Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

  1. #1

    Icon5 Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

    Autonomy so far give only happiness but it doesn't take 1 turn to build so it cannot be used as an emergency PO bump. A meager benefit at the cost of lower income, slower conversion and give no recruitment while being more expensive than landowner.

    By contrast Landowner give small boost to law and income while also give the strongest unit faction could recruit. I think no landowner building are already a pretty accurate interpretaion for autonomy.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; September 23, 2023 at 03:05 AM.

  2. #2
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,342

    Default Re: What's the point of Autonomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    Autonomy so far give only happiness but it doesn't take 1 turn to build so it cannot be used as an emergency PO bump. A meager benefit at the cost of lower income, slower conversion and give no recruitment while being more expensive than landowner.

    By contrast Landowner give small boost to law and income while also give the strongest unit faction could recruit. I think no landowner building are already a pretty accurate interpretaion for autonomy.
    The idea is that this building provides a long-term PO relief, at the expense of no knight-recruitment. This may play a role especially for larger cities away from your capital when the impact of the military on PO is smaller.
    You've got a point that the benefits are meagre compared to the benefits of the Landowners. It should be balanced better indeed.

  3. #3

    Default Landowner buildings. any reason to demolish?

    the tooltips imply that a player may wish to get rid of them at some point for a settlement's lifespan, because the upkeep drain may not be worth having access to all the elite units. however i'm seeing that it grants great public order, the obvious elite units, and great power to farming. there would be no downsides besides upkeep, and i get the feeling the powerful bonuses to farming actually earn more profit than upkeep. is this not true? and of course this is in regions with advanced farming invested. but even in regions without good farming, i feel like it would still be profitable, or at least equal in costs/profit

  4. #4

    Default Re: Landowner buildings. any reason to demolish?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sllhouette View Post
    the tooltips imply that a player may wish to get rid of them at some point for a settlement's lifespan, because the upkeep drain may not be worth having access to all the elite units. however i'm seeing that it grants great public order, the obvious elite units, and great power to farming. there would be no downsides besides upkeep, and i get the feeling the powerful bonuses to farming actually earn more profit than upkeep. is this not true? and of course this is in regions with advanced farming invested. but even in regions without good farming, i feel like it would still be profitable, or at least equal in costs/profit
    Developed settlement also don't generate additional income but it doesn't matter because taxes and trade will be the one that carry the income and upgrading landowner increase trade and farming income.

    I do wish autonomy are faster to install with more po bonus or grant aor recruitment. Right now Landowner all the way unless you are Cuman.

  5. #5
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,342

    Default Re: Landowner buildings. any reason to demolish?

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    Developed settlement also don't generate additional income but it doesn't matter because taxes and trade will be the one that carry the income and upgrading landowner increase trade and farming income.
    I do wish autonomy are faster to install with more po bonus or grant aor recruitment. Right now Landowner all the way unless you are Cuman.
    Indeed, this building needs analyses and balancing. I've just introduced some, as you've hinted at. Perhaps more levels should be included.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Landowner buildings. any reason to demolish?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Indeed, this building needs analyses and balancing. I've just introduced some, as you've hinted at. Perhaps more levels should be included.
    I donít think more levels are needed. As Eyelurker said, make the initial autonomous govít building a 1-turn construction time. The next changes - and these might be controversial but I think thereís historical and gameplay justification for them - would be related to religious conflict. The autonomous buildings should reduce the public order penalties due to religious differences, while the landowner buildings should exacerbate the public order penalties caused by religion. As we all know, the Crusader States implemented autonomous judicial and administrative systems throughout the Levant to reduce friction between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Replicate that in the autonomous building chain. Conversely, amplify the public order penalty for the landowner buildings to replicate the deleterious effects of feudal rule.

    As Iím writing this, I canít remember if someone has done something like this already. I know Iíve seen EB2 and TATW write code that amplifies the conversion rate for a settlement. So maybe this isnít feasible. I havenít modded in a few years now so my mind is a little hazy on whatís possible.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

    I wouldn't mind if the advance level also give local aor recruitment. Less elite uniformed unit and income for more variety locals and public order.

    Hmm i said that but autonomy like Andalus under Almoravid, Seljuk rule, the Jizya system and Sicilian rule are designed for more autonomy in exhange for income and loyalty instead of local recruitment. From Muslim Pov at least, Jizya are basicly Abrahamic pay money while Muslim protect them which is why many Muslim dynasty that relied on Jizya face income problem when they start converting to Muslim to dodge Jizya tax. For Almoravid and Almohad, the account maybe biased and outdated but they seems to think highly of their own Berber army and tends to dismiss Andalusian Taifa recruit which could justify Autonomy for Income in Andalusian holding as well.
    Last edited by eyelurker; September 23, 2023 at 08:18 AM.

