(26-09-2010 07:01 PM)Timo Wrote:  Which is considerably less a problem than messing up your carefully set trade routes by having production material taken from the warehouse. You would essentially eliminate wood and brick from reliable trading between warehouses if you allow construction workers to take them from your warehouse at will.

Building construction is not unlimited. Amounts needed can be calculated and provided outside the warehouses trading. Plus that one does not build buildings just for the sake of building, because then it's a loss, so materials for buildings are once needed, definite and calculable.

And what you say above does not make any sense. What that has to do with the trading? Same can happen, if AI buys the materials and eliminate the supply from other markets or floods the demand market with materials. Trading between warehouses then is impeded too, because the supply market will have high prices and demand market will have low prices, no profits there > no point for having trading between warehouses.

Timo, I must disagree. The purpose of your warehouse storage is to provide a buffer for all of your demand, both ongoing trade and planned construction requirements. Later in the game, when you are pushing toward 200,000 population for example, the construction buffer management will become a major aspect of your planning process, and adding a middleman to hand your goods over to the builders adds a great deal of uncertainty to your production.

The P3 solution greatly enhanced playability for us hardcore Patrician players. You should listen to us on this one.

You can just keep the materials in the warehouse, then put them on the market ust prior to construction to achieve the same result. There's very little uncertainty that you'll actually be building using your own materials (that were indirectly from your warehouse) if you run the game at 0.1 speed. If you're really afraid the day will pass while you make the short trip from the market to the architect, fast forward time until a new day just arrives.

If you do this, you will be immune to maket supply and demand of building materials. It essentially achieves the same result as taking materials directly from your warehouse, with the added bonus of your builders taking materials from the market automatically when they are available without you changing any settings. You will build before your opponents do, and you earmarked your own materials to be used for your own buildings.

This is how you 'take' materials from your warehouse (or convoy):

Think of what would happen if the builders took the materials from your warehouse instead of the market. You will have to take the trouble to unload your materials into your warehouse instead of directly to the market when you want to build something, and worse still, if you set your warehouse administrator to auto buy materials from the market when they are rare, it causes a reputation drop. Of course all these problems would probably not be impossible to satisfactorily fix, but if I can use the method I've just shown to do the same thing, I see no reason to change the current system.

Persocom,

Your work around is an option for what we will have to do if the system is not returned to the P3 approach. Now imagine doing that for the 200k population game where you are building thousands of homes, businesses, walls, port structures, etc. across the Hanse. It becomes a tedious PITA (pain in the a##), that does not add to the enjoyment, strategy or flow of the game.

From an historical perspective, I can see limiting direct from warehouse use of construction goods to a higher level player. Early on, a store keeper or merchant would not have the power (economic or political) to force a contractor to use goods they provide. The contractor would use their own buying power, which would be greater than the player, to purchase goods from the market. But once the player reaches LM, they would be in control of production, have much greater economic power and likely owns the house the contractor lives in. At this level, the player would be in a position to dictate the source of materials to their advantage.

Having reach 200k in all 3 Patricians versions, this seemingly small issue becomes a huge system limitation.

As to your two assertions:
1. It is no more difficult to tell the contractor to pick up the construction materials from your warehouse than it is to pick them up from the market, in fact you add a step in the current practice by pulling them from the warehouse, and trasporting them to the market, and then having the contractor pull them again from the market
2. The purpose of using goods from stock is not so that you can auto-buy when goods are rare, but rather to buy and hold when they are plentiful and cheap, or to maintain your lower, or at least constant cost of goods (COG) due to your producing the goods yourself. Later in the game you will have whole convoys dedicated to moving raw materials from cheap manufacture cities to support growth in other cities at a manageable and predictable level. You will also plan your manufacturing capacity based upon your growth plan and less upon end user consumption.

Finally, if you think about construction in terms of a business, which is what it becomes as you are the one initiating all construction in most cities, it makes just as much sense taking goods from the warehouse to build a house, as it does to take raw materials from a warehouse to feed a production facility (Pig Iron and Wood to make Iron Goods).

To me this becomes a long term playablility issue, which is why we fought so hard for this in the P2 forums all those years ago, and why it is getting so much attention now.

"Listen to the elders, for their eyes have seen much." - Sitting Bull

THX Joshmon
couldn't have given an better explanation.

Hein

(30-09-2010 02:03 PM)Joshmon Wrote:  Persocom,

Your work around is an option for what we will have to do if the system is not returned to the P3 approach. Now imagine doing that for the 200k population game where you are building thousands of homes, businesses, walls, port structures, etc. across the Hanse. It becomes a tedious PITA (pain in the a##), that does not add to the enjoyment, strategy or flow of the game.

