View Full Version : Should captured Vampires keep their abilities?


Mesix
Feb 15, 2009, 06:36 PM
Using the command promotions, a high level unit has a chance to capture a living unit after combat. Currently, all units in the game retain their abilities accept one: the Vampire. A Vampire that is captured through command can no longer feast. All national heroes (that are alive) can be captured and retain their abilities. All other unique units from other civs can likewise be captured with full functionality.

It has been suggested in other threads that allowing a functional Vampire to be captured would take away from the Calabim civ in some way. If this is true, then how about capturing Grigori Adventurers or Balseraph Mimics?

Only high level units can get the command ability. Attempting to capture a unit means risking the high level unit in combat. It is never guaranteed that defeating a unit in combat will result in a capture. It seems that there should be some reward for capturing the unit.

One possibility would be to disallow the gift vampirism ability. This would allow the player to have one unit that can feast without the ability to gift it to others. This may also make more sense thematically since a vampire still satisfies his hunger to feast, but he refuses to share the secret with other units of the civ that captured him.

What do you think? Is the Vampire unit so special that its main ability should be locked from all civs that capture it? What abilities should be disallowed if it is captured?

Kenjister
Feb 15, 2009, 06:38 PM
Thematically, I don't think it should be allowed. I mean, do you really want the guy you just captured to be walking around the city consuming your citizens souls at leisure? Typically Vampires are strong enough as is when captured so I don't think they need another boost.

KillerClowns
Feb 15, 2009, 06:51 PM
I like things as they are now; gifting is availible (IIRC) but feasting is not. Gifting is implied to require human sacrifice (as per Alexis 'pedia), so it should be unavailable to Good civs, though I can see neutral ones doing it. But Feasting is a decidedly Calabim enterprise; even the Sheaim treat their citizens better (or, at the very least, oppose wasting potential research subjects and worshipers of Agares as some vampire's lunch).

cabbagemeister
Feb 15, 2009, 07:01 PM
You underestimate how easy it is to capture vampires.

1) Archmages can capture them with Dominate
2) high Priests can capture them with Command promotions, as you mention
3) Even normal, straight off the assembly line priests can get the Command I promotion
4) Stephanos' Crown allows units to be captured.

It's really not that difficult at all to capture them. Also, captured vampires are not comparable to adventurers or mimics because neither one of those units has the unlimited combat-free xp potential that Vampires have. I think the current limit on non-Calabim Feasting is absolutely the best way to approach this issue.

Iceciro
Feb 15, 2009, 07:37 PM
Also, Balseraph Mimics cannot gift Mimicry to other units.

One Vampire can quickly make the entire Cabalim advantage obsolete.

Avahz Darkwood
Feb 15, 2009, 07:37 PM
I like things as they are now; gifting is availible (IIRC) but feasting is not. Gifting is implied to require human sacrifice (as per Alexis 'pedia), so it should be unavailable to Good civs, though I can see neutral ones doing it. But Feasting is a decidedly Calabim enterprise; even the Sheaim treat their citizens better (or, at the very least, oppose wasting potential research subjects and worshipers of Agares as some vampire's lunch).


I would have to agree! :agree: Feasting is a civ trait only for the Calabim, so the only thing you get from a captured vamp is the ability to gift it. It grants few abilities (IIRC +10% strength and healing rate)

ExMachina
Feb 15, 2009, 07:43 PM
Thematically, aren't vampires supposed to be utterly loyal to the one who created them? I don't think they should be capturable at all.

cIV_khanh93
Feb 15, 2009, 07:51 PM
thematically, aren't most units loyal? also thematically, dont people convert religions alot? isnt mind magic powerful? If you dont your vamps to get captured use the law I spell, its there fro a reason.

Honor
Feb 15, 2009, 07:53 PM
Thematically, aren't vampires supposed to be utterly loyal to the one who created them? I don't think they should be capturable at all.

