Growth Balance Script - Huh? Buggy Logic?
This came up in another thread and I just thought it deserved special attention since to a lot of people the financial changes made to the game are pretty much something magical and mystical that goes on behind the scenes and the outcome each turn is something like a try at a slot machine.
Thanks in advance to Demokritos who pointed this out, but the Growth Balance Script which assigns additional costs to settlements based on their size does not agree in practice to what it says in the DLV Handbook.
The Handbook says "The player incurs increasing costs per settlement as the settlements increase in size. For settlements: level 1 -50fl, level 2 -100fl, level 3 -200fl, level 4 -400fl, level 5 -800fl (only cities have a level 5). This simulates the greater amount of graft, waste and corruption as cities expand."
The campaign_script file, however, has radically different costs: for cities -50/-100/-200/-500/-2000 and for castles -100/-200/-400/-1000/-4000.
Not only is the script inconsistent with the handbook, but it's also clearly a departure from the logic of the growth balancing as how in the world would there be greater graft, waste and corruption in a castle than in a city.
Using my current English campaign as an example I have fortresses held at Bordeaux, Metz, Angers and Bern (I can't afford to upgrade Nottingham) and their average income per turn is about 1000 florins.
Is the cost in the script an error or were the costs changed from something that was logical to something simply for the sake of balancing and to increase the difficulty of the game?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by donlas
