PDA

View Full Version : We want more buildings in the town !



Mendahor
10-03-2017, 10:10 PM
Be it hospitals to prevent illness, police stations to prevent crime, firestation to prevent fires, architect to prevent house destruction, more monuments, whatever else : we want more building only related to town (the ones that disappeared with Anno 2205), not only the civilisation level related one, or the factories one.

If you agree with me, please click on the +1 "inch" in this post to make sure Anno team will be aware of it.

iruet
10-04-2017, 03:03 PM
You know that +1 ain't what the devs wanne see?

+1 does not give feedback nor multiple ideas :)

I do like that idea, I would also love to see prisons, or maybe even a prison "city" :)

Mendahor
10-05-2017, 06:34 AM
Are you sure Iruet about the +1 ? Don't you think that it may gain attention from the devs ? If only 1 people asks for something, they may forget about it because it would not benefit to the players. If many people say they want it, I think they will pay more attention to the question.

If I am right and you want more buildings, add +1 and/or replies. If you are right or don't want more buildings, let's forget about that :)

+1 for prisons, a prisoners dedicaced island and a prisoners "trading" route to send them there would be fun to build, with random disasters like prisoners take control of the prison

AgmasGold
10-05-2017, 10:03 AM
Town-related buildings would definitely be a welcome feature. Maybe the reason they were missing from Anno 2205, was that the buildings themselves had intergrated disaster prevention features.

In terms of +1's, I don't think it really matters. The devs read the forum. If its a good idea thats possible to implement it will happen. If there's feedback that's good, and its something they can change, they'll probably do it. They want Anno to be as much of as success as we all do.

iruet
10-05-2017, 01:58 PM
Yup the +1 do matter, cozz u dont have discussions then, which are important to get a better idea

And yes, it would be nice if there would be a prisoners island, with gards and all which have to live on that island :D

Mendahor
10-06-2017, 10:22 PM
So be it, let's forget about the +1

What about the prison to become the second monument ? First step you have a basic one, second step you add mirradors, an interior courtyard and external barbed wires, and third step the prisoners are creating goods ? It would make sense Historically : https://criminocorpus.revues.org/246#tocto2n4 (in french, use google translate) point 27 : it seams that in XIX century, industrials began to "exploit" prisoners to make them create goods...

citizensfor
10-07-2017, 03:33 AM
I personally don't want more "building looks" in the town..

I want procedurally "stacked" buildings that grow to a heigh appropriate with the land value/desireability in an area.

I want buildings to have veried floors that "grow" to maybe 10 stories, which I think they had in 1800.

Think A-Train style "Growing buildings", but more updated and not as exaggerated.. buildings "grew" in Art****s 1985 A-train.. we can't have it by Ubisoft in 2017?

AgmasGold
10-07-2017, 12:54 PM
Probably the way the game is designed. I think it would be quite easy to implement - if you set out from the start to have buildings work that way. Obviously, Anno hasn't been built with that in mind, plus there are probably other optimisations within the engine that would be at odds with trying to implement such a feature, as is the case with a lot of games that have a complex simulation going on in the background.

ASCIIM0V.HELM
10-10-2017, 12:49 PM
I don't mind some civic buildings, but the game is first and foremost a logistics and supply-chain management simulator.

Olinater
10-10-2017, 11:02 PM
I would also like more town specific buildings. Not only will the city become more customizable in ways it can look, but it will probably also accompany services that I can give to my citizens. Like buildings which house riot control units, postal buildings, civil engineers (that give buildings/area's certain perks or unlock other buildings), or a town hall that allows you to issue 'policies' (whatever those may be) and also collects data about all the buildings on the Island (like the Bailiwick in 1404).

stylisticsagi
10-11-2017, 07:44 AM
I completly agree with olinater.
More bbuilding option you don't neccesarly have to build but can give a bonus.

I really like the power and eco factory building in 2070 wich created eco or power based on how many people lived nearby it.
Also the tv station in wich you could select diffrent boosts was a very nice add-on i really like to see return and more of that as well.
And the laboratory where you could make your own items i really liked!
Custimization is something anno could get a whole lot more off. Diffrent maps diffrent people diffrent playstyles not just one way to go.

OptimaForma
02-04-2018, 02:29 AM
Remember the gems in 1404? Buildings like that would be great. Without the gems, and with function, ofcourse

ruuti0
02-04-2018, 12:03 PM
I have said this before too in other threads, but I can say it here too: more different buildings = better, simple as that.

I also liked that there were 3 different "factions" in 2070 and each had their own building types and social classes!

stylisticsagi
02-05-2018, 11:08 AM
I think another great option could be that if you give bonusses to buildings you don't need certain buildings.

