Analysis: The Opening Game Unraveled

[Xuenay]

Possibilities that I can think of:
1. Increased quantity of food required to grow (i.e. 20% more food per pop)
2. Increased food consumption (i.e. 3 food are eaten per pop).
3. Flat reduction in the amount of food generated (i.e. -2 food per city)

I liked the "elves convert part of their food into GPP" idea that somebody tossed out somewhere earlier. It'd feel quite fitting.

 

[dreiche2]

but isn't it strange to have your farms produce your great people? I'd rather say, let the forests produce the GPP (or some other goodies), and take away the ability to build farms in forests (or lower the food output in general, maybe make it so that forests are self sufficient). Then by relying on forests you would automatically get a lower population...

basically you take away the need for a high population by giving all kind of bonuses to forests, and then if you have a 'normal' food output (no farms in forests, or lover yield otherwise to compensate) you automatically get a low population (which will in turn also be healthy).

Flavourwise this might be a good solution...

well, of course it depends what kind of elves you want to have...

 

[Xuenay]

but isn't it strange to have your farms produce your great people?

No? More people = more Great People. Among the Elves population growth in general is just slower, and a larger fraction of the people born are destined to be Great.

 

[dreiche2]

No? More people = more Great People. Among the Elves population growth in general is just slower, and a larger fraction of the people born are destined to be Great.

hm. ok, but couldn't you with the same reasoning have hammers, gold, beakers etc. also directly be produced by farms? Basically, more people = more anything.

I mean in a way that is how civ works, but it is not so abstract. More food means more people, which is actully realized with city population, and then you can decide if those citizens should create production, science etc.

So to go with the current civ mechanics, I'd rather realize "slower growth, more great people" with exactly that: Slower growth (maybe less food, or even more food needed to have a city grow), and then maybe some free specialists or the like. Or even a forced specialist ratio from the total population or something....

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Just as a general statement; I've noticed a lot of people concerned with the contradiction between what the classic/ cliched images of elves are compared to how they play out in FfH.

A systemless rpg fantasy setting that was around a decade or so ago (existed only as articles in a now defunct Australian rpg magazine' portrayed elves that can be easily fitted into the Ljosalfar. They were a long-lived race with a high fertility rate that practiced regular infanticide to keep their numbers down and they had a belief system that taught that one day they would be permitted by their gods to commit global genocide on all the other races and make the world pure again.

Another way to look at it is that, for example, vampires in FfH have been altered extensively from what might be called traditional as have many other races and cultures. I have no problem with elves not behaving entirely the way those of us raised on Tolkien and such might expect them to.

Well, a lot of people say they hate to see Ljo altered, because they feel that would spoil the role-playing atmosphere. Other players counter this by asking if high-production, weak-fighting Elves really does fit the role-play atmosphere.

Personally, I agree that roleplay should reflect the setting. I don't have any problem with non-traditional Elves. In my fantasy world, Elves are the humanoid People devoted to the Evil Pantheon. (And yes, this pre-dates Mr. Pratchett's Lords and Ladies, so there, thhppt.) A PC Elf of course could be any alignment. But efforts to role-play as though everyone in town loved you on sight didn't pan out so wall.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

unser can i suggest a test in this route for you?

playing the lanun,

tech for fishing while building palisades and warriors
tech for message of the deep while improving water tiles
tech for mind stapleing while making temple and drowning your warriors

then,
build severous and the tower of complacency in that order and decare war on EVERYONE. start moving the tech line toward fanatism . it will be almost impossible to root severous out of your city once he has the fear promotion and the war weariness buildup on the other sivs will cripple them. combine this with landfall raids from the drown. its very harsh to beat.

keep in mind how powerful slavery is
-- severous will take 1 slave out of 4 kills (sac for 10 hammer or make lunatic)
-- you can burn population doen to 4 am any non-wonder can be made from a size 12 city. typically you will find the lanun growing at 1 pop per turn

also keep in mind that a pirate cove is a WATER tile and most units cant cross it (use for tactical advantage) , also it creates a rivet to the sea for trade and monetary purposes

