question about cost of buildings in queue

[NosPortatArma]

I have a good governor who lowers the cost of buildings. as i understand it I do not actually pay for the buildings until it is actually their turn to be built. But what I wonder is, if the cost lowering trait for some reason is removed (general moves, or dies, or loses trait) will i still have to pay the lowered cost provided i put the buildings in the queue while the trait was active? Or does the game make a new cost-evaluation for each building in the queue, when it is their turn to be built? is it possible to have a good buliding governor go to many cities and start building queues, and then he do not have to stay in the city, and i still pay a lower price for buildings?

[Armaneus]

As long as you do not remove the building from the queue once the governor has "purchased" it, it will bill you the lower cost, even if he has moved on (literally or figuratively). It is fairly common for Medieval 2 players to have a "builder" governor and then a "growth" or "money" governor, with the builder going through the cities placing buildings in queue, and then having the growth or trade governor then take over. EB 2 tries to curtail that abuse by having the "satisfied supervisor" and similar traits where a governor gets comfortable in the city he currently controls, with that trait lost if he ends the turn out of that city. Also "fairly common" may be a stretch, but there are quite a few M2TW guides that tell you how to develop each governor type to abuse the mechanics to their utmost (works very well for mods with long-lived governors like Third Age Total War).

[NosPortatArma]

thank you very much for reply

ok so eb rewards if i stay in one city, but do they punish for moving too much? other than witholding reward that is. the governor does not have satisfied supervisor trait, but "ergepistates (supervisor of public buildings)" and "excellent builder". i am pergamom btw. any idea if those traits can be lost? i think those two traits are good enough that i still benefit more from moving him around, even without the other trait.

[Kull]

In v2.3 this will be harder to do. Most of the building cost reduction ancillaries are either mutually exclusive or non-transferrable (or both), and the bonus levels have been reduced for traits and ancillaries. In the future, players can still exploit this to some degree, but you'll be hard pressed to get even 20% reductions (for some factions, the current system allows for "trait+ancillary tiering" that provides 30-50% cost reductions which is utterly ludicrous)

[Jurand of Cracow]

In v2.3 this will be harder to do. Most of the building cost reduction ancillaries are either mutually exclusive or non-transferrable (or both), and the bonus levels have been reduced for traits and ancillaries. In the future, players can still exploit this to some degree, but you'll be hard pressed to get even 20% reductions (for some factions, the current system allows for "trait+ancillary tiering" that provides 30-50% cost reductions which is utterly ludicrous)

I think it depends on the point of view. The other one is: "skills, ethics and knowledge of some people had big impacts on the costs of the infrastructural buiding. The experienced, educated and not-corrupt could build something many times cheaper than the others". Just have a look at the infrastructure building during communism in Poland. The archtects botched up projects resulting the same things had to be build many times, the managers would steal as much building materials or money or services as possibe (many villas were build with the concrete from a motorway), the chief engineers would be unable to realize the plans. But sometimes a right manager would find it place and time an a project would be concluded with 10% costs of the other projects.
Or just think about Berlin-Brandenburg Flughafen.
I believe that big differences in the costs are it's not unthinkable for the past as well (and maybe even more).

The other argument is for the gameplay: the players will pay attention to the general's traits only if they provide substantial benefits. Otherwise why to bother - 5%? And yet we want the players to bother, it's why we're making the traits.

So I'd vote for leaving the possibiliies of having trait + anciallary tiering in EBII. (I'll try to make it reasonable in the SSHIP).
Nevertheless, I think that all human/animal anciallaries should be non-transferable - otherwise we make them theoretically immortal

[Kull]

We didn't eliminate building cost reductions, we just removed the fantasy exploit element. A great builder with an ancillary or two can still provide some nice savings.

[QuintusSertorius]

Many ancillaries represent members of staff who could be transferred and would actually be replaced by different people over time. Only the genuinely unique ones are non-transferrable, by design.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Many ancillaries represent members of staff who could be transferred and would actually be replaced by different people over time. Only the genuinely unique ones are non-transferrable, by design.

Ok, this is one perspective, I understand it's valid for the EBII, fair play.
Nevertheless, I tilt towards another view: all human/animal ancillaries represent unique people/creatures who feel attachment to a general (or vice versa) and because of this are not transferable (otherwise you've got a Master Smitch or a Swift Steed serving for 100 years to generals from 4 different generations). This result also in stacking inferior ancillaries on older generals (to die), while passing the better ones to the young. I don't like it, I prefer to make probabilities of acquiring the ancillaries higher but make all of them die at the moment their master dies.
However, the titles (in the SSHIP there're provincional governors and ministerial ones, and also crowns for the FL) represent staff accompaning the holder and as such they can be transferred to another general.