Cabezaestufa wrote:I just realized something. When assigning buildings to settlements, I just gave them the highest value building I thought would fit them (for instance, only ct_asoiaf_basevalue_5 to White Harbor). But now I remembered that's not how buildings are supposed to work here. I should actually have given them the highest building... and all of the lesser ones (as in ct_asoiaf_basevalue_1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for White Harbor, but if I did that I probably shouldn't give them the fifth). I can think of a couple of reasons for doing it like that, apart from the fact that that's how normal buildings work:
- These buildings wouldn't show up in the buildings screen of that settlement. It would be as if you didn't have any, unless the building is just level1, in which case it will just show the first one.
- If this building get destroyed somehow (rebels, special events) the settlements would instantly become level 0. If we do it the other way, it would gradually lose levels, which would be much better.
We also can't do it both ways, because it would screw up the economic balance. I calculated the money values for just one building, if we do it the other way I'll have to change them because it would bankrupt everybody otherwise. I could "fix" the first issue by making these buildings invisible (i found a trick to do that), but the second one would force us to make sure these buildings never get destroyed no matter what.
What do you guys think we should do?
I think its wiser to add all of the "previous" buildings as well.
If it was possible i would even like it to change the name of the whole settlement from "the city of x" to "village of x".
I doubt its possible tho...
Sunspear wrote:To be honest I would disabled the rebels' building destroying function completely. It just does more harm than good for our concept. We can always add something different (province modifier etc) that would actually work for us in terms of destruction and rebels.
I also agree with this.