Does anyone actually build Beasts of Agares?

[Monkeyfinger]

Reduced hammer cost, like really really reduced, and Magister's increased strength through victory are the ideas I like best. Xienwolf's ideas are a bit too complex and/or random for my tastes, and I also don't like the idea of them not being conventionally buildable - I think the concept of a unit with harsh alternative costs (in this case, population and anarchy) is pretty cool, otherwise I wouldn't even bother complaining about beasts currently being impractical. Magister's "atrophy at peace" idea is a nerf, the least thing beasts of Agares need.

 

[Alzara]

I for one really like the suggestions that Xienwolf put forward. It is very flavoursome, and you could get other fell creatures and enemies, further adding to the flavour of your demonic civ.

Failing that, a reduction of hammers for the standard beasts of agares is SERIOUSLY required. They are very unnattractive options atm so it would be nice to see some incentive

Al

 

[TheJopa]

Hmm, halved costs and -3 instead of -4 pop would make them better, maybe +1 entropy affinity if you are looking just for basic changes. If you are looking for unique mechanic 'random appearance' looks fine to me, and I somehow don't like 'reverse repentant angel' mechanic, for one it would be hell to balance - it would become str. 100 unit really soon.

 

[WhitewolfIV]

I actually think that they should have a strenght increase and lose the bonus vs paladins. In fact, it should be the opposite, paladins should gain a bonus against the beast and make the beast super strong so that it could stand against a few champions (maybe 10 would be good, ;P) but against a paladin it would stand on equal terms. That would be interesting.

 

[Kael]

For now I'll reduce the build costs. Im thinking about MC's idea too. Maybe drop their strength from 15 to 13, then have them gain +1 strength from every combat, and have a 50% strength of getting -1 combat for every turn they spend without combat. But never allowing the negatives to drop the unit beneath its base strength (so it wouldnt be a nerf).

There are some technical issues with that option. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Randolph]

I'd definitely prefer a neat mechanic rather than a cost diduction or raw strength incease. I like the idea of something that encourages a lot of combat. Maybe canabalize woud be a good starting promotion also. Crazed could be appropriate also as they probably aren't safe to keep as house pets.

 

[attackdrone]

Crazed could be appropriate also as they probably aren't safe to keep as house pets.

Sometimes my dog reminds me of a Beast of Agares. Crazy mutt.

 

[Kael]

I'd definitely prefer a neat mechanic rather than a cost diduction or raw strength incease. I like the idea of something that encourages a lot of combat. Maybe canabalize woud be a good starting promotion also. Crazed could be appropriate also as they probably aren't safe to keep as house pets.

Id agree if the unit didnt alreayd have a niche perk. But it should have a reasonable flavor with its anti-paladin and city goobling effects. If it were vanilla then I would definitly want to spiff it by adding a flavor effect.

 

[Nimbus]

For now I'll reduce the build costs. Im thinking about MC's idea too. Maybe drop their strength from 15 to 13, then have them gain +1 strength from every combat, and have a 50% strength of getting -1 combat for every turn they spend without combat. But never allowing the negatives to drop the unit beneath its base strength (so it wouldnt be a nerf).

There are some technical issues with that option. I'll have to think about it.

I think just dropping the build costs should be fine. This is a 16str national religoius unit we are talking about here. My only gripe with the unit was the hammers to build it and whether it should have more benefits for the hammers or just cost less.

 

[Arcite36575]

At least cut the hammer cost and add one point of movement. That would make it different enough from the Eidorns.

 

[Zobo]

Could they eat resisting citizens? -1 population, -2 to resistance.

 

[Alzara]

Could they eat resisting citizens? -1 population, -2 to resistance.

Great idea!

Al

 

[WCH]

Great idea!

Al

Wouldn't work. Gotta realise that most people who oppose a movement aren't too vocal about it, but each has a level of tolerance beyond which they'll become vocal, meaning that if you start to murder resisters, you'll actually produce more than you're killing off. Simply not an effective technique.

If you really want to get rid of the resistance, the way to do it is actually to take the lead resistors... and hire them. Give them money and power, see how long it takes before they give up their idealism. The genius of it is that your government gets improved due to the infusion of new talent, the resistance is pacified because they're under the impression that you're listening to their demands, nobody becomes a martyr so you don't end up rallying the enemy, and the resistance just lost all their leaders.

That's the Machiavellian approach. And it has nothing to do with the Beasts of Agares. I'm just saying that you can't quell the resistance through violence, look at any historical example of a resistance movement for proof. It doesn't work, Machiavelli's solution does.

 

[Randolph]

Well martial law certainly can work, and resistances can be defeated violently, but I'll certianly agreee that having monsters running through a city mauling people is no way to create order!

