Civ bonus explanation: no lumber camps are needed within a 15 tile radius of a TC.
When you send a villager to wood, a feint shaded circle around your TC appears letting you know that you don’t need a lumber camp in this range.
Coding seems simple. If within 15 tiles of TC villager does not need to drop off at lumber camp or TC. If outside of radius then go to nearest drop off point.
Sorry bro no lumber camp/stone drop off has too many complications and too much potential to be game breaking,
The khmer one although seemingly similar is vastly different for the simple fact that they have to Harvest at the farm. Not some resource specifically spread all across the map.
No drop off has too much potential for abuse (including your tc option)
I like the other ideas of cheaper camps or further drop off distance. And it’s good to think of new bonuses for factions.
also add to whatever everyone else has said. Your wood cutters can simply keep walling as they cut and not have to worry about being attacked. Compared to having to keep lines open to the lumber camp, now 16 cutters can work and all be individually walled in. Things like that which now break the whole “how do we balance this”
Awful lot of text indeed.
Yea, I don’t think that mechanic exists yet in aoe. So it needs to be separately coded. Waste of time, when most balance changes are made by just switching a few numbers around in the Genie editor (or the devs equivalent, more powerful tool). More important matters exist that require actual coding too. And cause I don’t even think the idea is good to begin with, to even waste coding resources for it makes it even more worse.
And the forum is still on form with these kind of knee jerk reactions trying to belittle the others recommendations purely on the merit of that “they are wrong”
What is so wrong if it is similar to the jap bonus but weaker? You literally want to correct the guy for the sake of correcting him?
How much wood do celts gain over other civs over the whole of dark age? That would be an interesting calculation. I’m sure if you tried to justify the celts wood bonus with the line in their wiki “Their civilization bonus of efficient lumberjacks (+15%) is better than Two-man Saw (+10%, expensive).” it would also come off as broken no? They basically get an imp upgrade for free in dark age?
I’m pretty sure they were suggesting to make them slower as well - which would account for an average walking distance to dropoff - so it’s just the wood savings.
That happens anyway in a trush 11. You take your opponents gold or stone a lot of the time.
Carry capacity isn’t always a buff (try playing triple or 256 tech mod and research wheelbarrow a lot and watch farmers hoard food and never drop it off), it means it takes longer to actually drop off the resources, which sounds more like a dark age nerf. It’d be better long term maybe when you have a lot of lumberjacks.
And have the same people give out about how unoriginal that is? I think unoriginal is fine, and to be honest, unoriginal is probably more likely to be balanced than a lot of original ideas.
I’m not really for or against the idea as I’m not even sure which civs you’d give these bonuses to. I just think people see a change and overreact that the game will be broken far too often.
You know you can still wall in lumberjacks now and they collect wood, so you even now you could do exactly as you say (minus the individually walling in the vils - imagine the micro involved though…). As you could can wall to the lumber camp and keep chopping wood no problem. The counter is one word, archers.
It’s stronger the later the game goes when you don’t have to think about refreshing lumber camps. He missed that point.
Well I tried to think of a new possible bonus but I guess it didn’t do too well. I was ready for the backlash.
Usually the devs get a lot of backlash when they implement something though. I guess it is to be expected. Imagine giving celts Paladin in the next update if they didn’t get it or heck even the Khmer no mill bonus or cuman 2 TC feudal age. People definitely knee jerk react to any ideas against the status quo.
And the forum is also full of people who just rant without trying to understand what other people says, thinking that they just want to block any attempt to change the game, because is more easy to attack than to comprehend.
What I was saying is that the japs bonus makes sense, the one he proposed in my opinion doesn’t, and I also argued why, I didn’t state that I didn’t want the bonus because it was similar to the japs one, or because the game is good as it is and I don’t want it changed.
What arguments have you brought in favor of his idea? I stated why I thought it was either OP or useless, the difficulties of balancing it, while you just implied that I’m a jerk and attacked me personally, which is something I can’t tolerate.
But if you take away the need of building a camp you make it a lot more stronger.
If you make them slower, so that they gather the same as vills with LC, then what is the purpose?
