Alternate Alignment Diplomacy

[WarKirby]

You can do anything you want with diplomacy, could have it be modified based on the latest promotion one of your units took against the last emphasis order the other player gave one of their city governors.

-1 relations with Hyborem for promoting a unit to Demon Slaying!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That could actually be rather interesting, especially if you bring back Ork-Slaying, Elf-slaying, etc., and give them a similar mechanism.

 

[WarKirby]

Well, Orc Slaying is already back. Although it's Chislev only, as far as I'm aware.

The problem though, is that a shift of 1 either way would be a bit too much for such a thing. would be nice if the system could be a bit more fine grained. -0.2 relations would be more appropriate on the current scale, but are float values even possible there?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Well you could always use a float value as a counter and a if check to see when it breaks into a full 1.

Example: (note, done in C++, not python couse I don't know python but the logic is the same)

float Counter = 0;
IF([I]<condition>[/I] == true)
{[INDENT]Counter + 0.2
IF(Counter == 1)
{
[INDENT]<Relations>++;
Counter = 0;[/INDENT]
}
[/INDENT]

}
*<> signifies a variable that exists outside the system, like the relations

 

[solistus]

1. I dislike this, I would rather not see fixed alligments so much. They are anying already.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. My favorite FFH games are the epic Good-v-Evil wars that bring in Hyborem and Basium. I feel like something went wrong when this doesn't happen.

2. Again, this is lore vise silly. Take for example Banor, other civs would "tolerate" them as long as they crusade against demons, but I can't imagine anyone liking berserker "holy good" fanatics.

Diplomacy doesn't mean they love one another's culture. It's primarily relevant for wars in FFH. Good civs would be less inclined to invade the Bannor than the Calabim, no? And more inclined to trade, exchange knowledge, etc.?

3. Neutral civs should be completely shiftey. Evil today, good tomorow.

Maybe for the AI, but you can't (and shouldn't) force the player to shift randomly. Neutral civs should be free to work both sides and switch back and forth more easily, but have trouble forming strong alliances with either side. Do you agree?

4. No! No! No!
This I completely disagree with. We do not need a more agresive world.

My #4 had nothing to do with making the game more aggressive... It said that the modifiers shouldn't be set too high to prevent players from choosing to do unusual things (like try to buddy up with the Bannor as Calabim) if circumstances demand it, just to make those choices more difficult overall than taking the 'normal' route. In the same sense, a Ljos player starting in a flood plains desert may decide to skip FoL. In general this is a tougher route for Ljos since they can't make as good use of being able to build in forests, but in some situations it may be worth the sacrifice.

All in all, I would rather have the bonuses made individualy for each civ. (Mercurians and Banor hate anyone with AV. Svats hate the Other elves, scions like calibim (imortal friends xD), Perpentarch hates the Amurites but Keelyn does not care, ect.)

I disagree strongly with this. Gameplay over lore! Do you have any idea how overwhelming that would be to anyone who's not a total FFH geek? That's a TON of hard-coded numbers to memorise for little gameplay gain. Maybe in a few cases leader-specific diplomacy bonuses/penalties are appropriate but having different modifiers for each leader with each other leader would be a nightmare for players to keep track of. I think a better approach would be to have various standard modifiers (alignment-based, religion-based, etc.) but have them be more or less significant for various leaders (e.g.,
the same circumstances that would result in a -2 for one leader may give a -3 for another leader who 'cares' about those issues more).

I hate the entire good vs evil divide as it puts a lot of civs on the wrong side.
Not all evils are that bad, I meen, the svats or calibim don't do much more evil than the Banor. And nether of the three likes demons that much.

The Calabim raise their people for the primary purpose of feeding on them. That's pretty evil. I don't know a lot about Svart lore but as the "dark elves" they have to be evil, right? At any rate, I could honestly care less about lore when it conflicts with gameplay. I think the alignment system and the wars it can trigger is part of what makes FFH so fun in the first place and if that means stepping on lore here and there to assign each civ its probable role in the apocalypse, so be it.

