Author Topic: The Stables: Discussion and rework?  (Read 2906 times)

Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« on: March 11, 2016, 11:32:12 AM »

"The stables house and breed horses for both work and battle" - Might and Fealty buildings list

Right now the stables are probably the WORST POSSIBLE building on the autobuild list. Tom has said something somewhere in a thread I can't be bothered to locate that removing it from the autobuild list is a no-go, so I suggest making it more beneficial in the meantime.


Currently, stables (and Royal Mews, although I haven't gotten to them yet) take a LOT of food. I suggest making them cost less or even 0 food to maintain. My reasoning behind this is that in the description it clearly says that the stables breed horses for WORK as well as battle. If you have a horse pulling a plow it is a lot easier work than if it was a person doing the work. This would result in a net gain in food IRL, but in M&F it takes from the food production.


I can understand the balancing of this. Yes, cavalry are extremely good. However, in a developing settlement, seeing as though you literally have no choice but to let the peasants build their stables or be spammed with messages of them trying, and they take up a lot of food that could have been going somewhere else...


I understand that in the simulation the peasants want horses for a number of reasons. Travel is easier on horseback, working the fields is easier with horses. Lots of things are better with horses EXCEPT when this game gives you no choice but to suffer for it.


I could write more; put more effort into this post, but right now I'm meant to be relaxing from the end of exams, so I may follow up with more later.
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3133
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2016, 11:39:38 AM »
"The stables house and breed horses for both work and battle" - Might and Fealty buildings list

Right now the stables are probably the WORST POSSIBLE building on the autobuild list. Tom has said something somewhere in a thread I can't be bothered to locate that removing it from the autobuild list is a no-go, so I suggest making it more beneficial in the meantime.


Currently, stables (and Royal Mews, although I haven't gotten to them yet) take a LOT of food. I suggest making them cost less or even 0 food to maintain. My reasoning behind this is that in the description it clearly says that the stables breed horses for WORK as well as battle. If you have a horse pulling a plow it is a lot easier work than if it was a person doing the work. This would result in a net gain in food IRL, but in M&F it takes from the food production.


I can understand the balancing of this. Yes, cavalry are extremely good. However, in a developing settlement, seeing as though you literally have no choice but to let the peasants build their stables or be spammed with messages of them trying, and they take up a lot of food that could have been going somewhere else...


I understand that in the simulation the peasants want horses for a number of reasons. Travel is easier on horseback, working the fields is easier with horses. Lots of things are better with horses EXCEPT when this game gives you no choice but to suffer for it.


I could write more; put more effort into this post, but right now I'm meant to be relaxing from the end of exams, so I may follow up with more later.


False. It would only result in a net food gain if you had land that you did not have time to already place into production. Under steady state in M&F every inch of arable land is already under production. So the net result would be more leisure time, but you aren't going to magically produce more food.


There really is no such thing as a"developing" settlement with stables on auto build. They pretty much only auto build on settlements importing food, don't want to hit them too early, import less food.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Weaver

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +53/-42
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2016, 12:10:57 PM »
Pretty much what De-Legro said. Stables auto build at IIRC 2000 pop. Only a few settlements in the game can get to that number on their own.

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2016, 01:10:49 PM »
Well, no, that's an oversimplification. Reducing the time required to do some of the menial ploughing or whatever increases the time available for weeding and so on. And that's quite aside from the other benefits one might fairly reasonably expect a town to gain from having a steady supply of horses, like better options on trade and so on.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3133
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2016, 01:56:55 AM »
Well, no, that's an oversimplification. Reducing the time required to do some of the menial ploughing or whatever increases the time available for weeding and so on. And that's quite aside from the other benefits one might fairly reasonably expect a town to gain from having a steady supply of horses, like better options on trade and so on.

But again, you assume they are time poor enough that such tasks go undone. The time the logic might make sense is when you are trading food away, since then the steady state is limited by production, not land capacity.

Trade on any significant scale is the dominion of Lords, so yes I discount this.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2016, 10:05:42 AM »
But again, you assume they are time poor enough that such tasks go undone.

Well, conversely you're assuming they're time-rich enough to be ideally farming all the time, which is kind of contradicted by the fact that the Mill provides a food bonus due to being "a lot faster and less manual work than manual grindstones".

And discounting trade still seems like an oversimplification, since it's one of the justifications for peasants being able to prestidigitate materials out of nowhere.

Regardless, Stables currently claim to do stuff for both the economy and military but actually only do stuff for the military. This is objective fact. Something is wrong, whether it's the description or the effect, I don't particularly care. But it's wrong.
 

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3133
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2016, 10:20:35 AM »
Well, conversely you're assuming they're time-rich enough to be ideally farming all the time, which is kind of contradicted by the fact that the Mill provides a food bonus due to being "a lot faster and less manual work than manual grindstones".

And discounting trade still seems like an oversimplification, since it's one of the justifications for peasants being able to prestidigitate materials out of nowhere.

Regardless, Stables currently claim to do stuff for both the economy and military but actually only do stuff for the military. This is objective fact. Something is wrong, whether it's the description or the effect, I don't particularly care. But it's wrong.

It says the horses can be used for work. To get the bonus from horses you need the saddle, which provides a goods bonus.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2016, 10:35:29 AM »
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.


How does horses working increase goods? The only thing I can actually see horses doing is being used for farming and warfare (and for the Dutch-or-someplace, meat). How do horses equate to a goods increase? I always assumed that goods meant stuff like crates, furniture, fancy processed manmade stuff.
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2016, 11:42:30 AM »
How does horses working increase goods?
Horses ARE goods.


That being said, I do believe stables consuming silly amounts of human food is unrealistic and not warranted mechanically.
In my opinion it would all make much more sense balance-wise if food was consumed by actual units. I wouldn't mind cavalry consuming like three times more food than infantry.

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2016, 11:47:34 AM »
It says the horses can be used for work. To get the bonus from horses you need the saddle, which provides a goods bonus.

That's the Saddler, not the Stable. Different building, not the issue at hand. You don't need the stable to get the goods bonus from the Saddler.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3133
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2016, 04:52:38 PM »
That's the Saddler, not the Stable. Different building, not the issue at hand. You don't need the stable to get the goods bonus from the Saddler.

God really. I mean I even mentioned that a second building was required to extract the economic benefits from horses, much like it is required to actually train Cavalry units. Here is a hint, you can't build the saddler with stables. I wonder what that suggests?

You want a horse or any beast of burden to plough fields, haul cart or lumber you know what you generally need? Harnesses to attach things to, thus the saddler.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2016, 04:54:56 PM by De-Legro »
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2016, 05:13:06 PM »
God really. I mean I even mentioned that a second building was required to extract the economic benefits from horses, much like it is required to actually train Cavalry units. Here is a hint, you can't build the saddler with stables. I wonder what that suggests?

You want a horse or any beast of burden to plough fields, haul cart or lumber you know what you generally need? Harnesses to attach things to, thus the saddler.

What are you actually trying to say here? Because I really can't tell how you're answering my post.

Fact: the Stable is implied to provide an economic bonus: "The stables house and breed horses for both work and battle."

Fact: the Stable provides no economic bonus: "provides horse".

Which of these do you think is wrong?

Weaver

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +53/-42
    • View Profile
Re: The Stables: Discussion and rework?
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2016, 05:47:59 PM »
It's not rocket physics, mate. He means the saddler provides the goods that the horses make.