A bonus similar to japs or malians would be better to save wood, and this way you incourage them to don’t build LC and skip double bit axe, which is bad.
I was proposing to buff only their lumberjacks or miners carry capacity, it wouldn’t have nothing to with farms.
So even if I bring logic arguments against his idea it’s overreacting?
I constantly bring in proposals for new changes for the game in this forum, sometimes people like it, other time people don’t, we argue and we confront ours ideas, because that how you can see if it’s a good one or not, then everyone goes on it’s way.
The purpose is twofold
That is a good point, since the wood cost can go into more towers instead of a mining camp etc.
You save wood on lumber camps and you don’t get any pathing problems where vills get in each others way to drop off wood. Even if it isn’t an eco bonus it’s a micro bonus 
I didn’t single you out as making illogical arguments or overreacting. But if you read down from the op to here, there definitely is some posts that just say no thanks and don’t really have a good reason.
What I quoted was, is 300w over the whole of dark age op? I was wondering how easy it would be to calculate how much wood extra celts get from dark age as a comparison. If it’s like 50w then sure 300w sounds op, but if celts gain 250w extra in dark age from their bonus by the end of dark age, it doesn’t sound half as bad. I could probably just do a standard build order (archers,scouts?) with celts/no celts and resign once I click feudal and see the amount of wood collected?
Actually spirit of the law did this and it is more like 60 extra wood for fast feudal, for fc and on the way to feudal it’s like 180 wood. so 300 wood saving would be a bit op.
However if you only make two lumbercamps in dark age it’s only 200w saved, and if you only make 1 mining camp it’s only 100 w saving. So if you have a bonus that means you don’t need one of (lumbercamp or mining camp being built) it doesn’t sound that bad right?
That’s need some testing, I can’t answer right away, nor I can’t do the math now.
Not just that, it’s the versatility, they could micro like hell, it would be a lot more easy to steal resources.
But if the plan if to nerf their lumberjacks to the point that their only bonus is the wood saved form the LC that doesn’t need to be built, this is a real bonus.
For most parts of the game you can calucate resource savings like that. However, here I think it’s more complex. Not needing to build an early lumber camp in dark age is really a big deal for some aggressive strategies. It basically means you can get your boars super early because you have enough wood to make a mill without having gathered wood. Great bonus for a very early tower rush. Plus you can just tower behind your opponents woodlines and then take the wood there until you build more towers. Makes forwards so much less heavy on your eco. Also it allows for very early barracks strategies. And great bonus for defending. Altogether, it would be a super versatile bonus.
It would be cool to see how this bonus fares in real gameplay. I wish you could implement changes that aren’t in the game just to see how strong a bonus would be.
You would have to factor in the loss of wood income from inefficient lumber jacks for most or all of dark age since the gather rate would be equivalent to 1 or 2 tiles distance from a lumber camp and dark age lumber camps will have very little walking.
Of course I can only speculate but I think it’s just too strong because it significantly buffs every early game strategy while also being a solid bonus later on. And of course the question has to be what civ is to get that bonus. I can’t think of any civ weak enough.
If you gave it to the Portuguese (43% win rate), you would have to take away the 15% gold discount to all units. The fetoria already gives steady wood income so it wouldn’t be as big of a bonus late game than to another civ. They would probably delete many of their lumberjacks because floating too much wood from the fetoria. I wonder how that would play out.
True.
To me, it would me more simple to use houses as resource drop point…
But at least requires an investment into a mining camp…
That’s a cool idea. Given that fish can now be dropped off at docks, there is precedence for this approach.
Civs with a house lumber drop-offs could have a little axe on the side of their house. Civs with house mining drop-offs could have a little pick.
This would save wood, save labor building-time, and reduce the likelihood that civ would get housed. But, they would still need to refresh the camps and would still need to build a non-house camp to research technologies.
The question is… what civ should benefit by such bonus?
Khmer and vietnamese became viable after receiving their eco bonus (Khmer became top tier, but have been balanced after that), and those bonus fit with their theme.
To me, its like a bonus for nomadic folk, so maybe tatars or bulgarians could use it.