difference – even if you could transfer the overspill into gold.
    Obviously that would make hammers something special and more important than everything else, and I really, really doubt that would be good.

    Should someone make a mod anytime, I would test it, of course.

    #173898

    vyolin
    Member

    If it was limear, though – and that it would be with overspill -, hammers would ALWAYS make a difference – even if you could transfer the overspill into gold.

    And this is where our views are fundamentally at odds. In my opinion, a difference should always matter. Always. Otherwise it makes no difference. Which is a tad ironic, you have to admit. Additionally, its impact should always be in relation to how big a difference it is.
    As it stands, though, a difference in hammers matters rarely, and when it does, its impact is not tied to its size. A difference of 50 hammers may not result in difference in build time of a turn in one situation, yet a difference of 5 might in another.

    Effectively, hammers and build time are almost disconnected mechanics. And they should either be connected tightly, or nothing at all, but not randomly and loosely as they currently are.

    #173990

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Yes, our views are at odds, because I disagree with you – I disagree especially about the conclusion: It’s not that it either does make a difference all the time or no difference; instead it MAY happen, that it makes no difference – and that is the great thing, because you suddenly have a problem to come up with the optimizing strategy (which it otherwise was – a game of optimizing production.

    If production WOULD carry over and COULD be monetized, it would ALWAYS be right to go for production increase because you couldn*t lose: LINEAR strategy. They way it is, optimizing is clearly very difficult.

    #174390

    vyolin
    Member

    If production WOULD carry over and COULD be monetized, it would ALWAYS be right to go for production increase because you couldn*t lose: LINEAR strategy. They way it is, optimizing is clearly very difficult.

    Currently going for more production is still the optimal choice: Faster production, improved conversion into gold, mana, knowledge and population. It is only around certain thresholds that this progression is thrown out of whack for production times – and those alone.
    Thus optimising is actually very easy. It might be a bit random for production itself, but you always benefit.

    This being out of the way, I challenge your point of optimisation having to be difficult for the economic side of things. Coming up with a good army composition? Reasearching and producing the right counters to your opponents’ strategies? Taking care of supply lines and defenses? Sure, that stuff has to be difficult, and it rightfully is. It’s where the game’s meat lies, and where interaction with other players occurs. It’s reactive, it’s interesting, it’s fleshed out.
    City production enhancements? Not so much. It’s not this game series strongpoint, never claimed to be. It is and end to the means of intricate tactical and strategical battles, and purposefully underdeveloped as to not wrongly shift the focus of the game.

    I thus say, give me reliable, easy to calculate economy mechanics! Give me consistent systems! Make it easy for me to make the right call on the small stuff, and let me focus on the interesting bits – pitting my military wits against my opponents.
    Don’t have me waste resources on production time decreases that will never come due to production mechanics being obfuscated to high heaven.

    Bottom line: Obfuscated mechanics are weak design or weak presentation, or both. So, conceding that production will most likely stay due to reasons – and Lord, I hope the only one being considered by the devs is the resources needed to change the current system, I propose a second avenue:

    TL;DR:
    When showing the tooltip for a building providing production show how build times in this city are affected. That is, list all units and structures that would have their build time decreased by at least a turn, and show a warning if none are.
    And no, this is not casual whiny handholding. This is good UI/UX. It never hurts to have that around.

    #174412

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jolly Joker wrote:</div>
    If production WOULD carry over and COULD be monetized, it would ALWAYS be right to go for production increase because you couldn*t lose: LINEAR strategy. They way it is, optimizing is clearly very difficult.

    Currently going for more production is still the optimal choice: Faster production, improved conversion into gold, mana, knowledge and population.

    That’s not, how it works, sorry, has nothing to do with it, so it would seem that you don’t know how the game works. No reason to discuss the rest of your post, therefore.

    #174524

    vyolin
    Member

    That’s not, how it works, sorry, has nothing to do with it, so it would seem that you don’t know how the game works. No reason to discuss the rest of your post, therefore.