From an historical perspective, I can see limiting direct from warehouse use of construction goods to a higher level player. Early on, a store keeper or merchant would not have the power (economic or political) to force a contractor to use goods they provide. The contractor would use their own buying power, which would be greater than the player, to purchase goods from the market. But once the player reaches LM, they would be in control of production, have much greater economic power and likely owns the house the contractor lives in. At this level, the player would be in a position to dictate the source of materials to their advantage.

Having reach 200k in all 3 Patricians versions, this seemingly small issue becomes a huge system limitation.

As to your two assertions:
1. It is no more difficult to tell the contractor to pick up the construction materials from your warehouse than it is to pick them up from the market, in fact you add a step in the current practice by pulling them from the warehouse, and trasporting them to the market, and then having the contractor pull them again from the market
2. The purpose of using goods from stock is not so that you can auto-buy when goods are rare, but rather to buy and hold when they are plentiful and cheap, or to maintain your lower, or at least constant cost of goods (COG) due to your producing the goods yourself. Later in the game you will have whole convoys dedicated to moving raw materials from cheap manufacture cities to support growth in other cities at a manageable and predictable level. You will also plan your manufacturing capacity based upon your growth plan and less upon end user consumption.

Finally, if you think about construction in terms of a business, which is what it becomes as you are the one initiating all construction in most cities, it makes just as much sense taking goods from the warehouse to build a house, as it does to take raw materials from a warehouse to feed a production facility (Pig Iron and Wood to make Iron Goods).

To me this becomes a long term playablility issue, which is why we fought so hard for this in the P2 forums all those years ago, and why it is getting so much attention now.

"Listen to the elders, for their eyes have seen much." - Sitting Bull

Joshmon,

If you notice I am already patrician (actually I'm already aldersman) in the game and it is on professional difficulty. I have been doing it the whole game, and have not found it a problem. Most of the time later in the game, I don't even do this because I simply don't need to. It's a pretty useful trick for assignments, but gives little advantage otherwise. Please elaborate on your assertion that it is a "system limitation". For your additional information, since you seem to be assuming that I'm some kind of random newbie, Rostock was my newest town, and I do have "whole convoys dedicated to moving raw materials from cheap manufacture cities to support growth in other cities", which I carefully adjusted to ensure one city's growth does not come at the expense of another. While it might be true that getting materials from the warehouse was more convenient in P3, your views may have biased by the playing of previous versions of patrician, and a fresh outlook may be more appropriate in this case. I'll agree with you if the workaround was not available, but it is. As for your other assertions:

1. Normally the town in which I build in does not produce its own wood or brick, and left alone pretty much every town which does not produce them will be in short supply of one of these materials. Thus if you made it such that I would have to take materials from the warehouse, most of the time it not only means I have to dump it form my ship into the warehouse before I build, but it also means that I am unable to buy from the market to top up for fear of reputation loss.
2. Most of the time, a town that does not produce wood or brick will be in short supply of them. When have you ever seen such a town have more than 1 diamond of wood or brick? (most of the time it's 0 diamond) While it sounds nice in theory to "buy and hold when they are plentiful and cheap", in practice it pretty much never happens, except in the (relative minority) of towns that actually produce the stuff. Thus the majority of the time, forcing one to use materials from the warehouse would actually be a PITA (pain in the a##).

Finally, about construction in terms of a business, I do agree that it makes sense to actually take goods from your warehouse. (well, when you're like the wood and brick wholesaler) However if you do the workaround it's basically the same thing. The goods did come from your warehouse, albeit from a more roundabout way. From a game design point of view, I don't see the need to add complexity to the game by making this an issue because of my desire of a more direct warehouse-builder link. It's like saying cannons in sea battles take longer to load in real life from a historical perspective, but no one really wants to sit through every sea battle waiting for cannons to load. A balance between game design and realism must be struck. At the end of the day, it's a game, not a history tutorial. However I do agree that for the sake of players like you who either desire greater realism or are nostalgic for P3, a small option box could be added somewhere to allow you to take materials from your warehouse. It's more work for the developers, but that way we can satisfy everyone.

(26-09-2010 07:01 PM)Timo Wrote:  Which is considerably less a problem than messing up your carefully set trade routes by having production material taken from the warehouse. You would essentially eliminate wood and brick from reliable trading between warehouses if you allow construction workers to take them from your warehouse at will.

I am not "messing up" my trade routes if they are designed with this in mind. I don't have to "eliminate reliable trading", I just have to plan properly. As to workers taking material from my warehouse "at will"... Um, no. It's workers taking material from my warehouse when I tell them to.

This new method (actually this reversion to an old, old method long since abandoned for exactly the same reasons we are offering now) is flawed, as I described. Flawed, meaning dysfunctional. That's a cat of a different colour than your worries that we might have to set up our trade routes differently.

