Design: Civics

[Chalid]

WW for Summons will be removed so it should be massively smaller.

About the Civics that cause Anger.
i will check how the Ai determines if it chooses such if it simply chooses the because they give Anger to others i'll change that one. Because if only one Civ has such a civic the effect is rather small. It gets bad when most civs have the civic (yes the effect scales with the number of civs that adopt that civic).

 

[TheJopa]

I have no problem with that anger. But foreign trade... why it reduces gold? And if it will reduce gold, then make it give more culture than now.


I like early strategic choice between conquest and agriculture. Health and developement or money from conquering, more xp and quicker building of military units? But unfortunately, only drawback of conquest is one step higher upkeep than agriculture, and no +1 health benefit.

My sugestion:
Reduce agriculture to no upkeep
Increase its health to +2
Make it give +1 gold or hammer from farm

Two of these 3 would do the job very well

 

[Xuenay]

Agreed about Agriculture - I only use it until I can develop something better, then switch and never change back. TheJopa's suggestions are good, though I'm a bit hesitant about the +1 gold or hammer. Still, I don't think I'd use Agriculture very much without that - Conquest is still very strong compared to it.

 

[Sureshot]

What about for Agriculture it adds +1 health per farm in the city radius? (not +1 health for the civ, just for the city, like the way forests add +1 health for a city) And then remove the general +1 health of the civic (keep the low upkeep since its better if its not unilaterally better than the basic one).

 

[uberfish]

I'll expand on my comments a bit and why I think these mechanics shouldn't have been ported over from the basic game.

I think you really have to look at the emancipation unhappiness penalty in civ4 from which the anger mechanics were derived. It creates a snowball effect as more and more civs adopt it, making the penalty for not complying prohibitive. As a historical representation of slave revolts and the worldwide abolition of slavery, it works very well. As a game mechanic, it reduces player choice and isn't fun. Clearly, it's the realism/flavour aspect that kept the mechanic in. So, we should ask whether the flavour makes a good fit with the changed setting in FFH.

From a medieval/fantasy perspective, most citizens are happy with the concept of monarchy. In a world dominated by religion and the struggle of good versus evil, I think most citizens would be likely to prefer a strong monarch. Indeed, in most fantasy literature where a bad monarch is overthrown, the heroes replace them with a good one, rather than abolishing the monarchy altogether. So I think republic unhappiness is really out of flavour for the setting.

Foreign Trade - The name of this civic doesn't really fit, because the default behaviour of cities is foreign trade with anyone with open borders anyway. If the regular civ4 name of 'Free Market' is considered out of context, something like 'Open Markets' or 'Free Trade' would fit better. Again, here, I don't see a convincing roleplaying reason for this to cause unhappy citizens. Consider the silly situation of having closed borders with everyone and the citizens getting worked up about whether they officially have foreign trade or not

WW - Removing WW from summons is a good call. I still think it would be a better game with WW removed or massively scaled back in the late game though. It's one of the few things that were badly designed in the base civ4 game. Persistent war weariness where you inherit the unhappiness penalties from a war that took place generations ago definitely should go; it's more likely after all in a medieval setting that the next generation would be brought up to learn 'these are our enemies, and one day we will have to fight them again.'

 

[Chalid]

Just commenting on the WW:

WW is reduced during peacetime but at a very slow rate. I think increasing the speed with which it decreases should solve most of the problems.

 

[Sureshot]

Anychance WW can be removed in "Always War" scenarios? I check that "Always War" box to make things more interesting, but my original city had 22 unhappiness just from WW by the year 380 O_o

 

[Chalid]

You know: You get only WW if you are loosing units.. so the solution is: Do not loose.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, I'll tell the three deity AI civs to go easier on me next time lol

 

[H.GrenadeFrenzy]

Magocracy......I dunno what tech......but a civic where wizards rule over everyone or a least control a voting council of some kind!

 

[Maniac]

You know: You get only WW if you are loosing units.. so the solution is: Do not loose.

Are you sure?

If I interpret this right, you get less WW if you win, but you still get some no matter what.

	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_ATTACKING</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_DEFENDING</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_DEFENDING</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_ATTACKING</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_UNIT_CAPTURED</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_CAPTURED_UNIT</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_CAPTURED_CITY</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>6</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_HIT_BY_NUKE</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_ATTACKED_WITH_NUKE</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>12</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>
		<DefineName>WW_DECAY_RATE</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>-1</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>

 

[uberfish]

I often get +2 WW capturing cities in the late game even if I don't lose units killing the defenders. Thanks for looking into this.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

I'd say increase the decay rate and eliminate the penalties for winning battles.

 

[Chalid]

If looked closer and its a bit stupid.
You are right you can get WW even if you win, but it depends whether you fight in their or your territory or territory of others.

If the Attacker dies then
a) the defender gets WW when the combat was not in a tile possessed by the attacker.
b) the attacker gets ww when the tile not belonged to the defender

so as attacker you get no ww when you die in their land.

when the defender dies
a) and the tile does not belong to the defender then the attacker gets WW
b) and the tile does not belong to the attacker then the defender gets ww

so basically that means there is no ww when you do only fight in the land of the enemy.
WW appears only if the combat is in your land or in neutral land/land not belonging to the respective Enemy.

Good to know i'd say.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Maybe you should reverse it for good civs, or at least the Elohim. So that they get upset dying in enemy lands, but don't mind fighting to the last man in their own. (It could be tied to the defender trait.)

 

[Silverkiss]

Actually i would say even increase the WW in your lands for the leaders whit Defender trait, they like so much of their homeland they dont want it full of blood and carnage !

 

[H.GrenadeFrenzy]

Maybe you should reverse it for good civs, or at least the Elohim. So that they get upset dying in enemy lands, but don't mind fighting to the last man in their own. (It could be tied to the defender trait.)

...unless the war was started by the enemy and then they shouldn't recieve the penalty in either.......maybe a New Civic could allow that for anyone.......Just War type of stuff..........maybe just as you say I dunno....I would hate for them to recieve such problems for taking it too the enemy when the other guy starts it.....otherwise he could sit on your border and still recieve that better heal rate and get you war weariness whenever he is recieving it and less bonuses when he recieves weariness........I do agree with you and according to the story write up you have a straight up point...

 

[H.GrenadeFrenzy]

Actually i would say even increase the WW in your lands for the leaders whit Defender trait, they like so much of their homeland they dont want it full of blood and carnage !

wouldn't that overlimit to defend their homeland and shouldn't they be better at defending it.......if war weariness increases they will need serious bonuses elsewhere or it isn't a good thing to defend your homeland it is too much a bother for your people to want to defend it............instead of "don't mess with my home." Its"OH NO, not again!" < there has to be a solution that is good for illistrating this.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

H.GrenadeFrenzy: well, a bit of War weariness doesn't make it impossible to go to war. If it's important, I'll put up with it.

 

[H.GrenadeFrenzy]

H.GrenadeFrenzy: well, a bit of War weariness doesn't make it impossible to go to war. If it's important, I'll put up with it.

I get that...Maybe I am being unclear.....war weariness has generally one effect it is bad for your peoples happiness,slows production and eventually the people can revolt, right?.........But what about when people get so tired of a war that they become More Serious about ending it not by causing problems at home but going ape---- on the enemy or frighternly ingernious?....I guess I can see wear alot of that is up to the player but maybe a different thing than WW could be implemented especially if it is their cultural enemyies like Culture Wrath is up or something.........just thinking after looking at the last couple days of Headlines and seeing how Israel is tired of things......and thought about situations in other places throughout time........trying to squeeze some fruit for the game while I'm at it.