For examples in 1404 people needed a larger church and a debtors prison.

this is just an example what types of bonusses could be but are further are irrelivent to the topic

what if there was an extra building just for an example a university, but people would only require 2 of those buildings to advance.
then the church could give a bonus wich make people consume less food goods. (with a bonus simular like this you already have ALOT of bonus options)
the debtors prison could give a tax bonus (they fine the hell out os now and they also did so the old days.)
the university could create certain items.

diffrent building choices could also variate in price/size/maintenance/bonusses/area of influence etc.
perhaps some buildings won't give a bonus but are way cheaper so you can advance faster to the next civ.

not having to need every building will make people build diffrent kind of cities.
and you will always to be able to build all of the buildings if you want to.

i also think disaster buildings like the fire station and hospital could also be accounted as a building to make your people advance.

anno always had a die hard supper efficient community wich always cae up with the best lay out for everything.
Things like this could really create much much more options if properly balanced.

ruuti0
02-05-2018, 05:25 PM
i also think disaster buildings like the fire station and hospital could also be accounted as a building to make your people advance.


Why you want that?

They aren't buildings what your citizens really "need" or want to use in daily life like other buildings that are required to reach next advance level.

I think it is good that they are optional so you can install them when there is disease or fire going on and remove them when disaster is over. This way you can save money.

AgmasGold
02-05-2018, 06:39 PM
Yep I agree - I don't think it makes sense to have disaster buildings as a necessity for a higher population level.

stylisticsagi
02-06-2018, 03:25 PM
If you have read the entire thing you would know i did not suggest they are a necessity but they do count up to have a numerous amount of buildings needed to advance.
and p.s. if you count the need for in then i think people need a hospital much much more then they need a church, let alone a prison XD.
And noblemen who would live in a town without a single docter is also something i haven't heard off...

p.s.2. what a world would we live in if we had a fire going on and then people say, oh that sucks, let us build a fire station before we start fighting the flames, talking about realism...

perhaps i have to make myself more clear here cuz you got the wrong idea here.
The goal is you would have more gouverment buildings to choose from wich all give diffrent kind of bonusses protections or other.
You would not neccesarly need any of them just a number of them to advance to the next level(wich still doesn't stop you from building em all).
This way you could build a more interesting city wich does not always looks the same.

And this does not only go for city per saved game. You could have a church in one area of the city and on the other part of the city you could have a school.
If the needed buildings to advance is 1 then all of these people will be getting to the next civ level eventough some do not have acces to the school and others not to the church.
And those people who live in the area wich is covered by both can have the bonusses form both buildings whatever they may be.

a more diversife city building is the goal and it is bets achievable if there are gameplay wise choices to be made.
The disaster buildings counting as such a building needed was just another option on top of this suggestion.

AgmasGold
02-06-2018, 06:18 PM
Even if they are just one of several buildings required, I think it would still be something I would not want to see.

Look at it this way - lets say you needed one more building to level up your population, and you have 3 buildings to choose from, a Church, a Fire Station, and a Tavern. You only need to build one of these buildings to get your population to the next level. It would just seem like it would remove the choice... you may have to build to Fire Station anyway, due to disaster, you will build the Fire Station almost 100% of the time. Basically, by making it so disaster buildings "contribute" to the leveling up your population, you are removing choice, as one of the buildings you construct will always be the disaster building.

stylisticsagi
02-06-2018, 07:15 PM
Not really, if done properly you would like to build ALL of the buildings because buildings would give bonusses.
The choice will be wich one you build first and wich one you build much later civ level or not at all.
I also think that if disaster buildings would always react to disasters even if outside the influence range it would make disasters more interesting, a further away fire staton for example could put out one fire but by the time he get's there the fire could already have spread. This would becomming worse and worse the further the fire station is build.
Altough this is quite off topic but it's about the bigger picture.

If you say you always choise the anti disaster building know that there are people who rely much more on their people to handle disasters themselfs.
In a multiplayer game you may choise the fire station above others but you would be surprised to see others build something completly diffrent.
as in the example i gave perhaps they build the church to advanced to the second civ instead of the fire station so now his population requires lees food so he would need less farms to feed them saving his money or creating more food to sell it givving him a larger trade income this while you are just protected against fires. You can hardly argue with it that this is removing choices.
having no choice is like we always know it: you have to build this building or your people won't advance plain simple, the end.

Now tell me where you have and where you haven't got a choice XD.

AgmasGold
02-06-2018, 07:34 PM
"having no choice is like we always know it: you have to build this building or your people won't advance plain simple, the end." ...

You still have a choice here as well, to allow your population to advance, or to not build the building, and not let them advance.

Anyhow, if disasters were enabled for the game, and you had to build all the buildings to advance the population (I know that isn't quite what you said in the post above), then the Fire Station would always be the first building you build. Sure, this doesn't remove choice, but it will make such a choice redundant, as you will always take one choice (building the Fire Station first) over another (building the Fire Station last).

Also in the thread, I don't recall seeing anything about the other buildings giving additional bonuses. Of course, this may change the build order that people choose, I made my post under the assumption that the buildings acted like in previous Anno titles, and didn't give additional bonuses, or have additional penalties, associated with them.

stylisticsagi
02-07-2018, 01:17 PM
You still have a choice here as well, to allow your population to advance, or to not build the building, and not let them advance.


