The problem I have with the construction of buildings in TW

[Strategos Alexandros]

I love the total war series, but I don't like how the construction of buildings is represented throughout the tw series. So i like to name those problems I have and give a possible solution to them.

My first problem is the upgrade system of some buildings. For instance in the original Rome, you could build sewers, then public baths, then aquaducts and finally double aquaducts. The stupid thing is that it seems that the sewers are demolished for public baths and the public baths in turn for aquaducts. Why can't I have sewers, public baths and aquaducts at the same time? Shogun II example, you can't have barracks and a hunting lodge in one city.
Soltution: Very simple, no upgrade system if the buildings are different and you can all build them independently.

That might give a problem with if CA decides to create building slots as in Shogun II. Building slots feel artificial and a non realistic limit for the construction of buildings.
Solution: Get rid of them.

Now to continue with building upgrades. First to continue with my first example: with aquaducts it seems logical in my mind that you could improve a aquaduct by building another layer on top of it, as if you're adding a new lane on a highway. Stupid thing is that I then first need to build a single aquaduct and then immideatly upgrade it to a double aquaduct, if squalor is high. That's like building a 2X2 highway and then need to upgrade it to a 3x3 if you know beforehand that a 2x2 highway can't handle the traffic demand. Another random example are city walls. First I need to build a wooden wall, then one from stone and so on. Kind of stupid if the situation demands the construction of large stone walls as soon as possible.
Solution: You could skip some upgrades and build the thing that is most suitable for demand. From there you can still upgrade it. And upgrading is cheaper then construction from scratch.

Does anyone agree with me?

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Agree with Op.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Sure, from a logical sense. But it's a game.

Technically, I should be able to build all units at once, from the very beginning of the game.

But that would be totally boring.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Sure, from a logical sense. But it's a game.

Technically, I should be able to build all units at once, from the very beginning of the game.

But that would be totally boring.

I agree with you, but if you lock higher tier buildings and units with techs, then you don't have that problem.

[SamueleD]

Agree with OP, but the high tier buildings should be locked by techs, so you can't just conquer a big city and build the last tier of barracks from turn 1, also building last level from scratch should take longer then upgrading and, as you said, cost more.

[Sean951]

Well, in many cases it makes sense. You wouldn't build a stone wall around a minor settlement, nor would you build a massive aqueduct to service a city with less than tens of thousands of people. In game, we know that we will need these things, but the people who lived at the time would not have.

That said, I agree that I should be able to build all the building in any settlement, as well as the coolness factor of having every level of some buildings shown when they are clearly only tangentially related (such as baths and aqueducts).

[MathiasOfAthens]

I dont want to be limited to 5 building slots. I liked the Rome and M2 system of nearly unlimited amount of building slots.

[emperor77]

I too miss the old building system...

[eregost]

I prefer the Shogun 2 system as it's better for gameplay by forcing you to specialise cities.

[SamueleD]

I prefer the Shogun 2 system as it's better for gameplay by forcing you to specialise cities.

It makes sense while the city is small, but why would the capital of your empire be able to train only infantry or being only a big market? There is no reason to think a city like Roma should not be able to have all the possible buildings.

[eregost]

It makes sense while the city is small, but why would the capital of your empire be able to train only infantry or being only a big market? There is no reason to think a city like Roma should not be able to have all the possible buildings.

Like I said, it makes sense for gameplay not historical accuracy. Historical accuracy comes 2nd to gameplay. If all cities can build all buildings at once then that makes them less strategically important. Furthermore the max city size in Shogun 2 CAN build most building chains so if Rome is a large city it's not a problem.

[SamueleD]

Like I said, it makes sense for gameplay not historical accuracy. Historical accuracy comes 2nd to gameplay. If all cities can build all buildings at once then that makes them less strategically important. Furthermore the max city size in Shogun 2 CAN build most building chains so if Rome is a large city it's not a problem.

I agree that gameplay is of paramount importance, but I think that you can keep both in this case, by making buildings locked by techs and high tier cities difficult to achieve (cost, pop needs like RTW, resource drain, like S2TW, problems with population, like RotS), most of the time the city will be developed as a specialized production center, but if you want to go the metropolis way, then you can increase the number of things that it can do, until it does all of them, but it won't be easy and it will be more cost effetive to just go with a few specialized centers, instead of a huge metropolis that does everything. This way you are encouraged to specialize, but you don't find yourself with the paradox "I have a huge city, but it can only train archers, because there would be no place for merchants otherwise" if you, for some reason, want to get to metropolis level.

[eregost]

I agree that gameplay is of paramount importance, but I think that you can keep both in this case, by making buildings locked by techs and high tier cities difficult to achieve (cost, pop needs like RTW, resource drain, like S2TW, problems with population, like RotS), most of the time the city will be developed as a specialized production center, but if you want to go the metropolis way, then you can increase the number of things that it can do, until it does all of them, but it won't be easy and it will be more cost effetive to just go with a few specialized centers, instead of a huge metropolis that does everything. This way you are encouraged to specialize, but you don't find yourself with the paradox "I have a huge city, but it can only train archers, because there would be no place for merchants otherwise" if you, for some reason, want to get to metropolis level.

This I can agree with. If diminishing returns are implemented the more you cram into the same city, say construction costs and time increase the more buildings you have then I'd be totally fine with it.

[Sebashaw]

For sure, I don't want again the system of Napoleon or Empire!

