Moving ports to main settlement building chain YES/NO? CA?

markusas#2324

Hi guys,

Some races like Tomb Kings and Skaven for example has **** income from ports and the opportunity to remove them would be nice. Also some cities on the map along the coast has special buildings and/or resources and one reserved slot for ports in those settlements is a pain in the ***. Leaving few options to build when you have to build port and walls/garrison.

A good solution to this would be to move the port into the main settlement building, freeing up an extra slot. That would also make coastal minor settlements feel much more desirable than previously, now they feel more like a punishment.

Myself and many others have talked about this in threads about future requests and changes but I have never seen CA talk about this. Has anyone seen an employee at CA comment about this?

yolordmcswag#6132

Making the port building optional could work, but rolling it into the main settlement building would be OP. For many races ports are the best economic buildings there is, and one typically has more than enough building slots for recruitment in the main settlements anyway.

MrDragon#2461

I'd never thought about this because I always want to upgrade the port building asap for the perks it gives in any faction.
Hmmmm I suppose there are situations where another building might be preferable... though I can't think of any.
I still wish a few places that for some mysterious reason aren't ports would become ports. Like the Serpent Coast.

Slayer_Yannir#8069

I have the opposite issue more where if a minor settlement doesn't have a port, I don't even know what to build in the third slot. Usually it's a Barracks building or some other random crap. In these cases I love it when there's a port. More money!

Bretonnia though. In this one I get it. The mill/storehouse buildings should effect the entire province but you could only build them in major settlements. In minor port settlements you basically choose between money and garrison, and it sucks.

Steph#6413

I personally would prefer the port in the main settlement building.
But this means a different building chain for coastal/non coastal settlement with different effect and cost.

A settlement on the coast (or a major river like Altdorf) would have the extra benefits of a port, but also the extra building cost.

It may even require more growth or longer buiilding time to be built.

A possibility would be to limit this to minor settlement. And keep the port slot for major settlement as independent

Pr4vda#6038

I wish there would be more buildings choice. Right now, I always build the same things in every provinces, except those with a cool landmark.

Minor cities are always build the same way : growth then barracks to get walls in order to avoid the AI taking your settlements if you dont babysitt it.

I don't think ports are the problem. It is buildings diversity that is one. If I could get out of the garrison building and get more interesting buildings, I could choose an other path.

Why are minor settlements caped at level 3 ? If you could go to 5 and get more troops and defensive tricks (towers, barricades etc.) with the levels, I would be happy. The garrison building could only be available at level 3 and could get a second army to defend the settlement, but at high cost and high upkeep, leaving it to very important locations.

Why ports (or some other buildings, port beeing only an example) give always the same bonuses to each races and factions ? HE could get military ports or commercial ports for instance.

ToB gave great improvements on that imo.

Steph#6413

I think no one is suggesting to remove this effect, but rather to integrate in the main settlement building.

TheShiroOfDalton

No, against it. Port cities are already way too valuable, there's no need to increase that.

I think they need to gain some vulnerabilities instead, like sea-side blockades with non-black arks.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

GloatingSwine#8098

Tomb Kings get low income from everything because they don’t pay upkeep so it’s pure profit.

markusas#2324

GloatingSwine said:

Tomb Kings get low income from everything because they don’t pay upkeep so it’s pure profit.

Yes, but why should you be forced to occupy that slot with a worthless port?

psychoak#6605

Ports are not "way too valuable", even for factions with great ports.

They're a maximum potential income increase, they're not a good trade off.

For factions like Empire, who have a high potential income, this is a long term purchase over a short term cost. Sure, you'll spend 14k to get less than you'd get from spending 9500 for two industry buildings, but you at least get it from one slot. The minor port is less of a deal, but it's not terrible since you can only build one industry per settlement, and 400 income is decent income.

For Bretonnia, who have terrible ports, they're just terrible. You need two structures for your maximum income potential, you've got a single turn naval assault vulnerable port settlement with a crappy militia, and one of your three slots is stuck with a 200 income building?

It's not even half of a single income structure. You could replace it with a level 1 farm and have better income. It's a handicap.

Some ports are just plain good, some are middle of the road, and some are atrocities visited upon their owners. The good ones would be horribly broken BS if they came free of slot usage, but the terrible ones? Bretonnia's would be worth less than the elven colonies are...

TheShiroOfDalton

Bretonnia is supposed to be dirt-poor so I don't give a Skaven's behind. For everyone else, especially the money-crapping factions like HE the ports are too powerful and giving them a major buff by basically removing their upgrade cost is absolutely out of the question. Empire BTW can get pretty powerful ports too with tech, so that's misleading.

Ports must be nerfed again and instead they must just give a bonus to trade.

psychoak#6605

Quit reading before the last paragraph, eh?

I'm sure we all know you want income reduced, but you're literally focusing on the worst structures.

Even the good ports are over priced compared to other incomes. Simply nerfing them just makes them an even worse buy relative to other income structures. If income needs to be reduced, you don't do it by nuking ports to make them all be penalties. You do it by reducing income across the board.