    Thanks for so politely and eloquently correcting me here. So, I got Produce Merchandise et al. wrong. Pretty embarassing. Got that totally mixed up. I’ll live.
    You on the other hand could not even be bothered to read the rest of my post, missing out on a conclusion in line with your preferences and having nothing to do with that error on my part. Your commitment to civilised discussion is truly commendable.

    And so you don’t have to burden yourself with reading my previous post, I will just copy the TL;DR section at its end.

    TL;DR:<br>
    When showing the tooltip for a building providing production show how build times in this city are affected. That is, list all units and structures that would have their build time decreased by at least a turn, and show a warning if none are.<br>
    And no, this is not casual whiny handholding. This is good UI/UX. It never hurts to have that around.

    #174530

    quo
    Member

    If production WOULD carry over and COULD be monetized, it would ALWAYS be right to go for production increase because you couldn*t lose: LINEAR strategy. They way it is, optimizing is clearly very difficult.

    False. The rounding error or lack thereof has nothing to do with linear strategy. The existence or lack of fractions has nothing to do with how linear a system is. More hammers are generally good in either system. The issue is that without fractions, you end up with a ridiculous situation where +10 hammers often means twice as fast or nothing at all.

    The only thing fixing the rounding error would do is correct the current silly situation where the bonuses literally line up like this: 50% better, 33% better, 25% better, 20% better. The current system is so unbalanced that a city with 100 hammers builds the Builder’s Hall Barracks, Store House, Wooden Wall, Stone Wall, and Belltower in half the time of a city with 99 hammers. You keep trying to minimize the impact this has. I am not sure if its because you actually don’t understand it, or you do and just feel cornered so feel the need to misrepresent the impact.

    A city with 50 hammers versus 49 builds almost every building in the game 33%, 25%, or 20% faster. It can then Produce Merchandise on the the turns it is not working on buildings, which has an enormous impact on resources. There is no logical reason, other than tradition or stubbornness, for 1 hammer to have that much impact on gameplay.

    #174540

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jolly Joker wrote:</div>
    That’s not, how it works, sorry, has nothing to do with it, so it would seem that you don’t know how the game works. No reason to discuss the rest of your post, therefore.

    Thanks for so politely and eloquently correcting me here. So, I got Produce Merchandise et al. wrong. Pretty embarassing. Got that totally mixed up. I’ll live.<br>

    Sorry when I came over somewhat rough – it was just that your premise got wrong: “going for production is still the optimal choice”, which was the actual point, so for me there was just no reason to discuss this further, with the wrong premises.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jolly Joker wrote:</div>
    If production WOULD carry over and COULD be monetized, it would ALWAYS be right to go for production increase because you couldn*t lose: LINEAR strategy. They way it is, optimizing is clearly very difficult.

    False. The rounding error or lack thereof has nothing to do with linear strategy. The existence or lack of fractions has nothing to do with how linear a system is. More hammers are generally good in either system. The issue is that without fractions, you end up with a ridiculous situation where +10 hammers often means twice as fast or nothing at all.

    See, that’s where you are wrong. It’s not true that more hammers are generally good in either system – and what’s more, it should be easy to see and fairly obvious. In the suggested system – with rollover and a way to utilize unused production – you can build production increasing things ALWAYS. No problem. The profir will always be direct and instantaneous, since you will either produce “more” in any given set of time or monetize the excess.
    In the actual system, however, that doesn’t hold. If your current production is 70, it’s fine for cranking out an Archer each turn. So production is optimal. Increasing production wouldn’t gain anything at all AT THIS POINT, since you would need a good alternative. Now, let’s say, this town has an upgrade for Support units, while another town comes with a Focus Chamber. In this case you may want to transfer Archer production to the other town and switch to Support units here. Not only will you have to build Shrine and Temple, you will also have to increase production in order to produce a Support each turn, and the question will be HOW (that is, in which order, and WHEN to start with what).
    It’s non-linear and non-trivial, since it’s somewhat different for each Class and some races (Goblins, Humans, Dwarves), and there are also the individual sites within a town area that will give towns an individual “production character”, that will make them candidates for a specialization in production.

    This isn’t a ridiculous situation at all, but instead makes things individual and different, as opposed to when it was different, where you could blindly go for production increase, since it would always pay.

