| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi All,
For my players I "developed" some rules for Towns & Villages, to make smalller settlements a bit more viable. These rules are presented below for those of you who are interested, and I am of course open for suggestions / improvements.
A town overall functions like a city with the following exceptions:
Location: A town can be created in a hex that already contains a camp, farm or fishery. A town can only contain one district, and a town district consists of 4 2x2 city grids.
Costs: Cost for preparing a town district site and time for preparation are reduced, to reflect the more limited size of the town.
Preparing a Town District Site
Terrain_____Cost_________Time to Prepare
Forest_______2 BP__________1 month
Grassland____1 BP__________Immediate*
Hills_________1 BP__________1 month
Mountains____6 BP__________2 months
Swamp______4 BP__________2 months
Consumption: Town districts add 0.5 a BP to consumption. Consumption is always rounded up to the highest integer.
Buildings: Only the following buildings can be build in a town: Alchemist, Barracks, Brewery, Brothel, City Wall (1 max), Dump, Granary, Graveyard, Herbalist, House, Inn, Keep, Mansion, Mill, Monument, Park, Piers, Shop, Shrine, Smith, Stable, Tannery, Tavern, Tenement, Town Hall, Tradesman, Watchtower.
Upgrading to a city It is possible to upgrade a town to a city. However, this takes time and costs BP identical to the cost of preparing a town district.
A Village overall functions like a city with the following exceptions:
Location: A village can be created in a hex that already contains a camp, farm or fishery. A village can only contain one district, and a village district consists of a one 2x2 grid.
Costs: Cost for preparing a village district site and time for preparation are reduced, to reflect the more limited size of the village.
Preparing a Village District Site
Terrain_____Cost_________Time to Prepare
Forest_______1 BP__________1 month
Grassland____1 BP__________Immediate*
Hills_________1 BP__________1 month
Mountains____3 BP__________1 month
Swamp______2 BP__________1 month
Consumption: Village districts don’t add to consumption.
Buildings: Only the following buildings can be build in a village: Brewery, Brothel, Granary, Herbalist, House, Inn, Mill, Shop, Shrine, Smith, Tannery, Tavern, Tenement, Tradesman, Watchtower.
Upgrading to a town: It is possible to upgrade a village to a town. However, this takes time and costs BP identical to the cost of preparing a village district.
|
I'm just curious, why do you say that towns and villages aren't as viable as cities? As is, the rules don't exclude the possibility of limiting each city grid to only one district and starting another somewhere else.
I'm in interested in your thoughts on this since my group refuses to have any cities at all, but I'm not sure of the advantage of your rules beyond the faster clearing time. The lower consumption balances with the building limitations.
EDIT: although, as I think of it, I do like the mechanics of villages being too small to add to consumption. Are all of these numbers balanced against the size of a normal city grid? With each smaller settlement using a fraction of the normal numbers corresponding with the fractional grid size?
Warforged, in the normal rules you can't build a city in the same hex as a farm. These can be built there.
I think the villages are “mechanically” somewhat stronger than cities, not eating up consumption and being possible in an area with a farm., and the same is true to some extent for towns (being in a farm hex).
However, the limitations on towns & villages are I think extensive enough that players will not want to focus only on villages (they are 9 times smaller than one city district, and have far less options).
However, I am open to further suggestions for improvements. (Although I don’t want to get into “0.1” BP consumption costs).
The costs for clearance are reasonably fractional (without going into “0.5” BP’s for clearance and less than 1 month of prep time), but with costs rounded up, so that building a city from town or village does not have a reduced cost compared to building a city from scratch.
I was noodling with this idea last night while trying to get to sleep. Since you already have a topic up on it I'll toss in my two coppers:
Hamlets, Villages and Towns can be created, each costs as much to prepare as a city district but each takes one month less than a city on the same site to prepare.
Hamlets consist of a single grid. (4 blocks)
Villages are a 2x1 grid. (8 blocks)
Towns area 2x2 grid. (16 blocks)
A hamlet can occupy the same hex as farmlands and does not increase consumption unless the sum total of it's modifiers (including defense) exceed +9, in which case it increases consumption by 1.
A village also can occupy the same hex as farmlands and only increases consumption under the same conditions as a hamlet.
A town always increases consumption by 1, but can occupy the same hex as farmlands.
Anytime the players could found a city they may instead upgrade a hamlet, village or town to a city. This removes any benefit the hex might have for being farmlands, it is no long considered farmlands.
....
Big problems I see with these rules in general is that you can spot little hamlets in each farm that grant you substantial bonuses.
At the moment I'm pondering limiting the number of Hamlets/Villages/Towns based on Kingdom size, but not number of cities obviously. This'll potentially keep the problem from becoming overwhelming.
Big problems I see with these rules in general is that you can spot little hamlets in each farm that grant you substantial bonuses.
At the moment I'm pondering limiting the number of Hamlets/Villages/Towns based on Kingdom size, but not number of cities obviously. This'll potentially keep the problem from becoming overwhelming.
