Chaos

[Ploeperpengel]

Heh, whatever there is to say about ancient rulebooks. It's currently the only reference I got. But I don't think we should include Daemonanimosity because it's in those old rules but because it perfectly reflects the chaotic nature of those beings. Monsters should also get some effects reflecting their undisciplined nature(stupidity etc.). I think Daemons and Monsters in order to get balanced(since they are considerably stronger than ordinary troops-or should be) should get a sort of independence from the players will so that he will consider better building coreunits instead. The more fluff of this kind we have the less hardcode numberrestrictions we need after all.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

does that mean you want some more fluff on WH monsters and deamons?

I was thinking though, instead of animosity, we could just give deamons a 'Beseark' (spelling?) promotion which gives them a chance going barb for one turn. say 5-10%chance. or we could make each deamon pass a leadership test each turn, or on a random number of turns to make stuff interesting, and if the test is failed, the unit acts like a barbarian for that turn, but returns tothe players control in the next turn. another way to do it, would be if there is another deamon of a different god in its line of sight, it has a % chance of going barb.
(sorry, im thinking out loud )
so that could be similar to the Animosity, but would not remove the unique flavour from the greenskins, and at the same time would make Chaos more unique. (sure its a negative uniqueness, but a uniqueness none the less. plu i think it fits the Chaos civ)

just another of my 2 cents

 

[Ploeperpengel]

I'd say no. The reason why I want to stick to the animositymechanics is also that we can direct the Daemons Wrath to the unit that causes that(Daemon of another God). A barb Daemon could capture a city and destroy it btw-a little cruel imo.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

ah... yes... i hadnt thought of that

well, the only thing i can say, is go the 'animosity' but change the name and effect's names to make it suit the flavour of the civ

 

[El Loco Mono]

ah... yes... i hadnt thought of that

well, the only thing i can say, is go the 'animosity' but change the name and effect's names to make it suit the flavour of the civ

Well, since most of the mechanics are there, if animosity works well, just add this to the wish list - just expand animosity to also include a bDaemonAnimosity flag, which triggers different results but using the same engine.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Well, since most of the mechanics are there, if animosity works well, just add this to the wish list - just expand animosity to also include a bDaemonAnimosity flag, which triggers different results but using the same engine.

Yep that's what I had in mind. Count it in as added to the wishlist

 

[Ploeperpengel]

How about giving deamons a (very low, about 2%) chance of disapearing every turn? They are after all nonreal units who can walk in and out of this world and sometimes get lost inbetween the two.

Would be a nice addition

 

[El Loco Mono]

We seem to be coming up with several good coding ideas, but do we need a central "wish list" thread, that is only to have confirmed items listed (ie not for general comments) which we want to start on before/after the warlords upgrade. Something to list what's being done by whom and what's still listed as unassigned

 

[Ploeperpengel]

We seem to be coming up with several good coding ideas, but do we need a central "wish list" thread, that is only to have confirmed items listed (ie not for general comments) which we want to start on before/after the warlords upgrade. Something to list what's being done by whom and what's still listed as unassigned

I think it would be a good idea if all you programmers have an own thread were you can list your work in progress, what kind of requests your open to etc. and we can make requests and give comments. Also you should start a thread to discuss codingproblems(programmers only). In general please feel free to start any thread you feel could be useful. I prefer having many threads to few but long ones.

 

[DutchJunkie]

In the current rules Daemons don't fight with each other. Games Workshop allways had a problem with daemons. People liked them because of the looks and the fluff, but people didn't play them because of the crappy rules for them. In the latest WH edition (6th) they indeed have a similar rule as the Undead: they are unbreakable (can't flee from combat) but for every combat point lost, they lose a figure.

Im on with PL about the size of Chaos. Chaos is the biggest thing in the warhammer world. It is for a good reason that once in a lifetime (of an elf) the attack the WHOLE civilized world. Giant Daemons (the next thing to a god) command massive hordes of Daemons, that follow their orders blindly. Smaller Daemons don't have opinions and therefore aren't supposed to flee or squabble (that was a truly sucky rule imo). Even more massive hordes of barbaric (read human) tribes follow their leaders that are instructed by the gods as well.

Bigger Daemons DO have an own opinion but it's watered down. They can make own decisions but are influenced by the Gods by illusions or blackmail. In other words: Daemons will NEVER squabble. Fluffwise the human choas tribes fight under each other all the time, but i don't think this should return ingame.

I like the dissappearing idea. Maybe it's an idea to give it a very small chance, but increase the chance when the daemon is farer away from the land owned by chaos. This to listen to the rule that daemons need a portal to support them ..

another 2 cents from me ..

 

[Ploeperpengel]

We can use the C++/python thread. Unfortunately I have forgotten to update it for a while now. Ploe, could you pm me a list of everything that we have decided we need?

