You would often loose this competition because of bad luck. You would be suprised if you knew how many player are really upset if the AI beats them to a wonder, there are even the wildest claims of AI cheating somewhere on the forum. And loosing the race to a worldwonder doesn't decide a game. competition is only good if there is no luck involved and you can make a strategy to beat your competition.
[Development]Epic Adventures in Wildmana (civ specific victory condition)
- Thread starter Sephi
- Start date
You would often loose this competition because of bad luck. You would be suprised if you knew how many player are really upset if the AI beats them to a wonder, there are even the wildest claims of AI cheating somewhere on the forum. And loosing the race to a worldwonder doesn't decide a game. competition is only good if there is no luck involved and you can make a strategy to beat your competition.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
They can in WM. Which, along with the other changes, should be fine.
That'd be great. Melante needs some luvin'.
Maybe allow Melante to construct some Embassy like building in a foreign capital if they have attitude friendly with the Scions? Victory could require a few of those Embassies.
there is no reason to assume crusade in the Grigori pedia has a different meaning than anywhere else. You don't have to view Grigori as anti-religious but if you do so it's definetly not changing their flavor.His crusade would have been waged via hearts and minds, not weaponry, though.
keep brainstorming on ideas Calavente and everyone else, definetly useful. The lore discussions maybe should be moved to the subforum for it
.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
there is no reason to assume crusade in the Grigori pedia has a different meaning than anywhere else. You don't have to view Grigori as anti-religious but if you do so it's definetly not changing their flavor.
keep brainstorming on ideas Calavente and everyone else, definetly useful. The lore discussions maybe should be moved to the subforum for it
I completely and totally disagree. That said, it's your mod so do as you wish. I know I've done similar things (Law/Chaos axis sparked a lively debate, for instance)
Grigori Pedia said:
Self-reliance, allowing everyone to make their own decisions. Including what to worship, if anything.
Grigori Pedia said:
Tolerance of religious faith, not extermination of it.
Cassiel's Pedia said:
Again, self-reliance, working on your own, not relying on the gods. But nothing about exterminating their faiths.
As for moving lore out of this thread.... I hope you realize that that is impossible. Any mechanic which grants victory for meeting lore-specific requirements is inherently part of a discussion on lore; You cannot separate the two.
You can disagree all you want but you cannot claim someone is changing the flavor because he interpretates the lore in a different way than you do. I quoted the Crudade part which allows a lot of different interpretations and none of them is more valid than the other.
There are thousands of fantasy world settings and they all have their discussions of "how it really is" but that's mostly just a waste of time unless you like the discussion itself. People will always disagree on things, some interpretations will be more popular but that doesn't make them more valid.
Great Roleplay Settings like FFH inspire players to imagine the world from their point of view, not force a dogmatic view on them.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
And my point was that while that one aspect can be interpreted in many ways, you cannot view one single line and take what you wish (that's why I despise Literary Analysis, though I'm good at it). You must view it as a whole; And the rest of the lore points to a Grigori (at least under Cassiel) who are tolerant of faiths and try to win people over through intellectual discussion rather than warfare.
So yes, you can interpret that one aspect however you wish. But the rest of it will disagree with the new interpretation.
So yes, you can interpret that one aspect however you wish. But the rest of it will disagree with the new interpretation.
It's really just your interpretation. The pedia does not state that Grigori don't use violence to free Erebus from religions.
You also cannot simply makes rules how the pedia must be read. If people like to read the pedia in different ways, let them do so. No need to enforce standards on this.
There are also several academic theories on how Literary Analysis has to be done and they are quite different. And do not think scientists agree on which of them is the right one
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
It's really just your interpretation. The pedia does not state that Grigori don't use violence to free Erebus from religions.
You also cannot simply makes rules how the pedia must be read. If people like to read the pedia in different ways, let them do so. No need to enforce standards on this.
There are also several academic theories on how Literary Analysis has to be done and they are quite different. And do not think scientists agree on which of them is the right one
You seem to be purposefully glossing over my point; You can't consider one small aspect of the lore when deciding what should become a victory. It's too important of a concept; Whatever that victory is, becomes a central aspect of the civilization. When designing these, you have to look at the civ as a whole, rather than any individual facets of it; Expanding on one small aspect of it while ignoring the far larger sum is folly.
