Poor city building and development system

[Багряный]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2800125098

Why is CA unable to develop normal strategic options for building cities?

It is quite logical that there should be a system for unlocking additional construction slots. For population growth and gold, or for influence. For example, you pay 3 population and 50 thousand gold and unlock 2 cells, then 5 population and 100 thousand gold and unlock 2 more construction cells.

The garrison system is also very bad, you must have a resource of gold maintenance in the city and on its basis you independently form the garrison that you want.

The settlement design itself is even worse than in Rome 1, where the cities had normal streets and your buildings were displayed on the battle map, you could even watch it in peacetime.

There is also a problem with the restriction of construction chains and the type of cities, almost all of them are the same. Although the Asuryan Sanctuary should look like a pyramid, for example, we only got the building icon. Or take Talabheim, which has a unique natural protection from the mountains, but in the game it is a monotonous imperial city on the world map.

Why doesn't CA even try to work on the development of the economy and the construction of cities, even the elementary design tasks are not being completed.

[Aleera]

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

Most players, including you, complain about being bored in the late game. Since there is no development, which over time should give you more and more abilities and tools to influence the world map.

And this does not excite me in lategame, because then I'd have to be playing city mayor over dozens of settlements. it will only add to the boredom for myself. I'm not seeing to influence the world map. I'm seeking foes to crush, different foes. With different army compositions.
By endgame I get bored, because it's me vs 1 or 2 AI's that are big and they field the same armies over and over against me. A city simulator will not stop this tedium, it adds to it.

Again, it's fine for a mini campaign. But not in the main game. It will be asked to be modded out REAL soon by most people.

Edit: if I want to build a strong city state, there's games out there that do it so much better.

[CrUsHeR]

Play CIV, Stellaris etc. if you want to focus on extensive empire building.

Total War and Warhammer specifically are all about the battles.

TBH the screenshot seems like a game designer nightmare, all that stuff can't be possibly balanced / fun / whatever.

[Багряный]

Publicado originalmente por CrUsHeR:

Play CIV, Stellaris etc. if you want to focus on extensive empire building.

Total War and Warhammer specifically are all about the battles.

TBH the screenshot seems like a game designer nightmare, all that stuff can't be possibly balanced / fun / whatever.

By the way, the balance of these modifications is much better than the standard game, as it allows each race to be very strong and field more armies.

Total War is literally about building and economics, and in different parts this aspect is developed in its own way. Except Warhammer, which provides the most opportunities for this, unlike other Total War games.

[Aleera]

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

By the way, the balance of these modifications is much better than the standard game, as it allows each race to be very strong and field more armies.

Total War is literally about building and economics, and in different parts this aspect is developed in its own way. Except Warhammer, which provides the most opportunities for this, unlike other Total War games.

Because it's warhammer. The lore and fantasy of warhammer isn't about building. it's armies clashing with other armies for supremacy, glory, survival. Not a city building simulator.

I'm glad you're making a different kind of topic. Honestly, this discussion is refreshing and I like seeing your take on it. I just disagree that this addition works in Warhammer.

[brownacs]

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

Total War is literally about building and economics, and in different parts this aspect is developed in its own way.

... is it? I'd say it's a lot more about the real time battles. I don't totally disagree with some of your points here. Overly simplifying what you've said a bit but I also miss the more complex turn based campaign map mechanics from the older historical games. I can see why CA have streamlined that side of the game and focused more on the battles in the recent titles though... especially with the Warhammer series.

[brownacs]

Publicado originalmente por Rianne:

Have your stinking steam points. You win good sir.

Have some back. There's always next time.

[Багряный]

Publicado originalmente por Rianne:

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

By the way, the balance of these modifications is much better than the standard game, as it allows each race to be very strong and field more armies.

Total War is literally about building and economics, and in different parts this aspect is developed in its own way. Except Warhammer, which provides the most opportunities for this, unlike other Total War games.

Because it's warhammer. The lore and fantasy of warhammer isn't about building. it's armies clashing with other armies for supremacy, glory, survival. Not a city building simulator.

I'm glad you're making a different kind of topic. Honestly, this discussion is refreshing and I like seeing your take on it. I just disagree that this addition works in Warhammer.

This is directly related to faction mechanics, there are Hordes, there are Orcs with a poor building system, there are High Elves with huge cities, there is an Empire with engineering innovations, there are Dwarfs with resource development. But none of this is fully developed. We have exactly the same templates, including in terms of design and aesthetics. Even in Rome 1 there were different types of roads and your empire changed its appearance. Troy made different types of resources to build armies etc. This potential is much more for development and it absolutely does not interfere with the combat part of the game. This expands its overall potential.

[Aleera]

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

Publicado originalmente por Rianne:

Because it's warhammer. The lore and fantasy of warhammer isn't about building. it's armies clashing with other armies for supremacy, glory, survival. Not a city building simulator.

I'm glad you're making a different kind of topic. Honestly, this discussion is refreshing and I like seeing your take on it. I just disagree that this addition works in Warhammer.

This is directly related to faction mechanics, there are Hordes, there are Orcs with a poor building system, there are High Elves with huge cities, there is an Empire with engineering innovations, there are Dwarfs with resource development. But none of this is fully developed. We have exactly the same templates, including in terms of design and aesthetics. Even in Rome 1 there were different types of roads and your empire changed its appearance. Troy made different types of resources to build armies etc. This potential is much more for development and it absolutely does not interfere with the combat part of the game. This expands its overall potential.