I can't believe you actually said that XD. Sorry that had to go out.
I myself also dan't always read every answer wich was made but i try to.
ps the suggestions for additional bonusses to buildings was already suggested in the 11th post of this topic and this is the 21st.

But i do think that indeed in games where the disaster would have been disabled (wich i pretty much don't like but hey preferences are personal) it would be nice to have disaster buildings also add some sort of bonus.
I think the firestation could also act as the carpenter in 1404 to repair deteriorated buildings.
The medic building could in my eyes generate some income per how many population there are in it's influence area.
I think there was alsu such a building in 2070 but i can't recall wich one.

AgmasGold
02-07-2018, 06:24 PM
There were buildings which generated power based on the amount of houses around them, and also buildings which boosted the tax income of surrounding houses.

Swimming-Paul
02-08-2018, 03:33 PM
I agree 100% and I was giving a +1 to this post. I hope the developers donīt feel too overwhelmed, but I think itīs ESSENTIAL to have a huge amount of buildings available. Itīs not an infinite number of buildings, but a decent amount so the bigger settlements donīt end up looking too monotonous, as it often happened with Anno 2205. This is clearly a more-is-more situation, and the more buildings and ornamentals we get the better the game will be.
I always think some of the buildings could be initially locked, so you can get them throw achievements, exhibitions or quests, which is a perfect asset for long games, and the very nature of Anno games. And please, monuments monuments monuments, in plural!

stylisticsagi
02-08-2018, 04:25 PM
Agmas those buildings are excatly wich made me suggest this in the first place. I loved them!!!
And i know the television station was the perfect example that this can perfectly work.
Buildings you can build to give you something wich have a direct link with your population But you don't neccesairly have to build them.

As for swiming-paul i also like your idea. The game could indeed provide with only the buildings needed to reach the highest civ level (and keep them happy). And all other buildings wich could give alternate bonusses can be unlocked by achievements. This would give more boost to people to get those achievements to show off in multiplayer.
There have often been much ornamental buildings in anno wich sadly rarely had a real purpuse. It would be nice to see them give one.
Even small bonusses like bushes threes or small ornaments could make it soo that people pay more tax cuz they live in a more beautifull city, again lot's of diffrent set ups you can try out.
Altough i have to make one thing clear... DON'T MAKE US PAY FOR THEM!
i don't mind if you can pay for them but they have toable to be unlocked by playing the game as well.
And off course the anti-disaster buildigns should be available form the beginning.

ruuti0
02-08-2018, 05:37 PM
stylisticsagi you said to AgmasGold (or was it to me?) that people would need hospital or firestation like tavern, but in Anno they don't. In Anno they are just for disasters.

Thats why in my opion there is no reason add them them to list what are needed to advance. Clearly there are some kind of medication service outside of hospitals, because you only need them if there is disease spreading. Fire departmentisn't needed unless there is fire. I like idea where they would stay as disaster buildings and keep those other "amusement" buildings as requirement for advancing civilization levels. Surely more different buildings could be added to game and some of them could be required to advance civ.levels, but not mix disaster and "amusemenent" buildings together.

Also like AgmasGold said, if there only few build required to advance and you could choose them from disaster buildings, why would you build anything else but disaster buildings, if you want get as cheap system as you can get?

stylisticsagi
02-09-2018, 04:27 PM
|Okay well leave the disaster buildings out of it, yet they still could give some sort of bonus to something, just to not have like one said, if there is a disease it's time to build a hospital...

Ps to go back to it disaster buildings alone would not be enough to advance people would require more.
if we take the example from 1404 people needed a larger church and a prison to advance to nobleman. You could say they need to buildings and one of them could be the hospital.
And back to the point wich i'm growing tired of repeating you would want to choose for the larger buildings becouse they would give better bonusses of some sort.
This entire suggestion of civ buildings givving a bonus + more buildings and a choice of what you build without requiring them all has to be seen in it's whole not each as seperate suggestions.

ruuti0
02-09-2018, 05:07 PM
|Okay well leave the disaster buildings out of it, yet they still could give some sort of bonus to something, just to not have like one said, if there is a disease it's time to build a hospital...

Ps to go back to it disaster buildings alone would not be enough to advance people would require more.
if we take the example from 1404 people needed a larger church and a prison to advance to nobleman. You could say they need to buildings and one of them could be the hospital.
And back to the point wich i'm growing tired of repeating you would want to choose for the larger buildings becouse they would give better bonusses of some sort.
This entire suggestion of civ buildings givving a bonus + more buildings and a choice of what you build without requiring them all has to be seen in it's whole not each as seperate suggestions.

What kind of bonus you are thinking?

