Éa, a fantasy mod for Civ5 -- teaser thread

Pazyryk · Feb 10, 2012

On to another topic...

Civilizations and Traits
You begin the game simply as “a tribe of Man” or “a tribe of Heldeofol” and your first city will have a similarly generic name (initially). Certain early conditions (listed below) will trigger a “civilization-defining” event that will give you two options: 1) take a name and trait related to the event (this will also name your capital) or 2) decline the name and trait allowing a subsequent and different civilization-defining event to occur. You can only decline the name/trait (2nd option) once. However, you can provide your own civ name at any time by clicking on your civ's current name in the Diplomacy View. Throughout the game, your civilization will acquire additional traits while maintaining its name. Trait-confering events are largely a consequence of your decisions, discoveries and accomplishments. Thus, you can focus your civilization very narrowly in one area, say agriculture or seafaring, or take a broader approach (either is viable by design).

[Technical note: I'm using Civ5 "Civilizations" to specify race. The "civs" I'm speaking of here (and traits too) are entirely new Table/Lua entities. They don't integrate very well with the core "flavor" AI, but they are central in my own Lua AI which controls all Tech/Policy choices and has other major influences on AI. In any case, these are the names you will see in the Diplo list and all other UI, so they are civilizations in every way that matters.]

Links to previous info:

Races post #6
Knowledge Advancement post #26 (has tech tree which is relavant for civs below)

Civilizations (with triggering condition and associated trait)
Abbreviations should be fairly clear, I think. Triggering conditions are listed in parentheses (race: H=Heldeofol; M=Man; note that some are available to either race). Once a civ takes a name, then it no longer counts against other civs being "first" to something (i.e., you might really be 2nd to build a library, but you are the 1st to do it without already having a civ name). For some civs, I've listed the civ adjective and civ capital name next. Then I list the civ-associated trait effects. When you see *engineer, that means that this civ has an increased likelihood to generate engineers over other GPs (absolute frequency of GP appearance is not affected at all). This is all a work-in-progress, so details will change and many are blank at this time. In general, I want these to have a fairly big influence on how a player develops his/her civ.

Clan of _______ (H; first kill) All Heldeofol civs gain a Warrior after their first kill (non-civilian), and take a name from that individual. (Note that "Warrior" is a great person with a unique name. "Army" or "fleet" units are always named in the plural.). +15% military land unit production. Note that this is the only civ name / trait that can be replaced. A Heleofol civ that subsequently is first to one of the H-allowed conditions below has the option to drop Clan of ____ for another name / trait combo (e.g., Ikkos, Âb, Gerzah, Mord, Nezhêlîba, etc.).

-- first to tech
Ikkos (M, H; Horseback Rinding) +3c per improved horse; 20% chance / turn for 1 xp (all horse-mounted); *warrior
Âb (M, H; 2 Mounted Elephants) Âb; Âbu; +3c per imp. elephant; +50% research toward all downstream techs
Fir Bolg (M; Domestication) Fir Bolg; Fir Bolg; +1p1g from pastures
Cruithni (M,H; Tracking) Cruithni; Fiach; +1f1p from camps
Galway (M; Archery) Galwians; Galway; +30% str/rng archers; extra nearby Yew; *warrior
Daggoo (M; Harpoons) Daggoo; Hereheretua; +1f1p1g1c from whales
Fomhóire (M; Sailing) Fomorians; Faoi-mhuir; Can enter ocean tiles (receive sea warrior Cíocal?)
Parakhora (M; Milling) Parakhora; Parakh; free Watermill or Windmill in every city
Ninkasi (M; Zymurgy) Ninkasi; free Brewery every city; *artist
Girnar (M; Irrigation) Girnar; marsh drainage always permanent; farms spread fresh water 1 tile
Aldebar (M; Calendar) Aldebaran; +2c from all plantations
Hod (M; Divine Liturgy) +1c1h from all religious buildings
Axagoria (M; Philosophy) Axagorians; Clazomenae; 50% extra happy to research; *sage
Áes dána (M; Drama); 50% extra happiness to culture; *artist
Lagad (M; Mathematics) Lagad; Lagadha -1% Research Maint per downstream tech; *sage
Mamonas (M; Coinage) Dispáter; +3g from gold and silver; 5% interest on treasury; *merchant
Sophronia (M; Masonry) Sophronians; Pétra; gain nearby stone; +20%c per wonder; receive engineer Sophroniscus; *engineer
Vincha (M,H; Bronze W.) Vinchans; Bakar; +50% research toward all downstream techs; *engineer
Úr (M; Deep Mining) block Deep Mining to other Men (Heldeofol already have it as starting tech); learn Knowledge of the Underdark; can build only mines, quarries and plantations; no food from tiles other than hills and mountains; no food/production change from forest or jungle.
Orkahaugr (H; Underdark Lore) Orkahaugr; +1f1p from mines

