Morikar

[quote who="merlinme" reply="12" id="3377896"] To be honest I hadn't read the original suggestion properly. +0.5 per grain could work. +1 per grain is surely too fast, most of the time at the moment growth is +1; +1 per grain would double that even for a two grain site.[/quote] If you use the pioneer bank you have a permanent +3 growth from food surplus alone in every city (except those with just 1 grain). +1 food per grain would match that growth rate for a 3/3/3 city (I fi

From an implementation point of view I think the initial suggestion is the simplest. I assume that the code currently calculating growth already has access to the city stats of population, food per grain, and grain yield (since food per grain times grain yield is the maximum population the city can attain) . Changing the code to just use grain yield for population growth ought to be straight forward. Personally, I'd like to see a population growth of 1 per grain. It's simple a

[quote who="Olikut" reply="2" id="3376296"]That would only solve the growth rate part of the exploit. The pioneer bank i use to prevent loss of growth ( from hitting the food cap) would still exist.[/quote] The growth rate exploit is the main reason for using pioneer banking. Preventing population loss when hitting the food cap doesnt really happen until mid game unless you deliberately postpone food producing buildings (which is counter-productive if you use pioneer banking to grow y

Cities gain a growth bonus of up to +3 based on the ratio between current population and maximum population. Pioneers reduce population by 30 when put in the construction queue which allows the player the keep growth at +3 regardless of grain yield/food output by micro-managing pioneers into the queue whenever the growth bonus drops below +3 and pull them all out when there's enough population for a new settlement level. The advantage of using the pioneer bank is significant espec

Cities gain a growth bonus depending on the amount of food surplus compared to the current population: +3: Food produced - current population >= 3x current population +2: Food produced - current population >= 2x current population +1: Food produced - current population >= current population +½: Food produced - current population Cities require an increasing amount of population to increase in level: Lv 2:

The path specific trait trees are all very deep (as opposed to the general trait trees) and I find that it limits player choice when shaping out your champions to the point that most champions of a given path end up with almost identical traits. I believe dividing the traits into several smaller trait trees would add more interesting choices and incentive to specialize each champion. The trait trees are laid out in a 5x8 grid so there should be room for several smaller trees with a ma

I believe the simplest solution is to apply the same cost/upgrade system for horses/wargs as is used for metal/crystal. That means providing an upgrade path for each type of mount with each mount costing a certain amount of horses or wargs. Something along the following lines: Horse: +2 move, +20 weight capacity, cost 8 horses Warhorse: +2 move, +40 weight capacity, cost 12 horses Charger: +2 move, +40 weight capacity, +3 attack, cost 20 horses

When loading a saved game one season's worth of Gildar and mana income from all cities is added. This bug is easy to reproduce: simply set tax rate to brutal, save the game and then reload it. Now your Gildar and mana stockpiles have both increased (this can be done ad infinitum for unlimited amounts of Gildar and mana). Resource (metal, crystal, horse and warg) stockpiles are not affected and neither is Gildar/mana income from heroes. Upkeep from armies is not deducted from the income ga

I think Noble would be an interesting choice if the profession had a more noticeable effect on city growth. For example, by not splitting faction prestige among your settlements but instead add the full amount to the growth of each settlement (or perhaps just the capital). An ability that allows the player to spend gold to increase faction prestige could also work.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just add a new trait for trained units with a -x% unrest effect (i.e., Constable: -5% unrest)? The labor cost can be used to balance the trait as it affects both wages and production cost (should be high enough to keep Bell Towers etc. useful and low enough to make the player consider it for his occupation/garrison units).

I find it very useful to quickly connect resources with a settlement (which prevents them from being destroyed by rampaging monsters and enemy armies) and to block off parts of the map by stretching the settlement between mountain ranges. It also speeds up connecting the zone of control of new settlements with the rest of the kingdom/empire (to avoid the +15% unrest modifier).

I'd like to see an incentive to keep governors with an army (apart from levelling them) in a role not already covered by one of the other paths (parking a governor in a settlement just doesn't seem like interesting/fun gameplay to me). The most obvious role would be to provide economic benefits such as Paymaster : No upkeep for units in the governors army Salvager : Gain resources from defeated units (such as metal, horses, crystals etc.) Ex