Topic: Limited storage space in warehouses.

Hey,

einstein13 wrote:

From my perspective adding warehouse limits will break current economy look.

If you are comparing Settlers 3 and Settlers 2 (I will use S3 &S2 names), there are significant differences: [...]

Thanks for your elaborations on game dynamics. Very interesting to read, and it did teach me more about Settlers III.

Well, playing Widelands I observed that managing the road system seems not so importand (to the way I play, at least) than with Settlers II. It's one element of gameplay which seemed to be more important to care about in Settlers II than in Widelands.

Regarding the case were many natural resources have to be cut away to expand: One can still destroy wares by destroying the places holding them (e.g. a road-system). But this is tedious. You are right, such maps won't work well with this setting, if we like to play those maps with limited warehouse option enabled we would need some kind of "waste dump"/ "waste burner", or like:

• Logs can be burned,
• with stones another worker can build a wall somewhere else (which could be converted back to stones by a quarry). That wall will of course be a barrier. The wall-builder need to be assigned a working area, and if it is a real area and not a one-dimensional stripe it has to start in the centre (because later it cannot reach it anymore).

(empty signature.)

Top

Quote

-1 from my side. I just don't see the advantage that would justify the very big effort needed to implement this.
Furhtermore I agree with einstein. S3 storage was a totally different concept to widelands. Even in the current design it is recommendable for various reasons to have a bunch of warehouses strategically placed over the map and except of stones there isn't a ware that is not useful in the game.
In some corner cases it is even necessary to pile up some ressources while not needed to be used later on due to limited space for production buildings.

Top

Quote

Needless to say, perhaps, but with so many against this idea I am very much in favour of it.

Small store houses near mines would help buffer food for miners and ores from them just as one example. It might help stop ore travelling three times around the map to get to a smelter because the destination is set as the ware is produced. Going to store houses near the mine before getting sent to a smelter might send it to a nearby smelter. I can think of many cases where small stores (say 10 wares capacity) could improve management of the economy.

Top

Quote

Especially with people who like the idea, people who has a workaround and people with logic arguments against (not "allergic").

But going back to the topic: what about introducing small building which would work as a limited warehouse? Then standard warehouse can be a bit more expensive and Widelands as a whole will work as before, plus some features .

einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top

Quote

WorldSavior wrote:

Changes can damage Widelands and this should be avoided.

The fact that any change can potentially damage Widelands, cannot justify a default negative stance to changes in general. After all, how many times in the past Widelands got damaged by a change? How big a damage was that? And how hard was it to repair it? Especially when it is about software, the easiest thing is to revert a change.

Moreover, the vast majority of arguments against specific changes have been about their side-effects, not about the changes themselves. And instead of focusing on what's wrong with Widelands that makes it theoretically so fragile to changes, people go the easy way of simply rejecting them, often without even checking if the side-effects are actual or just a fear. This is a case where good is the enemy of better.

Just to be clear, I'm not that much interested myself in the specific change about warehouses. My main concern is the general mentality that discourages creativity and kills motivation. I could easily write various counter-arguments on how what people consider to be a big change (i.e. a big threat to Widelands) is merely an extra dimension (here capacity) which can be designed to be orthogonal to the rest of the game, hardly hurting it at all. But I find it increasingly unworthy to reason against mindsets. It is an irony that Wide-lands is suffering from narrow-ness.

Top

Quote