-- first to policy branch
There will only be 5 policy branches at release. Eventually, there will be 10.
Kaza (M; Agrarianism) Tóppí Ké; +10% f from granery
Nemedia (M; Militerism) Nemedians; Nemed; extra culture from kills; receive warrior Nemed *warrior
Mord (H; Militerism) Mord; Bellator; extra culture from kills; *warrior
Theano (M; Scholasticism); -0.5% Research Maintanance per tech; Sage of same name; *sage
Partholón (M; Commerce) ; Partholónians; Inbhear Scéine; +10%g from trade; receive merchant of same name. *merchant
Nezhêlîba (M,H; Slavery) Nezhelibian; Orjuu; 50% reduced production and purchase cost for slaves

-- first to construct a building
Ys (M; library) Ysians; Ys. +1s per pop in capital; free University when policy/tech reqs met ; *sage
Mór (M; marketplace) Mór; Týros; *merchant
Gerzah (M, H; forge) Gerzahns; Bigorna; free forge in every city; *engineer
Palare (M; fair) Palari; Parlyaree; +2 culture per artisan; *artist

-- first to build a unit
Hy-Breasil (M; galleys) Breasilians; Uí Breasail; free harbors and +2f2g from adj natural harbor; *merchant
Sisukas (M; light infantry) *warrior
Ebor (M; mounted elephants) Eborians; Mang Ont *warrior
? (horsemen)

-- improvement/resource-based
Mayd (M; 2 fishing boats) Maydans; +1f1p per sea resource; Vlænderen
Agartha (M; 2 mined resources) +1p1c per mined resource

-- other (these take priority if simultanious with a condition above)
Bakcheia (M; Zymurgy & 2 nearby wine) +2g3c / winery
Anaphora (M; Divine Liturgy & 2 nearby Incense) free Monasteries all cities
Hippus (M; Horseback R. & Commerce policy) (capital and city names from FFH) gain Mercenaries policy; +30% extra gold from hiring out mercenaries

Subsequent (not civ-naming) traits
OK, to be honest I haven't gotten far here. My imagination has run a little dry. I've built the entire Table/Lua system but not made more than a few entries. The basic idea is that these will be smaller effects than those above (generally) and any civ can gain 3 or 4 more traits as the game progresses. The civ-naming traits above are "tier 1" traits. Then there are tier 2, 3, 4 traits (I'm not going to name these because I don't want to add 100 names that are just ignored/forgotten anyway). Each civ can only have one trait at each tier, so no single civ gets to run away with all the traits. Here is the kind of stuff I'm working on:

--seafaring related
t2. First 4 cities are coastal. +2g per coastal city
t2. 5 improved sea resources. +1c per improved sea resource
t2. ##sea tiles revealed. +1 water vision
t3. circumnavigation. +1 move naval

--horselords (culture revolves around horses; better or more easily supported horse military [these folks might be a little week in culture and gold so a little boost here will help])
t2. 8 pastured horses tiles. +2c per improved horse
t2. 6 horse-mounted units
t2. 3 stables. +2c per stable
t2. victory with horse-mounted. +20% str horse-mounted
t3. 1st to Warhorses. +5xp all horse-mounted units
t3. 6 stables. +2g per stable
t3. 16 pastured horses. +2g per improved horse
t3. 10 horse-mounted units. +5 support-free horse-mounted units

and so on...

Ahriman · Feb 10, 2012

There is no fixed "turn limit" on a game (i.e., there is no Time Victory). But, to put some kind of reasonable boundary on a game, let's just say that a player or AI might force a victory condition anywhere from turn 200 (on the very short side) to 600 (it could go longer but most players should get bored and want to finish up by then).

This is very hard to work with. You really can't have players getting 10-20 techs every game when a game could last between 200-600 turns. I really can't envision a mod working well at all when it might play well at both 200 turns and 600 turns. I don't know of any civ mod that has ever really done this, except through changes in game speed (epic, marathon, etc.) or map size (small vs huge).
How do you get the pacing right with such a massive potential variation in length?
A good way to do pacing is to keep a roughly similar number of turns between new tech advancements, maybe falling slightly over time. But that's impossible if you're at a 90% research penalty.

This is a stab in the dark, but I'm assuming that research follows a logistic function

This is fine for modeling purposes.

A player doesn't need to finish a large portion of the tech tree

This is fine.

The game is "broken" if anyone finishes too much of the tech tree. I don't have an exact value here but let's say very roughly about 20 - 25 techs

So, you're saying 20-25 techs is an upper bound for a 600 turn game, but also for a 300 turn game? That is a huge problem. Enforcing tech stagnation is going to be very not fun.

A player should be able to say "the hell with libraries I'm Conan the barbarian!"