I have no issues with people interpreting the Grigori that way (in fact, it's quite easy to do with one leader at least), I mostly have an issue with Cassiel being interpreted that way... There is too much background that states otherwise for one single line to completely change his personality.
And I'm well aware of the different forms of analysis, though IMO all of them ultimately boil down to picking what you want out of a work and ignoring the rest. I'm making this reply from my Lit Analysis final, afterall.
I think you should let people decide what they consider a small apsect of the lore and what not
Not everyone thinks that 5 sentences are automatically more important than one.
I agree with Valk on the lore, but I agree with Sephi on the proper place for this discussion - somewhere else.
Sephi, is it possible (code-wise) to do things with a percentage of resources on the map rather than a hardcoded number? And do the numbers you have down already (in the first post) scale with gamespeed/mapsize? Details on implementation and limitations help with the brainstorming process a lot.
Sephi, is it possible (code-wise) to do things with a percentage of resources on the map rather than a hardcoded number? And do the numbers you have down already (in the first post) scale with gamespeed/mapsize? Details on implementation and limitations help with the brainstorming process a lot.
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
On the "Uncreation" Scion idea:
I was wondering if a "cover the world with HL" requirement may not be sufficiently different from the basic "conquer the world" strategy that's SOP in most civ games.
Or maybe just too easy once you have Redactors and the ability to create many HL tiles at once.
Re-jiggering HL creation might be needed.
This might work, for example:
First, have the Redactor spell create only 1 HL tile outside Scion territory.
Second, allow Ghostwalkers to create 1 (perhaps more) HL tiles with an Ability. The ability works even outside Scion territory, but destroys the Ghostwalker.
And maybe:
Third, count HL tiles outside Scion territory more than those inside. (Rationale: Tiles outside Scion territory will tend to influence more people/things than those inside Scion territory, where people tend to already be dead and things tend to already not be dead.)
What I'm thinking is that with those changes Uncreation isn't just "Have a big territory". And you can still spread HL into another civ's territory, but you can't just march through an area with a Redactor to do it.)
(Mark II Creepers could fit in very well, too.)
I was wondering if a "cover the world with HL" requirement may not be sufficiently different from the basic "conquer the world" strategy that's SOP in most civ games.
Or maybe just too easy once you have Redactors and the ability to create many HL tiles at once.
Re-jiggering HL creation might be needed.
This might work, for example:
First, have the Redactor spell create only 1 HL tile outside Scion territory.
Second, allow Ghostwalkers to create 1 (perhaps more) HL tiles with an Ability. The ability works even outside Scion territory, but destroys the Ghostwalker.
And maybe:
Third, count HL tiles outside Scion territory more than those inside. (Rationale: Tiles outside Scion territory will tend to influence more people/things than those inside Scion territory, where people tend to already be dead and things tend to already not be dead.)
What I'm thinking is that with those changes Uncreation isn't just "Have a big territory". And you can still spread HL into another civ's territory, but you can't just march through an area with a Redactor to do it.)
(Mark II Creepers could fit in very well, too.)
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
I think you should let people decide what they consider a small apsect of the lore and what not
Those were just a few small passages picked out in 30 seconds. Like I said, I was in the middle of my Lit Analysis final. Thankfully, the RifE wiki makes it fairly easy to pull up the lore.
And it's not even a full sentence you're basing it on; It's a single word, Crusade. It could just as easily be "began his own struggle to lead men away from a war that has nothing to do with them." Same intent, different interpretation. When an entire interpretation hinges on a single word, I think something is wrong.
Like I said though, it's your mod so you can do as you wish. Done stating my opinion on this matter, it should be very obvious now.
Again, I don't think it's possible to move the discussion. Any lore-based mechanic addition will generate a massive lore discussion... There's not much avoiding it. Same thing happened with RifE with the Law/Chaos axis.