Let's all remember; most of us have already tried this both ways. Millions of convoys run, millions of buildings built. We are not speaking hypothetically. We are not saying "gee, maybe it would be better if we tried this new idea." Tried A. Tried B. Preferred A. End of story.

You don't have to agree with our preference, but do you really think you can just convince us that we really should have preferred B?

---

(30-09-2010 05:26 AM)persocom01 Wrote:  Think of what would happen if the builders took the materials from your warehouse instead of the market.

I think you mean "remember what happened when builders took the materials from your warehouse instead of the market." And we do remember. That is why we want to see that method reinstated.

@persocom
Joshmon was not talking about the build up of one town and suppley with the help of some others who produces the goods you can't produce in that town.
He was talking about the full development of the Hanseatic League. That means 32 Towns with at least 60.000 Inhabitance each.

That's the aim for some of us.

Hein

(30-09-2010 04:34 PM)Bagaluth Wrote:  @persocom
Joshmon was not talking about the build up of one town and suppley with the help of some others who produces the goods you can't produce in that town.
He was talking about the full development of the Hanseatic League. That means 32 Towns with at least 60.000 Inhabitance each.

That's the aim for some of us.

Hein

Ahh so you mean to say he actually wanted 2 million inhabitants, (60k x 32) not 200,000. However I don't see the point of that after I heard that it's impossible to fully satisfy the needs of the population without importing 50% of cloth and wine from the med, and the med cities apparently do not grow. (they normally can't even fill half a caravel with goods) Thus a large population will only cause the demand - supply gap to widen. I prefer a higher quality of life for fewer inhabitants. However while I don't plan to build up the whole hanseatic league it's also a mistake to assume that I only build up 1 town. (my hometown) I aimed to build up 9 at about the same time.

Again though, it's not as if I find that I need to do anything special when building most of the time late game. Just prebuild every building, then just auto ship building materials to each city if you want and let them complete by themselves. Late game your ai competitors are pretty much small businesses compared to you anyway, and most of the buildings in progress will be yours, so there's very little issue of not being able to earmark materials to be used for your own buildings.

@persocom

Well if my numbers are right, you can count in the following way:

60.000 inhabitants per town without problems. That's 15.000 workers each.

That means, you can build 600 facilitys for 60.000 inhabitants.
For 32 citys with 60.000 inhabitants you can build 19.200 facilitys.

But (if my counting of needed suppleys is correct) you have to build 20.984 facilitys for full supply.

If gaming minds fixes the med. trade with the next patch, you should be able to import the needed 603 barrel spices per day for the 1.920.000 citizens of the Hanseatic League.
That means you can cut down the gap of 1.784 facilitys by 800 to 850 facilitys. (That's because of the import of wine and cloth.)

That's about the amount i estimate as number of facilitys to compensate the draw backs from sieges, draught, fire and so on.

But you can reduce the production for clothes, fures, wine and pitch about 10% less than the actual need without you citizens noticing it in a way that causes trouble.
Than you can reduce the production of hemp, metal and metal ware also by 10% without trouble, too.

That's a bit more than 2.000 facilitys. So its more than the gap you have to bridge.

So my current game is a try to get the game to exactly that point and let it run for some years to see if it is stable.

Hein

Well that's just fine and good but still doesn't tell me as to why taking materials from the warehouse would be any superior to from the market. From my experience, it isn't. It's actually more troublesome. Let's take for example the common situation of sending building materials by ship to a city manually. Pretty common mid game and early game.

Number of clicks with the current system to build a house:
1. Open market.
2. Unload wood.
3. Unload brick.
4. Close market.
5. Open architect.
6. Choose house.
7. Place house.

Number of clicks using warehouse:
1. Open market.
2. Click trading button on top to change to trade to "convoy to storage" mode.
3. Unload wood.
4. Unload brick.
5. Close market.
6. Open architect.
7. Choose house.
8. Place house.

It might seem a small issue but having to do an extra step every time I want to build a house when I send materials by ship manually can be pretty annoying in the long run.

(30-09-2010 07:13 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  Well that's just fine and good but still doesn't tell me as to why taking materials from the warehouse would be any superior to from the market. From my experience, it isn't. It's actually more troublesome.

More troublesome how exactly?

As to superiority, well, we have in fact explained that. I suggest you reread the thread beginning with the very first post.

(30-09-2010 07:24 PM)Nathair Wrote:  

(30-09-2010 07:13 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  Well that's just fine and good but still doesn't tell me as to why taking materials from the warehouse would be any superior to from the market. From my experience, it isn't. It's actually more troublesome.

More troublesome how exactly?

As to superiority, well, we have in fact explained that. I suggest you reread the thread beginning with the very first post.

It's not like this is a long tread, and I do have a post on page 1. There are no reasons stated in this tread that sufficiently justify taking materials from the warehouse in my opinion. Perhaps you may be so kind as to highlight one you find good? Perhaps it's bagaluth's "it is much too simple" in P4 reason?

