Land lost when hit

[Bishop]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a bug though. I can clear this up easily.

Working as intended.

[Persain]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a bug though. I can clear this up easily.

Working as intended.

lol which is y this thread is in suggestions and not bug forums. :P It would be nice to have the wiki actually explain how land is taken, but as i have no wiki account or English skills to do a non-mathematical explanation justice it wont be coming from me.

[Bishop]

It takes whatever % you lost individually from each stack of buildings in order of built/barren then incoming if built/barren isn't enough. This was changed from barren>built>incoming when raze was changed to suck to allow you to do more damage with trad.

[Ethan]

I can explain it for the wiki, right?
"Also remember that, if you lose a large amount of land in a short period of time, you build will revert to a semi-random collection of whatever you happened to build last, and have nothing to do with whatever strategy you hoped to be using. One side effect of this is that, if stealing/aid is not reliable, any province that needs food must *always* build farms or risk staving. If you have too many farms already, try razing some farms and rebuilding them as farms to fix this."

Good, right? Explains perfectly *why this should be changed!*


If you *must* keep the "balance" currently, go ahead and strengthen TM somehow (also does a war-raze for 1-2% of built?). But having a mechanic that is intended to do damage to a province by *removing the player's ability to control their own build* is a terrible decision, and is only excusable because it clearly happens like that by accident of the coding instead of deliberate malice on the part of the devs.

Since the impact is only felt strongly on chains, IMO simply changing the priory to take evenly from all acres would provide a nice small balance tweak to weaken chaining a tiny bit. (*Really* tiny, since overpop is the main point anyway.) Regardless of the desired balance, the current priority should be changed for an improved game experience (and better logic).

[Bishop]

Did you even read what i said :/

We do not want to take from in progress on the initial allocation because you would remove a persons ability to manipulate their build.

The game does take evenly from all acres, you are proposing that it doesn't.

[Persain]

The game does take evenly from all acres, you are proposing that it doesn't.

It takes evenly from all built/unbuilt land and then only after that is all taken does it remove in progress land. The suggestion was just to include in progress in that at the same time(even if you pull from it last ie include 500 gs in progress will you pull a % of GS from me). As you stated

This was changed from barren>built>incoming when raze was changed to suck

Back when it took from each one in order that was fine because by the time you lost barren+built you were geting raze killed and it didnt matter what incoming land you had so there was no reason to complain. But once it got changed that you always lost built acres it made no sense to keep incoming separated as it actually matters what you end up with and

We do not want to take from in progress on the initial allocation because you would remove a persons ability to manipulate their build.

you can no longer manipulate your build when chained without

if stealing/aid is not reliable, any province that needs food must *always* build farms or risk staving. If you have too many farms already, try razing some farms and rebuilding them as farms to fix this.

[Bishop]

Point one, sure - i may have taken ethan up wrong, no to the rest.

[angevin]

We do not want to take from in progress on the initial allocation because you would remove a persons ability to manipulate their build.

If being able to manipulate your build is a concern, then it could be easily fixed by adding a checkbox option that allows the player to decide if they want to prioritise "defence" of their buildings in progress.

If the issue is about disabling opponents, then you can make the point that it does aid in that process, but the overpopulation mechanics are already very strong, and the problems that the current method creates only lead to a frustrating game experience. The example of farms is a good one, and so is that of guilds. When you are left with 0.3% guilds, you may as well forget casting any spells - sure they may not add much to a chained province anyway, but is the motivation of this just to frustrate players for being unfortunate enough to be the target, so that they just feel like giving up? The current method just detracts from the game playing experience and makes it very negative. Overpopulation is a good mechanic and it makes sense, but leaving buildings in progress until all other acres are gone is illogical and it disadvantages and frustrates a defender in a way that is completely over the top.