Interesting point. Does FfH have any lore that implies any part of the elder/child relationship/hierarchy between a vamp and the one who sired them?

unclethrill
Feb 15, 2009, 08:08 PM
They are vampires after all, shouldn't they be able to eat whoever they want. Just because they are captured doesn't mean they forget how to convert the blood of their victims into abilities such as Blitz and March.

Mesix
Feb 15, 2009, 08:19 PM
I like things as they are now; gifting is availible (IIRC) but feasting is not. Gifting is implied to require human sacrifice (as per Alexis 'pedia), so it should be unavailable to Good civs, though I can see neutral ones doing it. But Feasting is a decidedly Calabim enterprise; even the Sheaim treat their citizens better (or, at the very least, oppose wasting potential research subjects and worshipers of Agares as some vampire's lunch).
What exactly are they gifting if it is not the ability to feast? Are they just sacrificing people for no purpose?

"Check this out. I can slit this guy's throat over an altar. This is how I do it."

Captured Vampires without feast are kinda like wannabe ganstas from the subburbs.

"Look at me. I'm bad. I have a piece and listen to rap music. I got this cool Tatoo that says I am a gansta. Booyaka respect!"

Thematically, aren't vampires supposed to be utterly loyal to the one who created them? I don't think they should be capturable at all.

There is an easy way to make them uncapturable...make them undead. If they are undead they should not be capturable...but if they are alive they should retain their abilities and hunger for human blood even under a new ruler.

Brokenbone
Feb 15, 2009, 08:30 PM
If Vampires were undead, "Command" promos wouldn't be much of a question... heh, different can of worms though, including concerns over Destroy Undead knocking 30th level megavampires off in one turn.

Anyhow, I do think "Feast" makes limited sense for non Calabim civs. Feast means knocking a population point off one of your cities, right? The Calabim people know to put up with this, i.e., they're oppressed, their culture works like that, their buildings harness that somewhat, they expect it as the human cattle they are.

Try pulling that in a different civ and maybe you'd need to have a horrible penalty unseen in Calabim lands. Maybe 10x as many people made unhappy, or health ratings drop through the floor, or every time you use it, 3 pop vanish (one eaten, two flee in terror). Yeah, I guess the net is that feasting in a land where they're used to icky breeding pits and horrible conditions is one thing, feasting in many other civs may need some kind of higher penalty. Whether the penalty gets worse along lines or lore, religion, alignment, can't say! I.e., Clan lands, oh well, some orcs got eaten vs. Elohim lands, horror and shock that you let your new pet vampire eat an orphanage associated with Cahir Abbey or something.

KillerClowns
Feb 15, 2009, 08:30 PM
Thematically, aren't vampires supposed to be utterly loyal to the one who created them? I don't think they should be capturable at all.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been said of the subject of Erebus' vampires and their loyalty to the one who gifted them; it's all wild guessing. It might even be that Kael simply never thought of the question, meaning there is no "canon" answer (until he makes one). It might also be that he made some small, offhand comment about it back when I was playing vanilla civilization, in which case MagisterCultuum will be descending from on high complete with angelic chorus to quote it.
The best I can do is partake in my favorite past time: guess wildly from the flavor of Erebus and see if my answer ends up in the gray realm of canon-by-default. If there is a connection, I doubt it's any stronger then the bond between parent and child. Strong, but not unbreakable if the vampire in question is driven to shame and seeking repentance by some Prior... or offered a better deal by a Profane.

What exactly are they gifting if it is not the ability to feast? Are they just sacrificing people for no purpose?

"Check this out. I can slit this guy's throat over an altar. This is how I do it."

The extra strength and unnatural healing ability is a pretty sweet deal, even if you aren't allowed to turn large cities into buffets.

