Anyone Else Go Back to FFH2 version 22?

[Blakmane]

I just can't see why you would need to adjust the code when you playing the game using the default settings, though.

Because we are still in beta

Also, very slow speeds aren't considered 'default' settings. Neither is raging barbs. The more extra features you add the less balanced the game will be.

 

[Sarisin]

Because we are still in beta

Also, very slow speeds aren't considered 'default' settings. Neither is raging barbs. The more extra features you add the less balanced the game will be.

Good point. However, the issue was the number of civs used. I was using the default number of civs with a huge map while V was adding civs.

I think you are right on with your last comment, though. That's why you have to fiddle with the variables until you find a combination you enjoy and is playable for you.

For example, I just couldn't play Fire with the variables I liked (Marathon, raging barbs, huge map/default no. of civs, etc.) so I just went back to Light and had no problems enjoy that game.

Now, it is the same with the combat. I find it more enjoyable to play version .22 now than .23. I think the differences are negligible, and there doesn't seem to be any problems with combat in the older version. Sure, you will lose the occasional battle you are heavily favored to win, as you should, but not as often as in .23.

I think everyone realizes that this game/mod cannot be everything to everyone no matter what game settings you use. However, that doesn't mean you cannot make suggestions that could improve play for those variables you enjoy selecting. For example, eliminating the armageddon counter increase as barb cities are raze.

Again, though, I agree there is probably an optimum set of variables for the game and if you deviate from these, the balance will be affected.

 

[Caradoc]

Just stop moving the Armageddon Counter forward when a barb city is razed. Aren't the barbs supposed to be bad guys anyway? If you take out one of their cities something good should happen. Or, at the very least, nothing at all.

Excellent point. I wonder what the rationale was for this? Obviously, there should be some factor that drives the clock over time, but I would think it would be more tied to the rise of evil. I'm guessing that the generic Barbarians are regarded to be Neutral (as opposed to the playable races) and once they settle, they do seem to be less aggressive. Therefore, razing their city throws them back into barbarism. However, this same rationale would seem to apply to any neutral (or good) city that is razed. (And razing an evil city should push the clock back.)

 

[loki1232]

As i see it the rational is that any city razing involves massacres--which razes the counter unless you are specifically massacreing AV worshippers.

 

[Sarisin]

As i see it the rational is that any city razing involves massacres--which razes the counter unless you are specifically massacreing AV worshippers.

That's not quite the way I see it. Yes, the counter will decrease when you raze an AV city, but it will also decrease when you raze any city of any Evil civ. For example, early on before any religions are founded (long way to go for AV), if an Evil city is razed or an Evil 'empire' destroyed, the counter will decrease.

So, you basically have this:

Raze the city of an Evil civ and the counter decreases.

Raze the city of a Good civ and the counter increases.

Raze a barb city and the counter increases.

This is saying the barbs are Good.

Personally, I think they should be considered Evil, but then if you decrease the counter when barb cities are razed, those who enjoy playing Evil civs would complain the counter moves too slowly.

So, I think the answer is to consider the barbs as Neutral, as was mentioned before. Razing one of their cities doesn't affect the counter one way or the other. This would allow the counter to progress normally IMO in the slower speed games.

An example of the problem can be found in my current game. I have had to go raze a barb city EIGHT TIMES (and counting) in the same location near my borders. Just a few turns after razing, a new barb city pops up there. Usually, I can take an adept and Sanctify the city ruins moving the counter back again. However, a few times the barbs have built a new city on the ruins before I got there. And, the main problem lies with the AI civs who raze barb cities, which can be plentiful and spawn like crazy, and never use Sanctify. This results in the counter increasing too quickly IMO, and in the slower speed games, the result is an appearance of Armageddon bad guys and nastiness while you are still fielding Tier II troops.

By treating barbs and their cities as Neutral instead of the illogical Good, I think this would make the slower speeds of FFH2 a lot more playable.

 

[loki1232]

Are you sure the counter decreases whenever you raze an evil but not AV city?

 

[Sarisin]

Are you sure the counter decreases whenever you raze an evil but not AV city?

Yes, pretty sure. When you raze the city, you can hear that Armageddon sound. To be honest, you sometimes hear that sound and the counter doesn't move. I think I have seen times the counter decreased, and some when it didn't move. I don't recall seeing the counter increase when I destroyed an Evil civ's city.

