Housing: why?

[Grimmrog_SIG]

The update, does not fit in any way or porpose the setup of the game. this is a medieval game, many people were crammed together in small houses in these times, giving everyone an own room is like serious luxury issues. btw in the smalles house in germany there were living 11 people at peak times. It contained 3 rooms, a kitchen, a living and working room and the attic where they slept. regular people should be content with dormitories as we had them before the update. Also you cannot simply copy houses for dwarfs as we still have no "design a room on mountain that gets automined" option. or at leats can choose "cavewalls" as walls being placed around a room.

[Henry the Unfamiliar]

In the medieval period, how many dwarves and giants typically lived in a house?

Also medieval housing isn't something you can paint with a broad brush. Depending on which century, what region, and what status/rank/wealth of the person the housing would look extremely different. The average family size is difficult to calculate due to poor record keeping of peasantry and the high infant mortality rate. Wealthier families tended to be larger since poorer families would have a lot of maternal mortality/infant mortality problems due to malnutrition (poorer rural English families in the 12th century had an average of less than 2 kids surviving childhood. Urban English families had it even worse).

Yes, the auto-mine/planning needs to be added with this, but the dev also is adding family units as well.

[Grimmrog_SIG]

Originally posted by Lionel Richie:

In the medieval period, how many dwarves and giants typically lived in a house?

Also medieval housing isn't something you can paint with a broad brush. Depending on which century, what region, and what status/rank/wealth of the person the housing would look extremely different. The average family size is difficult to calculate due to poor record keeping of peasantry and the high infant mortality rate. Wealthier families tended to be larger since poorer families would have a lot of maternal mortality/infant mortality problems due to malnutrition (poorer rural English families in the 12th century had an average of less than 2 kids surviving childhood. Urban English families had it even worse).

Yes, the auto-mine/planning needs to be added with this, but the dev also is adding family units as well.

doesn't m,atter where in the medieval, aside the highest nobles most people shared rooms, just the poorer the more of them were crammed together. So while we cannot paint medievial housing with a broad brush, we can definately say how it did not look like.
The point, gameplay wise is, that it just artificially infltes building size requirements for a single stupid need. And on top, it massively decreases performance, because the required size adds distance and in games like these, distance is always an issue and micromanaging the assignments of rooms would kill the gameplay at all if you do this for a city housing thousends.

[Digstar]

At the OP. It's a very odd critique you give considering it's fantasy setting.

[UltimateTobi]

Originally posted by Digstar:

At the OP. It's a very odd critique you give considering it's fantasy setting.

Just because something's fantasy (or sci-fi for that matter) doesn't mean you can axe realism (or believability) whenever you feel like.

SOS might not be hardcore-realism-simulator of a medieval period, but certain rules have been established; namely that people don't live in outright poverty (at least later down the line), but they don't live in absolute luxury like in the modern day, where every person has an apartment or even a house for themselves, neither.

Gamatron did pivot from this single apartment idea however. And I am happy about that.

[Jorgas]

Add housing, and keep dormatories as a alternative?

[alif]

Have you seen the recent changes explained in the edits here?:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1162750/view/3349003120352782605

[Pipa de Barrio]

Personally i like the idea of personal houses. the dev also stated that there will be 4 sizes, each one for more people until 16. My only doubt is, where will slaves sleep? i dont feel like giving them homes

[Grimmrog_SIG]

Originally posted by alif:

Have you seen the recent changes explained in the edits here?:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1162750/view/3349003120352782605

yes I have, I also like the effect, that they upgrade their homes, but every single citizen an own 3x3 house is just too excessive. multiple citizens per house/room would make sense. also if they upgrade their homes, do they stick to that specific home forever? if so that causes just more gameplay issues, especially on bigger maps as they may come because they then walk endless stupid ways instead of going to the next suitable bed.

Sleep as a need is removed. Instead, people have a need to have homes. Every single person will want to their own home, I can't make multi-homes. Not if you want to be able to set what type of subject sleeps where

gameplay wise the micromanagement of cities supposed to be THOUSENDS of people will kill any fun with this in mind, yes we want people to live where they work, but havng to assign this mnaually, even more so if they die and need replacement will not be a fun way to play the game anymore. think about that, do you want to spent all your time assigning where lives where, and figure out when someoen dies which home is now empty? Assigning this makes only sense if we also assign the workshops to the subjects as well, and in best case we could link a working room to a house so that people who work at X also live at the linked rooms. Anything else will not be manageable at all in bigger cities.

so in that case I personally would not choose the design under that IF clause because the game goes much bigger than I currently think will be fun to manage at that point. yes early it is fun, but not of the first age related deathwaves happen or you have >3k people of mixed ages. for this we definately need some linked feature that links homes and workplaces and a workforce is then choosing both automatically.

[Micheal]

OP you still have multiple housing options when it comes to housing . No one is forcing you to build individual homes. In fact, they can be homeless. Pick the option that suits your gameplay style.