 

[xienwolf]

As you would be setting it all up yourself anyway, floats are completely possible. That is what the CityBonus system uses afterall. And Relations can go up/down to +/- 100, so a 1 point shift isn't actually TOO large (it is just that the relation calculations shown to normal players on a scoreboard mouseover don't actually show you most of the information)

 

[Opera]

Maybe in a few cases leader-specific diplomacy bonuses/penalties are appropriate but having different modifiers for each leader with each other leader would be a nightmare for players to keep track of. I think a better approach would be to have various standard modifiers (alignment-based, religion-based, etc.) but have them be more or less significant for various leaders (e.g.,
the same circumstances that would result in a -2 for one leader may give a -3 for another leader who 'cares' about those issues more).

Well, this is already the case. It's how it works in the XML, except for the alignment. But it's easy to code a leader to be less forgiving about religious difference and more forgiving about overlapping culture, for example.

I think that leaders based modifiers could be nifty. However, when I said this, I didn't thought of a value for each leader. The idea was that some leaders would have some modifier towards another specific leader. My example was that Arendel and Faeryl wouldn't like each other, as Basium and Hyborem certainly wouldn't. Those latters would have an even larger modifier than the formers. Of course, it could be beneficial. Like Falamar/Rhoanna...

Another thing I thought was xenophobia. Though it's a sad thing, some leaders could give a malus towards a civilization whose default race they don't like. For a simple, typical example, the Amelanchier could dislikes all the leaders of the Luchuirp and the Khazad just because they're dwarves. Or maybe do it by promotions; the more dwarves you have in your unit list, the more Amelanchier hates you; with a cap of course, depending on the leader.

This xenophobia concept (the first version, not taking promotions into account) could be easily done with my knowledge. Would just need to add a string tag in the XML <HatedRace>. But, of course, an array would be better.

 

[WarKirby]

Chislev/Clan of Embers
Bannor/Clan of Embers
Illians/Malakim
Svartalfar/Ljosalfar

just some opposing civs that come to mind

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I've long thought that owning any Demons should hurt your diplomacy with Basium, and owning Undead should hurt your relations with Sandalphon. I say go ahead and add that mechanic. If it seems like too much, you could put a cap the bonus/penalty.

 

[ICanHasName?]

Specific modifiers for certain civs/leaders would be kinda fun. In my Ljosfar game I just converted Faeryl to FOL and now were bestest friends, which should be possible but not easy.

It actually is pretty easy to not ever get war declared anyway, without even really doing tricky diplomacy magic. Some built in conflict could be fun.

 

[WarKirby]

It actually is pretty easy to not ever get war declared anyway, without even really doing tricky diplomacy magic. Some built in conflict could be fun.

really?

please do tell me how.

 

[ICanHasName?]

Edit: basically just keep good relations and a strong army and your set. Getting dangerous civs to fight is good too.

More civs helps, because if your nice they will hate someone more then you, potentially.

 

[deadliver]

Hmm... We're talking about civilizations but, in fact, alignment and other relationship modifiers are tied to leaders. I think all should depend more on the leader than on the civilization. Just take the Balseraphs: even though Perp and Keelyn are both evil, they wouldn't behave the same way. Maybe Keelyn would be even less honourable than her father and also more grudgy. And somel leaders give more importance to religion than some others.

I agree with the leader specific nuances but the civilization's overall philosophy also would play a part. Perpentach is trait-worthy insane, chances are he'd forget grudges, while, as you said his daughter (daughter 7801 to be exact) would probably rather crush you with her legions. Considering how screwed up Os-Gabella is (according to a lore thread) maybe she would actually like people who appease/respect her. The Bannor leaders could probably be counted on opening up a can of whuparse. The Hippus should be more amenable to declaring war on people for cash (unless that is already factored in). Khazad civs should be more resource greedy ( i was when I got the stonefire corp with wonderful results).

 

[PPQ_Purple]

And lets not forget that the Illians would despise the Amurites like the pest.
I think that a "They killed our god!" Diplomacy modifier would be apropriate.

 

[deadliver]

And lets not forget that the Illians would despise the Amurites like the pest.
I think that a "They killed our god!" Diplomacy modifier would be apropriate.

Yeah. Also what about Charadon of the doviello regarding the Amurites? "you b*****slapped us back into the Age of Magic during the Age of Ice"