Mesix
Feb 15, 2009, 08:37 PM
If Vampires were undead, "Command" promos wouldn't be much of a question... heh, different can of worms though, including concerns over Destroy Undead knocking 30th level megavampires off in one turn.
I wouldn't have a problem with this. It gives them a weakness which seems good. Players with Life mana have the counter for the powerful Vampire Lords, so the Calabim need to send other units to fight them or risk their high level Vampires to destroy undead magic. It created a really good counter mechanic which makes for a good strategy game...and a good RPG as well.

Mesix
Feb 15, 2009, 08:45 PM
The extra strength and unnatural healing ability is a pretty sweet deal, even if you aren't allowed to turn large cities into buffets.

...but what is he gifting???

In the lore, Alexis figures out how to create wards that prevent a sacrificed human soul from escaping allowing her to capture the soul and become the first Vampire. She taught Flavros how to do this through demonstration. She was teaching him to feast and in doing so gifting vampirism. Without the warding it is just human sacrifice.

What is being gifted? Either a human is sacrificed and the soul is allowed to escape to the Vault...or wards prevent the soul from escaping and it can be feasted upon. There really is no half way. A Vampire feasts and a nonvampire does not feast. The pedia entry and mouse over for the Vampirism promo both say that it allows feast, feed, and gift vampirism abilities.

Kenjister
Feb 15, 2009, 09:02 PM
Well, you can look at it like this: A Vampire needs very little subjects over the years to survive. They don't need to eat souls constantly. Feasting on the other hand is devouring a LARGE amount of any given population. I can't see any ruler of any country wantonly wasting thier populace like that simply to suit the whims of some guy you captured. Sure you may let him eat one or two criminals, but Feasting is entirely different matter.

Nikis-Knight
Feb 15, 2009, 10:24 PM
The mouseover help should be clarified, that's a good point.

In the Vampire entry, I think, it states that all vampies can trace their lineage back to Alexis &/or Flauros, but doesn't state that they have any special loyalty. I think it is more likely that senior vampires are expected to keep thier brood in line. Also, I expect that Vampires are more narcisstic than before, and thus probably less loyal than comprable troops, except for the fact that they other lands are unlikely to take them and they would be hunted down for betraying the Calabim.

But this should be a gameplay decision. I think it's fine as is, but perhaps the ai need to know when to feast, and thus gaining them would mean getting high powered units already.

Tyrs
Feb 15, 2009, 10:51 PM
Just to clarify further, FfH vampires aren't undead like more vampire fiction is. They only need a victim every 30 or so years as they age. Sunlight is uncomfortable, but not killing. The massive feasting of many individuals grants strength and powers e.i. exp.
I kinda like the idea of them not being able to gift, but that one vampire can feast, from a gameplay vantage. Your whole civ's lvl 6 units don't become vampires, which would be strange rp wise, but that one unit still maintains the cool bonus.

Fafnir13
Feb 15, 2009, 11:06 PM
I voted keep all abilities but with one caveat. A vampire feasting will not go over very well at all. In some ways, the Calabim are used to it, but even then they still get a small bit of unhappiness. For civs that haven't been ruled over by vampire lords for centuries, the penalties would be severe. Non-Calabim players should get a big unhappiness hit as well as a few turns of outright civil disorder. This means you can still make full use of all vampiric abilities but with a cost to consider.
I like keeping vampire abilities as it keeps vampires around even after the Calabim have been extinguished and opens the door for perhaps some even based vampirism popping up. The Calabim would still be the only ones able to produce these monsters on demand, so I don't think it nudges into their territory too much.

zup
Feb 15, 2009, 11:08 PM
The Elohim probably pity that one vampire, seeing his gift as a curse. They might seek alternative cures to vampirism, which do not involve guns. If he never got caught getting his once-in-thirty-years fix, they just might let it pass. As much as Einion and Ethne are hippies, even they have streaks of rationality. But I am pretty sure they draw a line in making thousands of people, more likely tens or hundreds of thousands of people, into some kind of a gourmet banquet.

xienwolf
Feb 16, 2009, 12:43 AM
I don't know if it was pointed out already as I was skimming this one but:

Summon Sand Lion
Summon Puppet
Join WolfPack/Form Wolfpack
Kidnap
Mask/Spread Council of Esus (reasonably certain that units still lose their religion upon converting, could be wrong on that)
Build PirateCove
Build without Destroying Forests
Skeleton->Spectre upgrade
Doviello field upgrades
Wane
Whiteout




Each of those is lost when a unit is converted to a new owner. Probably a couple of other things which I am forgetting about (I didn't list the ability of your faceless people to upgrade a town to an Enclave, but technically converting ownership of territory falls under this same jurisdiction)

Mesix
Feb 16, 2009, 12:52 AM
The mouseover help should be clarified, that's a good point.

In the Vampire entry, I think, it states that all vampies can trace their lineage back to Alexis &/or Flauros, but doesn't state that they have any special loyalty. I think it is more likely that senior vampires are expected to keep thier brood in line. Also, I expect that Vampires are more narcisstic than before, and thus probably less loyal than comprable troops, except for the fact that they other lands are unlikely to take them and they would be hunted down for betraying the Calabim.

But this should be a gameplay decision. I think it's fine as is, but perhaps the ai need to know when to feast, and thus gaining them would mean getting high powered units already.
I agree that gameplay should take precedence. That is why I added the option in the poll for only the captured unit to have the feast ability and not the gift vampirism ability. In reality I don't feel that any of the abilities should be removed, I feel that there should just be a higher opportunity cost for nonCalabim players that choose to let their captured Vampires feast.

I voted keep all abilities but with one caveat. A vampire feasting will not go over very well at all. In some ways, the Calabim are used to it, but even then they still get a small bit of unhappiness. For civs that haven't been ruled over by vampire lords for centuries, the penalties would be severe. Non-Calabim players should get a big unhappiness hit as well as a few turns of outright civil disorder. This means you can still make full use of all vampiric abilities but with a cost to consider.
I like keeping vampire abilities as it keeps vampires around even after the Calabim have been extinguished and opens the door for perhaps some even based vampirism popping up. The Calabim would still be the only ones able to produce these monsters on demand, so I don't think it nudges into their territory too much.
This sounds like a better way to limit the use of vampirism by nonCalabim civs. If the happiness penalty is more severe, then the opportunity cost is greater. Perhaps the xp gained from feasting could also be reduced for nonCalabim players nerfing the reward a bit too. Maybe an additional feature could be added to the Calabim Governor's Manor building that reduces unhappiness from feasting. That way only Calabim cities could have reduced unhappiness and quicker recovery from unhappiness due to feasting.

Here is one possible set of changes that can make the feast ability less abusive while retaining the thematic use of the Vampire abilities even by other civs that capture them.

-Allow all units by all civs with the Vampire promo to use the feast ability.
-Reduce the amount of xp gained from feasting by 50%.
-Tripple the unhappiness caused by feasting.
-Double the duration of unhappiness caused by feasting.
-Add a benefit to the Calabim Palace that reduces feasting unhappiness by 50%.
-Add a benefit to the Governor's Manor that further reduces happiness penalty by 25% (so 75% reduction total for Calabim cities with the Governor's Manor).
-Add a benefit to the Governor's Manor that reduces the duration of unhappiness caused by feasting by 50% (effectively negating the above change).
-Add a benefit to the Governor's Manor that doubles the xp gained by feasting (effectively negating the other above change).
-Add a +5% xp bonus gained from feasting for each death mana controlled by the player (could also be body mana if this seems more appropriate).
-Enable a new Overcouncil resolution that bans Vampire feasting from member nations.

WarKirby
Feb 16, 2009, 12:55 AM
The Elohim probably pity that one vampire, seeing his gift as a curse. They might seek alternative cures to vampirism, which do not involve guns. If he never got caught getting his once-in-thirty-years fix, they just might let it pass. As much as Einion and Ethne are hippies, even they have streaks of rationality. But I am pretty sure they draw a line in making thousands of people, more likely tens or hundreds of thousands of people, into some kind of a gourmet banquet.