 

[WCH]

The violence can get them under control, in the sense of not mounting an effective counteroffensive, but it tends to drastically lengthen the resistance. Look at Israel for a good example... Israel has done a very good job of killing resistance leaders and employing their military to instill order. See how much progress they've made?

My point is that martial law will never win you any supporters. At best, it'll keep the resistors from blowing up your infrastructure or forming militias, but they won't stop hating you... in fact, they'll probably hate you a lot more now, just that they won't be able to do much about it.

That's why the better approach is to make them think they have power when they don't actually, and thereby to pacify them. Get them to think you're on their side. Works a lot better.

Unless you're Calabim... if you're Calabim, just eat them and so what if it makes them unhappy or extends the resistence? Eat the rest too.

 

[Randolph]

Well this is OT, but it's interesting, and generally relevant to civ. I think the problem with the Israel example (or the US in Iraq) is that they're trying to use brutal tactics, but are being held back from "going all the way" by humanitarian forces (which for the record I agree with, I'm certainly not advocating brutal tactics or martial law). The most ineffective thing you can possibly do is be brutal without actually destroying your enemies.


THe counter example would probably be China or the former USSR, both of which were/are quite effective at violently crushing resistance. It might not work in terms of a "generational struggle" in the face of a free outside world, but from a day-to-day, or even year-to-year, perspective, they were quite effective.

 

[Alzara]

Wouldn't work. Gotta realise that most people who oppose a movement aren't too vocal about it, but each has a level of tolerance beyond which they'll become vocal, meaning that if you start to murder resisters, you'll actually produce more than you're killing off. Simply not an effective technique.

If you really want to get rid of the resistance, the way to do it is actually to take the lead resistors... and hire them. Give them money and power, see how long it takes before they give up their idealism. The genius of it is that your government gets improved due to the infusion of new talent, the resistance is pacified because they're under the impression that you're listening to their demands, nobody becomes a martyr so you don't end up rallying the enemy, and the resistance just lost all their leaders.

That's the Machiavellian approach. And it has nothing to do with the Beasts of Agares. I'm just saying that you can't quell the resistance through violence, look at any historical example of a resistance movement for proof. It doesn't work, Machiavelli's solution does.

This is fantasy. If I'm Veil I get my priests to read the minds of citizens for heresy. If they oppose my new rule I feed them to the beasts.

Al

 

[WCH]

Well this is OT, but it's interesting, and generally relevant to civ. I think the problem with the Israel example (or the US in Iraq) is that they're trying to use brutal tactics, but are being held back from "going all the way" by humanitarian forces (which for the record I agree with, I'm certainly not advocating brutal tactics or martial law). The most ineffective thing you can possibly do is be brutal without actually destroying your enemies.


THe counter example would probably be China or the former USSR, both of which were/are quite effective at violently crushing resistance. It might not work in terms of a "generational struggle" in the face of a free outside world, but from a day-to-day, or even year-to-year, perspective, they were quite effective.

You mean like Tibet? I guess we'll have to wait to see how that turns out.

and oppression being unsuccessful isn't a new thing with the mass media and international community; Christianity, for example, wouldn't exist if it weren't for this property of the human mind: the Romans made martyrs of their early leaders, and they used to the concept of persecution for political gain, growing into a powerful movement as a result (interestingly, it has been argued that the end of active persecution against Christianity "ruined" the religion, and that they never recovered. Whether you agree or not I suppose depends on your opinion of Catholicism -- certainly it's a very different animal than prior to becoming a state religion).

@Alzara
Where you have mindreaders, you have ways of blocking the reading of minds. I get your point, I just like to have a sense of realistic social dynamics at work in a game, not common-sense sociology.

 

[Alzara]

@Alzara
Where you have mindreaders, you have ways of blocking the reading of minds. I get your point, I just like to have a sense of realistic social dynamics at work in a game, not common-sense sociology.

If your priests cannot read a subjects mind, then either he or an ally is blocking the priest from performing his consecrated rights. Therefore the person has something to hide. In that case we feed him to the beasts

You realise this is the AV we are talking about here. They have civics like Sacrafice the weak. Normal social dynamics certainly don't apply to AV occupations!

Al

 

[Randolph]

I guess what bothers me about the argument that "doing bad is ineffective" is that I feel it misses the fundamental issue. A similar example is over torture, whenever that issue comes up in politics someone always says that we shouldn't torture because torture is ineffective (ppl will make up anything just to make you stop). Now I'm no interrogation expert, and I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it misses the point. The reason why we shouldn't torture is because torturing someone is an evil act, and we shouldn't commit evil acts.

Likewise, the reason that governments shouldn't violently oppress their people isn't because such tactics may ultimately strengthen resistance, it's because it's wrong to violently oppress people. To argue over the practicality of such acts strikes me as giving too much credence to the premise that if they are effective, then it would be alright to do them.

Sorry for digressing from the topic so much.