Éa, Dawn of the Mortal Races (phase 1, pre-alpha code development and discussion)

hi.
nice work you have done on the AI math :D

I think the "area" bit it will be borked down if one plays single continent.... or on archipelagoes....
(seen from europe, a sparsely settled america with only 2 big cities (New york and Sao Paolo) would be chosen over a compact and rich south-asia with 5 big cities with 1 in each of the 3 indonesian islands, 1 in australia, 1 in new zealand).

Maybe you could just let this part down. as it is a big approximation and you won't do it for the other GP (mostly they will stay in their own culture).

maybe the "area" bit could be managed by taking another factor into account : the civ's score, the number civ's cities bigger than 10 (or15) that have no trade route with you, the total commerce of the civ (minus the one of the city you are targetting); the size of the second biggest city of the same civ that has no trade route with you...etc

or you could do your check not by area but by civ: adding a g' of 4, and searching the 3 next-profitable actions with the same civ. That might help in case of big differences in landmasses sizes (however that would reduce the perceived importance of trade routes with CS...).
 
For those following along, I've added stuff for Sages to do in the doc post #4. A lot of this is going in at the same time I code AI for it.

hi.
I think the "area" bit it will be borked down if one plays single continent.... or on archipelagoes....
(seen from europe, a sparsely settled america with only 2 big cities (New york and Sao Paolo) would be chosen over a compact and rich south-asia with 5 big cities with 1 in each of the 3 indonesian islands, 1 in australia, 1 in new zealand).

Maybe you could just let this part down. as it is a big approximation and you won't do it for the other GP (mostly they will stay in their own culture).

Already done. It is a big approximation, yes, but I like the fact that it takes actual opportunities into account, rather than just guessing there are opportunities for some reason (like big cities). For one thing, the area boost eventually starts to drop as we use up all the opportunities.

Actually, it can see "clustering" on an island city. If the single city has 5 potential trade routes with your civ, then that one city has an "area boost" (from the 2nd - 5th best trade route opportunities). Since we only look ahead to the next 4 opportunities, it is very possible for a single island city to out-compete a continent.

However, you are correct that it will not see the value of nearby cities on different islands (each city has to attract on its own merit) when selecting an area. But keep in mind that once the GP gets there (attracted by one city), the low g to get to the next will drive up the next city's v'. The GP unit should still proceed in a sensible manner, taking advantage of nearby opportunities once there.
 
Actually, it can see "clustering" on an island city. If the single city has 5 potential trade routes with your civ, then that one city has an "area boost" (from the 2nd - 5th best trade route opportunities). Since we only look ahead to the next 4 opportunities, it is very possible for a single island city to out-compete a continent.
you are right.. I forgot that :D
 
Leaders of Man are generally called "King" or "Queen" (for now, anyway; there may be some other titles with future policy branches). But what should I call leaders of Heldeofol?

These are usually Orcs, though some are Ogres or other subraces. "Warlord" seems really boring. The system is pretty flexible so I can make it depend on class or specific subrace if that is useful. But I can't think of anything better than King or Queen at the moment. (There are not too many Heldeofol Queens because gender is based on available artwork, and there aren't many female orcs out there.)
 
Frankly, Orc culture always seems to work best with the Warlord at the top. (Orcs don't really work well with Kings or Queens or Emperors or whatever.) If you want, you can try throwing "warlord" into google translate & translating it into different languages to see if it sounds cooler. :shrug:
 
Frankly, Orc culture always seems to work best with the Warlord at the top. (Orcs don't really work well with Kings or Queens or Emperors or whatever.) If you want, you can try throwing "warlord" into google translate & translating it into different languages to see if it sounds cooler. :shrug:

You could use Indonesian translation of word warlord - 'laksamana' It looks cool ^^ or try to play with 2 or 3 translations of word warlord and mix them up.
 
well, I would also try to "boring" :
"Great"
"Chief"
"Da Boss"
"The Big Boss"
"Boss of the Bosses"
"Oldest"
"First of the Chosen"
"He who Rules"
"Leader"

...etc
Nobody said they have to have cool-sounding titles.. only powerful ones :D
 
well, I would also try to "boring" :
"Great"
"Chief"
"Da Boss"
"The Big Boss"
"Boss of the Bosses"
"Oldest"
"First of the Chosen"
"He who Rules"
"Leader"
Sounds like Richard titles. :p

No, but really...in the spirit of that, try Doomlord, Tyrant, Overlord, Despot, Potentate, Khan, or Maharajah.
 