  8. #8
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,342

    Default Re: Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

    Quote Originally Posted by romulus_aeneas View Post
    I donít think more levels are needed. As Eyelurker said, make the initial autonomous govít building a 1-turn construction time. The next changes - and these might be controversial but I think thereís historical and gameplay justification for them - would be related to religious conflict. The autonomous buildings should reduce the public order penalties due to religious differences, while the landowner buildings should exacerbate the public order penalties caused by religion. As we all know, the Crusader States implemented autonomous judicial and administrative systems throughout the Levant to reduce friction between Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Replicate that in the autonomous building chain. Conversely, amplify the public order penalty for the landowner buildings to replicate the deleterious effects of feudal rule.

    As Iím writing this, I canít remember if someone has done something like this already. I know Iíve seen EB2 and TATW write code that amplifies the conversion rate for a settlement. So maybe this isnít feasible. I havenít modded in a few years now so my mind is a little hazy on whatís possible.
    1-turn construction time - yep, at least for level 1.
    Religious issues are already in coding (basically, negating the impact of your religion), I don't think the impact on public order is now needed. Now, I've made the upkeep price 0, added bonuses for trade and farming.
    autonomy3 requires factions { northern_european, middle_eastern, eastern_european, greek, southern_european, } and not building_present landowners and event_counter is_the_player 1
    {
    convert_to 0
    capability
    {
    happiness_bonus bonus 5
    religion_level bonus -3


    trade_base_income_bonus bonus 2
    farming_level bonus 1 requires factions { all, }
    ;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ; UPKEEP/INCOME 0
    }
    amplifying religion is in coding for a few buildings.

    wonder_wien_stephansdom2 city requires factions { northern_european, poland, hungary, southern_european, } and event_counter faction_turn_catholic 1 and region_religion catholic 50 and event_counter notre_dame 1 and building_present_min_level builders builders3 and hidden_resource hre and hidden_resource river and hidden_resource unique1 and not hidden_resource hanse or event_counter dummy 1
    {
    capability
    {
    law_bonus bonus 2 requires factions { northern_european, hungary, poland, kievan_rus, russia, southern_european, greek, }
    law_bonus bonus -2 requires factions { middle_eastern, lithuania, cumans, } and not event_counter is_the_player 1


    amplify_religion_level 1.5 requires factions { northern_european, hungary, poland, southern_european, }
    religion_level bonus -1 requires factions { middle_eastern, lithuania, cumans, greek, kievan_rus, russia, } and event_counter is_the_player 1

    population_health_bonus bonus 1 requires factions { northern_european, hungary, poland, southern_european, }


    ;-Bonus for AI
    law_bonus bonus 1 requires event_counter ai_level_easy 1
    law_bonus bonus 2 requires event_counter ai_level_medium 1
    law_bonus bonus 3 requires event_counter ai_level_hard 1
    law_bonus bonus 4 requires event_counter ai_level_veryhard 1


    ;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ; UPKEEP/INCOME
    income_bonus bonus -200 requires factions { northern_european, southern_european, poland, hungary, } ; if faction non-catholic then it doesn't pay for such things
    }
    material stone
    construction 6
    cost 8000
    settlement_min city
    upgrades
    {
    wonder_wien_stephansdom3
    }
    }
    we've also a dynamic mechanism for conversion of each settlement:
    log ------ (.D.) Oslo Integration Impact on Religious Change Speed --------------------------------

    ; in an un-integrated province the religious change is slow (mind that this script was crafted for owner_conversion_default_rate float="0.005" in DCD)


    set_owner_founding_conversion_rate Oslo 0.005 ; Religious Change Speed: 0.005
    if I_EventCounter Oslo_turns_in_our_realm < 500
    and I_EventCounter FL_policy_strictly_religious < 1 ; this policy nullifies the non-integration effect
    set_owner_founding_conversion_rate Oslo 0.004 ; Religious Change Speed: 0.004
    if I_EventCounter Oslo_turns_in_our_realm < 400
    set_owner_founding_conversion_rate Oslo 0.003 ; Religious Change Speed: 0.003
    if I_EventCounter Oslo_turns_in_our_realm < 300
    set_owner_founding_conversion_rate Oslo 0.002 ; Religious Change Speed: 0.002
    if I_EventCounter Oslo_turns_in_our_realm < 200
    set_owner_founding_conversion_rate Oslo 0.001 ; Religious Change Speed: 0.001
    end_if
    end_if
    end_if
    end_if
    @romulus, if you'd come back to modding, you're welcome to make a scrutiny of our code, or add something on your own. As you are (perhaps) interested in the steppes factions, we've got quite lot to do for the Cumans ;-)



    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    I wouldn't mind if the advance level also give local aor recruitment. Less elite uniformed unit and income for more variety locals and public order.