It is easier to answer if I know that.

stylisticsagi
02-09-2018, 05:19 PM
Well the bonusses themself i let the balance maker to decide but i can give a few examples.
churches could reduce food consumption
prisons could increase tax rate (less crime more money)
some buildings can have as special that they have much larger area of influence.
some can generate extra "special" wealth liek the tournament in 1404 giving honour points
university would be cool for technology and if 1800 will not have a technology system it could provide an increase of area of influence of all other civ buildings
hospital could help generating science
fire station can also repair dettriorated buildings.
palace could give more ascension rights to the highest class.
taverns could generate income

i can go on and on on givving examples off these bonusses.
Nicest thing also for balance would off course be that all these special bonusses only count for people in the influence area(like less food consumption) or based on number of inhabitats(generate income, more population in it's area, more income.)

make civ buildings much more interesting as just something your people want.

iruet
02-09-2018, 07:45 PM
I like the idea for different kind of buildings... Maybe just small tweaks in similar looking buildings would make buildings more unique and allows BB to add loads of buildings which are almost the same :)

ruuti0
02-09-2018, 08:25 PM
Well the bonusses themself i let the balance maker to decide but i can give a few examples.
churches could reduce food consumption
prisons could increase tax rate (less crime more money)
some buildings can have as special that they have much larger area of influence.
some can generate extra "special" wealth liek the tournament in 1404 giving honour points
university would be cool for technology and if 1800 will not have a technology system it could provide an increase of area of influence of all other civ buildings
hospital could help generating science
fire station can also repair dettriorated buildings.
palace could give more ascension rights to the highest class.
taverns could generate income

i can go on and on on givving examples off these bonusses.
Nicest thing also for balance would off course be that all these special bonusses only count for people in the influence area(like less food consumption) or based on number of inhabitats(generate income, more population in it's area, more income.)

make civ buildings much more interesting as just something your people want.

Maybe there could be bonuses, but I still don't like idea to make disaster buildings part of requirements for next civ levels.

It just doesn't sound like Anno anymore if you chuches reduce food consumption or fire station repair dettriorated buildings.

If there would be bonuses, I think it should be something different.

But overall I think I think it is best leave disaster buildings as disaster buildings and make some kind of new buildings that could give some "bonus" to game, in my opinion that would be much better idea.

stylisticsagi
02-10-2018, 10:04 AM
the disaster buildings where also more optional to be involved in thus suggestion.
The main thing still is:
1-civ buildings give some kind of bonus
2-you got to choice from more civ buildings but don't require them all to let your people advance

as long as those 2 stick together we can go for much more variaty in the looks and costumization of our cities.

ruuti0
02-10-2018, 01:29 PM
the disaster buildings where also more optional to be involved in thus suggestion.
The main thing still is:
1-civ buildings give some kind of bonus
2-you got to choice from more civ buildings but don't require them all to let your people advance

as long as those 2 stick together we can go for much more variaty in the looks and costumization of our cities.

May I ask why you want that not all civ buildings are required for advancing?

I know there is limit of resources in every company, even game making companies and I wonder if these kind of things actually affect what we get and what we don't (meaning that if they decide do plan A, do they have resources for plan B also etc).

This is just theory but if they want add more social class levels, then they would have to make for each level more buildings and having them all are not needed to level next level and it could lead to situation where they have less social level because they focused to some many buildings that are not needed.

I don't know is situation like this however, but if they decide between more of civ buildings and more of social classes, I rather myself take more social classes to game. For me it give bigger pleasure to reach next level than having all kind of different buildings.

But of course if they can do both, add much buildings and still add as many social levels as they can, I support this option.

stylisticsagi
02-10-2018, 04:45 PM
the reason why is simple:
not making look every city look the same.
We are all eager to build in the most effecient way and therefore often our civ buildings end up at the same places in town.
Also in reality cities where formed either around a for or around a university or around around other bigger civ building.
those cities did not had all of those buildings yet all of them had richer and lesser rich people.
Then one game you can build around a church while not needing a university and another game you can build around a university instead of a church.

You will feel much more that you are playing a diffrent savegame since your cities largest buildings are not the same.
And not just your own city but also the cities of your fellow (ai) players won't look exactly like yours.
Ai charackeristics can also involve wich type of buildings they will build and wich one they don't.

ruuti0
02-10-2018, 05:33 PM
the reason why is simple:
not making look every city look the same.
We are all eager to build in the most effecient way and therefore often our civ buildings end up at the same places in town.
Also in reality cities where formed either around a for or around a university or around around other bigger civ building.
those cities did not had all of those buildings yet all of them had richer and lesser rich people.
Then one game you can build around a church while not needing a university and another game you can build around a university instead of a church.

You will feel much more that you are playing a diffrent savegame since your cities largest buildings are not the same.
And not just your own city but also the cities of your fellow (ai) players won't look exactly like yours.
Ai charackeristics can also involve wich type of buildings they will build and wich one they don't.

I think (just assuming) that won't change that you need certain buildings and goods for next level instead of having some of them.

But let hope they still give us many kind of different buildings so our cities can look more different.

Of course every building would be useful somehow.


I hope we get monuments to 1800, they were super great idea in 2070!

Big buildings that take long time to build and A LOT of material!

What you think about idea getting monuments to 1800?

stylisticsagi
02-10-2018, 08:58 PM
Monuments are great.
But i think just like the historic warehouse from 1404 there should be more monuments more early on available.
why not have some sort of military fort considered as a monument and builds in the same way but is available the next-to-last civ level?
why should monuments be restricted to late gameplay?

