Why the limit on Settlement size in 1.4?

[Krak]

A thread like this can easily sound very negative so I will start of with a huge thank you to KK and the rest of the team for there wonderful work. This is truly a mod of the highest quality.

The reason for my wondering has to do with the new way cities and castles are reduced to a certain size. I simple don’t get the logic behind these restrictions.

First - cities. I have not read any reasons for the reduction of the number of cities able to become huge – and as fare as I know it hasn’t been a change widely requested by forum members. Sometimes it has been argued that it has to do with “historical” reasons and since some cities in the Lore were small villages they shouldn’t be able to become huge cities. I am more along with the outlook form EB that says that they deliver the starting situation as precisely as possible and then it is up to the player and the flow of the game to determined where things go. By restricting the building options each game will follow more in the same patterns and I personally like to determine myself which cities I want to make the backbone of my empire.

This new feature will also be too much micro management (again my opinion) where I have so send armies till and from the few big cities. Still I can do that but it will be a big handicap for the AI. There is also the fact that a lot of cities will run out of things too build and therefore again loose a lot of the empire building aspect that I like. In my games I like to make one city a troop centre, another a economic centre and a third my centre for agent making. Now this will all have to be the same city.

Lastly there will be nations who wont have access to the few big centres and therefore their entire building tree will have to end with large city - or face the fact that they have to conquer a huge city too be able to build some of their buildings. Again a way of planning that is beyond the AI.

Second - castles. The reason I’ve heard for the change is that the AI doesn’t do well at sieges against several walls. I totally agree with this but since a fortress still has 2 walls I don’t think this solution is the way to go. Instead it will just give the AI a handicap in regard to troop training and producing the best of its units and thereby destroying the balance between the different factions between those that have citadels and the all the others. (Or accepting that a nation might conquer a citadel and then not getting any additional units of other advantages for their troubles.)

A more radical solution too the problem of several walls would be to make all settlements cities. I really don’t think that the distinction between the 2 settlement types have ever worked and I have always felt castles to be at bit boring because they lack the building, tax and rebellion options that cities have. It would be easier to balance the economy for the different nations since castle heavy factions will no longer be at a disadvantage. In stead permanent forts could be used as a replacement for castles at the historic locations (such as Helms Deep) I know this is not a perfect solution but a lot of interesting research into permanent forts are being made in the SS modforum and in Princes, Kings and Heroes forum.

This was just a couple of observations/ideas and I sincerely hope this post doesn’t come of as insulting since I have nothing but the greatest respect for the makers of Third Age.

[Russian Gondor]

I smell a good forums member if you continue. You really write a lot.

[Twist of Cain]

I smell a good forums member if you continue. You really write a lot.

Some people would be better forum members if they wrote less. Present company not implied, of course.

The reason for my wondering has to do with the new way cities and castles are reduced to a certain size. I simple don’t get the logic behind these restrictions.

The scope of an entire campaign covers maybe 4 generations, which should be kept in mind when considering how much growth should be possible. Without the limitations, every minor collection of huts would become a metropolis or fortress...

[desean]

i like how things are atm, i actually would like if settlement growth would be even more restrictive
to be honest there should be only 5 huge cities (Mithlond, Dol amroth, umbar, annuminas, Pelargir) in the entire map
and 3 citadels (Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul/Ithil and the Dark tower of Sauron)

[nalivayko]

i like how things are atm, i actually would like if settlement growth would be even more restrictive
to be honest there should be only 5 huge cities (Mithlond, Dol amroth, umbar, annuminas, Pelargir) in the entire map
and 3 citadels (Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul/Ithil and the Dark tower of Sauron)

I'd rather use Esgaroth instead of Annuminas, but I do agree with the idea that less huge cities is better. I would take it farther even and have some settlements in places like Enedwaith and former Rhovanion lands always stay villages.

However, I would like to see the settlements mentioned starting as huge cities/citadels and almost fully upgraded to allow hiring of the elite units from the start. Less fortunate factions should have their capitals come close and be able to produce most of the roster from the start as well. The rest of the cities/castles should provide militia and regional units, just as they did in the "RL".

[Vifarc]

For me the settlement limits are good, as I build everything even what I don't really use nor need.
With these limits, at last I can put golds in building an army!

[Muffer Nl]

Well you can still produce almost all the units in large city's and fortresses. The only ones you cannot train are already AOR to huge city's so there goes your largest argument. I think I would have liked the new feature rather then hated it. Sadly never got past turn 33...

[Point Blank]

I think its a good feature, it makes the few settlements that can reach huge size even more important, and increases the depth of the strategic game. Pity the AI doesn't have a clue!

[Coeur de Lion]

I think in some cases, especially those related to lore, the limit should be stricter.
Take, for example, Henneth Annun - from vague recollections I believe that to be a network of tunnels based around a waterfall in the middle of an isolated area of woodland...in the game, it has the potential to be a large city with tens of thousands of people in it. What is more, the elusive, mysterious and deadly Ithilien rangers can only be recruited once the city reaches it's 'large' stature.

I am in total love with this mod, however, like a long term girlfriend, there are always those little things you wished she didn't, or in this case did, do.

[Smaug]

I personally like this new restriction. It gives genuine additional challenge without an artificial feel in it unlike the many scripted boosts for AI.