This is tricky but doable. The most important thing in accomplishing this is to have high tier things give you some combination of modest increases in efficiency and combat units that are more powerful but not wildly so, such that a large number of lower tier units could still in principle defeat them.
But the most important thing in achieving this will be to make sure that there is some other alternative means of gaining power. So, if I invest less in tech, I am investing more in something else, and that something else needs to be as powerful as getting tech. Military power is the obvious way, but this is going to be very very tricky because of the vast differences in efficiency between AI and human-controlled use of military, because of the AI tactical weakness.
One possible way: create some kind of morale system vaguely similar to flanking, where I get a bonus not just for adjacent units but for units 1 further tile away. The flavor idea being that a bigger force gives higher morale and a larger bonus, the practical system being to give an advantage to a player with a big horde of lower tech units, and to favor the AI that can mass units even if it can't use them very well.

I'm trying to avoid "hard restrictions" on techs

A good goal.

Ahriman · Feb 10, 2012

On the trait system:
I think this is a cool idea, but I worry that this is going to favor civs that get a good start position too much, is going to make the game play very differently depending on map size/number of civs, and is going to struggle to be effective on both low difficulty levels and high difficulty levels. Just some issues to keep in mind.

I think you might be better off with having some of the traits/bonuses accrue to anyone who researches the tech, rather than just to the first adopter. The first adopter could get a mild extra bonus, but it is going to be really not-fun for the player if they're constantly losing out on large bonuses because someone else researches the tech first.
In general, I think first adopter bonuses are only really very important in a system with lots of tech trading, like Civ4, where techs spread very rapidly. In a system where everyone really needs to research the techs to get the benefits, first adopter bonuses might be too knife-edge. Losing wonder-races is already kinda not-fun, but at least then you get a gold refund.

Pazyryk · Feb 10, 2012

Ahriman said:
This is very hard to work with. You really can't have players getting 10-20 techs every game when a game could last between 200-600 turns. I really can't envision a mod working well at all when it might play well at both 200 turns and 600 turns. I don't know of any civ mod that has ever really done this, except through changes in game speed (epic, marathon, etc.) or map size (small vs huge).
How do you get the pacing right with such a massive potential variation in length?

Progress by almost any measure is going to peter out somewhere in the 300 to 400 turn range (though possibly later for a late developer). The player should be focused on a victory condition long before this, unless they are playing a lay-low-and-surge-late approach, in which case everything is moved later. There are a couple things that can happen here: 1) the player or AI forces a victory condition; 2) the player keeps playing (indefinitely, perhaps) because he/she thinks that a victory is obtainable, eventually, somehow... 3) the player sees no possible victory and gives up.

It's situation #2 that I'm trying to accommodate. I don't want the player to feel "rushed" by tech advancement. (Though they may feel rushed by an AI that is nearing a victory condition. That's fine.)

PawelS · Feb 10, 2012

I must say I don't like bonuses that go to the first one who discovers a tech or adopts a policy. I also don't like wonder races (that's why most wonders in my mod will be national wonders and/or require specific geographical conditions, specific civ etc.). After all, why things done by a distant civ that doesn't even have to have contact with you, should affect you?

Pazyryk · Feb 10, 2012

Ever since Civ introduced civ-specific traits/UUs/UBs (was that Civ3?), I've always disliked the idea that these are "selected" at game start. That's fine for a "race" like humans or orcs. But English should be seafaring because they are on an island, or because they prioritize naval techs, or something like that...

This concept is 2 yrs in the works, by the way, and god knows how many hours of programming. It isn't some little idea I thought up on the spot. In any case, you only get one name (out of > 35), so it won't usually be a race.

PawelS said:
After all, why things done by a distant civ that doesn't even have to have contact with you, should affect you?

It's just flavor. Why are the Norse or the English so good at sea? Yes, there are other ways to model this. The way it will be in this mod is that your priorities (in techs/policies/etc.) will be the main driving force in this sort of specialization.

Pazyryk · Feb 10, 2012

Ahriman said:
I think you might be better off with having some of the traits/bonuses accrue to anyone who researches the tech, rather than just to the first adopter. The first adopter could get a mild extra bonus, but it is going to be really not-fun for the player if they're constantly losing out on large bonuses because someone else researches the tech first.

But then it's just a tech effect. No need for all the hard programming I've done. No civ-specialization effect.

Even if you get beaten to Mounted Elephants, so what? Just build the first Elephant unit and you will be one of the two "Elephant civs" in the game. There are ~35 of these (more in planning). Come on. How easy do I have to make it? This isn't Civ Rev.

Ahriman said:
But the most important thing in achieving this will be to make sure that there is some other alternative means of gaining power. So, if I invest less in tech, I am investing more in something else, and that something else needs to be as powerful as getting tech.

This is something I'm working very hard on. It isn't a trivial problem. Policy advancement is an obvious one, especially with policy-dependent buildings and abilities. Culture will also have a diplomatic effect, though only on civs that you already have good relations with. Gold will have its existing "diplomatic" effect (I know some folks don't like it but I find it a reasonable use for gold) but can also be used to hire mercenaries, buy slaves and other things. Gold can also be used to make gold (one example for Mamonas above). There will be a whole other way to advance in phase 3 (no not magic, that comes later). In phase 4 you will see two new uses for gold and diplomacy (not just to keep enemies off your back, though that is a good reason by itself).