    Hmm i said that but autonomy like Andalus under Almoravid, Seljuk rule, the Jizya system and Sicilian rule are designed for more autonomy in exhange for income and loyalty instead of local recruitment. From Muslim Pov at least, Jizya are basicly Abrahamic pay money while Muslim protect them which is why many Muslim dynasty that relied on Jizya face income problem when they start converting to Muslim to dodge Jizya tax. For Almoravid and Almohad, the account maybe biased and outdated but they seems to think highly of their own Berber army and tends to dismiss Andalusian Taifa recruit which could justify Autonomy for Income in Andalusian holding as well.
    yes, this would be reasonable. We could do it after the AoR roster has stabilized (@kostic still has some units to do, then thorough revision of the rosters should be conducted).

  9. #9

    Default Re: Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post


    @romulus, if you'd come back to modding, you're welcome to make a scrutiny of our code, or add something on your own. As you are (perhaps) interested in the steppes factions, we've got quite lot to do for the Cumans ;-)

    Ha! I don't know if I have the time, but there is a lot of potential for the Cumans. My idea for their "evolution" (as you all term it in the script) would be to follow their historical settling in Transylvania/Hungary after the Mongol invasion. Basically, the player could either stay and fight the Mongols or become a horde and settle in Transylvania. This would simulate how the Cumans were pushed west by the Mongols. Then we'd allow a little ahistorical evolution where the Cumans could choose to remain pagan or convert to Catholicism. Converting would provide certain benefits like access to Hungary's roster, while remaining Pagan would retain traditional steppe units (and some potentially better late game steppe units than what is currently available). I personally think players love having an opportunity to go from nomadic/pastoral lifestyle to settled kingdom.

    Those are my initial thoughts. Interested to know what you think and what you envisioned originally.

  10. #10
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,342

    Default Re: Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

    I've envisiaged a lot of work. Given that it applies only to one faction, I've chosen just to fix the issues (like the priests, maybe part of the roster), but besides I've been thinking only about the buildings. This is the blueprint:


  11. #11

    Default Re: Autonomy vs Landowners buildings

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    For Almoravid and Almohad, the account maybe biased and outdated but they seems to think highly of their own Berber army and tends to dismiss Andalusian Taifa recruit which could justify Autonomy for Income in Andalusian holding as well.
    From Alarcos to Las Navas battles, Almohads had both berber/arab troops who received collectively a "sih‚m"(plural ash‚m) and andalusians were appointed to build siege engines, they mostly appear as siege protagonists in general. According P.Buresi.
    COURS CNED-PR…PA CAPES-AGR…G-P. BURESI 2014-2016

    So a tribe would collectively-that is important- receives that sih‚m somewhere and defend it from christians and launch raids on neighboring christians from that sih‚m.

    There were few turkish archer mercenaries also(used at least in the Balearic islands and at Alarcos) if it helps.
    Last edited by VINC.XXIII; September 25, 2023 at 04:51 AM.

  12. #12

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Yep, that's the point! I don't think the Broken Crescent style (with pre-scripted events) is a good one. It's rather the EBII style: you're creating your own world, where only a few, meta-technological events may would be impact as external forces (the various "reforms"). I think the SSHIP is much more on the EBII side, even if there're many historical pre-scipted events.
    Now we just need the EB2 style goverment/integration/recruitment building packed up into one building and i say we have EB2 style game.

  13. #13
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    8,342

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    Now we just need the EB2 style goverment/integration/recruitment building packed up into one building and i say we have EB2 style game.
    1. there're many ways to skin a cat. This is not necessarily the solution the SSHIP would go for.
    2. introducing 29 building chains (or maybe fewer, as DK and NO would share one) would be a very time-consuming task.
    3. a modding problem: there is not enough free building chain slots to introduce it (we were just at 6 free slots as 122 out of 128 were filled in, now after fusing the Military Orders, and marginal ones like: Umyyad Mosque with Dome of the Rock in one building chain) there are more (perhaps 118), but still not enough for a big change.
    4. actually, the HURB and the Broken Crescent do this solution (combined with the OST - one settlement type).