AgmasGold
02-10-2018, 09:38 PM
They should be restricted to late game, as they are monuments. They are meant to be the pinnacle of a civilization achievements. The crowning architectural marvel. Being able to build these before the late game would dull this effect and the sense of achievement.

ruuti0
02-10-2018, 09:42 PM
Monuments are great.
But i think just like the historic warehouse from 1404 there should be more monuments more early on available.
why not have some sort of military fort considered as a monument and builds in the same way but is available the next-to-last civ level?
why should monuments be restricted to late gameplay?

I think they were left to late game because they required enormous resources, with early game resources that would been practically impossible to put enough resources to one monument building if you wanted all other things too.

Military (fort) "monument" could work also, it could also work as some kind of requirement for certain things.

Also some kind of scientific monument could be good and add something new to research.

stylisticsagi
02-10-2018, 10:32 PM
I got in the wrong with the term monument.
I just believe a bit more expensive building projects early on would be great to.
Like if you could build a smaller version of the warehouse more early on.
Larger civbuildings like the larger church or a university or theatre or whatever civ building they throw in could have a simular way like monuments.
Ik gives a bigger immersion of feeling your town to grow ofter point and instant build buildings.
They can also make ou start those buildings more early on in the game rather then waiting to save up some coin/resources to be able to spend it att once.
But then again i would love to see some minor build animations for all buildings anyway so maybe i'l go in to deeply over this.

AgmasGold
02-10-2018, 10:50 PM
You mean like multi-stage projects, that are just smaller/more complex buildings? Yeah I guess that would work, although I feel like it would still detract slightly, as you would still be doing multistage building, before a monument. I guess it would still be alright overall.

stylisticsagi
02-11-2018, 09:38 AM
Yeah that's exactly what i ment but it's more then that.
Earlier cheaper multi stage projects doesn't have to be multi stage at all just construction site and first stage completed is building completed.
an example:
let's say a larger church nowdays cost 40 wood 60 tools and 80 bricks and 8000 gold.
perhaps your town hasn't already got some storage buildings and you are capped to 60 then you can't een build it (happens very rarely on your main island i know).
You also have to wait till you got those resources before you can build it. if you forgot about it and expand your city then suddenly all the wood is gone and you thingk o damn i was savig for the church.
Now let's say the church site costs 10 wood 10 tools and 10 bricks and 4000 gold and a higher maintenance cost calculated so it costs you around 2000 until it's complete.
then the site needs a supply until 60 wood 70 tools and 100 bricks and 6000 gold.
you would pay a total of 70 wood 80 tools and 110 bricks but you wouldn'feel it that hard cuzz the goods are not instantly gone.
as for the maintenance cost, the longer the building would be short of supplies the more it would cost in terms of gold (very realistic) altough wen you keep a steady flow of resources the buildingwork is finished in time and you will have it cheaper. For an economic game this is wonderfull.

IT also brings up alot of immersion to the game in this way.
And also brings down the leap you have now from all normal priced buildings and suddenly you have the monument wich is supper expensive and has a total other way of building it.
When you bring it earlier in the game players are more familiar with it and nothing is being build in a day.

ruuti0
02-11-2018, 11:07 AM
I got in the wrong with the term monument.
I just believe a bit more expensive building projects early on would be great to.
Like if you could build a smaller version of the warehouse more early on.
Larger civbuildings like the larger church or a university or theatre or whatever civ building they throw in could have a simular way like monuments.
Ik gives a bigger immersion of feeling your town to grow ofter point and instant build buildings.
They can also make ou start those buildings more early on in the game rather then waiting to save up some coin/resources to be able to spend it att once.
But then again i would love to see some minor build animations for all buildings anyway so maybe i'l go in to deeply over this.

Yeah, I think you have point here.

It would be good option.

It also would bring strategy to play game: Do I want to focus on these bigger & bit more expensive buildings or do I focus more to warships in case there is war coming.

There could be new kind of bigger buildings also like for example Parliament house and Art exhibition. Buildings like that could be build for later civ levels and Art exhibition could bring satisfaction for upper class and Parliament house could make your society to work better overall, less crime, willing to play higher taxes without losing hapiness so easily, less rebelion and so on. Of course you still would control your nation, Parliament house(s) would just help you to do that, it would help your citizens feel that they can affect things.

stylisticsagi
02-11-2018, 12:51 PM
I think it can work for all larger buildings, wether it to be civ buildings like the cathedral from 1404 or optional buildings like the historic warehouse.
perhaps even for lower buildings like taverns or the first churches it can work as well.
Perhaps even disaster buildings.
however if we implement this and the game would work with the marketplace simular as in 1404 or 2070 then i also suggest our building suppliers can also get their resources from a marketbuilding instead of only a warehouse.

