Fall Further - Download and Current Changelog

Patch F fixed my problem. I can now play Fall from Further without issue.

Yay!
 
I think it's whoever gets whatever religion first, provided that's the leading Civ at the time, and everybody else adopts the leader's religion.

I think this is directly related to the dwarves beelining ROK and the elves beelining FOL. Those two religions are almost always founded very early in games (sometimes unbelievably too early!) and that sets the pattern for the whole game. It spreads to AI civs (elves often spam Disciples that ALWAYS seems to spread their religion on first try!) and, before you know it, you are the only one with OO, the Order, Empyrean, etc.
 
Not quite the point I was making. I often end up being the bigger civ early on, and the nearby AI civs quickly adopt my religion as a result, including Good-aligned civs picking up an Evil religion, or an Evil ones picking up a good religion. What I specifically object to is a civ picking up a religion totally opposed to its normal alignment without any coercion.
 
Not quite the point I was making. I often end up being the bigger civ early on, and the nearby AI civs quickly adopt my religion as a result, including Good-aligned civs picking up an Evil religion, or an Evil ones picking up a good religion. What I specifically object to is a civ picking up a religion totally opposed to its normal alignment without any coercion.



OK, I see your point, but doesn't it make sense that the AI will adopt the first religion that spreads to one of its cities? And, if you are the big dog, maybe with the religion's holy building, it will spread to them in short order.

I do see what you are saying about inconsistencies with religions and alignments, but must admit I do it too sometimes. For example, in one game I had to abandon because of CTDs I was playing as the Sheaim and the only religion that had not been founded was the Order. I researched and adopted the Order to get the benefits that come with founding a religion. A Good Sheaim civ didn't make sense though.
 
OK, I see your point, but doesn't it make sense that the AI will adopt the first religion that spreads to one of its cities? And, if you are the big dog, maybe with the religion's holy building, it will spread to them in short order.

Spreading a religion to a city whose people are philosophically compatible with the new faith, especially if no other religion is already there, makes a lot of sense in fact. Odds of this happening, however, ought to drop substantially if both conditions aren't true. In general, closed borders should also reduce odds any religion spontaneously spreading to another city.

If the host city has a diametrically opposed alignment than the one associated with the new religion, and/or it has at least one other religion already practiced there, a "hated" religion ought to require a missionary and open borders of course (no spontaneous spread should be possible in that case).

Furthermore, an AI Civ should never adopt a "hated" faith as its official religion unless forced through a peace process or as the eventual consequence of conquest.
 
snarko's options mod has an option that allows the player to raise/lower the chance that a religion will expand to a city owned by a "culturally incompatible" civ. so, for example, you can choose to make it very unlikely that the order spreads to sheaim cities. it's an interesting mechanic that the team could use imho ;)
 
I personally think that religions should stick to alignment. Even so far the techs for religions locked based on alignment. You can't have your religion be completely opposed.

Neutral has no problems with this.

That'd be my vote. Good Religion can't spread to evil cities, and the other way around.

OR... It can spread VERY unlikely, and if it does it causes some crazy negative happiness. Like -5 or something.
 
Why? If anything, it should cause an increase in maintnece costs, since radical cults are never a good thing;). I don't see why just because, say Alexis is evil means her people wouldn't want to pray to Lugus for a better life.
 
I personally think that religions should stick to alignment. Even so far the techs for religions locked based on alignment. You can't have your religion be completely opposed.

Neutral has no problems with this.

That'd be my vote. Good Religion can't spread to evil cities, and the other way around.

OR... It can spread VERY unlikely, and if it does it causes some crazy negative happiness. Like -5 or something.

For the AI that might make sense. For the player it would defeat one of the whole points of Fall from Heaven. It's entirely possible for the Bannor to become corrupt and fall to worship of the Veil, just as the Calabim can redeem themselves and follow the Order.

Saying "civs are not allowed to change their alignment" defeats half the point of the alignment system.
 
For the AI that might make sense. For the player it would defeat one of the whole points of Fall from Heaven. It's entirely possible for the Bannor to become corrupt and fall to worship of the Veil, just as the Calabim can redeem themselves and follow the Order.