  14. #14

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Yeah Broken Crescent have for the muslim it's :

    1. Milutary Occupation
    2. Tribal Alliance
    3. Jund system
    4. Iqta system

    But isn't building military building are too redundant if you could just build it from integration?
    Last edited by eyelurker; September 29, 2023 at 02:46 AM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    1. there're many ways to skin a cat. This is not necessarily the solution the SSHIP would go for.
    2. introducing 29 building chains (or maybe fewer, as DK and NO would share one) would be a very time-consuming task.
    3. a modding problem: there is not enough free building chain slots to introduce it (we were just at 6 free slots as 122 out of 128 were filled in, now after fusing the Military Orders, and marginal ones like: Umyyad Mosque with Dome of the Rock in one building chain) there are more (perhaps 118), but still not enough for a big change.
    4. actually, the HURB and the Broken Crescent do this solution (combined with the OST - one settlement type).
    You don't know with CA, a remaster may remove a lot of hardcodes like provinces or building chain slots. If if ever happened, keep this thing in mind for France, it encompasses both capetian royal desmene and rebel provinces and when rebels are conquered, and also when the king would grant a portion of royal desmene to a son(Apanage). It implies a lot more of events, ancillaries, but buildings and dates help to structure a little the evolution.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  16. #16

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    You don't know with CA, a remaster may remove a lot of hardcodes like provinces or building chain slots. If if ever happened, keep this thing in mind for France, it encompasses both capetian royal desmene and rebel provinces and when rebels are conquered, and also when the king would grant a portion of royal desmene to a son(Apanage). It implies a lot more of events, ancillaries, but buildings and dates help to structure a little the evolution.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    So Parliament tier could be specificly for the Capital(Paris) while Appendage are for Historic Kingdom of France territory. But let's say if i want to conquer HRE or Barcelona which is part of Charlemagne Empire or if i conquer unrelated but still important settlement such as Constantinople or Jerusalem then what goverment building would we have?

  17. #17

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    So Parliament tier could be specificly for the Capital(Paris) while Appendage are for Historic Kingdom of France territory. But let's say if i want to conquer HRE or Barcelona which is part of Charlemagne Empire or if i conquer unrelated but still important settlement such as Constantinople or Jerusalem then what goverment building would we have?
    I didn't overthink in technical terms when conquering other lands, but a few. The Curia Comitatus would be for nearly all french provinces but Paris(Curia Regis). Apanage would be deducted from a french province after being conquered if you want your son or brother to rule it(it implies some trait like "Royal French blood", an adopted no-name can't have an Apanage). And possibly, the Apanage should be inherited through male succession, so you would have mini dynasties like in real life, your son's son would also be Duke of Burgundy or Count of Anjou or Duke of Orleans...etc

    Specifically for Jerusalem there was a hybrid system partially based upon frankish one but very favorable to nobles(no centralization), Morea also was hybrid(and also more favorable to nobles), Constantinople itself I'm not sure how it was ruled.

    When it comes to HRE, it would be more imposed decentralization for a long time at least. Typically a Council of Nobles(local ones).
    Last edited by VINC.XXIII; September 29, 2023 at 03:59 PM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    I didn't overthink in technical terms when conquering other lands, but a few. The Curia Comitatus would be for nearly all french provinces but Paris(Curia Regis). Apanage would be deducted from a french province after being conquered if you want your son or brother to rule it(it implies some trait like "Royal French blood", an adopted no-name can't have an Apanage). And possibly, the Apanage should be inherited through male succession, so you would have mini dynasties like in real life, your son's son would also be Duke of Burgundy or Count of Anjou or Duke of Orleans...etc

    Specifically for Jerusalem there was a hybrid system partially based upon frankish one but very favorable to nobles(no centralization), Morea also was hybrid(and also more favorable to nobles), Constantinople itself I'm not sure how it was ruled.

    When it comes to HRE, it would be more imposed decentralization for a long time at least. Typically a Council of Nobles(local ones).
    Hmm. It gives me ide that Crusader States faction could be like Koinon Hellenon in EB2 to represent they are actually multiple of seperate faction that just so happen to work together in one faction onpy for gameplay convenience.

    And then like KH if Crusader states grow powerful enough to be Outremer you gain new building that allow for a more united frame of goverment building since the Jerusalem, Antioch and Eddesa moniker no longer neccesary.

  19. #19

    Default Re: SSHIP - General Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by eyelurker View Post
    Hmm. It gives me ide that Crusader States faction could be like Koinon Hellenon in EB2 to represent they are actually multiple of seperate faction that just so happen to work together in one faction onpy for gameplay convenience.

    And then like KH if Crusader states grow powerful enough to be Outremer you gain new building that allow for a more united frame of goverment building since the Jerusalem, Antioch and Eddesa moniker no longer neccesary.
    The ultimate united frame building if you want is the Haute-Cour where barons dominate the king because "he's the first among his peers". They work together yes, but as long its beneficial to them. If one local king or outsider(Frederic II) was trying to centralize the kingdom they would argue its against the Assizes of Jerusalem(laws) and rebel against him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •