I can live with that. I think I prefer Exalting, though. Seems more alignment-y (though perhaps somewhat religious). Either way.
Shadar Logoth
General assumptions:
- Shadar Logoth is represented by a CS
- It will be present (somehow) in all games (unless explicitly disabled? or does it get disabled with a victory condition?)
Thanks for setting this up!
OK, first off I will note that theoretically that first assumption could be changed. We could elect to have SL be a "regular" city, and not a CS at all - for instance, it could be something akin to the "shadowspawn civ" (though not that actual civ). I'm not sure that this designation is an important one, but I'm throwing it out there in case it is.
Yeah, I'd say present in all games, barring crazy situations where all CSs have been conquered, etc., or perhaps extreme player action or luck. I'd say it can be disabled. Most likely, I'd guess that it can be disabled specifically, which also disables the cleansing. We could consider linking its existence to the LB, but I don't think that's necessary, as the Cleansing is a valuable mechanic even if there is no LB.
I should say that I think some minimum number of CSs need to exist in the game for one of them to become SL. Should it be created, say, in a four-CS game? Probably not.
Becoming Shadar Logoth
One of the things we've previously liked is that instead of Shadar Logoth being a normal CS that has its own unique CS type (still an option), a CS that is already in the game becomes Shadar Logoth sometime in the early game. This leads us to consider: what triggers the Shadar Logoth transformation? I see a few options:
- When the first player reaches era 3
- When the world era reaches era 3
- When the Trolloc Wars start
- When the Trolloc Wars end
- In response to a specific player/civ action (difficult to do this one without combining it with one of the above - unless we want to allow Shadar Logoth to not be present in every game)
I'll note that I'm not sure this is a hugely important decision, as the first four of these will apply to roughly the same time period in the game. According to the LB summary, the TW begins right at 75 turns into the game (I though I remembered it being era-dependent), so we go with the TW-tied triggers if we want the creation of SL to be relatively predictable (in terms of turns).
The flavor leans towards either Era 3's commencement or the end of the TW - the start of the TW is somewhat flavor-clashing. I'm tempted to go with World Era reaching 3 for simplicity's sake (though that may somewhat limit our CS-selection options below). That will serve to prevent it from happening to early - much like having the TW start at turn 75 helps ensure everybody has appropriate chances to get ready. One player zooming ahead could mess everybody's game up.
If we go with CS-selection mechanics that have something to do with the TW (a CS that was captured, for example), then obviously we need to go with the "end of the trolloc wars" option.
What happens to players who have an existing relationship with the CS that becomes Shadar Logoth? (If anything?)
I think, first of all, any caravans/cargo ships should be returned to the player. I think it's too punishing to have a bunch of routes insta-plundered, especially if it ends up semi-random.
Beyond that, I don't think we should do anything else. We could do some sort of one-time yield or something as compensation, but that feels pretty anti-flavor, IMO.
The next question is how we choose which CS becomes Shadar Logoth. A couple of options:
- It's always Aridhol. This is simple and easy, though relatively uninteractive and easily predictable for the player.
- Random. We could choose a CS randomly - still uninteractive, but not at all predictable.
- Choose a CS captured by Trollocs during the Trolloc Wars. This lends itself to the Shadar-Logoth-is-not-in-every-game approach (though could be combined with the random approach if the Trollocs don't capture any CSes, to ensure Shadar Logoth is in every game). This also lends itself to the "end of the Trolloc Wars" timing for triggering a CS to become Shadar Logoth (though it could also do so at the time it is captured). We could choose from the Trollocs' captured CSes (if there are more than one) using a variety of metrics (some assume we go for end-of-Trolloc-Wars-trigger):
- First/last captured (chronologically)
- Closest to/farthest from a major civ
- Random
I definitely don't think always-Aridhol is very compelling, though it is of course flavor-accurate.
