Discussion in 'Rise from Erebus Modmod' started by Valkrionn, Jul 31, 2010.
RoK is about as neutral as you can get. Despite being tied to dwarves, the philosophy (as far as I understand it) is about creating... anything. A quest for perfection in whatever craft or field you've chosen. It becomes an economic religion because well-crafted goods are valuable. The flip side is that, if you're a lazy layabout with no skills or ambition, you starve.
Empyrean is pretty close to neutral as well, although it seems to focus more on tolerance, empathy, and to some extent socialism (help the less fortunate), hence being good-aligned.
Not sure if those are particularly accurate but that's the sense I get from them. RoK is present-day capitalism, Empyrean is borderline communism. Those are your options for a neutral religion.
I agree with Niveras.
RoK is completly neutral. but industrious, not a good Austrin philosophy
(and I disagree, it is not "tied to khazad" as in "FoL is tied to the elves". RoK profites for anybody. It's just that the khazad profit a bit more.)
balance issue :
Don't know if it is design of not but my druid cannot walk over mountains... snif.
If we do move Esus to be a guild, we could bring in the Emyrs
empyrean is cleary a good religion, few concerns on that.
it is an option for neutral as every religion is an 'option' but nevertheless its not a neutral religion.
in this case i would say that even FoL is more neutral than empyrean! although FoL is themed for nature and balance i always felt as if it had an adjustment towards good,
but i dont know about the ingame alignement change of FoL at the moment. does it change you towards good?
agree'd on ROK as neutral religion, but as i said - ffh could need another neutral religion. at the moment if you dont want to side with good or evil you can only go on the industriel/financial direction with rok.
a tali-(or whatever else) religion that goes culture, maybe a bit science or GP, and recon and arcane as unit-focus for example could also give another choice for magic oriented players who dont want to automatically become demon-worshippers. i already have some ideas, but it makes few to no sense to concentrate on them as long as no one is going to work on that.
Actually RoK is less neutral then FoL. While Kilmorph isn't as focused on purging evil and defeating Agares as Junil and some of the good gods she is quite attached to her followers and goes to great lengths to protect them (she even went so far as to create the Mithril Golem which is on the verge of being a violation of the compact). This of course makes her an enemy of the demons and a possible ally for the good gods.
FoL on the other hand focuses on the worship of multiple gods, of course Cernunnos who is most likely hates Agares for the creation of Hyborem but also on Succellus who after receiving the sphere of life became the most neutral of all gods and the only god who is equally welcome in the vault of Agares and in the halls of Junil. Combine that with their philosophy of "extending the struggle for life (and death)" and you get a the most neutral of all FFH religions.
I'm not sure about the relation between Cernunnos and Agares and about the overall neutrality of FoL, but the rest of the lore in this post comes from the same source as what I said about Tali. It was lengthy document which gave short description of most of the gods and about their relations and I remember it pretty well since it changed my understanding of FFH lore a lot: Until then I thought Tali was female, I didn't know that Sirona used to be good friends with Agares and still hopes that he can be guided back on the right path and I wasn't aware that Tali and Danalin were equally close until Danalin went to sleep. Why is it that I can't seem to find it now T.T.
finally looked it up myself and realized you're right.
so well end up calling rok a good rel but not fol? still only 1 neutral rel
Druids should have mountaineering. Not sure why yours doesn't. Is it a UU?
Well, I was planning to have it be a guild, and a religion.
Where I say 'pulls X to Y', it means Y and Z alignments are untouched. Evil to Neutral = Good and Neutral civs stay their alignments. Untouched means alignment on that axis is unaffected.
Order - Lawful, Pulls Evil to Neutral
Empy - Untouched, Good
RoK - Pulls Chaotic to Neutral, Evil to Neutral
OO - Chaotic, Pulls Good to Neutral
FoL - Pulls Lawful to Neutral, Neutral
AV - Pulls Lawful to Neutral, Evil
CoE - Untouched, Untouched
WH - Pulls Chaotic to Neutral, Good to Neutral
thy, helps alot.
only thing that really suprised me was that order doesnt always turn you good and that OO doesnt pull neutral towards evil
never seen a neutral order civ in any of my games and im also sure having seen hannah the irin (CN) beeing turned evil by OO several times now - although both things could also have been caused by something different.
got to check this next time i play, maybe different mods are mixing up in my brain.
guess that shows that there are several neutral religions - just always (except CoE, why doesnt it slightly pull you towards chaotic?) with a slight adjustment towards good or evil, shown by pulling civs from the opposite alignement put not fully into the 'adjusting' one. so RoK is slightly good as it pulls from evil but isnt enough to turn you good.
The sheiam zombie apocalypse needs a bit of balance work. I gotta admit it was a blast to play, but its just too good. Specifically the skeleton summoning warrior replacements are too strong. They only cost about 1/3 as much as an adept, but are very nearly as good. I got kote really early and i still built only like 2 adepts, just because the uu was just as good and way cheaper. Its amazing what you can do with 20 skeletons + summoner + sundered. Maybe give them a unique version of summon skeleton that takes 3 turns to cast, kind of like lightbringers scorch (and no channeling 1)? That would keep them useful and flavorful, but not let them just throw away endless waves of skeletons.