(22-09-2010 02:48 PM)Bagaluth Wrote:  In P3 you had to plan how to distribute your materials for the building up of towns. Later on in P4 it is no challange at all.

Perhaps you like games to be more complicated, but I think I'm battling enough user inferfaces in this game as it is thank you very much.

(30-09-2010 07:33 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  There are no reasons stated in this tread that sufficiently justify taking materials from the warehouse in my opinion. Perhaps you may be so kind as to highlight one you find good? Perhaps it's bagaluth's "it is much too simple" in P4 reason?

Post #1:

Post #1 Wrote:Why should i have to sell all my goods to the market (and then risk my competitors having their buildings contracts supplied before mine!) when i have a load of them sat in my warehouse waiting to be used?

Post #8 Wrote:point is if i have the supplies already, i should be able to provide them to the builders to do the job for me (therefore also reducing the cost)

Post #10 Wrote:If the building is limeted not only by money but also by the amount of needed goods, meaning that both have to be in sufficient quantity in the city i want to build a building in, than you can stopp your opponent by ordering your office clerk to buy all bricks or all timber from the town. That definetly would be an exploid.

So you have to close that exploid.

And the only way i see how to close it is to take the goods from the warehouse or a ship ankering in the harbour of that town.

Etc., etc., etc.

(22-09-2010 02:48 PM)Bagaluth Wrote:  Perhaps you like games to be more complicated, but I think I'm battling enough user inferfaces in this game as it is thank you very much.

Whether the materials come from the warehouse or the market is not an UI question, it is an economic model question. I am all for a simpler (as in 'easy to use') interface but not at the expense of a simpler (as in 'simplistic' or 'trivial') underlying model.

The challenge here was for designers to provide a complex model with an accessible interface. Sadly they seem to have thrown out the complexity baby with the accessible bathwater in many areas and this warehouse-or-market issue is a prominent one.

An obvious intermediate solution would be the one that Wolfie suggested; make it your choice. Either a pop-up "would you like to use warehoused materials for this?" or (if you are one of these folks making your decisions by counting mouse clicks) a switch in the settings. Yes, that is more complicated programming but that should be our very, very last concern.

1. The method which I screenshoted pretty much eliminates the risk of having your materials used by your oppponent. It uses your own materials for your own buildings so post 1 and 8 is out.

2. Ruining your rivals by buying up their raw materials is not an exploit. It is supposed to be one of the strategies in the game. It's even taught in the campaign. This is for post 10. I sometimes purposely don't supply building materials to rival towns I wish to 'conquer' to indirectly prevent my rivals in them from expanding any further.

As you can see there really is no good reason to justify the taking of materials from the warehouse in my opinion.

3. I suggested making it optional as well.

(30-09-2010 07:13 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  However I do agree that for the sake of players like you who either desire greater realism or are nostalgic for P3, a small option box could be added somewhere to allow you to take materials from your warehouse. It's more work for the developers, but that way we can satisfy everyone.

(30-09-2010 08:14 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  1. The method which I screenshoted pretty much eliminates the risk of having your materials used by your oppponent. It uses your own materials for your own buildings so post 1 and 8 is out.

A work-around that you think "pretty much" eliminates the risk is not actually a solution.

(30-09-2010 08:14 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  2. Ruining your rivals by buying up their raw materials is not an exploit. It is supposed to be one of the strategies in the game.

What my strategy is "supposed to be" is an interesting claim, but that's not the point. The point is that the more complex model (warehouse first, ships second, market last) still allows a trader to attempt this strategy without making it an I-Win button.

My goal here is not to make it easy to win with simple strategies, perhaps that is where the difference of opinion comes from.

(30-09-2010 08:14 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  As you can see there really is no good reason to justify the taking of materials from the warehouse in my opinion.

No, obviously I don't see that. We (at going on 6 to 1) think there are very, very good reasons for it, just like we thought back in the old P2 days. And, just so you know, even if the question of simple model vs complex model was the only reason it would still be a good reason.

If you make a trade route to fill for example 200 wood and bricks to all your cities, then when you want to build you just go:

1. Open architect.
2. Choose house.
3. Place house.

and not 8 clicks...

also the trade route must be done, "but you do it 1 time only".

This is just to make things simpler.

(30-09-2010 09:23 PM)1st4ck Wrote:  1. Open architect.
2. Choose house.
3. Place house.

and not 8 clicks...

That was also the case when we would (P3) have a fleet of hulks laden to the gun'ales with bricks and timber to send to the construction site.

Fleet docks.
1. Open architect.
2. Choose house.
3. Place house.

Goods are taken from the fleet if there isn't enough in the warehouse.

Uhm, you're elaborating on a plainly logical matter, going in circles.