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
[to_xp]Gekko
QCT junkie
yeah it's pretty obvious that Crusade there doesn't mean the Bannor kind of stuff but a, umh, intellectual Crusade. razing stuff is not Grigori at all. enligthening cities, getting rid of religions from them? now THAT is totally Grigori. my favourite civ, lorewise. although I would love to play Empyrean Grigori 
in a violent setting like ffh it is a bit unbelievable that the grigori would always use the highroad. maybe a holycity which spawned so much dogma and religious arrogance is such an affront to the grigori they rather see it burn. you know similar to the declaration of independence: very nice text, but you get quickly disenchanted if you look at the policies of that time.
if you follow any rationality vs dogma debate, you will quickly notice that dogmatic people are beyond reason, those debates are pointless. you will never convert a devout follower of the ashen veil who just wants to gain personal power. and if he is your enemy you rather see him die, then let him kill you.
a real live example would be thomas jefferson -a pretty enlightened thinker- he wrote to the ambassador of the barber states that the u.s. is not a christian nation and even open to the muselmans (today called muslim) yet he still waged war on the barber states because they used their religion as an excuse for slavery.
now extrapolate this to the violent realm of erebus were you have religions like the ashen veil or the octopus overlords and civilizations like the sheaim. it is pretty safe to assume that any self preserving leader, even if secular, would see them destroyed as long as they remain a threat.
if you follow any rationality vs dogma debate, you will quickly notice that dogmatic people are beyond reason, those debates are pointless. you will never convert a devout follower of the ashen veil who just wants to gain personal power. and if he is your enemy you rather see him die, then let him kill you.
a real live example would be thomas jefferson -a pretty enlightened thinker- he wrote to the ambassador of the barber states that the u.s. is not a christian nation and even open to the muselmans (today called muslim) yet he still waged war on the barber states because they used their religion as an excuse for slavery.
now extrapolate this to the violent realm of erebus were you have religions like the ashen veil or the octopus overlords and civilizations like the sheaim. it is pretty safe to assume that any self preserving leader, even if secular, would see them destroyed as long as they remain a threat.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
As I've said before, I even agree with that view. I think the Grigori (especially under Esirce) would be willing to raze a holy city if there's no other way to 'save' people from the religion.
That said, willing does NOT constitute material with which to make a victory, which has been the point of my argument. Any victory condition which requires the razing of a holy city essentially forces you to follow that path... The willingness becomes a forced act.
So no, they won't always use the highroad... But they will do so more often than resorting to warfare, which suddenly becomes required if there's a victory like that.
That said, willing does NOT constitute material with which to make a victory, which has been the point of my argument. Any victory condition which requires the razing of a holy city essentially forces you to follow that path... The willingness becomes a forced act.
So no, they won't always use the highroad... But they will do so more often than resorting to warfare, which suddenly becomes required if there's a victory like that.
I do not base it on a single word. I base it on my interpretation of the pedia entry of the grigori and my general view of the FFH lore. Is it really that difficult to accept that someone else reads it different and allow them their opinion without claiming that they change the flavor?
I have no problem if someone states that this or that victory condition feels wrong with his view of the lore. But I will never accept if someone wants to force his view of the lore on others.
basically anything is possible although time is always a limiting factor. It's really difficult to say. It's easy to make the numbers scale with gamespeed or mapsize but it's not added yet.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
And I'm not trying to at all. I've said multiple times now, I have no problem with viewing them as being willing to crusade against religion.
That's very different from requiring them to, though, as that DOES change the flavor. No matter how you base it, no matter how you back it up, changing from being willing to crusade and ALWAYS crusading is a massive change.
I'm not trying to force my view on it, all I'm saying is that a war-like interpretation changes their lore drastically. Make of that what you will.
Amurites: 75% of world's mana converted to metamagic
Balseraphs: Control 75% of the world's cow resource and build 50 catapults
Mercurians: Raze Dis and all AV cities
Austrin: Have borders (culture) with every civ
Grigori: Slay 2 greater dragons (Abashi, Eureobates (sp?), Acheron, Drifa)
and as for an 'overpowering reward' for achieving the Epic Adventure, how about an everlasting Golden Age?
Balseraphs: Control 75% of the world's cow resource and build 50 catapults
Mercurians: Raze Dis and all AV cities
Austrin: Have borders (culture) with every civ
Grigori: Slay 2 greater dragons (Abashi, Eureobates (sp?), Acheron, Drifa)
and as for an 'overpowering reward' for achieving the Epic Adventure, how about an everlasting Golden Age?
Similar threads