I'll try this generall approach the next time I plan Lanun. Thanks for the strategy! I suspect though, it does not kick in until after the time period studied.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

You raised 3 interesting points above I didn't actually think about (or maybe I just didn't think MUCH about ) :

1/ The Ljos could as well go for OO or Runes... and THAT would be bad (as stupid as it may seem, I kept thinking about ancient forests and haven't even thought about this possibility)

2/ The inherent production edge of keeping forests around also applies to military production. The Ljos can actually mass-build offensive units, and that doesn't sound quite right

3/ Arendel Pheadra (or whatever the spelling is), although you didn't name her directly, has a powerful combination of traits, Creative + Spiritual if I remember correctly. If the Ljos are given a chance to found several religions, Spi gets even worse since they can swap religions a lot without losing much until they get their religion-specific units.


I think I'll be running a particular test case this weekend, even sooner if I get a chance, trying to run exactly this strategy: get Arendel, try to rush to OO and Runes, try to get the better of both, and attempt a Drown-rush on the closest neighbour(s). That might be interesting. In fact, I'm not even sure I'll bother getting Gilden Siveric on the way, it's not like I valued him so much. Definetely worth a try.

I am interested to hear what you find. Going for all three starting religions means you have to sacrifice development in other areas ... but OTOH it prevents rival civs from founding their religion. Maybe this is whatyo need to do to score a Religious vicory? (Beats me.)

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Nah, religious victory requires that you be part of that religion, that you have the holy city, and that you have 80% influence. Tough to do that when you're trying to manage three religions.

 

[dreiche2]

... or maybe a free specialist for every two forests worked...

 

[Halancar]

Nah, religious victory requires that you be part of that religion, that you have the holy city, and that you have 80% influence. Tough to do that when you're trying to manage three religions.

And I foudn out that barbarians cities are included in influence... I was trying to get to a religious victory by razing every civ that did not accept the Overlord, and those pesky barbarians took over the empty land and prevented me from succeeding. I ended up with a conquest victory.

 

[SchpailsMan]

Actually, I rather thought of getting only Runes and OO. Leaves is good in itself, but for the strategy I have in my mind only Runes and OO are necessary. I just hope I'll have time to play this weekend, it doesn't look guaranteed. Anyway, I'll post the results if I get the occasion.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Nah, religious victory requires that you be part of that religion, that you have the holy city, and that you have 80% influence. Tough to do that when you're trying to manage three religions.

Yes, damn hard to do indeed. So the tought I had was along the lines of inventing the religions to deny them to AI civs. The player would invent as many as possible but focus on one. If the AI civs do not have their OWN holy city, then maybe they can be persuaded to adopt your 'main' religion, and they won't change back to something else later. No idea if this would work. It's just that 80% just seems so out of reach.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Actually, I rather thought of getting only Runes and OO. Leaves is good in itself, but for the strategy I have in my mind only Runes and OO are necessary. I just hope I'll have time to play this weekend, it doesn't look guaranteed. Anyway, I'll post the results if I get the occasion.

Sounds good. I think I am going to try this gambit next timeI play a spiritual Civ. Should have tried it with my Bannor game.

 

[SchpailsMan]

Yes, damn hard to do indeed. So the tought I had was along the lines of inventing the religions to deny them to AI civs. The player would invent as many as possible but focus on one. If the AI civs do not have their OWN holy city, then maybe they can be persuaded to adopt your 'main' religion, and they won't change back to something else later. No idea if this would work. It's just that 80% just seems so out of reach.

In FFH2, each city can get as much as 3 religions before no other religion will spread to it. You would more or less have to force every civ to adopt your religion AND switch to theocracy to totally prevent other religions to spread to them so you can go on purging the unfaithful. IMO, it's so insane I woudn't try it even when playing Perpentach !

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Yes, damn hard to do indeed. So the tought I had was along the lines of inventing the religions to deny them to AI civs. The player would invent as many as possible but focus on one. If the AI civs do not have their OWN holy city, then maybe they can be persuaded to adopt your 'main' religion, and they won't change back to something else later. No idea if this would work. It's just that 80% just seems so out of reach.