In real life, do you know any builder having a warehouse who would sell the materials to the market and then send his constructors to buy them???

As an economist and an auditor, I have never, ever, heard of such an illogical action. And I have audited many companies. If I would ever advise any of my clients to do such a thing, not only would I have lost them from clients, but probably they would have sent me to a psychiatrist...

I don't even get the argument here.

It's simple. More cost-effective and more logical to build anything from STORED materials. It's stupid to sell them and then buy them to construct your own buildings. Simple as that.
No need to elaborate, no need to provide options, nothing. Probably a 10-year old would say that there is no logic to sell stocked materials in order to buy them to build own buildings...

IMHO the whole problem of taking goods from a warehouse or not can be avoided if there's a small change in the game code.

That change would check the amount of available goods in the warehouse and at the market; as well as the amount of available cash of both the player and the AI.

The moment there are goods present at the market, the "constructor" is taking these goods, which then can be re-supplied by the player by selling these goods to the city.

If there aren't any goods present at the market; or they would fall below a certain threshold, goods would be taken out of the warehouse.

If there aren't any goods present at both the market and the warehouse, or the amount of available cash is too low, building isn't possible at all.


Thorin

Why? What is the point in that? Why to alter the code for all those and not to just alter it for warehouse?
And don't be so sure that the moment the goods are present in the market, your constructor will be able to take them. Building is PRIORITISED. So if someone else have put a building just before you, then the materials go to him. Otherwise, the code should be changed for priority too.

-Yes, I can get from London to New York, going all over Europe, Asia, whole USA from West to East. All around the globe. It can be done.
But all planes, logically, fly over the Atlantic to go from London to New York.- Same with the building thing, selling in order to buy for own construction...

(30-09-2010 08:32 PM)Nathair Wrote:  

(30-09-2010 08:14 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  1. The method which I screenshoted pretty much eliminates the risk of having your materials used by your oppponent. It uses your own materials for your own buildings so post 1 and 8 is out.

A work-around that you think "pretty much" eliminates the risk is not actually a solution.

(30-09-2010 08:14 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  2. Ruining your rivals by buying up their raw materials is not an exploit. It is supposed to be one of the strategies in the game.

What my strategy is "supposed to be" is an interesting claim, but that's not the point. The point is that the more complex model (warehouse first, ships second, market last) still allows a trader to attempt this strategy without making it an I-Win button.

My goal here is not to make it easy to win with simple strategies, perhaps that is where the difference of opinion comes from.

(30-09-2010 08:14 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  As you can see there really is no good reason to justify the taking of materials from the warehouse in my opinion.

No, obviously I don't see that. We (at going on 6 to 1) think there are very, very good reasons for it, just like we thought back in the old P2 days. And, just so you know, even if the question of simple model vs complex model was the only reason it would still be a good reason.

1. To me it is a solution. It's simple application of knowledge of how the game actually works.

2. 'Winning' the ai is actually a ridiculously easy thing to do. If they can be defeated by simple strategies like taking away all their raw materials, that's the ai's problem, not mine. How many times do I actually buy up their building materials? Well actually, never. I know without my supply that uncompleted building in cologne will say uncompleted for at least half a year or more. That's ai for you. Moreover 'winning' the ai doesn't exactly net you any prize. It doesn't end the game. It's not an I-Win for you. Sure at the beginning I see the ai as competitors who snatch away my business, but late game I see them as cooperating to fulfill the needs of my cities.

3. Again, no specification on what the actual "good reasons" are. To begin with, things like "good" and "bad" are value judgments, and can can't be completely agreed upon. I think the mona lisa is an overpriced painting. Someone else would be willing to fork out millions for it. You seem to be stuck in old ways of thinking and stereotyping that experience to a new game. However that doesn't justify the change, as I pointed out earlier, it's often actually more cumbersome to use the P3/P2 system in this game.

Jacqvern,

As a physicist I would cry when I hear an explosion in space, since sound does not travel in a vaccum. I've never seen such an illogical application of physics in my life. Thus I would like to petition that all explosion sounds in the game "Sins of the Solar Empire" be removed. As a historian I would cry when I see cannons reloaded in 15 seconds. Cannons were never reloaded that fast on ships in history. Thus I would like to petition that all cannons take at least 4x longer to reload than they do now. As a economist I would cry when I saw that the quantity demanded of all goods in cities was not affected by the price. Every economist knows that as price is reduced, the quantity demanded of normal goods increases. Thus I would like to petition that the trading system be changed such that demand of a good is affected by price. And the list goes on. I could go on and on, but I hope you see the point.

(01-10-2010 05:41 AM)persocom01 Wrote:  It's simple application of knowledge of how the game actually works.

I am more concerned, here, with how the game should work. Obviously, since we are playing, we have found ways around this particular problem. That is hardly the point.