I think I'm somewhat partial to the CS-captured-by-trollocs-or-random approach. Flavor-wise, I don't think it needs to be a captured CS, necessarily - most likely just one that has suffered a lot of damage. The idea is that the fear and hate in the city built up and created Mashadar, right? In major-civ terms, this would be tons of unhappiness, but with CSs, I'm not sure if there's anything we could do to represent that sort of negative vibe. In any case, I wouldn't assume a CS-capture will ALWAYS happen - in fact, unless we make those CSs earn back their sovereignty at the end of the TW automatically, we should probably make CS-capture pretty rare, else we'll have a lot of games with at least one shadowspawn CS). Maybe there's a sort of "boot order," as a list of options for which CS becomes SL. In order from first-choice to last resort:
1) a CS that was captured by Shadowspawn
2) a CS that has no ally (also tie-breaks for #1)
3) a CS that lost many units to Shadowspawn, maybe 5+ or 10+ (also tie-breaks for #2)
4) a random CS (last-case tie-breaker)
Alternatively, if we'd like some dumb-luck/crazy-player-dedication options, we could eliminate condition #4 and say if no CSs lost any meaningful number of units, there is no SL. Of course, that messes up the cleansing thing a lot.
If we're being crazy, we could also eschew the whole CS thing and say that ANY city captured by Trollocs has a chance of become SL, including major civ cities... This is probably too weird, though.
Shadar Logoth's Behavior
Shadar Logoth will presumably not be like a normal City-State. There are a few things that seem reasonable as characteristics that set it apart from others (each is obviously up for discussion):
- Civs cannot be friends or allies with it.
- Civs cannot gift it Gold or units.
- It does not provide quests. (Or does it?)
- No one can establish trade routes with it.
- It is permanently at war with all civs and CSes.
- Attacking it should be counterproductive.
I think all of these seem reasonable. I think there's a way we can sort of give it quests. More on that below.
What happens if somebody takes pot shots at Mashadar from outside the CS's territory? Can it suffer such damage? Will it ignore them and die? Will it chase them outside of the territory? How do we control this?
Also, I'd say that, if possible, the CS shouldn't do any aggressive things unless anybody gets close. Specifically, I don't want the Mashadar unit to pillage trade routes that happen to go through it, right? Or is there a better way to do this? (like make trade routes navigate around it). In short, I think I want being next to SL to be mostly consequence free (such as it was for Andor in the books) - it's a wasted CS and wasted land, and will hassle you if you get close, but it won't be anything approximating an actual aggressive neighbor.
Making the last point true involves a bit of complexity. I see a few ways of doing this, several of which are not mutually exclusive:
- The city cannot be captured - simple and to-the-point, even if reduced to 0 HP and attacked, you "pillage" the city like when Barbarians "capture" cities. (Though stealing treasure from Shadar Logoth that way seems like it should have consequences.)
- Mashadar unit: a powerful defensive unit that cannot move outside the CS's territory (we presumably don't want Shadar Logoth to go on the offense) that can wipe out any attackers. This isn't a foolproof way of keeping the city safe - a skilled human can always game the tactical AI, regardless of raw statistical advantages Mashadar may have. (Though beyond a certain threshold it becomes a waste of resources and likely only pursued as a challenge by players, rather than a way to win.)
- The city remains "corrupted" even if captured and eventually rebels - becoming Shadar Logoth again. Could combine with the Mashadar unit approach
Is there any ongoing interactions we want civs to have with Shadar Logoth? A way to capture the flavor of pilfered treasure spreading the corruption?
I think it being uncapturable makes sense. Or, if it's captured it could revert back immediately afterwards. I'm not sure about pillaging barbarian-style (though see below).
I'd say make Mashadar a really slow but extremely powerful unit - the CS's only unit - that cannot leave the borders. I say make Mashadar respawn if it is somehow killed, after a couple turns. We could say that this respawn continues even if SL is captured - so any civ that takes it can't possibly hold it for long (Achievement for holding for X turns, I'm sure).
OK, now I'll say an idea I have. Just an idea, not necessarily sure that it's a good one:
SL could somehow be the source of
corrupted Relics (i.e. artifacts). We could call these Corrupted or Cursed Relics, if we wanted to.
Whether through 1) completing some weird quest, 2) sacking the city (not a good choice, flavor-wise, IMO), or 3) "visiting" SL and surviving Mashadar, civs could be given/steal Relics. These would be like the regular LWs from mythic sites, except different.
You could get some specific benefit from them. Maybe it's simply more culture/prestige. Maybe it's also Gold or some other yield. But the thing is cursed. The city it's housed in suffers penalties to local happiness, or else production or faith or something. Or all. Loot from SL is essentially always considered bad, so the drawbacks should probably outweigh the benefits, but there should probably still be some benefits.
The curse could, theoretically, compound over time, as could the benefits. I dunno.
So, I don't know how it would all work, but it's probably the only way I can think to bring in the SL flavor in a more real way.
EDIT: Thinking over this, I suppose it should definitely *not* be more culture/prestige. We don't want to allow military action or Quests to allow a Wide player (or non-culture player) to totally bypass the main culture mechanics of the game in order to accumulate a lot of free LWs, even with a penalty. So, these LWs should either be equal in culture or prestige, or perhaps even less (somehow, maybe only culture or only prestige), or else a different yield entirely.
Cleansing Saidin
As counterpoint mentioned, Cleansing Saidin could suitably interact with Shadar Logoth. In the books, the city is used during the Cleansing and subsequently destroyed. Do we want Shadar Logoth to be a part of the Cleansing somehow in WoTMod? I see a few options:
- It isn't. We can choose not to connect the two.
- It is destroyed when the Cleansing succeeds - if the Cleansing is successful then regardless of where Shadar Logoth is on the map, it is destroyed.
- Map-based objective. When the Cleansing project swings one way or the other, the players on the winning side must complete some objective at/near Shadar Logoth on the map in order for the Cleansing (or lack thereof) to be final and locked in for the rest of the game.
Definitely the Cleansing should be connected to SL, IMO.
I think ideally we can make it a map-based objective. Once that objective is completed, SL is destroyed. more specifics below.
There are variants on these approaches which we can explore as well, of course. (Only map-objective for the side trying to Cleanse Saidin, Mashadar defensive unit destroyed and city left to be captured if Cleansing completes, Corruption-based rebellions no longer occur after Saidin Cleansing, the list goes on.)
Of the bulletted options, the first is obviously the simplest, but then it begs the question of why we're including Shadar Logoth. It will just sit there as a thorn in someone/several players' sides for the duration of the game. There might be some cool stuff during the Last Battle where Mashadar fights some Shadowspawn, but it's not really enough to justify it.
agreed.
The second is a very simple connection and likely not too complicated (destroying capitals notwithstanding). It evens out the difficulty for all players (no dependency on your proximity to Shadar Logoth), but it feels relatively uninspired. The parts of BNW that players seem to most enjoy, and remark the biggest improvements over vanilla CiV, is where new systems encourage player interactions. The Cleansing would be a hammer-off-contest that just happens to destroy a city, in this set up.
I think this is definitely lacking. That said, if we can't come up with a suitable alternative, I could live with this, if it was the only remaining option.
But I think a map objective is good, not only for fun, but for game balancing purposes. We're imagining a situation in which shadow civs will campaign to keep saidin tainted, but it's quite possible that there won't BE any shadow civs, and the SL mechanic should stand somewhat alone in that. Also, it's possible that some shadow civs who use lots of saidin units will actually prefer to cleanse it, or at least be ambivalent about it. Thus, have it just be a worldwide hammer dump, without any additional trigger, makes this project potentially too easy for such a tremendously epic thing, as depicted in the books.
The third is more complicated, though the degree to which it is so varies wildly depending on what the objective is that players need to complete. It's very possible to leverage existing systems and make the added complexity relatively lightweight. For example:
After "completing" the Cleansing project in order to succeed in Cleansing, one of the civilizations that contributed to that success must capture the Shadar Logoth city. Upon its capture, Saidin is Cleansed. (Depending on what we decide for the strength of Mashadar, he could be either weakened or removed when in this state. A turn limit to capture the city may be appropriate to allow non-Cleansing players a way to "reset" the process if they do well enough, but it isn't essential - transitioning into this "you must capture Shadar Logoth" state could be one-way.)