I don't see a big issue there, as the players could otherwise plan cities in all non-productive hexes (forests, mountains, swamp), which also seems counter intuitive or just build big cities with many city districts, which also seems less realistic..... I prefer that the smaller villages and hamlets are more common that the big cities......
Additionally, many buildings that could be build in a hamlet (or in my system; town) do need houses to be build, thus further limiting the possibilities in these settlements.
However, I can see the balance to have certain limitations to villages, towns and cities, but am not sure how I would implement these. (I think I would limit cities more than towns, and towns more than villages)
Personally I just have villages be abstract, assuming there are several in each hex that has been claimed. Towns on the other hand I could see actually defining.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Personally I just have villages be abstract, assuming there are several in each hex that has been claimed. Towns on the other hand I could see actually defining.
I make liberal use of the handwave method here as well - claimed hexes, and even unclaimed ones, have tiny microsettlements - a cluster of houses and an informal flophouse inn along the bank of a river or a lake, or in a forest glen, or out in the hills.
That said, I kind of like the idea of villages (in my case, more than towns, actually).
I would say that if you go the village route, you should probably get rid of the Camp/Mine/Fort rules. I proposed those rules in the first place as a way to allow some kind of exploitation of non-farmable hexes, but really they are just ways to plant a Mill or Watchtower outside of a city hex.
If you have a village, you can put the mill/tower *IN* the village and you don't need to worry about having this abstracted construct outside of it.
Pondering it at the moment with my players and whether we want to implement a rule allowing the Village People... :)
|
Personally I just have villages be abstract, assuming there are several in each hex that has been claimed. Towns on the other hand I could see actually defining.I make liberal use of the handwave method here as well - claimed hexes, and even unclaimed ones, have tiny microsettlements - a cluster of houses and an informal flophouse inn along the bank of a river or a lake, or in a forest glen, or out in the hills.
That said, I kind of like the idea of villages (in my case, more than towns, actually).
I would say that if you go the village route, you should probably get rid of the Camp/Mine/Fort rules. I proposed those rules in the first place as a way to allow some kind of exploitation of non-farmable hexes, but really they are just ways to plant a Mill or Watchtower outside of a city hex.
If you have a village, you can put the mill/tower *IN* the village and you don't need to worry about having this abstracted construct outside of it.
Pondering it at the moment with my players and whether we want to implement a rule allowing the Village People... :)
lol!good one!
I would say that if you go the village route, you should probably get rid of the Camp/Mine/Fort rules. I proposed those rules in the first place as a way to allow some kind of exploitation of non-farmable hexes, but really they are just ways to plant a Mill or Watchtower outside of a city hex.
If you have a village, you can put the mill/tower *IN* the village and you don't need to worry about having this abstracted construct outside of it.
Pondering it at the moment with my players and whether we want to implement a rule allowing the Village People... :)
Thanks for the advice. I think I will do away with the rules for camps and forts then. I will probably keep some rule for mines, but I am not sure how I will do that yet. Maybe a mine "buildng" that can only be build in a hex with the right resources (plenty of those in the AP).
Big problems I see with these rules in general is that you can spot little hamlets in each farm that grant you substantial bonuses.
At the moment I'm pondering limiting the number of Hamlets/Villages/Towns based on Kingdom size, but not number of cities obviously. This'll potentially keep the problem from becoming overwhelming.
I don't see a big issue there, as the players could otherwise plan cities in all non-productive hexes (forests, mountains, swamp), which also seems counter intuitive or just build big cities with many city districts, which also seems less realistic..... I prefer that the smaller villages and hamlets are more common that the big cities......
Additionally, many buildings that could be build in a hamlet (or in my system; town) do need houses to be build, thus further limiting the possibilities in these settlements.
However, I can see the balance to have certain limitations to villages, towns and cities, but am not sure how I would implement these. (I think I would limit cities more than towns, and towns more than villages)
I was actually speaking of my rules, which don't restrict what you can build in a village, town or hamlet. (After all, there can sometimes just big a huge Pier on the edge of the river the locals use to offload and load on goods, and it's the only sizable structure for a while. Or the castle alone by itself is rather iconic in fantasy. ... It really boils down to what makes it simple.
And if every farmlands hex suddenly starts providing a +2 e/+2 l/+4 s (Brewery, Granary, Smith, Smith) then suddenly things get a little sticky. The only incentive to build cities at that point is so that you can sell more magic items per turn, inflating your treasury even more.
Of course they can build a lonely pier (not terribly common) or a lonely castle also in my system, (using the town rules). However they will just have to pay 0.5 consumption in maintenance for it…. which to me doesn’t seem strange. However, you also covered that by using the +9 max bonus before incurring consumption rule, so there is more than one way to make this work.
I do very strongly feel that the players should not be able to work around the "house" requirements by building hamlets.... but that is just me. It gives the hamlets a bit too much of an advantage.
I do very strongly feel that the players should not be able to work around the "house" requirements by building hamlets.... but that is just me. It gives the hamlets a bit too much of an advantage.