(01-10-2010 05:41 AM)persocom01 Wrote:  If they can be defeated by simple strategies like taking away all their raw materials, that's the ai's problem, not mine.

I'd say that if the AI is lame or a particular game mechanic too powerful then that's "a problem" for those of us who expected more from a Patrician title.

(01-10-2010 05:41 AM)persocom01 Wrote:  3. Again, no specification on what the actual "good reasons" are. To begin with, things like "good" and "bad" are value judgments, and can can't be completely agreed upon.

You are aware that is was you who brought up that particular choice of adjective, right? To clarify for you, what I meant by it is that the reasons so many of have repeated so often are good enough to justify reverting to the P3 method. If you don't agree, well then, you don't agree. You're the fifth dentist. When we convince Kalypso to make this an option you can happily continue to use the Warehouse->Market->Construction sequence.

(01-10-2010 05:41 AM)persocom01 Wrote:  You seem to be stuck in old ways of thinking and stereotyping that experience to a new game. However that doesn't justify the change

In this case what "seems" to you turns out not to be the actual case. I'm not "stuck" nor am I unaware of how the game works. I (like most of us) simply want the old, (much more sensible, imo) method back again. We fought for it back in the day and we will fight for it again now.

Edited for tpyos

(01-10-2010 06:14 AM)Nathair Wrote:  I am more concerned, here, with how the game should work. Obviously, since we are playing, we have found ways around this particular problem. That is hardly the point.

I'd say that if the AI is lame or a particular game mechanic too powerful then that's "a problem" for those of us who expected more from a Patrician title.

You are aware that is was you who brought up that particular choice of adjective, right? To clarify for you, what I meant by it is that the reasons so many of have repeated so often are good enough to justify reverting to the P3 method. If you don't agree, well then, you don't agree. You're the fifth dentist. When we convince Kalypso to make this an option you can happily continue to use the Warehouse->Market->Construction sequence.

In this case what "seems" to you turns out not to be the actual case. I'm not "stuck" nor am I unaware of how the game works. I (like most of us) simply want the old, (much more sensible, imo) method back again. We fought for it back in the day and we will fight for it again now.

Edited for tpyos

1. Arguably it's "a way around the problem" so I'll propose a solution that I think would keep the present simple system while allowing the problem to de directly addressed; create an option for your buildings in progress to take materials from your warehouse.

2. Actually the point is I don't even use that game mechanic. Too powerful? The ai pretty much sucks anyway. I don't need to use it to 'win'. At all. I'm all for improvments in ai, but I do not see such a simple (depriving them of raw materials was even campaign advertised) tactic as an exploit.

3. That's because I was stating my point of view. That there is no reason that sufficiently justifies the changing of the system in this thread. I wasn't trying to change your point of view, which is subject to your own preferences. It's simply a statement "your reasons are not good enough for me". You are the one who trying to challenge me on my own grounds, so be my guest.

4. So your true intentions surface here. You think the old way was "more sensible" and are fighting to get it back against the wishes of others. (new players perhaps) I prefer a compromise by letting it be optional. I think the old system sucks because it is more cumbersome, but I'm all for letting it be optional for the benefit of people like you, while not sacrificing anyone else.

"Jacqvern,

As a physicist I would cry when I hear an explosion in space, since sound does not travel in a vaccum. I've never seen such an illogical application of physics in my life. Thus I would like to petition that all explosion sounds in the game "Sins of the Solar Empire" be removed. As a historian I would cry when I see cannons reloaded in 15 seconds. Cannons were never reloaded that fast on ships in history. Thus I would like to petition that all cannons take at least 4x longer to reload than they do now. As a economist I would cry when I saw that the quantity demanded of all goods in cities was not affected by the price. Every economist knows that as price is reduced, the quantity demanded of normal goods increases. Thus I would like to petition that the trading system be changed such that demand of a good is affected by price. And the list goes on. I could go on and on, but I hope you see the point. "


Persocom >
1. First, it's vacuum.
Second, vacuum is not an actual, empirical ascertainment. There is no such thing as perfect vacuum. Look this up: "Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and is never observed in practice". So, being a philosophical concept, what you state about sounds, actually can happen. Third, a SONIC BOOM is generated by a vacuum. You can look that up too. So, actually, there is no point for a physicist to cry at that, since he/she knows already that it happens.
You haven't studied the vacuum subject well enough, otherwise you wouldn't have given such an argument about something that is widely known in the scientific society.

2. "Cannons were never reloaded that fast on ships in history." Well, that's not a solid argument. a.)Because history is a subjective matter, and many things are relative. So actually, except if you can prove that you time-travel and have been there, nothing is absolute. b.) It's the same as saying that you can't accelerate time, but we do in all the games...if you get the point...since I don't have the time now to give you proofs about loading and re-loading times, look it up yourself.