This is one example of how we could approach such a system and leverage the existing city capture mechanics, so that there aren't any significant new activities for the player, only contextual framing. (I'm also not sure how one would invert this objective for the non-Cleansing civilizations when they "win" the project - this approach may lend itself best to a "map objective for Cleansing success, not for Cleansing failure" approach.)
There are also a variety of approaches that could be more involved than the one above. Perhaps the Cleansing players need to use the Dragon to finish off Shadar Logoth (though I'm not sure how). Maybe any channeler can do it if allowed to "channel" in place near the city for long enough (once the project has "succeeded").
ok. lots of possibilities here.
As far as the success-map objective versus failure-map objective, I think you have the right of it. If the project fails, that's that, and things stay the way they are.
On a side note, Project failure is based not on time expiration, but on actually hammers pumped into an "anti-project" right? That feels somehow inelegant to me. It could work, though.
I think capturing SL is a decent objective. It requires a certain amount of military prowess, of course, which I suppose is acceptable. I can imagine awesome showdowns where the anti-cleansing civs send units to defend SL.... and then get eaten by mashadar. That said, this is somewhat weird, because if you had, for instance, a light civ who "voted" against the cleansing, there's not really any way for them to fight back against other light civs there at this stage.
EDIT: I could imagine requiring the Razing of the city. This is a little less flavorful, as it wouldn't be the Boom Flash that happened in the books, but it could allow for more of a back-and-forth as people try to retake the city. Just an option
Other options could be out there, of course. One weird one would be to attack SL or Mashadar (or "kill" it) with a channeler that is Linked to at least X other channelers, or something like that. That's pretty nifty flavor, but it's also very limiting in the kinds of civ's that could pull it off.
Other than that.... there's "donating" units to the CS, or bringing X units there. Kind of weird, though. Can you think of anything else?
But yeah, after whatever we decide above is done, SL should be destroyed. Probably not the Big Statue wonder, though... Oh, and if we do Cursed Relics, those should be probably destroyed, too! Kind of nuts.
In the event that the Cleansing can be averted by the on-map objective, the project will need to be reset in some way. A few quick options for that:
- Bump it back down slightly - the Cleansing is still imminent, but the proportion is shifted slightly so that the pro-Cleansing players need to put some more hammers in to try the objective again.
- Reset to 0 - as if the project had never been worked on by anyone.
The first seems the most fair - the pro-Cleansing players have won once and the Cleansing is a big project - at this point, the anti-Cleansing players are delaying, so setting it back up so the pro-Cleansing players can start off the map objective
relatively soon makes sense.
Option 2 is possible and simple, but likely very punishing. Given the timescale of Cleansing Saidin and the Last Battle, among other victory conditions, it seems unlikely that the Cleansing could ever succeed (or fail) after the on-map objective caused a reset. (Unless we severely tweaked the timescale of the actual Cleansing to be much shorter than we'd originally discussed - being something that players
could do over a relatively short number of turns.)
hmm... Honestly, this is something I hadn't thought of yet. Obviously this is all quite a bit different if there are two things being tallied - pro Project and anti Project - as opposed to simply a "pro" pile that accumulates over time until the right amount of hammers is spent. Which do you prefer? I think I prefer the pro-only, as mentioned above, though clearly the "anti" option is good in that it allows civs actual agency to disrupt these plans. So, we probably should go with that.
I actually don't see much of a project having quite a big hit occur in the Project, even if it isn't back down to 0. I like to think once Operation Cleanse starts, civs should feel some urgency and send units to SL to help. Plus, having the anti-players "save it" once, but have to leave their units tied up defending it, or whatever, as they wait five turns for the second chance, feels unfair. To me, that makes it feel like it's not a matter of IF, but of WHEN, saidin is cleansed, which is a problem. I'm not saying a second attempt should be impossible, but it should cost you, for sure. But we can balance this appropriately - since the "pro" forces have a tougher task ahead of them, perhaps the "pro" side costs more hammers.
Similarly, what happens if the Project is "voted" down? Is there a second attempt?
If we don't use Fearsome for the +1 Shadow, I'd say definitely use it here.