What Schpails said, plus it really cuts down on the roleplaying factor.

I still think this game would be better if you couldn't found multiple religions. Maybe it could be something like that "total realism" mod in that, if you don't adopt a religion founded in your lands, the holy city moves to another Civ.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

In FFH2, each city can get as much as 3 religions before no other religion will spread to it. You would more or less have to force every civ to adopt your religion AND switch to theocracy to totally prevent other religions to spread to them so you can go on purging the unfaithful. IMO, it's so insane I woudn't try it even when playing Perpentach !

Well, some random religion-spreading is inevitable. But I was thinking of the diplomacy angle more. You can bribe an AI civ to switch religions. But if they own a holy city for a different religion, they will swap back once the deal expires. But if they don't have a holy city, they won't swich back.

But the larger point of 'why bother' remains. Someone on this board said that the only reason to go for a religious victory is just to say you did it. In almost any game you can probably win by Domination easier than by Religion.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

What Schpails said, plus it really cuts down on the roleplaying factor.

I still think this game would be better if you couldn't found multiple religions. Maybe it could be something like that "total realism" mod in that, if you don't adopt a religion founded in your lands, the holy city moves to another Civ.

This does not bug me, really. I figure it's not so over the top to see the occasional kingdom with a hodgepodge of religions. Nor one city serving as the seat of plural religions (e.g. Jerusalem). Civ models religions as something not really under the control of civilization leaders. They can pump resources into a religion (temples, missionaries) ignore it and let it whither, or actively oppose it (inquisition, razing, Theocracy). But they can't control it's spread or choose its holy city. So encountering these things in the game does not break my personal sense of immerrsion. As always, Your Milage May Vary.

Besides, religion is the only game in town when you want to alter your civ's alignment. Before I ran this study I was playing an interesting game. We took OO early on, because OO as available. That evilized our alignment and caused a sea change in my friends/loes list. Later on we founded the Order. That returned us to our original alignment and caused yet anothr diplomatic shakeup. I would hate to sacrifice this dynamic for an occational role-playing hiccup, if you'll pardon the metaphor.

Spiritual is a very powerful trait in FfH. Ther are more civics, thus more opportunity to change them. There are six temple types, and all of them are alf-price. I don't think any trait comes close to discounting six buildings. Of course, who builds six temple types in one game? Anyway ... this angle has me interested in pursuing a hyper-religious strategy. It sucks up a lot of resources ... e.g. you rush extra religion(s) at the cost, probably, of developing your magic capabilities. But you can produce a mix of tier-2 religious units in exchange.

(PS: The role-playing equivalent for this sort of fantasy kingdom occured to me while typig all that crap up there. Saruman/Isengard ... the ultimate "which way is the wind blowing today" realm. You say Sauron won a great victory?! Where's that F7 button?" For real-life example: See Italy WW1-WW2. )

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Now that the horse is good and dead and has not breathesd in about a week, now is the time to whack it a couple more times.

I have been playing Bannor under 0.15e. I had a great startup spot. Bannor begins the game with Arcane Chants. How could I not try rushing my cottages in this game? I built the first one even earlier than Ljo did in tis study here. But, Barbarian activity is worse at the higher difficulty setting, and development was slowed some. But Bannor's Enforcers rock at this phase of the game. I carved out my homeland and got a handleon the Barbs.

I could have gone for any religion I guess. I made an early decision to go for Leaves though, because the Hunters obtained en route were a welcome reinforcement in the Barbs War. Bannor grew nicely and the game grew into an interesting scenario. Evils led by a powerful Svartalf lay to the west. Friendlier but far more technologically advanced neutrals lay to the east, led my Khazad. As of around turn 300 it looked like this game would result in some good wars using the tier-3 and -4 units.

Then the spectre of The Study reared its ugly head once more. The AFs were helpful to Bannor ... food and hammers were plentiful, happiness and health buildings could wait, and Bannor grew fast. But funds were a sore spot all game. We'd kept up with Svartalf, but the happy little triad to my east had led the tech game all along.