The other major balance problem is the pyre zombie spell. They're a very efficient food-> hammer conversion with no drawbacks or per turn limit, unlike drafting. I had my cites near the happy cap just popping out 1 whenever they got full granaries. If you can manage salthouse + granary + smokehouse + growth, thats scary. Even with nothing its quite good, esp if done in a medium to small city near food resources. Also once blight hit, rather than letting my cities starve to nothing, i just burned them all for pyre zombies then went on a rampage with 20ish. The spell needs some kind of penalty when used to prevent spamming it. 10-15 unhealth poisoned water style might work well as a balancing factor. Unhappy is probably too similar to drafting.
Speaking of blight, is the ai just flatly immune, or does capturing cities erase it somehow? I took a size 8 ai city the turn after blight hit and it had 0 unhealth from it. I don't know what buildings it had before capture, no health bonuses survived.
The first point will be addressed in 1.4 as an inherent result of the new magic system. Not going to do anything specific until then.
Second point should be limited. Possibly causing the city to revolt if cast.
No, the AI is receiving the proper effect. Players, currently, are not. Event fires twice. It's been fixed for 1.31.
Valk will probably get annoyed at you asking about it since it was covered in the Blight (and I think Bug) thread a while back. They do get hit by it, although it was somewhat poorly coded in that if the counter hits 30 on a player's turn, the player ends up getting hit twice - once at the end of his current turn, then again when his turn starts. This, coupled with the AI's insane kamikaze craze for health (especially health buildings, which reduce the amount of unhealth a city gains from blight), made it seem as though Blight was unfairly penalizing human players.
I don't know if capturing cities clears the blight unhealth - probably not - but if that city rolled well on the random die, even if it had no health benefits, it could have left Blight with only 8 extra unhealth (its city size). Even a worse case is only 22 unhealth, which may or may not have diminished completely by the time you captured it. Could load an autosave prior and drop a unit you can control (like an Austrin rogue or Loki) to view the city to see how it fared.
Why would I be annoyed? Feedback never bothers me.
Spam, insults, rudeness, that kind of stuff bothers me (in the forum, at least! I'm guilty of all three on #erebus ), but bug reports, even if already fixed, never bother me. If I'm brief in my response it's because I had class today from 9am to 8:15pm, and am tired as hell ha.
Oh yeah, i forgot about the cool stuff you're doing with magic. I'm really looking forward to that, and yeah it'll fix endless skeleton spam nicely. The problem now is that it has no cost at all to do it.
City revolt seems like a decent check on it as well, although there should probably be something to prevent you from burning your entire empire to size 1 the turn you get bw, and then rushing the nearest neighbor. Yeah it would hurt your development a little, but the bounceback to cap is rather fast with 1-2 good food resources, esp if you have some retain %. And enough pyre zombies can kill anything. well i guess anything but orcs in this version If you go that route, either not being able to use it in a revolting city, or a limit per turn or something similar are probably also necessary. If not i can see a bad snowball effect where you keep taking cities and then burning the entire population for more zombie hordes
This is why killing the Shiem off is always top priority. As soon as you find them warrior rush. If that fails OO and Tsunami. Or you could kiss their asses long enough to get the Alter. Or worldbuild a AA...
God I hate Pyre Zombies. I haven't play the Sheim in a while though. I might have to give this a try sometime.
Two turns to cast would be sufficient. It will keep them from casting one every turn. Which means that one warrior UU can no longer hold off any unit that doesn't blitz, collateral or fear, regardless of strength, indefinitely.
But giving them a unique spell and handling all the upgrading quirks is non-trivial (for me), or I'd put this change into GWS tonight.
It occurred to me just now, as i popped a disciple to clear 10 turns of revolt in an ai capital that was just a little too good to raze for more ac, that using revolt to balance zombies is problematic too. It should be possible to get it right, the cost of a disciple is non trivial until late game, and the same as a zombie anyway, but that mechanic (unless disciple units lose the ability in the next version) needs to be considered when using forced revolt to balance anything. I remember the event that used to allow you to take a great artist in exchange for like 10 turns of revolt. so basically free culture bomb unless you didn't need the city that triggered it for a while, or had a disciple siting around.
Yeah, I like being able to have a disciple follow my armies around to eradicate revolt, but it does seem a little too easy...
The Legion of D'Tesh, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, is overpowered. Here's one thing that needs to change:
The D'Tesh palace should not provide +50% defense.
Maybe this was necessary when they only had their 2 strength warriors. Now that they have 3 defense watchers, it is complete overkill, and prevents any kind of early rush against them. And since early is the only time they are vulnerable, it's all strength with no weaknesses.
I find it barely worth the effort. Sure, it's nice to end resistance quickly but; unless you leave a sizeable force to continue suppressing the city it'll just revolt in a few turns again anyway.
I just don't enjoy building and moving hundreds of units.
Separate names with a comma.