[Ichon]

I would like the option that razing buildings is done only 1 tier at a time. Especially with fleets being more dangerous now. I think it is more of an exploit to raid and raze a city to nothing in 1 turn than to take several turns to raze building slots to change the building types of the city to allow different focus which is artificially forced anyway as OP says. Sacking a city shouldn't reduce building tier but it should partially damage buildings and if faction lacks the tech to build those buildings they should also lack the tech to repair them so they could slowly raze buildings over time to construct their own cultural buildings or leave them in disrepair hoping to get the techs to use them soon. Would make campaigns progress more realistically in my opinion where if Gauls manage to unite and capture Rome they don't automatically gain a huge city with all its advanced buildings outside their tech tree. If they wanted to use the buildings they would not be able to sack... in which case making Rome a vassal might be a better option to get tribute/military units from culture which can use the city.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Of course you can't just pump the highest tier buildings everywhere in your realm. There have to be some limitations, like money, population and tech. Otherwise it would be indeed to easy. Come to think of it I also think that it is a good idea for having maintenance costs for buildings. The higher the tier, the higher the cost. All those limitations should be enough to stop spamming high tier buildings.

[Ichon]

Of course you can't just pump the highest tier buildings everywhere in your realm. There have to be some limitations, like money, population and tech. Otherwise it would be indeed to easy. Come to think of it I also think that it is a good idea for having maintenance costs for buildings. The higher the tier, the higher the cost. All those limitations should be enough to stop spamming high tier buildings.

Maybe not for ALL buildings but certainly roads, walls, ports, a few that require active upkeep and repair. In this case it is not always the best to create a higher tier or road within a poor province but the strategic advantages might be worth it.

[Sean951]

I think it will somewhat depend on how they are doing the regions/provinces. Imagine if, instead of each city having full access to all buildings, you built up the outlying towns with say, a training ground, a market, temples etc. while the main capital (Rome for central Italy, likely Syracuse for Magna Graecia and so on) is where you put the administrative buildings and barracks for the garrison. With the revamped system, all kinds of ideas are possible. More than anything else, that is what I'm most excited for as the reveals continue.

[ChairmanCrassus]

My first problem is the upgrade system of some buildings. For instance in the original Rome, you could build sewers, then public baths, then aquaducts and finally double aquaducts. The stupid thing is that it seems that the sewers are demolished for public baths and the public baths in turn for aquaducts. Why can't I have sewers, public baths and aquaducts at the same time? Shogun II example, you can't have barracks and a hunting lodge in one city.
Soltution: Very simple, no upgrade system if the buildings are different and you can all build them independently.

That might give a problem with if CA decides to create building slots as in Shogun II. Building slots feel artificial and a non realistic limit for the construction of buildings.
Solution: Get rid of them.

Now to continue with building upgrades. First to continue with my first example: with aquaducts it seems logical in my mind that you could improve a aquaduct by building another layer on top of it, as if you're adding a new lane on a highway. Stupid thing is that I then first need to build a single aquaduct and then immideatly upgrade it to a double aquaduct, if squalor is high. That's like building a 2X2 highway and then need to upgrade it to a 3x3 if you know beforehand that a 2x2 highway can't handle the traffic demand. Another random example are city walls. First I need to build a wooden wall, then one from stone and so on. Kind of stupid if the situation demands the construction of large stone walls as soon as possible.
Solution: You could skip some upgrades and build the thing that is most suitable for demand. From there you can still upgrade it. And upgrading is cheaper then construction from scratch.

Does anyone agree with me?

+ rep.

Definitely agree with you, you shouldn't be forced to follow a construction chain. Just make the buildings more expensive and longer to build for game balancing reasons if that is the reason why they have that system. Also requiring you to research certain technologies would be a nice additional way to balance things.

Also hated the unit slot system in Shogun 2, it felt retarded.

[Ngazi]

I love the total war series, but I don't like how the construction of buildings is represented throughout the tw series. So i like to name those problems I have and give a possible solution to them.

My first problem is the upgrade system of some buildings. For instance in the original Rome, you could build barracks, then militia barrack, then army barracks and finally city barracks. The stupid thing is that it seems that the barracks are demolished for militia barracks and the militia barracks in turn for army barracks. Why can't I have barracks, militia barracks and city barracks at the same time? Shogun II example, you can't have barracks and a hunting lodge in one city.
Soltution: Very simple, no upgrade system if the buildings are different and you can all build them independently.

That might give a problem with if CA decides to create building slots as in Shogun II. Building slots feel artificial and a non realistic limit for the construction of buildings.
Solution: Get rid of them.

Now to continue with building upgrades. First to continue with my first example: with barracks it seems logical in my mind that you could improve a barracks by building another layer on top of it, as if you're adding a new lane on a highway. Stupid thing is that I then first need to build a barracks and then immideatly upgrade it to a militia barracks, if squalor is high. That's like building a 2X2 highway and then need to upgrade it to a 3x3 if you know beforehand that a 2x2 highway can't handle the traffic demand. Another random example are city walls. First I need to build a wooden wall, then one from stone and so on. Kind of stupid if the situation demands the construction of large stone walls as soon as possible.
Solution: You could skip some upgrades and build the thing that is most suitable for demand. From there you can still upgrade it. And upgrading is cheaper then construction from scratch.

Does anyone agree with me?