[damnmap]

I thought that it was a very nice touch... in 1.3 I just maxed out taxes now I actually have to think about my settlements. Do I max out taxes OR let those small towns become large as soon as possible by lowering taxes and maxing their farming? Then I can build ports, mines, extra free garrsion... do I max out Pelargirs taxes or rush it into a city and get a huge bonus from paved roads/extra naval trade slot?

>or face the fact that they have to conquer a huge city too be able to build some of their buildings

I can agree that this is a problem for certain factions e.g. rhun, dale and eriador

[Point Blank]

Note that RR/RC also varies settlement growth rates based on site suitability and race/faction It combines well with KK's changes.

[DarthDisco]

Be forewarned, this is a long post. If you don't feel like reading, skip down to the bottom to see a point form synopsis of my idea.

I heartily disagree with the idea of letting settlements grow too large. While I understand and support the idea that the game is only meant to simulate the starting point in the lore, there is only so much change that we can realistically affect to that world. I don't believe it would be possible, for instance, to grow Hobbiton, a village of some 200 - 300 hobbits, into a huge stone walled city... ever... and certainly not in a span of only 10 - 20 years (40 turns). While I am content with the current system that allows some cities to grow beyond large and others not to, if I could, I would like to further alter the system so that almost no cities can be upgraded to a bigger size at all.

In my ideal mod, any settlement that begins as a village would be able to build the wooden pallisade, but no higher. Similarly Mote and Baily castles would be able to build Wooden Castles. I could even allow settlements that start as Wooden Pallisades to build small town walls. Aside from that, any settlement that starts with a stone wall should, I think, remain at whichever level it is at the game start. Under this system there would in fact be no settlements that warrant 'Huge' city status. And the only large cities would be Dol-Amroth, Dale, Umbar and a few others. Citadels would still include Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Isengard and the like.

I would also argue that this would not necessarily destroy faction balance. The building tree can be modified so that all of a factions units can be constructed, given the limitations of their settlement size. In its simplest incarnation, you could simply create an "upgrade" building that has the effect of allowing you to build the next level of barracks etc. without actually changing the size of the settlement. Many of the tier 3 and above units are already AoR specific, so this would not really be a huge change for them.

To give you a better idea of what I am proposing, let me use Eriador as an example. They are arguably the weakest faction, militarily, for the side of good. They have no Tier 5 units, and only 2 Tier 4 units (Greenway Guardsmen and Dunadain Rangers). Under my proposed settlement system, settlements like Hobbiton, Longbottom and Barrow Downs would start as villages. Michael Delving and Annuminas would have a wooden palisade, Bree and Staddle would have a small wooden wall. Amun Sul and Fornost would both be a Mote and Baily.

Each settlement would be able to purchase one wall upgrade once the requisite population had been reached. After that, with the next population cap a new upgrade would become available, unlocking the next tier of buildings, but not upgrading the settlement's walls. You can call it 'Population Density' if you want. The whole population system is completely unrealistic anyways and cannot be made to mimic the lore accurately. At least under this system, you can still build the same kinds of armies and upgrade your cities, but crucially, The shire will not become a stone walled bastion producing massive armies for Eriador. This could be further embraced by using some unique upgrades for certain factions: The elves, for instance, could utilize the 'Lithuanian' style settlement from the Kingdom's expansion, as their settlements do not employ large stone fortifications.

Some may argue that this kind of system would unbalance certain factions. Eriador for example, would be completely unable to build any Fortresses. To this I answer that you are only half right. While Eriador may not be able to build any Fortresses, they can still recruit the same armies, and where the AI is concerned, the kind of walls a city has do not make a huge difference. More importantly, Eriador should be weaker. Think about where they are located, in the North West of middle-earth with the High Elves and Dwarves surrounding them and only the OotMM for an enemy. Each faction is not meant to be balanced against all others, but balanced for its standing in the hierarchy. By comparison, Gondor would start with a citadel and several castles already built.

I think I got a little carried away there, so here I will summarize briefly my idea in its entirety.

1. Settlements should start at a size realistic to the lore
2. Any settlement which starts at Tier 3 or higher should not be able to upgrade its walls
3. Any settlement which starts below Tier 3 should be able to upgrade its walls one level, two at most
4. Beyond the available wall upgrades, a separate upgrade building will give access to higher levels of construction in each settlement, up to the current limits in v1.4

[desean]

1 wall upgrade... i like it, its lore acurate, goes abit against the TW thing but by GOD i like it!
OMG its so perfect and so simple...

[Vifarc]

Michael Delving

That's "Michel Delving", the Hobbit capital.

micel is Old English for 'big', 'great': it occurs also in Mickleburg, a Mannish name for the Dwarf-city of Belegost. It serves to distinguish this larger township from Little Delving, that stood nearby to the north.

The Encyclopaedia of Arda

[JackLong69]

Make one hidden ressource for each settlement lvl and give each region the appropiate ressource. It can be done easily. The only problem is how do you know how much ppl inhabit each region? Lore specialists must solve this first. After all it is one more step towards accurate representation of the Tolkien work and therefore the creation of an awesome mod.

[daddytorgo]

Interesting idea Darth - I'd think a submod doing that should be possible...

[Ellin Athinaios]

@DarthDisco Very interesting idea...

[JackLong69]

Its an old idea from EB.

[Ellin Athinaios]

Its an old idea from EB.

Not the settlement size limits.