    #174699

    vyolin
    Member

    Sorry when I came over somewhat rough – it was just that your premise got wrong: “going for production is still the optimal choice”, which was the actual point, so for me there was just no reason to discuss this further, with the wrong premises.

    Apologies, I had a strong case of ‘Someone is wrong on the internet’-syndrome when writing that…
    Nevertheless, I heartily invite you to comment on my UI suggestion: It would not change the status quo on the mechanics, but help to make it a good deal less unintuitive/obfuscated.

    Now on to your claim of building production-increasing always being the best choice. I would only concur with you in cases of very long games on huge maps, with very little player interaction. In such a scenario building up production capability might seem worthwhile. In a regular game, though, other necessities prevent you from doing that, or at least force tough decisions. Building more production capacity avails you naught, if you need those archers that take two turns to build right now, instead of archers taking one turn to build 5 turns later.
    As such, I do not see production ‘spamming’ being a thing inherent to a spill-over system. As everything else, it is a matter of game setup.

    #174711

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Ok, I simply continue with your post in question.

    I challenge your point of optimisation having to be difficult for the economic side of things. Coming up with a good army composition? Reasearching and producing the right counters to your opponents’ strategies? Taking care of supply lines and defenses? Sure, that stuff has to be difficult, and it rightfully is. It’s where the game’s meat lies, and where interaction with other players occurs. It’s reactive, it’s interesting, it’s fleshed out.<br>
    City production enhancements? Not so much. It’s not this game series strongpoint, never claimed to be. It is and end to the means of intricate tactical and strategical battles, and purposefully underdeveloped as to not wrongly shift the focus of the game.

    I start with this one. I’ve played all AoW games, and you are right to a certain extent when we look back.
    However, the improved unit upgrade system, the Mystic City upgrades – and also the Racial Governance system in EL – have made “unit production” a lot more, well, I struggle for a word that discribes it all: interesting? Complex? Deep? The game offers so many different units with individual differences, that it makes a difference. I mean, think about all the new Pikemen that will come in EL. Those ancient Ruins WILL make a difference, and when you happen to play or get a Goblin town with an Ancient Ruin you WILL try and get Butchers out THERE, because they will be that much better.
    So with this massive leap in producing “individualized” units – which, for me, is a quantum leap, when it comes to things like replayability, you are drawn into the production aspect, because it matters.

    I thus say, give me reliable, easy to calculate economy mechanics! Give me consistent systems! Make it easy for me to make the right call on the small stuff, and let me focus on the interesting bits – pitting my military wits against my opponents.<br>
    Don’t have me waste resources on production time decreases that will never come due to production mechanics being obfuscated to high heaven.

    The system IS clear. I mean, in battle, it makes a world of difference, whether you kill a unit or whether it survives with 1 HP. 1 silly HP can indeed make a very big difference.
    What I understand is, that the players PRIMARILY concerned with the battles have no problem to adjust to the rules on the BF, but won’t be bothered much with the same kind of detail when it comes to production. It’s fair to say, though, what is one man’s poison is another man’s meat.

    Bottom line: Obfuscated mechanics are weak design or weak presentation, or both. So, conceding that production will most likely stay due to reasons – and Lord, I hope the only one being considered by the devs is the resources needed to change the current system, I propose a second avenue:

    TL;DR:<br>
    When showing the tooltip for a building providing production show how build times in this city are affected. That is, list all units and structures that would have their build time decreased by at least a turn, and show a warning if none are.<br>
    And no, this is not casual whiny handholding. This is good UI/UX. It never hurts to have that around.

    That wouldn’t gain much, actually, because you can add production value via Happiness increase, population growth and via that incorporating map locations that add, so it’s one of the main tasks to somewhat get an estimation how production numbers will or would develop and what will be your best strategy here.

    As I said, admittedly, this may not be interesting for those primarily concerned with battles, but as a hybrid game I consider it a good thing that you can waste a lot of time (in a good sense) with ALL game aspects (I disagree obviously with some reviews that don’t seem to grasp how interesting the empire building part in the game really is).

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 121 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.