Saying "civs are not allowed to change their alignment" defeats half the point of the alignment system.

And defeats the dynamic nature of the game. Personally I love converting the elohim to the ashen veil as sheaim. It is OUR game not some kind of set script where the baddies are always bad and the goodies always good.

Besides, if this bugs you change it yourself. There are religion weight modifiers for all the leaders in the leaderheadinfos.xml
 
That said, I do agree that the AI adopts religions too easily. It should take more than dropping one order missionary in one city to get the Sheaim to adopt Order, but if they have no other religion, that's what happens...
 
:eek: I kept hearing about this mod, finially got around to reading up on it. Probably wait for the update to 0.40, then download and enjoy this. :goodjob:

The religon thing, one fix, though it's not one prefer to use. Jump into world builder, and give the races a acolyte of the appropaite religion. I did that for a game, and they all popped em, and viola, religion bug fixed..ish. :lol:

Hated to do it, but the inappropaite religion thing really gets on my nerves.
 
And defeats the dynamic nature of the game.

I generally modify the weights to encourage "proper" civ-religion matches. But, yeah, it's easy for me to imagine getting tired of that sometime and wanting more variability.

So I want what I always want when there's something to be said for both sides: I want xienwolf to make a game-option.

Maybe something like "Multiply religion weights by 4." Or 3 or whatever'd work with the current figures to keep variability with the option off but remove most - but not all - of it when the option's on.
 
I'm leaning toward weighting the Civilizations to be less likely to open their borders to anyone who doesn't share alignment. Combine that with Kael's block to research alignment-altering religious technologies and it should serve nicely to keep religions from being LIKELY to spread around and break alignments, but won't make it impossible.
 
I like Tarquelne's idea of an option to change weighting of religious preferences for the AI (players should definitely have the option of adopting any old religion they like but I hate seeing things like the Bannor adopting AV and the Malakim taking CoE with great frequency - and FoL is virtually useless for non-elves). And what block does Kael have on researching alignment-altering religious techs? I went over the current FfH 0.40 changelog and didn't see anything. Is it just for the AI (another weighting thing) or a hard and fast rule affecting players too?

As for borders: I might suggest that border arrangements should be based not on alignment but rather on disposition (which comes with a built-in alignment modifier). I think there is some weighting already in play but perhaps not enough; I frequently am able to establish open borders with civs I meet who are annoyed with me from the start (and sometimes can't get it with good dispositions) and I almost never see civs closing borders even when they are furious. Such events would be realistic and flavorful.

Another possible set of modifiers would be certain civics: for example a civ running civics such as mercantilism or theocracy might be less likely to sign open border agreements and more likely to cancel pre-existing ones while civics such as liberty and foreign trade would be the reverse.

One more obvious choice for borders would be existing state religions; Order and AV civs should probably pretty much cancel any open borders agreements immediately upon adopting that religion. You might also consider greater disposition penalties or instituting a new penalty category for opposed religions (and maybe bonuses for similarly-aligned religions); as it stands (for example) Order civs hate evil FoL civs and evil AV civs the same (and have the same negative religious adjustment toward Emp civs).

Just my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.:rolleyes:
 
I'm leaning toward weighting the Civilizations to be less likely to open their borders to anyone who doesn't share alignment.

I'd rather see an increase in the alignment-based negative diplomatic modifiers overall than have my pal not open borders.

Hmm... and I guess I don't see the mere presence of disciples of an opposed alignment religion as a significant problem. It's the seeming eagerness of the AI to switch, and that's controlled well by the AI religion modifiers. They're just generally set pretty low ATM.

OTOH: Could you do an alignment-based modifier on a disciples chance of success at spreading a religion?

Or how about a "buffer" in the AI's decision making. Something to give alignment inertia. No buffer for a Good changing to Good, say, but when looking at the number of cities a Neutral civ will assume some phantom cities with a neutral alignment.
 
So, will the current version of FF work with FFH 2 0.40 or do we have to wait for a new version of FF to be released, too?
 
Top Bottom