I'd really prefer to have a new thread for this the current python thread is far too long. Also that list would be a big job now.
I took the first handicap to warlords and reached the mainmenu without xml errors. however the game crashes about the time the progressscreen should show up. unfortunatly Duke didn't comment many changes he made so I could use some help debugging this. I will post it shortly.
I will open a python/SDK request thread later. I think that would make things a little less easy to miss and we can set up a to do list there.

@DJ
just the dissappearing alone won't balance daemons. And it's not quite that someone needs to study philosophics in order to be able to sqabble. I don't see why nurglings shouldn't squabble btw but we can decide individually which daemons are affected by animosity so I think we can find a compromise between old and new fluff here no worries.

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

I think, if we have 3 effects for the 'deamon animosity' (we need a new name for this in-game to make it destiguishable from greenskins) they could be something like:
1. a 2% dissapearing chance inside the cultural boarders each turn, a 4% dissapearing chance inside nutural territory each turn, an 8% dissapearing chance inside enemy cultural boarders each turn, and then another 2% dissapearing chance if attacking a city with a standing stone (because standing stones drain magic.)

2. Deamons have a chance of, sort of 'exploding' in the presence of powerful spell casters. (this is just a reversed idea like 'miscast' in the magic rules. so deamons have a chance of exploding if they can see a spell caster, and spell casters have the same chance of exploding if they can see a deamon. (this applied to chaos spell casters too except tzeentch spell casters.) when they 'explode' the can cause collateral damage to surrounding units.

3. chaos humans (only) suffer from a watered down animosity, with no 'disciplined' ability to counteract it.

Now, im not saying that all of these have to be used together, and not exactly like thins, because i thin the 2nd one is quite nasty so this is only idea food

 

[neener]

Whatever we choose to implement, I think we should make sure that it's still fun. A lot of games have suffered in the past because they're implemented things that just aren't fun, and serve only to hinder the player.

I'm all in favour of adding fluff elements to the races, but when you're talking about a 5-10% per turn chance of your units just plain disappearing, I don't see how that's fun for the player. Do we really expect the people playing Chaos to enjoy having their unit disappear the very first turn after they made it just because it fits the lore of Demons?

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

good point, i had forgotten about that

so now i guess were back to square one.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Yep Daemons aren't Popcorn. The dissappearing if implemented should be an effect of a wonder no less(standing stones) if within cultural borders of that civ.
Else I still stick to a slightly altered animosity mechanic. Won't spoil them but makes em unreliable enough to motivate building of coreunits incertain circumstances. Civ isn't WH tabletop, don't forget that. We can't and we shouldn't make an exact copy of WH rules(unitstats debate showed that). Priority is allways civ not the tabletop.

 

[neener]

Else I still stick to a slightly altered animosity mechanic. Won't spoil them but makes em unreliable enough to motivate building of coreunits incertain circumstances.

Well, I was also talking about the animosity thing, too. Again, I don't really see how that's fun for the player. To an extent I think it's fine for a player who picks the greenskins, because he knows exactly what he's getting himself in for, but if I picked Chaos I'd just find animosity frustrating, I think.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

Well, I was also talking about the animosity thing, too. Again, I don't really see how that's fun for the player. To an extent I think it's fine for a player who picks the greenskins, because he knows exactly what he's getting himself in for, but if I picked Chaos I'd just find animosity frustrating, I think.

Sigh, well wouldn't he expect "chaos"?!

 

[neener]

Calm down. If you want animosity that badly then go for it. I'm just giving my opinion.

 

[Ploeperpengel]

I give some final reasons:
1.)Daemons are dangerous even and especially sometimes for those who called them
2.)Daemons of different chaos gods strongly despise each other
3.)Chaosgods like to see their minions fighting each other, they don't care if one or two battles may get lost because of that, what counts for them is the fun of bloodshed
4.)Daemons need to be balanced! They are very strong and taking them temporarily out of the players control will make em less reliable for tactic shemes which indeed should be the way.
5.)Animosity is nothing greenskinexclusive. Just the way they handle it is.
It's no problem giving Daemons other sounds and textmessages to give them a different flavor for a similar action.(less funny more brutish-exception nurglings maybe)

So finally if you still object please give an alternative. Making Daemons more like Undead just not to have Animosity seems no solution for me.
I'm not against opinions I just defend mine btw

 

[Ploeperpengel]

How about this.
If two deamons of different gods are on the same tile, or next to each other, they both get hurt(10-20%?). Also, every turn a deamon is in enemy territory, it looses a little health (2-5%?) as it is far away from its god.

Sound already more like a compromise to me
Maybe also a small chance they will attack each other and for me it's a deal!