Post by Kaian-a-coel in Settlement Influence comments

Viewing post in Settlement Influence comments

I prefer a region-based system rather than a distance-based one. I feel like it would be more realistic, as it would enforce natural borders like rivers and mountains. Maybe have a mix of both, with a small influence radius that doesn't expand or not very much, and otherwise go by region. So if you settle near the border between biomes you can go a bit on the other side, but you're otherwise bound to natural borders. Something I feel is important.

If the borders of settlements and maskling territories follow rivers and mountains, rather than being circles that ignore terrain, then border friction feels more natural. If the masklings attack you because you built a tower two tiles too far to the left and its circle overlapped with their invisible circle, it feels arbitrary and annoying. If you piss them off because you crossed a clearly visible, unchanging boundary, then it makes them feel more human. "This is our side of the river, this is yours" is much better than "You can get within 144 squares of our huts, if you get even one step closer we'll shank you."

Expansion should in my opinion bound to milestones allowing you to claim more regions as "core". Those milestones could simply be population (IMO something exponential like 150-350-600-1000 rather than a flatter 200-400-600-800), wealth, or later in development be tied to achievements like successfully developing a noble class or technology.

>I think most or all of my cities would fail that check.

Looking at the cities you posted, at a glance Scalestander port is on a single region, it passes. Grasschopper port looks to be on four regions, but at 1600+ citizens I think it could be allowed one or two more, so it passes. Wallstander on the other hand seems to sit on three regions, and at 229 it should be allowed two, so if the region-based system was in place, you most likely would've had to stay on one side of the lake, maybe making your town more vertical instead.

>I would also limit how closely settlements can build to each other, requiring them to merge administratively first.

Forbid settling into another settlement area of influence (core regions + regions adjacent to core), can't expand into another settlement's area of influence unless it's for a merge.

>I'm unsure of the best way to effectively limit settlement size.

I think you'd need more systems in place, like happiness or diseases, before an adequate soft-cap can really be implemented. As it stands, hauling inefficiencies and FPS death act as a soft cap.

Commodore Shawn7 years ago

Expansion should in my opinion bound to milestones allowing you to claim more regions as "core".

I really like that idea. The UI might be a bit tricky, but I think it's worth an attempt.

I think you'd need more systems in place, like happiness or diseases, before an adequate soft-cap can really be implemented.

That's one of the plans for settlement happiness. Settlement size would decrease happiness. As settlements grow larger and larger you'll have to acquire more and more luxuries to keep the population satisfied. Diseases would be another good (and historically accurate) way to soft cap populations.

Kaian-a-coel7 years ago

>The UI might be a bit tricky

We'll need a region view/overlay in any case, to see where the regions end and who owns what. It could be done through there in a fashion similar to building upgrades ("influence area of settlement A" "1: claim as core" "you need X citizens to claim as core"). Or, if we go by my favoured idea of Town Hall buildings, inspecting a town hall (or trying to build one) may tell you what you need. The Settlement Info screen might also see use here, with different pages. I think eventually this screen is likely to require some expansion anyway as a menu or ledger of sorts, to see everything that's going on with the settlement.

hurleyef7 years ago

I really like the idea of certain structure providing administrative functions in general. Going back to what I said earlier about not selecting a city like you do currently, you could move most or all of the settlement info menu to the town hall. Surplus management is very important, but not until a certain point in a settlement's development. Or perhaps add a quartermaster for surplus management and have the town hall for planning functions like the top third of the settlement info window plus info necessary for expansion, etc. This could also provide ways for colonies to specialize further. The idea is that you grow into needing the services provided by these structures. We already have some of that with the way that the tradehouse works.

On the kingdom level, there could be another structure that provides even more advanced functions required for managing a kingdom, perhaps providing advanced interfaces used for balancing resources and populations across many settlements. Call it a palace and have it make the hosting city your capital, and maybe provide local bonuses as well. You could then take this further to the empire level, perhaps as some major long term upgrade or series of upgrades to your palace, with perhaps further regional administrative structures as well. They could also provide broader ui elements, such as markings on the world/region/empire/whatever map. Or maybe you don't start counting the year number until you build a palace and found a kingdom.

hurleyef7 years ago

I went back through my cities and I think you've won me over, with a couple of caveats.

First, I think their is some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a region. I'm viewing Scalestander Port as straddling 3-4 of them, one forest and the rest plains. Wallstander Village lies across 4-5: a forest, barren plain, grassy plain, and one or two mountain, depending on where the boundary might fall. Grasschopper Port is was my first city and is just absurd. I'm currently leaning towards the idea that cities in the 1500-2000 range should be scarce. Your capital and maybe one other large trade and manufacturing center in a large kingdom, supporting by a network of 8-10 smaller settlements. I think most should be in the 150-500 range.

I'm with you on rivers and coasts forming great natural borders. I think a good system could have you settle a single region, consisting of an area about the size of Wallstander Village (ignoring the region boundaries on that map.) Selecting a site to settle would highlight the region claimed, making explicit any borders not already obvious from a coastline or biome change. You could then claim two adjacent regions fairly early on, with the others accessible later.

Commodore Shawn7 years ago

First, I think their is some ambiguity as to what exactly constitutes a region.

Regions are a little nebulous in 1.3. During world generation a noise map is sampled to pick "biome region points". Chunks then assign themselves to the closest "biome region point", which determines the biome of the chunk as well as river placement. Multiple nearby "biome region points" can end up with an identical biome, which renders the borders between them invisible.

In 1.5 the generator will get an overhaul, and regions will be permanent fixtures. I'm aiming to have a single region roughly fill a 1920 x 1080. Individual regions will vary, but that's the target. The regions will also be visible to some extent in the UI, probably though the region map.

Selecting a site to settle would highlight the region claimed, making explicit any borders not already obvious from a coastline or biome change.

That's precisely my plan, it will make things nice and obvious.

itch.io

Viewing post in Settlement Influence comments