|
I’ve mistaken the rules about terrain improvements for our Kingmaker game, but I see a potential upside to it. Has anyone played it further to know how this would effect the Mid to Late Game?
Inadvertent House Rule: Mines can only be built on locations where a resource is known to exist. (Either as stated by the AP or the GM)
I may have confused this with the AP listing two sites early on or from various kingdom/civilization video games, but I think it will provide a throttle to how fast the economy can expand, so I’m not sure if we should change it.
Another mechanic that we have agreed on is that the divisor for economy checks will increase as the kingdom grows (d20+Econ score divided by 3 to start, then by 5 and maybe higher as the kingdom expands.
Do you think these will make the kingdom too ineffective later in the AP or will they help avoid the runaway economy score that makes some games too easy and ultimately uninteresting?
I would suggest looking at Ultimate Rulership first if you want to make the above change. Your party will be generating and spending around a hundred BP a turn when you get to kingdom size ~50; that is by design. What perhaps isn't by intent that Crushing taxes vs "No" taxes generates almost the exact same amount of tax per turn (a difference of 3 BP assuming both rolls pass) for a massive loyalty (usually the lowest score) dip.
It shouldn't be that big of a deal to correct, but you can only build a mine/quarry on a hill/mountain/cavern hex, a sawmill in a forest/swamp/jungle hex, and if a resource is in the only remaining categories are plains and total water hex, which means you only gain the increase to farm/fishery output.
Now note that in real life, mines and especially quarries can and often still are built in flatlands, but you have to go through a lot more effort to dig through a flat surface of softer ground and potentially aquifers to get to the stone or metals you actually want. If they really want a mine in a plains hex (or even a sawmill in an unwooded hex) to benefit from a resource hex, I would probably triple its cost to account for the extra effort it takes to get it started. A powerful enough druid could create an entire forest in little time with enough incentive and promise it would be responsibly tended.
But even then, this is a house rule, and should probably be in the advice forum.
|
That raises another question of how many turns occur in each book. I suppose ultimately the productivity rate will depend on when certain hexes are explored and when the GM introduces certain events.
In Kingmaker how much time passes is in the hand of the GM. The things that are strange are how fast your population can increase (there are similar examples in RL when gold rushes happened, but it is not sustainable in the long run) and how BP can be generated by building structures that increase your Economy, regardless of your real ability to sell the items.
About your question, limiting the mines to hexes with special resources will not affect your economy that much, a mine is only a +2 to the Economy. A farm will not increase your Economy, but it decreases
consumption by 2 BPs, so it has a larger effect, as you need 10 points of Economy to generate 2 BPs.
RolePlaying wise, a mine on a resource hex is a big find, so it is a reasonable reason for an influx of population in the area (the above-mentioned gold rush). The difference with an RL gold rush is that the resource lasts for a long time, so it allows the ruler to stabilize the population.