AgmasGold
02-11-2018, 01:07 PM
No, I wouldn't want churches and disaster buildings to work like that... it would be too much. They need to be carefully chosen buildings that are optional, but provide some benefit, similar to the Historic Warehouse from Anno 1404.

ruuti0
02-11-2018, 03:09 PM
I think it can work for all larger buildings, wether it to be civ buildings like the cathedral from 1404 or optional buildings like the historic warehouse.
perhaps even for lower buildings like taverns or the first churches it can work as well.
Perhaps even disaster buildings.
however if we implement this and the game would work with the marketplace simular as in 1404 or 2070 then i also suggest our building suppliers can also get their resources from a marketbuilding instead of only a warehouse.

Can you more closely say what you mean with "I think it can work for all larger buildings.."

To what idea you referred to and how?


No, I wouldn't want churches and disaster buildings to work like that... it would be too much. They need to be carefully chosen buildings that are optional, but provide some benefit, similar to the Historic Warehouse from Anno 1404.

Work like how?

AgmasGold
02-11-2018, 04:51 PM
Unless I misread what was being said, it was being suggested that disaster buildings and also taverns/churches have multi-stage building to each of them, which I don't think I would like. I know it was just a suggestion, but the buildings that require multiple stages should be specialist buildings - buildings that you usually build only once.

ruuti0
02-11-2018, 05:37 PM
Unless I misread what was being said, it was being suggested that disaster buildings and also taverns/churches have multi-stage building to each of them, which I don't think I would like. I know it was just a suggestion, but the buildings that require multiple stages should be specialist buildings - buildings that you usually build only once.

Okay, yes I want different kind monuments, they are probably kind of buildings that he called "multi-stage buildings", but I agree with you that other, so called "normal" buildings, should be build at once.

stylisticsagi
02-15-2018, 12:27 PM
so placing anti disaster buildings only when disasters occur is acceptabel for you guys?!
Talking about exploits...

ruuti0
02-15-2018, 05:52 PM
so placing anti disaster buildings only when disasters occur is acceptabel for you guys?!
Talking about exploits...

I don't know is it exploit, since developers never put any timer to those buildings when they are activate after building (which is instantly in Annos), they surely had plenty of time (years) to do that, if they wanted it to happen.

Maybe they thought that we are allowed to build them only when needed and save money and resources (destroy them) when we don't need them. Could be that it is just how developers wanted to system be.

AgmasGold
02-15-2018, 06:07 PM
Yeah, placing the building when the disaster happens seems perfectly fine. If you need to delete it again, then you still loose out on the resources.

ruuti0
02-15-2018, 06:49 PM
Yeah, placing the building when the disaster happens seems perfectly fine. If you need to delete it again, then you still loose out on the resources.

Yes I agree.

And you still have to leave room for them anyway, if you want add them later. If you don't have room for disaster buildings, you practically have to delete your other buildings like homes of your workers (or even more important buildings) etc. to get room for disaster builders when disaster come. And you also have to always remember how big is target area (area where disaster building effects), this can be hard without seeing them, because you easily forgot to take that that into account when you build your cities.

stylisticsagi
02-16-2018, 09:15 AM
That's redicules!
p.s. to ruutio alone you made it in another topic perfecty clear you mostly play with the get-all-resources-back on deletion option.
In this way dealing with diseases is completly free. Even building an entire hospital and deleting it is free.
Now i can agree apon gameplay comming over realism but this is redicules.

And evenmore this would exactly be the reason why i suggest to give anti disaster buildings also some kind of bonus wich last so you keep them.
A bonus wich you don't really need but is nice to have.

ruuti0
02-16-2018, 04:29 PM
That's redicules!
p.s. to ruutio alone you made it in another topic perfecty clear you mostly play with the get-all-resources-back on deletion option.
In this way dealing with diseases is completly free. Even building an entire hospital and deleting it is free.
Now i can agree apon gameplay comming over realism but this is redicules.

And evenmore this would exactly be the reason why i suggest to give anti disaster buildings also some kind of bonus wich last so you keep them.
A bonus wich you don't really need but is nice to have.

I meant that I am fine with: "Yeah, placing the building when the disaster happens seems perfectly fine".

I forgot what he said later about what happen to resourcehes etc. :D

What me and AgmasGold mean that gameplay is really fine as it is when it come to getting and deleting disaster builders.

If they would have bonus that I consider enough to keep disaster buildings all the time, I surely would, but in my opion they don't have to add such feature to disaster buildings, I already like how it is. For hospitals I could exception in this and they could give certain kind of protection that make diseases less likely to happen if you got hospitals all the time. I mentioned this also in Contagious diseases thread.

dmdilks
02-16-2018, 08:40 PM
What they should do is the same thing SD did on his Mod of 1404. Take all the buildings that they have been use in all the the older games. 1602, 1503, 1701, & 1404. Must building use between 1500 to 1900 never really change that much.

ruuti0
02-16-2018, 11:14 PM
What they should do is the same thing SD did on his Mod of 1404. Take all the buildings that they have been use in all the the older games. 1602, 1503, 1701, & 1404. Must building use between 1500 to 1900 never really change that much.

Graphics in are waaay more advanced in 1800 than they were in 1404 engine, which mean that it takes a lot of more time to make new buildings and animations for them.

And I highly doubt they will bring old buildings back and I rather myself have buildings that are 1800 timeline buildings, not from past or future.