Thanks for the suggestions. One thing to think about is that this is the name that appears in all UI, and it is the unit name. This helps you remember which of your GP units is your leader. Here is Lothin, for example, who happens to be an Ogre Warrior:



So the unit name goes from Lothin to...

King Lothin
Chief Lothin
Great Lothin
Warlord Lothin
Overlord Lothin
Doomlord Lothin
Tyrant Lothin?

King Lothin or Doomlord Lothin are my favorites. For some variety, I could break this down by subrace and class. Most Heldeofol GPs are orc warriors, which could take the title Warlord _____, then orc engineers Overlord _____, then Ogres (all warriors I think) Doomlord _____. For some reason I like King ____ or Queen _____ for goblins (it has a bit of pretentious humor which is what Tolkien did with the Goblin King).
 
well, technically, I can totally imagine being called "Big Boss Leklyn" for a whole game.

"Chief Hunter Grrozaph" would also be an appelation that would help me immerse into the game.... especially if I get my civ-name by being first to hunting, or a horse or elephant tech.

But I could also be called "Fearsome Lothin"

Well, I think orcs and ogres and trolls and giant would like titles that show their physical superiority or maybe that reflect their prowess. They would prefer title that show WHY they are the leader and not "leader titles".
I mean : a king has authority because he has the title (and the troups to back his call); same for a warlord. However I think an Ogre leader has authority, not because he is called "chief or king", but because he is the most dangerous or the most cunning, or the strongest or ...Etc or because he killed a dragon (and is called Dragon slayer Lothin)

so for them, "king" "chief" "leader" would have no meaning but be only fawning or vanity words.

and "Doomlord" or "Warlord" seems a bit "soft" for them. or maybe too smart, too "civilized". :D
 
It's interesting that you call King and Chief "fawning or vanity words". I was sort of thinking the reverse: that Fearsome is a vanity title and King is just a statement of fact. Looking at the portrait above, I see an individual that is very secure in his fearsomeness. He is King Lothin because he doesn't need words to impress.

Or maybe King Lothin is a little envious of the civilizations of Man and the title "King" is pretentious. This is not uncommon for Heldeofol that have some intelligence.

On the other hand, many Heldeofol lack the intellect described above. Then it is all physical demonstration and Fearsome or Mankiller may be fitting titles.

I'm not saying you're wrong about King being a vanity title. If we have a scrawny but cunning goblin leader, then almost anything sounds like vanity. But that's fine because we are talking about an insecure leader. Here I think King or even Emperor is best because it demonstrates the leader's vanity in both his own qualities and his civilization. I have very few Heldeofol portraits that are female (just couldn't find many), but the ones I have practically scream out Queen Gundhilde.

A lot of this is just personal taste. My own tends to veer away from modern and obvious (WoW kind of stuff) and more toward old mythical and subtle (and possibly humorous but not overtly so). In old myths, or at least the translations we see, most races of all sorts were headed by a King or Queen.

It's interesting that you mention Dragon Slayer. One of the goals of this mod is to move away from "backstory" and have the story unfold in the game itself. This is a title that could be earned by any GP (not necessarily leader) based on a real game event. But that's for later.
 


Try out these Female orc images. You may also want to check out some Skyrim female orc animations.
 
Way too pretty to be an orc (or Heldeofol of any sort).