However, I am sure that when an Evil civ is destroyed the counter decreases. Obviously, you cannot destroy the barb civ.

With the counter increasing when you raze Good or Neutral civ's cities, I think it moves along quickly enough without having it increase when barb cities are razed. Not to mention the other 'events' that cause the counter to increase.

 

[vorshlumpf]

I just can't see why you would need to adjust the code when you playing the game using the default settings, though.

I don't; it works perfectly fine for me (when using either "my settings" or "your settings").

 

[Sarisin]

I don't; it works perfectly fine for me (when using either "my settings" or "your settings").

Well, I'm thrilled to hear that!

But, please, Niilo, tell me what you think of the logic in my last post as the solution to this 'problem' of the counter moving too quickly in the slower speed games.

I value your opinion.

 

[vorshlumpf]

The problem is, I don't see the counter moving too quickly, so I'm not big on ways to slow it down more. As I usually say, though, I don't play enough these days to be considered a good play-testing source.

One idea I mentioned in the past I still like, mainly because it makes sense to me (i.e., why would a newly created city have a significant effect on the AC when it is razed?):

Actually, I think the problem is that every destroyed city has a base AC change of 1 + <city size>/4 (this is off memory since the Wiki is currently unavailable). The 1 should be removed, because a newly formed city (whether spawned for barbarians or just settled by a civ) gives that minimum of 1 AC change. If it was simply <city size>/4, then these new 'cities' wouldn't be much of a worry for the counter. Since most spawned barb cities are at 1 when they are razed, this would help with the problem you are experiencing.

 

[Sarisin]

The problem is, I don't see the counter moving too quickly, so I'm not big on ways to slow it down more. As I usually say, though, I don't play enough these days to be considered a good play-testing source.

One idea I mentioned in the past I still like, mainly because it makes sense to me (i.e., why would a newly created city have a significant effect on the AC when it is razed?):

Thanks for your comments.

In my current game, that counter has me really mystified with its movement.

For example, I razed an Illian (Evil, but not AV) city and the counter INCREASED +3. I just don't get how razing an Evil civ's city would do that, but it did. I was thinking it should decrease the counter because it seems like you are doing something good.

However, I also found that when I razed other Illian cities the counter didn't move or increased 'only' +1. Rounding, I suppose.

I really got fed up when the AI kept rebuilding a barb city close to my borders. I razed it at least 5 times and before I could get an Adept there to Sanctify the city ruins, the AI built another barb city. Finally, I just said the hell with this and dropped a Beastmaster on that spot using the World Builder. Voila, problem solved!

I'll give it another go with Marathon speed and see what happens, but I'm guessing the counter will still seem to move too fast for my game.

I have to revise my previous analysis based on further research:

Now, it appears the counter increases even when Evil civ cities are razed, as Loki suggested. That means the only way you can get the counter to decrease razing cities is if you take down an AV city, which is not an issue in most slower speed games as AV doesn't get founded for a long time.

Again, I just would like to see the effect of the following:

+1 counter Good/Neutral Civ city razed
-1 counter Evil Civ city razed
No counter movement when a barb city is razed.

I really don't think it would hurt gameplay in the normal speeds that much, but would greatly improve those slower speed games.

 

[vorshlumpf]

Remember that the setting does not subscribe to traditional fantasy definitions for "good" or "evil". A fanatical Order army ("good") could raze a city ruled by an "evil" leader, even though most of those people in the city may be "neutral" civilians. Should such an act reduce the AC? I certainly don't think so.

I also believe that the AC was designed to almost guarantee the game's movement towards apocalypse. As such, you can't expect it to hold its level without specific intervention (i.e., the Elohim).

 

[jan030]

I Think the counter doesnt go fast enough. At least at normal speed (standard map) The highest i have ever had it was 40. I suppose i should do more "bad" things as the Ai wont, but i am not very good at it either ;-)

 

[Sarisin]

Remember that the setting does not subscribe to traditional fantasy definitions for "good" or "evil". A fanatical Order army ("good") could raze a city ruled by an "evil" leader, even though most of those people in the city may be "neutral" civilians. Should such an act reduce the AC? I certainly don't think so.

I also believe that the AC was designed to almost guarantee the game's movement towards apocalypse. As such, you can't expect it to hold its level without specific intervention (i.e., the Elohim).

