• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
  • Forum Contests

    Don't forget to check out the current contests here.

Cold: Resources Overview in settlement

Do you like the idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • Total voters
Not open for further replies.


Different resources amount in Resources Overview in settlement.

Didnt found this idea already raised on EN forum.

When showing amounts needed for next level of advance in settlement, amount are good, but when you look at needed resources for next advance amounts are shown like this one is next in line.

This feature is very nice but it will be better if calculations are different. For example:

For 1st unfinished building I need 117 Barley and it is ok to be green. For 2nd I need 105 but I am missing 145 - 117 -105 = -77 and it should be black 105(-77).

For Elephant stable and Pottery it should be 71(-66), Place of Prayer 59(-125).

It will be easier to know how much resources you are missing for next levels.

This is how I show it:

Balance/Abuse Prevention
Cant be abused, it is just a report.

Lord Grok

Master Corporal
I agree with you but seems I’m in the minority. The current system that shows the required cost against multiple future buildings based on what you have now and not including all the intervening costs is meaningless - except that it makes it consistent with the regular tech tree where the tech isn’t linear so the method makes more sense because they can’t assume what branch you may take first.


Master Corporal
Completely agree. Ignoring the intervening costs makes this much less useful than it could be. Yes, I can manually calculate it myself, but this is intended to mostly eliminate the need for that.
Not open for further replies.