Oh my example didn't circumvent or change the rules. It's simply a fact of the system that most structures that require houses flatly don't deserve to be built. I don't know how specific I can be here because I doubt the Kingdom rules are OGC... but compare the costs/benefits of an Inn plus house to a Library plus Smith.
Really the only two structures in the game that justify the creation of houses are the Brothel, which is ridiculously cost effective, especially early on; and the Black Market for access to Major Items to sell cheaply.
The Market is arguably competitive what with it's reducing the Black Market's price. However if you've a water border on the town it's better to simply place 2 piers and paying a few more BP and eliminate the need for the houses, freeing up a couple blocks. (That's a few more BP than what the cost of the Market would be before reducing it by half the cost of the Black Market... as in essence what you're doing when you build a market is 'pay ahead' the cost of the Black Market, paying half the cost with this structure so you don't have to pay it later.)
Of course if you cheese munchkin and want 2 Black Markets then the Market is obviously a good structure, but the only reason to do this is for a wide selection of items to purchase and to really jack up the town's Base Value.
If that cost reduction is what makes the Market attractive, reduce the amount of the reduction from the cost of the Market. 108 (Market's Cost)-50 (Black Market savings) = 58 (The true cost of the Market.) After all, you were going to spend that 50 on the BM anyways, it's a question of if you spend it on a structure that saves you money on the BM or the BM itself.
Now you're left with a structure that costs you 58 BP to build and takes up the space of the Market+2 houses. At that point you have to look at the benefits of those structures and compare them to others to find out what could be as good. In a strange coincidence, the Pier costs 32 BP, we'll say. Two together only take up half the room of the Market and it's 2 houses, but offer all the benefits that the market does other than it's cost reduction qualities. So for only 6 more BP you're using half the land for the same game effect, other than the peripheral benefit of the houses that can be mimicked by a healthy nation in 2 months without a structure.
|
Hey Berhagen, this is an interesting idea that I like a lot.
I have decided to incorporate these with the following changes:
Town: 4 2x2 squares (16 blocks)
.5 consumption (round up)
Village or Hamlet 2 2x2 squares (8 blocks)
.25 consumption (round up)
Essentially you could have 4 villages or 2 villages and 1 town for the consumption of one city district. Total blocks would only be 32 - which is four less than a city district for the same consumption; there in lies some of the balance.
The only question I now have is in regards to the upgrading comments:
"Upgrade from a farm, camp or fishery."
I know what a farm is, I saw another thread talking about a camp, but I can't find info on a fishery. So what is a fishery (as it relates to the game - I know what a fishery IS - just can't find it's existance in this game).
Robert
|
|
I would say that if you go the village route, you should probably get rid of the Camp/Mine/Fort rules. I proposed those rules in the first place as a way to allow some kind of exploitation of non-farmable hexes, but really they are just ways to plant a Mill or Watchtower outside of a city hex.
Just out of curiosity, Jason; why would you propose having one mutually excected of the other?
Why cannot the kingdom have towns/villages and have camps, which IIRC, was suggested as more of a lumber mill in a forest hex, which cannot have farm anyways. I'm thinking if you have only villages/towns, and no camps for lumber, the forest hexes will still never be utilized - in favor of only farms being developed into villages etc.
I am of the opinion that they don't need to be mutually exclusive. But i'm the sage on that; so just picking your brain on what you see as the problem with that notion....?
Thanks
Robert
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would say that if you go the village route, you should probably get rid of the Camp/Mine/Fort rules. I proposed those rules in the first place as a way to allow some kind of exploitation of non-farmable hexes, but really they are just ways to plant a Mill or Watchtower outside of a city hex.Just out of curiosity, Jason; why would you propose having one mutually excected of the other?
Why cannot the kingdom have towns/villages and have camps, which IIRC, was suggested as more of a lumber mill in a forest hex, which cannot have farm anyways. I'm thinking if you have only villages/towns, and no camps for lumber, the forest hexes will still never be utilized - in favor of only farms being developed into villages etc.
I am of the opinion that they don't need to be mutually exclusive. But i'm the sage on that; so just picking your brain on what you see as the problem with that notion....?
Thanks
Robert
I suppose you could do both. When I came up with the idea of the Mill/Camp/Fort optional rule, all that I really did was port the costs and stats for a Mill and Watchtower into a non-city hex, where you couldn't normally build buildings. Since with the village rule you now CAN build those same buildings, it seemed like a pointless double dip to have people build the actual buildings plus a duplicate pseudo-building in the form of a hex improvement.
But there's no particular reason you couldn't do both. It's a double-dip, but it's a double dip into otherwise low-value hexes.
I suppose if and when Paizo gets around to creating more robust rules, it'll probably go into more granular detail on the value of different kinds of terrain for city or nation development. For now, I'd just encourage people to mostly keep it simple, test out simple new rule ideas, and see how they go. As we keep massaging the important ideas and things that we might wish to see down the road, we can look forward to a more robust revision of this idea not too far down the line. We hope... :)
I just want to say that I really like what you did here. It all looks like a great addition to the Kingdom building rules.
Here here! I like what I've seen here, and will try to incorporate it.