Pazyryk · Feb 10, 2012

I wish someone was interested in helping with the last part of my post (top of this page). I always knew that Research Maintenance was going to evoke protests. I had no idea that Civ Names and Traits acquired through one's own actions and achievements would be so badly received.

PawelS · Feb 10, 2012

Making the civ traits depend on its actions is actually an interesting and innovative idea. I just don't like the fact that it takes form of a "race", where the first to do something grabs the benefits. But maybe it's not like this, as if there are many traits to take, you can still have good options even if someone else got your desired traits earlier...

Also, the main theme of your mod seems to be customizing your civ: you use the techs to do it, you use your actions that give you traits to do it, probably social policies too, and maybe some other things... Isn't it too many different game mechanics that serve the same purpose?

(Sorry for not being very positive, but I think constructive criticism is better than praises. Btw it would be nice if someone else than the three of us posted here

)

Pazyryk · Feb 10, 2012

PawelS said:
Also, the main theme of your mod seems to be customizing your civ: you use the techs to do it, you use your actions that give you traits to do it, probably social policies too, and maybe some other things... Isn't it too many different game mechanics that serve the same purpose?

Good question. My honest answer is no, I don't think I can have too many mechanics serving this one purpose. We will see, won't we? It's not my only obsession, there are others...

Edit: I should also add that most of these "civ customizing" mechanics are incremental, i.e., individually small. I suppose it would be possible to have civs that are too different. So different that they can't be balanced or just don't work. I am exploring these limits (e.g., with the Heleofol). But, in general, don't equate # of mechanisms with size of effect. Yes, the Civ/Trait system above, Techs and Policies are all being used as civ-diversifying mechanisms, but I'm trying to keep each individual effect small enough that I will be able to make any combo actually work (but much of that will have to be worked out in testing, of course).

PawelS · Feb 12, 2012

Pazyryk said:
I wish someone was interested in helping with the last part of my post (top of this page). I always knew that Research Maintenance was going to evoke protests. I had no idea that Civ Names and Traits acquired through one's own actions and achievements would be so badly received.

This is the fate of a modder that makes his mod according to his personal preferences instead of what the crowd likes; I doubt I'll find a single person at this forum who likes my happiness system...

Pazyryk · Feb 12, 2012

These mods are supposed to play different than Civ5, otherwise it's just Civ5 with elves and dwarves. Nothing wrong with that but it's not what most of us want to make.

There are always limiting mechanisms in any game. It is interesting that if you remove 3 very unpopular limits but add one of your own (which is sometimes necessary), only the latter is noticed.

Ahriman · Feb 13, 2012

Long post:

Spoiler :

Pazyryk · Feb 13, 2012

Good questions and a chance for me to clarify some points, so I'll unhide with some responses.

Ahriman said:
If progress by any measure ends by turn 300 but the game keeps going until turn 500, then the game is going to get very dull. I just don't think that sounds fun.

Clearly this "stagnation" situation is going to put some players off. It will be something like a chess game where the endgame goes on for a very long time. Many players that get in this situation will just quit and chalk it up as defeat or draw. That's fine. However, if the player is engaged in a neck-and-neck contest with an AI, or if the player has a dogged determination to eek out a win from a bad position, then they can continue to play as long as they want. The tech system won't cut them off.

Ahriman said:
But I'd consider making it: the first person who gets the tech and doesn't have a name yet?

Yes, that is the way it is described above.

Ahriman said:
But... if each civ only gets one, and always gets the first one they achieve, then do you really need so many different traits?

That's mostly for flavor so that you will have different civilizations in each game.

Ahriman said:
I suspect that the same handful will probably be the ones that turn up every game.

No, both game balance and the AI system can prevents this. Game balance ensures that a 2nd tier tech can usually be gotten before opening a policy branch ("equalizing" the ~20 tech conditionals with the 5 policy conditionals). Also, the AI's second priority (after the 1st which is teching to improve nearby food resources) is to target conditions that will result in a civ name. Since I'm writing this from scratch, I can make sure all are represented. There will be some rare ones (Hippus, my homage to FFH, is intentionally designed that way) but I can always tamp down a particular civ that is occurring too frequently.

Ahriman said:
I don't see how you will get a general theme of "your actions affect your abilities" if it is only one action you take each game that has this kind of impact.
Or is your idea that you get one "Name" trait, and then any number of "subsequent" traits?

Yes, see the section Subsequent (not civ-naming) traits at the bottom of the post.

Ahriman said:
If so, then the "first to X" problem arises again with the substitute traits.

And problem solved exactly as I indicated above for the tier 1 ("civ-naming") traits. A civ can only gain one "tier 2" trait, and then that civ's accomplishments no longer count against other players getting their tier 2 traits. But all individual traits are exclusive. I designed it this way so that a leading civ doesn't run away with all the bonuses. However, a leading civ should have some benefit: what they get here is "first" choice at each tier (and the benefit of gaining traits earlier, which is not trivial).