Again, not in Warhammer. This might be important and good gameplay in historical titles. it has no place in Warhammer, where the lore is about monsters, heroes, gods, fight for survival, glory, supremacy.
That's what Warhammer is about. Battles. It's a a real time variant of the table top, the battles you play there. Re-enacting legendary battles.

Building simulator just does not fit in Warhammer.

[DerRitter]

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2800125098

Why is CA unable to develop normal strategic options for building cities?

It is quite logical that there should be a system for unlocking additional construction slots. For population growth and gold, or for influence. For example, you pay 3 population and 50 thousand gold and unlock 2 cells, then 5 population and 100 thousand gold and unlock 2 more construction cells.

The garrison system is also very bad, you must have a resource of gold maintenance in the city and on its basis you independently form the garrison that you want.

The settlement design itself is even worse than in Rome 1, where the cities had normal streets and your buildings were displayed on the battle map, you could even watch it in peacetime.

There is also a problem with the restriction of construction chains and the type of cities, almost all of them are the same. Although the Asuryan Sanctuary should look like a pyramid, for example, we only got the building icon. Or take Talabheim, which has a unique natural protection from the mountains, but in the game it is a monotonous imperial city on the world map.

Why doesn't CA even try to work on the development of the economy and the construction of cities, even the elementary design tasks are not being completed.

yes, it suck

[Багряный]

Publicado originalmente por Rianne:

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

This is directly related to faction mechanics, there are Hordes, there are Orcs with a poor building system, there are High Elves with huge cities, there is an Empire with engineering innovations, there are Dwarfs with resource development. But none of this is fully developed. We have exactly the same templates, including in terms of design and aesthetics. Even in Rome 1 there were different types of roads and your empire changed its appearance. Troy made different types of resources to build armies etc. This potential is much more for development and it absolutely does not interfere with the combat part of the game. This expands its overall potential.

Again, not in Warhammer. This might be important and good gameplay in historical titles. it has no place in Warhammer, where the lore is about monsters, heroes, gods, fight for survival, glory, supremacy.
That's what Warhammer is about. Battles. It's a a real time variant of the table top, the battles you play there. Re-enacting legendary battles.

Building simulator just does not fit in Warhammer.

I'm not suggesting SimCity. I'm talking about an adequate advanced mechanics of urban construction, which will not let you get bored after the 200th turn. Where you can place your own garrison lord and form a garrison the way you want using the limited resources of the city. This also applies to the construction of defensive systems, such as the configuration of walls, the capabilities of the tower and the installation of artillery in the required places. That's what the players were thinking when they talked about sieges, not that tower nonsense in Game 3 of the cheap indie games.

[Saint Corn]

Publicado originalmente por Багряный:

Publicado originalmente por Saint Corn:

Not to mention how just looking at the screenshot, there are 22 buildings in a single capital for a province. If CA did something like that, it would actually dumb down the city building aspect as you could just shove every single building into any province. It would actively make the game worse.
Province specialization is part of actually balancing what buildings to place. While the current system could always be improved, you would be actually taking away what depth there is to the current building system. Adding more slots isn't always better particularly when you want to add a number as large as like 22.

Gimmicks like seeing your buildings in battle maps would be interesting, but it is just a gimmick and isn't really needed.

The rest are very minor gripes at best that doesn't demonstrate that "the elementary design tasks are not being completed."

Such a potential for the development of the capital must be available, but not immediately, as the modification does, but through the accumulation of resources, research, etc.

No, it isn't a must. And, I understand what the modification does, but it will still dumb down the strategy involved.

[grognardgary]

You can either have Warhammer and the plethora of units heroes and mages and whatever or you can have civ VI. You can't have both as of yet. Not without a program that would take days to download.

[Fear2288]

Not gonna lie, I’ve really wanted to see TW move in a direction that makes the campaign map aspect a bit more deep.

Ofc the battles have always been the main event and the big draw of the series but I’ve always fantasized about a game that combines the epic battles of TW with the depth of grand/4x strategy games like the Civ series and Paradox games.

[grognardgary]

Publicado originalmente por Fear2288:

Not gonna lie, I’ve really wanted to see TW move in a direction that makes the campaign map aspect a bit more deep.

Ofc the battles have always been the main event and the big draw of the series but I’ve always fantasized about a game that combines the epic battles of TW with the depth of grand/4x strategy games like the Civ series and Paradox games.

It would be lovely, but I suspect we are a couple of computer generations away from that mutual dream being realized.

[Saint Corn]

Publicado originalmente por grognardgary:

Publicado originalmente por Fear2288:

Not gonna lie, I’ve really wanted to see TW move in a direction that makes the campaign map aspect a bit more deep.

Ofc the battles have always been the main event and the big draw of the series but I’ve always fantasized about a game that combines the epic battles of TW with the depth of grand/4x strategy games like the Civ series and Paradox games.

It would be lovely, but I suspect we are a couple of computer generations away from that mutual dream being realized.

On top of possibly stressing out hardware, making unique buildings for each race's building chains be available in each map is a lot of extra money to make that would honestly be better elsewhere.
More in-depth campaigns is definitely a goal, but all the suggestions here seem either not feasible currently or just not worth the expense.