I looked at the map and pictured cottages filling up all those naked Ancient Forest tiles. All that commerce piled atop what was already a powerful civ. What would that do to the fun endgame? The challange, such as it is, is to defang Svartalf before Khazad and Amurites decide to dog-pile. (Or to just fight 'em all.) But it's already a good fight without a ton of forested cottage commerce flooding our coffers.

This file I think serves as a good example of what I have been trying to describe about balanced developemnt. Here's a fast cottage builder who took Leaves and the result is a strong civ played out in a fun game. Add forested cottages to the mix, and does not playing out the endgame become moot? Khazad would pose no threat, as their technological lead would be slim or none. Svartalf would pose no threat, as they would be technologically backward.

Is that type of endgame more fun? Everyone has a valid opinion be it yes or no. But my opinion is "no". Al my comments on tis entire thing have been based on this opinion ... My opinion is a key design goal should be to consistanyl arrive at interesting endgame situations.

So, sorry to whip that horse again. But take a look at this file and see if what I am saying makes some sense. I am not out to get the elves. I honestly think they would be more fun to play if they were not so very easy to hyper-develop. That is my opinion.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Of course it doesn't take a genius to see that a few extra commerce in each of those forest/ancient forest tiles would be powerful indeed. Then again, elven workers do work slower. Still, even if only 2/3 of the forests had cottages in them, that empire would be pretty powerful. More evidence that the Ljosalfar/Leaves combo is mightier than most.

We've been playing some multiplayer with the Ljosalfar, and I have to admit that the slower workers make them pretty close to the other Civs in terms of production and R&D. I guess a lot of this is because cottages take an extra worker turn or two (especially on flood plains) to build. This means that the Ljosalfar player is forced to either (a) not build many cottages, or (b) use some of their ill-gotten hammers to make more workers. You ought to give the new elves a spin, Unser, you might come to agree with me on this point.

However, I think the point where we can agree is the fact that ancient forests, when added to this strategy, break the Ljosalfar cleanly. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if Bloom didn't come so early, but I'm really not even sure of that. In the multiplayer game where I was the Ljosalfar and founded Leaves, I found that the +1 +1 was enough of a bonus that the extra worker turns weren't as much of a handicap. Further, Guardian of Nature meant that I had a happicap of 17-20 in all my cities. I was well on my way to getting to those high populations, with nothing but cottages, as the extra from ancient forests makes farms unnecessary. I was just about to get priests of leaves, and an ancient forests coverred empire was just a few turns away. During this whole game, I retained a large enough military that nothing short of a dogpile would have unseated me from my position.

Again, I should raise the point that I believe that the synergy between Leaves and Ljosalfar should exist. However, it shouldn't be nearly so powerful as it is now. Substituting the +1 with +1 (for the Ljosalfar only) from ancient forests would certainly keep the synergy alive, while not being so overpowering. What do you think about that?

 

[QES]

Does it strike anyone as a concern that the major prohibition from growth of cities isnt unhealiness but unhappiness? Perhaps there should be more unhealthyness causes, as it would create two caps instead of just one. Requireing both to truly grow the city. While unhappy faces create a generally "hard cap" that you cant surpass (no matter how far you grow it, only X amount of citizens will work), unhealthiness creates more of a slow/soft cap that just degenerates the amount of "population" that affects food growth. Unhealthyness affects speed of population growth, happiness seems to be the hard line in the sand.

I am an advocate for more buildings providing unhealthiness, or more causes, in this the Elves perhaps shouldnt be changed, but in general, other cives are still healthier than they are happy. I for one would simply love to see situations in which im perfectly happy, but my citizens are miserably sick alot (granted, unhealthy can equal unhappy in many situations), for example orcs, perhaps dwarves, and other "beastial" peoples might not have the healtiest of societies, but they should perhaps have greatly happy warrior boasting drunkards running the scum-lined taverns.

I just dont often see unhealtiness being often a bigger problem than unhappiness, and id like for there to be situations in which this does in fact occur, perhaps more often with some civs than others.
-Qes