Ahriman said:
Well, the whole point of having different factions is they each have a particular flavor.
This is particularly important on earth where we want to capture some of the historic flavor, but I think it is still important for a fantasy mod. When we play FFH, we expect the Lanun to have a good navy, we expect the dwarves to have good production and powerful infantry with good equipment, we expect the elves to live in the forests and have recon or archery units, we expect the Doviello to be aggressive barbarians, etc.
Part of the fun is having identifiable civilizations that have a particular feel.
It sounds like you're making civs fairly generic. So there is a risk that factions may as well be Pink, Green and Red.
But maybe this will be ok, because you're making them generic within a race, but still having variation across races. So you don't care which particular tribe of Heldeofol you come across, but you know that a Heldeofol player will play like *this* whereas a Man player will play like *that*.

Sure, when you come across Heldeofol, you pretty much know what you are in for. There is some variation there, with some more "engineering" focused (meaning they build military buildings and wonders before they swarm you) and some more of the swarm-with-what-we-have variety. But Man is different. They start out generic as you say. Getting a name is the first step in specializing, then subsequent traits and tech/policy choices drive this even further. The AI will do this too because their name (once acquired) is a major factor in AI tech/policy selection.

So you can have your Lanun ("Fomhóire" or "Hy-Breasil"), but in Éa you will get to play out their "backstory". What were they before they had a name? (this lasts about 20 - 50 turns btw) Why did they become seafaring? Did they continue to develop these skills, becoming the uncontested masters of the sea, or did they loose that focus and take up farming instead? (note: the latter won't happen, or only very rarely so, for AI civs, but it is an option for players)

Ahriman said:
And eventually there will be more races still?

The name of phase 1 is a pretty big hint (see OP).

Ahriman said:
The risk becomes larger the more radical features you add.
If you make massive changes A, B and C, there might be lots of people who like each individually, a modest number who like any two, and very few people who like them all together.

I think most will judge it on the overall combined effect of A, B and C. This is what any modder is focused on in both planning stage and then testing/balancing. You can say "I think unit production is too slow," but if you only adjust that, the game will break in a bad way. A wiser approach is to say "I like a game where I have time to use my units before they obsolete" and then change A, B, C, D and E to make your vision happen in a way that works. If it does work, then players will forgive D and E as necessary as long as they think the overall objective is worthwhile.

Ahriman said:
I think most of the limits in the core game a pretty sensible. I wouldn't characterize many of them as widely unpopular. The people who are fine with them don't normally post. And frankly, most users aren't very good at design, and don't understand that any system has to have some limits to make it work properly.

There are plenty of "wildly unpopular" ideas, just visit the main forum (and yes, 99% of these players don't understand game design, or are just reacting to Civ5 not being Civ4, or are simply trolls, but 1% have good criticism). But leaving that aside, I would agree that Civ5 works sensibly and is pretty well-balanced now. You get to choose Tall or Wide and everyone races up the tech tree (using RAs to convert gold to research) and that's all fine. But no it's not fine. The whole point of modding is to be not satisfied with the current game.

Ahriman · Feb 13, 2012

the first person who gets the tech and doesn't have a name yet?
...
That's mostly for flavor so that you will have different civilizations in each game.
...
I suspect that the same handful will probably be the ones that turn up every game.
...
No, both game balance and the AI system can prevents this. Game balance ensures that a 2nd tier tech can usually be gotten before opening a policy branch ("equalizing" the ~20 tech conditionals with the 5 policy conditionals). Also, the AI's second priority (after the 1st which is teching to improve nearby food resources) is to target conditions that will result in a civ name.

I'm not sure I follow this.
Without knowing the tech tree in detail, I would have thought that horseback riding, domestication, tracking, archery, irrigation, calendar, masonry, bronze working etc. would all be coming up pretty early each game. If there are only ~8 players or so, and if the AI is trying to get a trait fast, then I would have thought the early traits would always be the same ones to go.

And can you even get to mounted elephants without domestication? Can you get divine liturgy without philosophy? Can you get harpoons without sailing?

And problem solved exactly as I indicated above for the tier 1 ("civ-naming") traits. A civ can only gain one "tier 2" trait, and then that civ's accomplishments no longer count against other players getting their tier 2 traits.

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now. So, every civ can get at most 2 traits. One comes from being first to a tech, one comes from being first to an in-game condition.
That seems workable. Though: why do you need so many different triggers for the same category? Is the idea that there will be only one Horselord, and they'll get whichever horse bonus they satisfy first? And only one Seafarer, etc.?
I'll think of some other conditions that might come to pass; it's a bit hard without knowing what the victory conditions are, what the techs or units are, what the playstyles are, etc.

