Production roll over

[Maquiladora]

Production roll over is when your city is producing more production than is needed to complete the current item, so the extra production is carried over to the next item in the queue, or the next item you add.

This looks fairly easy to add. Research already works this way too.

I would prefer to change how the original game works rather than adding another optional rule though. Mainly because the list of optional rules is getting silly now, but also frankly I would never use the old rule if this was available. Just like old combat. But that is just my opinion.

[mapfi]

what's wrong with all the options if they are properly explained (which they currently are not)? and no is missing from the above don't include it, it doesn't make any sense logically. but i'm fine with leaving people the choice.

if you implement this, will a player not loose the accumulated production for a wonder anymore? speaking of that, i think wonders should never be allowed to be changed mid-way anyway, if you disband a wonder project you should loose accumulated production

[Maquiladora]

what's wrong with all the options if they are properly explained (which they currently are not)? and no is missing from the above don't include it, it doesn't make any sense logically. but i'm fine with leaving people the choice.

Well this is another issue but I'll give my opinion on it anyway

Right now there are way too many rules that are either, badly implemented, the AI has no idea how to handle them, or they're just plain broken. I'm guilty of contributing to this too. The ages option needs to be disabled or fixed when using scenarios.

But basically I think there are already too many custom rules.

if you implement this, will a player not loose the accumulated production for a wonder anymore?

They'll still lose the production. But only an idiot would let themselves lose production on a wonder. Since you get a 2 turn warning someone else is about to complete it. But that's another issue as well.

speaking of that, i think wonders should never be allowed to be changed mid-way anyway, if you disband a wonder project you should loose accumulated production

Actually I thought of this when I was looking for why the change production penalty wasn't working. Maybe EPW can have a look at it?

[Maquiladora]

I found a good post by Martin the Dane regarding carry/roll over:

A much better way of balancing the value of large vs. many cities would be to allow ecsess production to be carried over to the next turn. I have often thought that having a city capable of producing 2000 production points only being able to produce one unit/turn even if the unit costs 1000 production, is quite stupid.

Or when building something and missing it by 1 production, the city wastes 1999 production to complete it. This is comparable to a builder building a house and missing one dor knob going out to orders a truckload of materials, just to dump all except the dorknob at the nearest dumpsite.

And I just noticed the following post by mapfi in that thread.

Edit: If the links don't work here is the thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=76458

[EPW]

They'll still lose the production. But only an idiot would let themselves lose production on a wonder.

[Maquiladora]

If you're trying to refer to the PBEM game where I lost my production when you completed a wonder, it was because my messages were screwed up, and I didn't know you were close to completing it

If not, then it's never happened to me.

[Martin Gühmann]

If you add production roll over then you have to change how the AI rush buys. It puts the most gold into the projects near completion instead of saving it for bigger project like a military unit for an undefended recently founded city.

-Martin

[mapfi]

And I just noticed the following post by mapfi in that thread.

Edit: If the links don't work here is the thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=76458

lol - I guess I was young and naive then ;-) I think there's an arguement to be made either way, that's why I'm saying I'm fine with having all the options as long as that does not screw up the game (e.g. modders)

[Maquiladora]

Actually I thought of this when I was looking for why the change production penalty wasn't working.

I made some inroads on this today, and will probably post a fix tomorrow or the day after.

The production roll over will be a bit more difficult at least.

[EPW]

I made some inroads on this today, and will probably post a fix tomorrow or the day after.

The production roll over will be a bit more difficult at least.

What are the penalties supposed to be?

[Maquiladora]

What are the penalties supposed to be?

By default in const.txt the penalty is 25% production stored lost when you switch to building something of a different type from your last turn. The 3 types obviously being units, buildings and wonders.

[Maquiladora]

If you add production roll over then you have to change how the AI rush buys. It puts the most gold into the projects near completion instead of saving it for bigger project like a military unit for an undefended recently founded city.

-Martin

Why should roll over change the AI's rush-buying?

[EPW]

Because they rush buy before production is complete, to prevent loss of production. Like a obsessive-compulsive human would.

[Maquiladora]

Because they rush buy before production is complete, to prevent loss of production. Like a obsessive-compulsive human would.

It depends how near to completion they rush, to gain one or two turns on a few units is better than rushing one unit from nothing.

[EPW]

It depends how near to completion they rush, to gain one or two turns on a few units is better than rushing one unit from nothing.

?

That wouldn't be the case if you removed production roll over would it?
Don't tell me rushbuy costs are non-linear.