I believe that more different kind of buildings they make for 1800 = better.

stylisticsagi
02-17-2018, 10:33 AM
Well the church and tavern will always be something wich we will always see returning.
But using all the older version buildings or at least their concepts would make the optional buildings a lot easier.
I don't have to summon them all up. I can only again say how convienient it was to have the lab from 2070 wich was a neccescary building for the civ and also acted like a building wich gave bonusses (creation of items). But also more optional stuff like the tournament from 1404 could be implemented as civ buildings. Perhaps apart from standard bonusses like i suggested earlier we could use more event buttons like the tournament. Imagine 1404 where such a button was on the palace to start a carnival and your whole city would be in a state of celebration and party. a few more models and light effects and you get a whole new immersion of the game. A military display wich make suddenly some military patrols and fanfares wandering along the streets. Perhaps even the disaster buildings can have this to work better for a limited amount of time, sick beds being set up in the street for example or multiple fire carriages in the fire depot. These things can make your city much more alive and you feel much more connected to your people.

ruuti0
02-17-2018, 12:10 PM
But using all the older version buildings or at least their concepts would make the optional buildings a lot easier.

What you mean that it would make buildings a lot easier?

Do you mean easier to make new 3D model of them or what?

stylisticsagi
02-17-2018, 03:47 PM
inspiration and functionality

ruuti0
02-17-2018, 05:05 PM
inspiration and functionality

I am pretty sure it takes much longer to actually create those new 3D objects, animations and add them to game code (new engine, new code) than find out what you want add.

Could be that I am wrong in this, but just my opinion.

AgmasGold
02-17-2018, 08:54 PM
There have been several DevBlogs showing how the game assets are created. Each one is a lot of work to add, and the fact that all the Anno's cover different time periods, probably mean the assets from different games wouldn't be suitable, not to mention they could be in a different format, or lower quality etc.

ruuti0
02-17-2018, 09:23 PM
There have been several DevBlogs showing how the game assets are created. Each one is a lot of work to add, and the fact that all the Anno's cover different time periods, probably mean the assets from different games wouldn't be suitable, not to mention they could be in a different format, or lower quality etc.

Yeah totally agree, thats why I said that it would most likely take much more time to do them than think what you do.

stylisticsagi
02-18-2018, 10:37 AM
agreed but!
Will you claim that in 1404 there where no schools or universities or theatre's?
or 1701 had no prisons or bathouses

This exactly my WHOLE POINT.
Create some diversity in your city with the ability not having to build the same buildings every time over and over.
Just like i suggested in another topic but with the same eyepoint to have your people want more resources but don't need them all to advance so you won't be needing always the same ones and you can start a game diffrent from others.

Some towns grow larger because they developed around a fort, others around a monastry
Some towns started off making beer and traded such while others started from poor with making wine (wich is in anno a late game resource).

And in the late game end you will still be able to build and produce them all.
It help's early to mid game to early late game bring variaty and player choices into the game.

i loved the aspect with factions in 2070 in wich you did not require the same resources at the same time becouse you had diffrent needs for your people.
However it made trade almost impossible because of the factions.
one population wich needs multiple stuff can boost replayability big time and it also boosts trading if done right.

Same goes for buildings if you accompany them with bonusses so you would try to build them all in the end but you will make choices wich one you build first.

The whole map with 2 players can have totally diffrent looks and functions instead of exactly alike and this is what my suggestions are all about.
Why forced to travel on one path if you can take many?

ruuti0
02-19-2018, 07:06 PM
agreed but!
Will you claim that in 1404 there where no schools or universities or theatre's?
or 1701 had no prisons or bathouses

This exactly my WHOLE POINT.
Create some diversity in your city with the ability not having to build the same buildings every time over and over.
Just like i suggested in another topic but with the same eyepoint to have your people want more resources but don't need them all to advance so you won't be needing always the same ones and you can start a game diffrent from others.

Some towns grow larger because they developed around a fort, others around a monastry
Some towns started off making beer and traded such while others started from poor with making wine (wich is in anno a late game resource).

And in the late game end you will still be able to build and produce them all.
It help's early to mid game to early late game bring variaty and player choices into the game.

i loved the aspect with factions in 2070 in wich you did not require the same resources at the same time becouse you had diffrent needs for your people.
However it made trade almost impossible because of the factions.
one population wich needs multiple stuff can boost replayability big time and it also boosts trading if done right.

Same goes for buildings if you accompany them with bonusses so you would try to build them all in the end but you will make choices wich one you build first.

The whole map with 2 players can have totally diffrent looks and functions instead of exactly alike and this is what my suggestions are all about.
Why forced to travel on one path if you can take many?

"Will you claim that in 1404 there where no schools or universities or theatre's?
or 1701 had no prisons or bathouses"

they just can't add everything, in history there were so much different buildings that
you never will see them all in one Anno game. They select certain buildings they feel
are needed and they will also think resources they have. I think they have done good job.
Of course I still hope that they would add more buildings than before and it would make
1800 better than Anno games before it.