It sounds like the factions will be entirely generic then; there is no underlying difference between Blue Man and Red Man except some underlying AI flavor preferences, but it will be very hard for the player to figure out or remember those preferences because there is no consistent flavor-hook to hang them on. That's a downside of this approach, but it isn't a gamebreaker.
Unless you're saying: the AI flavor codes come not from the color but are changed in-game when the traits are assigned? In which case they really are completely generic, but the idea is that the flavor comes from the traits.

There are plenty of "wildly unpopular" ideas, just visit the main forum

I stopped paying attention to the main forum a long long time ago. Lots of loud whiners. I'd rather play the game or work on mod design.

Ahriman · Feb 13, 2012

A few other ideas for possible in-game trait triggers:

Metropolitan
First to have a city of size X. +5% food in largest 3 cities.

Builder
First to have X total buildings. +5% production for buildings empire-wide.

Colonist
First to have X cities. +0.5 happiness per city.

Scholar
First to build X universities. +10% research empire wide (or reduction in knowledge maintenance, if you use that system).

Industrialist
First to have X mills. +1 production in each city.

Defender
First to have X walls. +25% city strength in each city.

Conqueror
First to capture 3 cities. All units get a promotion that gives +10% city attack.

Diplomat
First to have 3 declarations of friendship. Bonus to diplomatic relations (inside the diplomacy engine).

Besieger
First to have X siege units. All siege units get +25% promotion vs cities.

Pious
First to have X religions units. Some bonus for those units.

Imperialist
First to annex X cities. +3 happy per courthouse.

* * *
Another thought: if the human player triggers a trait they don't want, could they have a dialogue box that lets them not choose the trait, and then let them stay without a name or trait until they trigger another condition?

Pazyryk · Feb 13, 2012

Ahriman said:
Another thought: if the human player triggers a trait they don't want, could they have a dialogue box that lets them not choose the trait, and then let them stay without a name or trait until they trigger another condition?

Yes, as stated in the post (they can do this once only).

Ahriman said:
I'm not sure I follow this.
Without knowing the tech tree in detail,

It's there in post #26. Almost all of these are tier 2, so available after one or two tier 1 techs, and there are some ~20 different tier 2 techs (I did say it was "wide"). There are only a couple traits where you have to pass one condition to get to another. For example, Hippus is triggered by having both Horseback Riding tech and Commerce policy, which are each conditions by themselves. The human can consciously target these by "declining" the first one to come up. E.g., for Hippus, lets say a player gets to Horseback Riding first but declines to be Ikkos. Then sometime later they open Commerce policy branch. The player then becomes Hippus (that takes priority over the single policy-triggered Partholón civilization, as stated above). For AI, these will be less common, but will happen when the player or another AI beats an AI civ to the 1st triggering condition.

From actual play testing (which I have done for the first 50 turns or so) I can say that the choice of going for that naming-2nd-tier tech versus going for another "food" 1st tier tech is a hard one. Also, the first policy comes in around turn 50 if you do absolutely nothing, or as early as turn 25 if you build a monument or fair first thing (both have no tech prereq).

Ahriman said:
Ok, I think I understand what you're saying now. So, every civ can get at most 2 traits. One comes from being first to a tech, one comes from being first to an in-game condition.

I'm aiming for about 4 trait tiers altogether, including the initial naming-trait. Not sure how many I will have at initial release however.

Ahriman said:
It sounds like the factions will be entirely generic then; there is no underlying difference between Blue Man and Red Man except some underlying AI flavor preferences, but it will be very hard for the player to figure out or remember those preferences because there is no consistent flavor-hook to hang them on. That's a downside of this approach, but it isn't a gamebreaker.
Unless you're saying: the AI flavor codes come not from the color but are changed in-game when the traits are assigned?

Yes, the AI will advance in tech/policies in a way driven by it's name, once it has one. The AI has 4 "stages", so to speak:

Get techs to develop a couple nearby food resources
Work on getting a name (look at what techs I have, local resources and geography, what names are still available, and some other factors)
Develop/specialize using a tech/policy plan appropriate for my name. (There is some flexibility here so that an AI will deviate, temporarily, to get a tech needed for a resource, or to respond under duress.)
Seek victory condition (this one won't be in till phase 4 of mod development)

The AI will spend most of the game in stage 3, pursuing a tech/policy plan that is very appropriate for it's name. This is not a "weak" flavoring. The effect is quite a bit stronger than the "core flavor" system since the tech tree (which is shallow with loose connectivity) allows a civ to ignore whole branches, and then the maintenance system more or less locks them in.

Thanks for the trait ideas. I'll add these to the pot. However, I really don't need names for these. Tier 1 gives civ names and I want these to be memorable, of course. However, there are going to be a lot of tier 2, 3, 4,... traits (eventually) and they are sort of meant to be individually "forgettable," even though the cumulative effects should make the game play very differently. It's kind of like base Civ5 policy names, which I don't remember at all, though I remember which branch I'm working on. Better to leave something nameless than to have a lot of names that are just forgotten. (You will be able to review each of your trait tiers in-game somehow, but I can do this without a name.)

