Talk:Investments/@comment-31047653-20170911113536/@comment-31047653-20170913171932

@Casiope: Not to shoot down anybody's proposal, but I fail to see how splitting this page could be considered useful, unless you're referring to the loading time. The mess I'm talking about is the more immediate problem of premium horizontal space being eaten up. As you say, reducing the number of columns is what is necessary.

As for having the same investment twice... that is already present? Changing the hierarchy would merely cause some of the tables and headings to be shuffled around; none of them will have to be actually edited.

@Lostone2: True, but then the current style will cause the columns to become really mashed up in as less as two more rounds of returns. And can't the variation in returns in a single round be treated the same way we treat the cost of the Ardoheim bank? Leaving that aside, I admit that this solution is not great, but the problem of decreasing column space still needs to be addressed. We could separate profits from the investment table and provide returns of investments in a round at the beginning of that round, but, imo, that is extremely undesirable. Other suggestions are, of course, welcome. Unless the column space problem... isn't a problem?

So... that's one for Rounds > Locations and one against.

That's fine, but then don't investments like Yhilin Public Works, Bridge Repair... and quite a few others also come under this header? Especially the mercenary companies? I might have missed something, but while I follow the logic for placing investments here, I don't get how quite a few others aren't.

@Fulminato: We could always give a range and give the actual values as a reference. Like we do for the cost of the Ardoheim bank and the Early Advantages of the Yhilin Bank. However, this is not a great solution. My main point here is that columns should be reduced. Proposals towards that end are welcome (or arguments as to why this is not necessary, of course).