But it's also possible to convert them to ashen veil, and have them adopt slavery, and sacrifice the weak. I did it once.

So this argument just doesn't fly.

Captured units should be able to do everything that they could do under the original owner. I want sidar units to be able to wane, too. Can they ?

As to the feasting, it should have significant unhappiness penalties if it doesn't already. And alignment penalties in FF

Capn Charlie
Feb 16, 2009, 01:54 AM
IF you're playing the calabim you get law mana by default, if you're worried about your minions defecting, a single simple loyalty spell can put your mind at ease.

in before "dispel magic".

Jules.lt
Feb 16, 2009, 08:21 AM
I'd rather the captured Vampire didn't gift vampirism, because then the player is going to gift it to every eligible unit, even the nonsensical ones...
On the other hand, a Vampire remains a Vampire, he should be able to feast. Only with huge penalties due to the population not being used to it.

My idea of the penalty would be that the 1:unhappiness: should happen in all of your empire, and the affected city should go into civil unrest for the ten turns. You can end the unrest by whatever means available but the unhappiness stays (and gets worse slavery-style if you repeat too early).

MagisterCultuum
Feb 16, 2009, 11:05 AM
What about if feasting in non-Calabim cities causes an X-turn Revolt instead of X unhappiness?

Rystic
Feb 16, 2009, 11:37 AM
Slavery or Sacrifice the Weak should allow non-Calabim players to feast.

civ_king
Feb 16, 2009, 08:50 PM
BTW it's except not accept

Ranos
Feb 16, 2009, 09:10 PM
Feast is more of a function of the Calabim civ. The population of cities exist for the sole purpose of the vampires feeding on them. The populations of other civs wouldn't really stand for the vamps sucking them dry. Now maybe they could be allowed to feast and give an unhappiness penalty, but I still think not being able to feed fits more with the flavor of the game.

Imuratep
Feb 17, 2009, 04:17 AM
But it's also possible to convert them to ashen veil, and have them adopt slavery, and sacrifice the weak. I did it once.

So this argument just doesn't fly.

Captured units should be able to do everything that they could do under the original owner. I want sidar units to be able to wane, too. Can they ?

As to the feasting, it should have significant unhappiness penalties if it doesn't already. And alignment penalties in FF

Ok so let's say only evil civs AND the Calabim (To let them still work with the Order) can use the feast ability as a ritual that consumes the souls of thousands of citizen is a decidedly evil act. Or just cause the spell to switch the alignement of the civ that's using it (Then you had no restrictions who can use the spell) to evil.

WarKirby
Feb 17, 2009, 05:44 AM
Feast is more of a function of the Calabim civ. The population of cities exist for the sole purpose of the vampires feeding on them. The populations of other civs wouldn't really stand for the vamps sucking them dry. Now maybe they could be allowed to feast and give an unhappiness penalty, but I still think not being able to feed fits more with the flavor of the game.

I have to disagree.

Read the pedia entry for the Pillar of Chains. That's what happens to people who "don't stand for" the way the vampires treat them.

And in any case, this is pretty provably wrong. vampires can feast on a captured city right away, when the population is almost certainly 100% still the original owners. It has no more or less effect than feeding on calabim cities.

WarKirby
Feb 17, 2009, 05:46 AM
Ok so let's say only evil civs AND the Calabim (To let them still work with the Order) can use the feast ability as a ritual that consumes the souls of thousands of citizen is a decidedly evil act. Or just cause the spell to switch the alignement of the civ that's using it (Then you had no restrictions who can use the spell) to evil.

this is where broader alignments are useful. Feasting should have an alignment penalty.

maybe this could be done in FF

zup
Feb 17, 2009, 11:34 AM
It is done. I actually used to change it to have a good effect. Helping people achieve their purpose in life (vampire food) and battling overpopulation is good. Also the Calabim methods are very tasteful.