Ahriman · Feb 14, 2012

I will work on improved reading comprehension :-)

However, I really don't need names for these.....
However, there are going to be a lot of tier 2, 3, 4,... traits (eventually) and they are sort of meant to be individually "forgettable," even though the cumulative effects should make the game play very differently.

Well, the name isn't so important itself, but the "theme" of it is. You could add multiple different kinds of traits with different triggers under those same themes, as they represent some common playstyles which probably deserve support by a trait: Tall, Wide, Builder, Conqueror, Turtle, Researcher, etc.

But I worry a little that if you add so many different possible ones, then they'll trigger all the time accidentally. I think it would be better to only be able to get one or two extra traits from play, otherwise it is going to be too hard to keep track of, and too hard to figure out what you need to do to trigger them.

Another possibility is that you could have say a dozen different possible archetype trait which give a set of bonuses, but you could trigger that archetype trait by satisfying any one of the underlying ones.
So for example, the Horselord trait might give free experience and build rate for mounted units, and free bonus horse resources, and might be triggered by any one of several conditions: amassing X horse units, amassing Y horse resource, building Z stable buildings.

Another possibility would be that the first time you trigger a condition, it locks you into the particular Archetype (eg: horselord), but then the benefits given by that Archetype increase as you meet more and more of the underlying conditions. so from your example:

-horselords (culture revolves around horses; better or more easily supported horse military [these folks might be a little week in culture and gold so a little boost here will help])
t2. 8 pastured horses tiles. +2c per improved horse
t2. 6 horse-mounted units
t2. 3 stables. +2c per stable
t2. victory with horse-mounted. +20% str horse-mounted
t3. 1st to Warhorses. +5xp all horse-mounted units
t3. 6 stables. +2g per stable
t3. 16 pastured horses. +2g per improved horse
t3. 10 horse-mounted units. +5 support-free horse-mounted units

Triggering any of the conditions would give you the Horselord trait, but triggering multiple conditions would keep boosting the power of the trait.
This would encourage specialization while boosting flavorful/thematic feel.

I worry that if you can get "subsequent traits" from multiple different types of activity (eg 1 horselord, 1 seafarer, 1 builder) then there will be little flavor left, and that it will be hard to keep track of all the different triggers.

Traits should probably be something that the human player consciously tries to trigger, rather than triggering them by accident through general play.

Pazyryk · Feb 14, 2012

Ahriman said:
Well, the name isn't so important itself, but the "theme" of it is.

Theme is fine as an organizing principle, but it's not an actual game entity (table entry) so it can be informal and creative. So above I have Seafaring and Horselords and you can imagine others that emphasize some section of the tech tree or set of resources (Pastoralists, Metal workers, Vintners/Brewers, Stone Workers). Your suggestions (Tall, Wide, Builder, Conqueror, Turtle, Researcher) are all good.

Ahriman said:
But I worry a little that if you add so many different possible ones, then they'll trigger all the time accidentally.

Not "all the time" because you can only get one tier 1 (your civ name) and then one each for tier 2, 3 and 4. The idea is to make the triggering conditions themselves space things out. So a tier 4 trait will require something that is only likely to happen later (an expensive tech or a higher number of something).

Ahriman said:
I think it would be better to only be able to get one or two extra traits from play, otherwise it is going to be too hard to keep track of, and too hard to figure out what you need to do to trigger them.

Ideally, I want them to flow naturally from player actions without the player needing to know much about it. If the player wants to micromanage them, that's fine. But a player should "specialize" just by doing what they want to do. So a player that gets a few necessary techs and then beelines up to Architecture (building lots of stuff on the way) will pick up 3 extra "builder" traits. No need to worry about another "builder" civ because there are enough "builder-flavored" traits at each tier to go around.

One part of making this work is that the effects (for tiers 2-4) need to be individually pretty small. The naming-trait (tier 1) is larger and gives you a specific and significant advantage (pushing a particular approach) such as ocean travel for the Fomhóire. If this civ continues to emphasize naval in their gameplay, then they will pick up only (or mostly) naval flavored traits. (Even if they pick up some unrelated techs or policies on the side, they are unlikely to trigger these trait conditions at each tier before they trigger a naval condition, assuming their play has any naval focus at all.)

Ahriman said:
Another possibility is that you could have say a dozen different possible archetype trait which give a set of bonuses, but you could trigger that archetype trait by satisfying any one of the underlying ones.
So for example, the Horselord trait might give free experience and build rate for mounted units, and free bonus horse resources, and might be triggered by any one of several conditions: amassing X horse units, amassing Y horse resource, building Z stable buildings.

Another possibility would be that the first time you trigger a condition, it locks you into the particular Archetype (eg: horselord), but then the benefits given by that Archetype increase as you meet more and more of the underlying conditions. so from your example:

Triggering any of the conditions would give you the Horselord trait, but triggering multiple conditions would keep boosting the power of the trait.
This would encourage specialization while boosting flavorful/thematic feel.