[Henry the Unfamiliar]

Originally posted by Grimmrog_SIG:

gameplay wise the micromanagement of cities supposed to be THOUSENDS of people will kill any fun with this in mind, yes we want people to live where they work, but havng to assign this mnaually, even more so if they die and need replacement will not be a fun way to play the game anymore. think about that, do you want to spent all your time assigning where lives where, and figure out when someoen dies which home is now empty? Assigning this makes only sense if we also assign the workshops to the subjects as well, and in best case we could link a working room to a house so that people who work at X also live at the linked rooms. Anything else will not be manageable at all in bigger cities.

so in that case I personally would not choose the design under that IF clause because the game goes much bigger than I currently think will be fun to manage at that point. yes early it is fun, but not of the first age related deathwaves happen or you have >3k people of mixed ages. for this we definately need some linked feature that links homes and workplaces and a workforce is then choosing both automatically.

The dev is fully capable of having it so people try to live near their jobs. I didn't have to assign dorms to my workers who worked far away at clay pits. They just lived at the local dorms.

It's early access, it will have growing pains and the dev is clearly listening to constructive criticism.

[Grimmrog_SIG]

Originally posted by Micheal:

OP you still have multiple housing options when it comes to housing . No one is forcing you to build individual homes. In fact, they can be homeless. Pick the option that suits your gameplay style.

you can't keep them homeless that works against the happiness that is required to advance your city

Originally posted by Lionel Richie:

Originally posted by Grimmrog_SIG:

gameplay wise the micromanagement of cities supposed to be THOUSENDS of people will kill any fun with this in mind, yes we want people to live where they work, but havng to assign this mnaually, even more so if they die and need replacement will not be a fun way to play the game anymore. think about that, do you want to spent all your time assigning where lives where, and figure out when someoen dies which home is now empty? Assigning this makes only sense if we also assign the workshops to the subjects as well, and in best case we could link a working room to a house so that people who work at X also live at the linked rooms. Anything else will not be manageable at all in bigger cities.

so in that case I personally would not choose the design under that IF clause because the game goes much bigger than I currently think will be fun to manage at that point. yes early it is fun, but not of the first age related deathwaves happen or you have >3k people of mixed ages. for this we definately need some linked feature that links homes and workplaces and a workforce is then choosing both automatically.

The dev is fully capable of having it so people try to live near their jobs. I didn't have to assign dorms to my workers who worked far away at clay pits. They just lived at the local dorms.

It's early access, it will have growing pains and the dev is clearly listening to constructive criticism.

yes it works for dorms because they dont have homes, but this changes and dorms will be gone with the houses.

[optimumscar]

Originally posted by Grimmrog_SIG:

Originally posted by Micheal:

OP you still have multiple housing options when it comes to housing . No one is forcing you to build individual homes. In fact, they can be homeless. Pick the option that suits your gameplay style.

you can't keep them homeless that works against the happiness that is required to advance your city

Originally posted by Lionel Richie:

The dev is fully capable of having it so people try to live near their jobs. I didn't have to assign dorms to my workers who worked far away at clay pits. They just lived at the local dorms.

It's early access, it will have growing pains and the dev is clearly listening to constructive criticism.

yes it works for dorms because they dont have homes, but this changes and dorms will be gone with the houses.

Well I don't think you're thinking of the game system when you're thinking your ideas out. First the civs are the ones that get the button to allow access to build up their houses, likely in the population tab in the top left of the capital UI, they will use other furnishing (by breaking it down and repurpsing it for their needs) of other peoples houses they take over for in event of death or they moves to a different location near their work. You see this happen in game anytime ya remove object like walls ect ect.

At least wait till the update comes out and see how it functions before you worry about it. Or maybe, take a small dip into learning how to mod the game so you can understand the functions of systems. Granted I myself haven't done that as I like where the game is headed and don't mind just being an observer to other suggestions. I mean my ideas where kinda ♥♥♥♥ and no one even commented on them.

[crecy]

the main problem I see with the housing update is the sheer amount of buildings you would need at the larger populations in the thousands.

[Lord451]

Originally posted by crecy:

the main problem I see with the housing update is the sheer amount of buildings you would need at the larger populations in the thousands.

I had the same initial thought, and crunching the math - having a population of 10k (which seems like a lot) would take about 15 percent of your total landmass in just housing. My furthest game I have about 3k, and honestly no idea how much landmass I actually have used.

[Grimmrog_SIG]

Originally posted by Lord451:

Originally posted by crecy:

the main problem I see with the housing update is the sheer amount of buildings you would need at the larger populations in the thousands.

I had the same initial thought, and crunching the math - having a population of 10k (which seems like a lot) would take about 15 percent of your total landmass in just housing. My furthest game I have about 3k, and honestly no idea how much landmass I actually have used.

and the sheer area housing will cover will delay the jobs of people even more as that increases travel time, additionally janitors decoration and whatever else you need to widely cover for happiness. this is having a pretty big snowball effect it causes.