Yeah, I guess your last statement is the bottom line. If I played the Evil civs I would likely be happy with it the way it is (although when the Horsemen show up early, they go after Evil civs too!).

Again, I have no real problem with the way the counter moves as Good, Neutral and Bad civ cities are razed. It is the barb cities' razing that causes the counter to increase that I believe results in an unlevel playing field in the slower speed games.

I often play the Elohim, but it is some time before I am able to build that Hallowing of the Elohim to decrease the counter.

Anyway, I agree with your observation that the mod does seem to assist in hastening the Armageddon and maybe that is the way it should be.

Thanks again for your time in commenting.

 

[Sarisin]

I Think the counter doesnt go fast enough. At least at normal speed (standard map) The highest i have ever had it was 40. I suppose i should do more "bad" things as the Ai wont, but i am not very good at it either ;-)

Jan, please try your next game using the Marathon setting on a larger map and see what happens. I would be interested in reading your observations.

It's true that a lot of what happens and doesn't happen in your games depends on the game variables you select.

I recently tried a Normal speed game on a continents map (rather than land) and I agree with your points. The raging barbs were never a factor and the civs on my continent were just racing to expand without having to worry about the barbs at all. Even having Orthus (quickly killed) and Acheron on my continent made no difference. Of course, I got destroyed because I am used to expanding slowly and preparing for the inevitable barb onslaught which never came.

 

[vorshlumpf]

Yeah, I guess your last statement is the bottom line. If I played the Evil civs I would likely be happy with it the way it is (although when the Horsemen show up early, they go after Evil civs too!).

Instead of "evil" you should say "demonic" or "apocolyptic", as even the evil civs don't really want the world to be turned to hell. This was demonstrated to me in my game last night as I noticed all remaining civs, including the Calabim, are happy with me for "Preserving the world" (or whatever the +3 diplo text was).

I don't mean to stifle debate on this topic, I'm just posting my limited observations to date. The AC is quite an ambitious addition to FfH II, and I'm sure it will need a lot of tweaking to balance it out as much as possible with the various game settings. If I had more time, I'd try out different game types to get an idea of which ones make a significant impact on AC growth.

 

[jan030]

He sarasin, I will try. I hope a large map will be sufficient, because i have got a very lazy computer.....he doesnt like a bigger map

 

[Sarisin]

Instead of "evil" you should say "demonic" or "apocolyptic", as even the evil civs don't really want the world to be turned to hell. This was demonstrated to me in my game last night as I noticed all remaining civs, including the Calabim, are happy with me for "Preserving the world" (or whatever the +3 diplo text was).

I don't mean to stifle debate on this topic, I'm just posting my limited observations to date. The AC is quite an ambitious addition to FfH II, and I'm sure it will need a lot of tweaking to balance it out as much as possible with the various game settings. If I had more time, I'd try out different game types to get an idea of which ones make a significant impact on AC growth.

I'm not sure that the Evil civs all are trying to avoid Armageddon. For example, the Sheaim always seem to push the counter as much as possible. That Prophecy mark is a killer too and usually an Evil civ will build it. Sometimes I build it in a city I don't plan on building any units in just to keep it away from an Evil civ.

Hey, I don't think you are stifling debate at all - I just appreciate your observations most of all because you and I seem to be on the same page as far as the game settings we enjoy to play. I think we are clearly in the minority, though.

I have been trying to play Normal games, but they just are not as much fun for me as the slower speed games. I do like to try to mix up the civs I play, though, and that is the most fun I have learning the new civs.

Again, I understand about your time limitations, and appreciate you taking the time to post your comments. Thanks.

 

[Sarisin]

He sarasin, I will try. I hope a large map will be sufficient, because i have got a very lazy computer.....he doesnt like a bigger map

jan, I feel your pain.

I don't know what it is, but I have noticed especially with version .23 that the time waiting between turns seems very long. I play the early game (after the barbs appear) and the later game with a magazine to read between turns.

I realize part of it is playing on a huge map, but I tried playing BtS with the exact same settings and I had seconds between turns as compared to minutes with FFH2 .23. Still, I just can't get into BtS and FFH2 is worth waiting for although I wish there was less time between turns.

Let us know how you do with your new game settings, jan!

 

[onedreamer]

Anyone else go back to .22?

Well, considering that .22 is the only FFH version I didn't play since the very first FFH, because of the mess with animals, I'd definitely say no.