There is a reason you rarely see the orc ladies.
Dude, it's from WCIII. Also, they are many pretty sensual orcs. Try reading some of R. A. Salvatore's work. The Orc kings always have a pretty queen. Granted, she's not really a "queen" as much as a "wife", in the sense that the queen never really advises the king or is in any way near his equal. It seems pretty orc women are more used a trophies, to show the king's power & such. But anyway...if you're looking for more realistic:
 
In Éa, orcs are usually stupid and always ugly. And if you do meet an orc queen, she didn't get that way by good looks or subservience.

In general, my reaction to CRPG or any computer game art (or art inspired by it) is negative. They all look more or less the same to me. It's either "Hot Babe With High DPS" or "Tough Guy With High DPS", regardless of class or race.

Sorry if I'm coming across a little too strongly. I've been downloading art for Éa for the last two years. So I have pretty strong views.
 
Meh, ok. Just wasn't sure if you had a view at all, man. :shrug:

Since you have that view, you don't really need ideas for orc females.
 
But I think the "lothin" from your image has authority because he is strong; not because of his title.
His title (king) is only a decoration. He is not obeyed by his followers because of his title but because they fear him. He got the title because he has the authority instead of having the authority because of his title.

well : your mod, your rules :D
 
Not sure which way you're arguing. King Lothin because he is confident of his fearsomeness? Or Fearsome Lothin because he is confident of authority? Or is he so darn confident that he doesn't need a title at all? But the whole point of this (in addition to giving a little flavor) is to make it a little more obvious to the player who their leader is.

Anyway, the mechanics are in place now, so it is a simple table edit to add a special (override) title for any individual. These can be added later as we add a short backstory, etc, for each great person.
 
:D
I'm not sure myself.

maybe : normal Lothin would be "Cunning Lothin" or "Cruel Lothin" or "Chief Hunter Lothin".
while a Lothin that wants to impress or imitate Man would be called "King Lothin".

I'm trying to say that for the most part of a nation of Man, the king has authorithy because he is king. Further, he may also be strong or cunning or anything else, but the main part of his authority comes from him having a title (or being chosen by the elders or...).

For Orcs/trolls, one gets authority only by being stronger (strength, luck, cunning, cruelty) than all the others. Any orc that thinks he is stronger will try to defy the "leader" and take his title. The leader keeps his position only because all others fear to challenge him.
(for men, it is a bit different : The leader keeps his position only because all others that already have enough of legitimity (other nobles, other merchant...Etc fear to challenge him.)
So in fact, even if men-captives think the word designating the leader means "king" or "chief", in fact it oftens means "the strongest", "the strongest of the strongs", "the biggest baddass ever"...etc or any other prowess-linked wording :D
 
I really like the "Tomes improvements".

However, I think that maybe the "Tome of Tomes" comes early (not for the tech bonus, but for allowing building all other Tomes).
Indeed, if I'm playing tech fanatix I would likely have 1 GS or even 2. And I'll have Writing AND philosophy way before the other civs get : writing AND a GS...
Then, I'll build "tome of tomes", 25 turns (generally before the other civs get their GS), and for the next 100 turns, I'll build the 8 other tomes (2 per 25 turns as I have 2 GS).... and that'll be almost an automatism (which is never fun) Hopefully I'll got some tomes before civs that beelined for them without going philosophy so even if they are "one-per-world improvements" I'll have most of them.

Especially, If I ever get to academic tradition, opening the building of an academy, enabling the Tome of axiomes.... well, never mind, I'd already have the tome of axiom because I had the Tome of Tomes way before it.

So maybe put the "Tome of Tomes" at litterature ?
or separate the "give researche reduction" from the "can build all Tomes" into two Tomes : "Tome of Science" (philosophy") and "Tome of Tomes" (at litterature).

AND/Or add a cost to Tomes ; or make it sacrifice the GS... (you'll open a place for a new GP to spawn so it is a short-time (-50-100 turns :D) sacrifice); or make it that any GS can only build one Tome ever, or one Tome every 2levels of the unit; or that it needs a promotion that is removed, and that can only be retaken by leveling up. (or 1st tome needs lvl 1, 2nd tome needs lvl 3, 3rd tome needs level 6, 4th Tome needs level 10...etc). That is, if GP gain xp and levels :(
 
Top Bottom