Cabezaestufa wrote:Here's an expansion of the example from the last page so you can see how things work:
I still see a problem with that... you don't target a "random" holding but a specific one... And I somehow fear targeting correctly a "random" one with some conditions.
About Riso proposal:
For the building thing, having a building to make it ruins or having a building not to make it ruin, the result is the same from the player point of view but not from the AI point of view.
Let say that you create a new castle. If ruin is a building, the castle will be created as a working castle. If ruin is the status of the castle without building, then the castle will be in ruin. At this point, player would build the building to give "life" to the ruined castle. So no problem here. With time and cost being the same, there is no problem.
Now if we look from an AI situation. Ruin being a building is as vanilla from AI point of view. If ruin is the base status, first the AI might spam them in every county, then, they might not upgrade them "fast" enough to put them as constructed castle... Overall, the AI might not handle very well a base holding being "empty".
About prosperity, well, it would be only logical that random events simulate good and bad years, however there is currently a limit which is that there is no barony modifiers and only county modifiers. If we want to affect a barony we are forced to use a building, Let say there are thief in the city A. Why should castle B endure tax lost?
And if you say that because of trade they should, then why shouldn't it affect the neighboor counties and so on?
There are random events that must affect only one barony and not the other in the county, and we only have the option of buildings for that.
About jaggedblue proposal:
Isn't it what we already do somehow? You can't create a second king's landing keep as far as I know.