3. "Every economist knows that as price is reduced, the quantity demanded of normal goods increases."
Well, if you would have studied more this subject as well, you would know that PRICE IS DEFINED BY QUANTITY, NOT the other way around. When demand increases, price goes up - when supply decreases price goes up AND when demand decreases, price goes down - supply increases, price goes down!!! Every economist, including myself, knows that. It's the first rule learned at the university. And actually, they teach that in high school too...no need to be an economist.
And if you observe, ALL the time in the game, the price is affected by demand and supply. So rules of economy are being followed.

So all the petitions you state, are about unreal facts, at least in our world. If you get my point...

I rest my case, no point in arguing...

(01-10-2010 12:33 PM)Jacqvern Wrote:  Persocom >
1. First, it's vacuum.
Second, vacuum is not an actual, empirical ascertainment. There is no such thing as perfect vacuum. Look this up: "Even putting aside the complexities of the quantum vacuum, the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and is never observed in practice". So, being a philosophical concept, what you state about sounds, actually can happen. Third, a SONIC BOOM is generated by a vacuum. You can look that up too. So, actually, there is no point for a physicist to cry at that, since he/she knows already that it happens.
You haven't studied the vacuum subject well enough, otherwise you wouldn't have given such an argument about something that is widely known in the scientific society.

2. "Cannons were never reloaded that fast on ships in history." Well, that's not a solid argument. a.)Because history is a subjective matter, and many things are relative. So actually, except if you can prove that you time-travel and have been there, nothing is absolute. b.) It's the same as saying that you can't accelerate time, but we do in all the games...if you get the point...

3. "Every economist knows that as price is reduced, the quantity demanded of normal goods increases."
Well, if you would have studied more this subject as well, you would know that PRICE is defined by quantity, NOT the other way around. When demand increases, price goes up - when supply decreases price goes up AND when demand decreases, price goes down - supply increases, price goes down!!! Every economist, including myself, knows that. It's the first rule learned at the university. And actually, they teach that in high school too...no need to be an economist.
And if you observe, ALL the time in the game, the price is affected by demand and supply. So rules of economy are being followed.

If you get my point...

I rest my case, no point in arguing...

Jacqvern,

1. So you're going to argue that you can hear explosions in space. While it's true that a prefect vaccum is theoretically never observed, space is pretty close to that. Other such appoximations include the ideal gas equations, even though in reality no gas is prefectly ideal. You generally can't hear explosions in space. Really. While space is not a perfect vacuum, it is still such a poor medium for sound that you generally can't hear anything without the use of special instuments. A sonic boom is caused by a shockwave through the air, caused by the compression of air by a fast moving object. We still need the air to transmit the sound to us.

"There is no sound in space.
From Cornell University - Ask an Astronomer:
"In empty space, there is no air, and what we call "sound" is actually vibrations in the air. ...[T]here are indeed light waves and radio waves in space, but these waves are not sound, but light. Light does not need air to travel, but then you don't hear it; you see it, or it is interpreted by your radio set and then translated into sound. Astronauts in space do talk to each other. In the spacecraft, there is plenty of air, so they just talk normally. When they are spacewalking, they talk by means of radios in their helmets. The radio waves, again, have no problem in space, but they're not sound. They're radio, which has to be converted into sound by the astronauts' headsets." - http://answers.google.com/answers/thread...05459.html

2. Even if history is subjective, it is not subjective to the point that we can say, cannons had a reload time of 15 seconds. The game does have time speed up, but even at 1x speed cannons reload too fast.

3. Every economist also knows that as the supply of a good increases, the quantity demanded of a normal good also increases. The price dropping is just the most observable effect to the layman. Let's take a look at a simple ss dd graph:



However in this game we all know that the quantity demanded of a good is always the same, regardless of supply. Thus it does not follow the rules of economics.

I rest my case.

(30-09-2010 07:13 PM)persocom01 Wrote:  Well that's just fine and good but still doesn't tell me as to why taking materials from the warehouse would be any superior to from the market. From my experience, it isn't. It's actually more troublesome. Let's take for example the common situation of sending building materials by ship to a city manually. Pretty common mid game and early game.

Number of clicks with the current system to build a house:
1. Open market.
2. Unload wood.
3. Unload brick.
4. Close market.
5. Open architect.
6. Choose house.
7. Place house.

Number of clicks using warehouse:
1. Open market.
2. Click trading button on top to change to trade to "convoy to storage" mode.
3. Unload wood.
4. Unload brick.
5. Close market.
6. Open architect.
7. Choose house.
8. Place house.

It might seem a small issue but having to do an extra step every time I want to build a house when I send materials by ship manually can be pretty annoying in the long run.

Wrong in all aspects.