Ranos
Feb 17, 2009, 10:41 PM
I have to disagree.

Read the pedia entry for the Pillar of Chains. That's what happens to people who "don't stand for" the way the vampires treat them.

And in any case, this is pretty provably wrong. vampires can feast on a captured city right away, when the population is almost certainly 100% still the original owners. It has no more or less effect than feeding on calabim cities.

I'll read it tonight whe I get home.

AFAIK, there is no in game effect that would make citizens of a city mad at the fact they are being fed on. So you would see no difference. My reply was more along the lines of lore, not game function.

Using lore as a response to you though, a city that has just been newly captured has soldiers patrolling the streets to keep the citizens in line. For the Calabim, this means soldiers rounding up the population to take them to dinner.

Mesix
Feb 18, 2009, 01:34 AM
Is the Calabim only feast ability easy to edit in either xml or python or is it an SDK change? How could I edit my version of FfH to make this feature available regardless of civ?

MagisterCultuum
Feb 18, 2009, 01:51 AM
That would involve only deleting the <CivilizationPrereq>CIVILIZATION_CALABIM</CivilizationPrereq> from the Feast entry in C:\Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Beyond the Sword\Mods\Fall from Heaven 2\Assets\XML\Units\CIV4SpellInfos.xml

Valerarren
Feb 18, 2009, 08:16 AM
There's another option I suppose. Allow captured vampires to feast, but if you aren't Calabim have it create unhappiness in all of your other cities (perhaps 2 unhappiness for 50 turns on normal?) each time you feast.

Iceciro
Feb 18, 2009, 09:12 AM
Would require a functionally different spell, but it actually wouldn't be difficult to whip up.

The question is really, is it 1) necessary and 2) what Kael wants?
My current concern is not for someone who takes a single Vampire and spreads it throughout the capturing civ's empire, I think that's bad.
It's for Tolerant (FFH)/Conqeror (FF) civs that take over the Cabalim cities. Without functioning vampires the Cabalim cities are actually worse than your starting cities due to the lack of Alchemy Labs/Elder Council.

TheJopa
Feb 18, 2009, 09:15 AM
In any case, there is no need for vampires to feast, gameplay wise.

Capturing units is not made to steal another civs UU. It is made so that you get additional benefit - instead of removing -1 unit from opponent, you take him one and ADD yourself another one.

You get a nice champion unit, with extra healing/strength perk, and nice graphic, usually with bunch of XP. It is not intended to be gamebreaking to capture a vampire.

Sephi
Feb 18, 2009, 09:18 AM
@Iceciro: A manor that produces 15 :hammers: is definetly better than Alchemy Labs/Elder Council. Just turn those Calabim Cities into production cities and you should be fine.

Iceciro
Feb 18, 2009, 10:35 AM
I'm wierd and try to be a somewhat benevolent leader even when I'm the cabalim, so I sadly don't get the "work, dumb angry citizens" bonus.

I guess that's more of a personal choice/loss.

Luckmann
Feb 18, 2009, 11:37 AM
I'm wierd and try to be a somewhat benevolent leader even when I'm the cabalim, so I sadly don't get the "work, dumb angry citizens" bonus.

I guess that's more of a personal choice/loss.
You're not wierd at all. I always go for Order->Empyrean while playing Calabim. I don't even know how to play them evilly. Radiant Guard->Vampire for killer defenders, Radiant Guard->Vampire->Paladin for the win. :)
(This doesn't keep me from going om-nom-nom on my citizens. I tell myself that it's a mandate from Junil, or that I'm just eating criminals or something). :p

Iceciro
Feb 18, 2009, 03:17 PM
(I just play FF and I have evil order vampires :P)

JUNIL SAYS SHUT UP, THE CHAMPIONS ARE HUNGRY.