I had played around with a sort of "enforced archtype" system along these lines. However, I settled on the present system because I wanted the archtype to emerge more naturally from player actions. Or not emerge, if the player doesn't do anything to re-enforce their initial naming.

Ahriman said:
I worry that if you can get "subsequent traits" from multiple different types of activity (eg 1 horselord, 1 seafarer, 1 builder) then there will be little flavor left, and that it will be hard to keep track of all the different triggers.

I think of this as the Wide versus Deep approach and it applies to Techs, Policies and Traits (which are triggered by techs/policies and the units/buildings/etc that they enable). There are many different AI "development plans" that each fall somewhere on the spectrum of Wide versus Deep. One extreme wide one has the name "EAOBJECTIVE_JACK_OF_ALL_TRADES" which is a civ that will pretty much fill up on low tier techs and policy openers and never go very deep in either. This is meant to be viable, though not necessarily optimal (it's most likely triggered for an AI if their initial resource selection demands a "wide" approach in the tech tree and they end up kind of spread out anyway). There will be a few high-tier traits for this approach, and then they will just randomly pick up some for number buildings, etc., which will be spread out as you say.

However, most AI development plans have a narrower focus and generally beeline (detouring only for something really needed like a resource tech) to something like Navigation, Architecture or Beast Breeding. The latter one, for example, doesn't even stop for writing (why should they?). So this will be a very strongly flavored illiterate civilization.

The "AI development plan" system I have is really pretty cool, if I do say so myself. It tells the AI what techs and policies to get (and in what order) but allows some flexibility (e.g., if the AI owns a resource that needs a tech). Right now, I'm designing each one based on what I think will be viable strategies. However, what's cool is that I can add more or change them later as players figure out better strategies.

Ahriman · Feb 14, 2012

Theme is fine as an organizing principle, but it's not an actual game entity (table entry) so it can be informal and creative

I would think that it would be important to have a theme name that would then appear on the leaderhead, like a Civ4 trait. So if there is the leader Rufus with race Man and color red who gets the Fomhoire name and the Seafarers trait, I would want that trait to be easy to see when I talk to him, because the Seafarers trait would be part of the flavor of how I see that guy.
So I would hope that the traits would have a name; I know what kinds of bonuses he is getting, and I know a bit about how he's going to play. If Rufus the Fomhoire just has +2 gold per coastal city, +2 gold per stable and +5% production to buildings, that is going to feel dull.

Traits seem like they should be part of the identify of the civilization, whether hard-coded (like in vanilla Civ5) or created by actions.

and then one each for tier 2, 3 and 4

I think this is a bit confusing. There is no clear tier that these are related to. You may have mental tiers for design purposes of power level, and with techs there is a tier structure, but there is no such formal structure for these other traits.
So I think this would be quite confusing for players. How are they supposed to know which they are eligible for?

I want them to flow naturally from player actions without the player needing to know much about it.

I dunno, picking up extra abilities without really knowing why and without working towards them doesn't seem like a good design principle. I'm a strong believer in transparency for the player, and making it as clear as possible what the advantages or disadvantages of different actions are. It should be as clear as possible that building a 6th horseman unit will give me some extra ability (and that it will lock out access to some other possible abilities), otherwise I might not bother to do it or might do it by accident.

I also think that allowing the very free style will be very hard to balance; it would be much easier to balance ~10 different Archetypes than it would be to balance 40+ different abilities.

If you want some "wide" objectives, then create archetypes that support that: there could be a "combined arms" archetype which triggers when you have 1 each of melee, horse, recon, infantry, archery and siege units, and triggers general military boosts. There could be a "well read" archetype, which triggers from getting X techs (which favors low tier techs, which are cheaper) and gives a research bonus. And so forth.

And then each archetype could have 3 levels of benefits, some of which might have 1 or 2 different ways to achieve.

I think that would have much more flavor and coherence than awarding disconnected benefits that feel like they just "happen" to the player.

So there could be:
Horselord:
Level 1: Triggered by having X horse units or Y pastured horse tiles.
Gives +5 experience for all newly created units.
Level 2: Triggered by having Z total horse units or Y stables.
Reduces maintenance for horse units -25%.
Level 3: Triggered by having A total horse units.
Gives +1 movement for all horse units.

And similar for other Archetypes.
You could have more triggers, and you could have different bonuses at each level depending on which trigger was met.
But you still only ask the player once, whether they want to enter that Archetype or not (the AI always does so).

Then, make it as clear as possible in documentation and UI what the triggers and abilities are.

Éa, a fantasy mod for Civ5 -- teaser thread

Deity

Tyrant

Tyrant

Deity

Ancient Druid

Deity

Deity

Deity

Ancient Druid

Deity

Ancient Druid

Deity

Tyrant

Deity

Tyrant

Tyrant

Deity

Tyrant

Deity

Tyrant

Similar threads