First that is not the way it goes.
If the interface would work like in P3, the architect will first look in my warehouse for goods, than in my convoys that anker in the harbour and than on the market for available goods to build a building. If there is not enough of any of the needed goods available. The building would not be build.

The supply to my warehouse is managed with automatic routes, that deliver the bricks and wood and ironware to my office without clicking around.

The main problem i have with the actual interface is, that i can build even if there are no goods available at the moment.

I think, that this could be used for an exploid.

In P3 i was forced to bring in the needed goods to build the buildings i want.
In p4 i build the buildings if i have the money and than let them be build time by time while my autotrade convoys deliver in the needed quantity for 10 facilitys per month, so the workersupply is assured and doesn't cause problems because of too less workers for my facilitys.

With a bit of fine tuning i am able to automate the build up of the Hanseatic League completly. I am no longer forced to plan all the aspects needed in P3, so the simulation don't fire back on my enterprise.

Ok we start from the beginning to make clear the fine points of the problem.

In P3 you had to have the money and the needed goods in the right city to build a building. Than you had to wait for the assembling troops to get to work. There where a max. of 5 per town. And they could start only after finishing one building to build the next. So you are limited to the capacity of builders in the town, your money and your ability to provide the needed goods.

In P4 the architect will build as much buildings at the same time as you are able to sell the needed goods to the town. So you can overpower a city in its ability to attract beaggers to become workers in a way that was not possible in P3.

But you are not limited in the amount of buildings you order to construct.
The only limit is the amount of money you currently have available. So you are able to order the amount of 100 houses or 500 facilitys in one go without to bother where the needed goods are at the moment.

The AI will build with the amount of goods avialable to the marked and not sell them first from the AI office to the market.

So you are able to block the AI for years in the game.

In a advanced game when you have enough money and production to start the building up of the complete Hanseatic League with all 32 towns you can use the following startegy at the moment:

After ayou made a table to distribute all needed facilitys (see above 19.200) to all 32 citys, select 19 towns where you can build facilitys to produce all 19 goods in a procentual allocation that meets the total for one good per town.

Than you start by building all houses needed - existing houses for the total number of citizens planed for the town in total.
Make your hubsystem suppleyrouts in a way, that the amount for 10 to 20 houses per 10 days is delivered to your counting office. The selling is done by your office clerk. (For that see some post of mine concerning the supplysystem to distribute needed goods and produced goods.)

In the time the system will build all your houses automatically take care for some of the remaining 13 citys to build up you facilitys to produce wood and bricks and of cause a little bit of metal and metalware.

If the houses are nearly finished (lets say only 40 remaining to be build), you start by ordering the construction of the preplaned amount of facilitys.

In the time needed for that facilitys to be build, you order the construction of all remaining houses for the 13 citys you have not done up to date.

Do that equivalent 4 times and you have ordered the complete build up of the Hanseatic League without problems and without difficultys.
Because you will have a lot of time to take care of Pirates and Landlord, while the game does the build up automatically.

The only thing you have to take care of is to plane the distribution of brick and wood so the amount of beaggers comming to your towns is big enough to fill up your needed workers. So you can't build more than 5 facilitys per week in the start (city must have already between 5.000 and 10.000 citizens). And later on not more than 10 (city have more than 30.000 inhabitance).

No problem at all to construct a grow that is manageable, will always produce the needed demand of the essential goods and keeps the AI totaly out of business.

Verry nice but no challange at all.

Hein

Persocom,

"Every economist also knows that as the supply of a good increases, the quantity demanded of a normal good also increases." Seriously?

I won't even try to analyze any of the above. I can't, sorry.

Have a nice day.

(01-10-2010 01:31 PM)Bagaluth Wrote:  First that is not the way it goes.
If the interface would work like in P3, the architect will first look in my warehouse for goods, than in my convoys that anker in the harbour and than on the market for available goods to build a building. If there is not enough of any of the needed goods available. The building would not be build.

That makes things even easier doesn't it? I agree it might be easier if the achitect looked in my ship too, but not if he only looks in my warehouse. That would be troublesome. However I have very little sympathy for your concern for the ai. It currently sucks anyway. Period. Whether you 'exploit' it or not, you'll still win easily.

(01-10-2010 01:33 PM)Jacqvern Wrote:  Persocom,

"Every economist also knows that as the supply of a good increases, the quantity demanded of a normal good also increases." Seriously?

I won't even try to analyze any of the above. I can't, sorry.

Have a nice day.

Chickening out?

Persocom

don't try that again.

You try to explayn away a mistake done by you. With the graph that indicates a tecnological brakthroug or some effects in massproduction.

In your case you chose the wrong graph to explain your cause.

If i can produce wood for 29 Gold i may have "Supply" but if i am able to produce wood for 20 Gold i have "S1".
That is not the example needed for your case.

Hein