I liked Factions too, I hope we see them back at some format.


You also have to remember that it takes a lot of work to make different
kind of buildings to game and add them to game dynamics, its not like
that they can make 100 different buildings in fast moment.

Overall I hope that they add more different buildings than ever before,
it would be really great.

AgmasGold
02-19-2018, 11:29 PM
More, doesn't necessarily mean better (I think this was mentioned in the most recent DevBlog). You can end up with it being confusing and overwhelming. Adding buildings for the sake of having more building is not something I can see ending well.

Look at Anno 1404/2070, apart from the ornamental buildings (and one or 2 of the very first production chains in 2070 - tools and building modules + microchips), each building had its own individual purpose. There wasn't multiple activity buildings needed to progress your population, for example.

ruuti0
02-20-2018, 03:21 PM
More, doesn't necessarily mean better (I think this was mentioned in the most recent DevBlog). You can end up with it being confusing and overwhelming. Adding buildings for the sake of having more building is not something I can see ending well.

Look at Anno 1404/2070, apart from the ornamental buildings (and one or 2 of the very first production chains in 2070 - tools and building modules + microchips), each building had its own individual purpose. There wasn't multiple activity buildings needed to progress your population, for example.

"More, doesn't necessarily mean better", true you have to estimate each case separetely, you can't just say that more isn't better in this case if it is so in some other case.

That said, in Anno we never had too many buildings, I never heard anybody complaining that Anno had too many buildings, but I heard many people complaining that they don't enough buildings. That said it is pretty clear, that Anno could add more different buildings than ever before and it 99% surely would work well.

For example Iif they would add 100 new buildings then surely it would be confusing and overwhelming for most players, but if they add let say 10 (or even 15) buildings more than Anno version which had most buildings so far, it is very unlikely that anybody would suddendly start feel that is is too overwhelming. Of course there are certain few individuals who might think that 10 different buildings in one game is max number, but I meant here majority, let say 99% of all Anno players.

"Adding buildings for the sake of having more building is not something I can see ending well."

I think you got this wrong, I don't think anybody meant that here.
I think that of course people want that new buildings would affect to gameplay clearly (they would be integrated to gameplay with their own way) and would make diversity to game. I think that pretty much everybody
who want more buildings want also that those buildings affect gameplay too with their individual way.

stylisticsagi
02-21-2018, 06:41 PM
ugh i don't know how many times i have to repeat myself in this topic...
It's not just about more buildings it's about variaty.

Let me put it in another way.
Let's take 2070.
Remove the factions but keep all the buildings and one population.
By defininging wich civil building you build you get a few bonusses wich can add to diffrent playstyes(as we know many players in 2070 used to stick to one faction+tech so basicly one third of the game is something they seldom use). By this diffrences are smaller so you are more eager to try out diffrent settings. With factions you need to have both to use the best stuff to your liking (wind energy-coal plants vs oil rigs or oil mining on land) If you can putt all these things in one basket yo can create more population levels.
2070 with factions: worker-employee-engineer-buisnessmen
2070 without factions and one population: worker-employee-suggestion-engineer-suggestion-buisnessmen-suggestion.

even in 1404 the boundry between patricians and nobleman could be quite big.

Now if you think i't going off topic i can asure you i'm not.
Such a population is only possible with lots of building options. And then you can still define the diffrences of your city compared to another player by your choice of civic buildings and how they will impact your cities skyline.

what if you can give your city more looks by defining a religion.
Why do we have to build the church? why not another religious building or perhaps none at all but building a scientific building?
It does not only give players what he can build it also gives the players the choice NOT to build something without stopping the progression of your city.

And the consumer products for your people could act in the same way.
Imagine 2070 with a population wich can use all of it's products as one big population.
A population wich could advanced with junk food or health food yet gives you a tax bonus if you can provide both (talking about boosting trade amongst players).
"More, doesn't necessarily mean better" i completly agree. However how do you feel with the current way "do it like this, or stop advancing"?

AgmasGold
02-21-2018, 09:58 PM
I kind of like the "do it like this" way... it feels well-balanced and straightforward, while remaining challenging to carry out. I feel like the game would be confused with multiple subsets of buildings that achieve the same purpose as one another.

ruuti0
02-22-2018, 03:33 PM
I kind of like the "do it like this" way... it feels well-balanced and straightforward, while remaining challenging to carry out. I feel like the game would be confused with multiple subsets of buildings that achieve the same purpose as one another.

"I feel like the game would be confused with multiple subsets of buildings that achieve the same purpose as one another"

Who say that they have to it that way?

AgmasGold
02-22-2018, 06:22 PM
No-one but as far as I can tell, that is what was being suggested here.

ruuti0
02-22-2018, 08:18 PM
No-one but as far as I can tell, that is what was being suggested here.

I don't know that who you mean, but I can say that I didn't mean that kind of system, from my point that doesn't make any sense, because I want buildings that are integrated to game dynamics (with way that they are needed for something to work, each with their own way of course)

silentSN0W
03-25-2018, 12:55 AM
Hopefully a much expanded one at that.