Era of Miracles fantasy mod - developer diary

[Pazyryk]

The Elephant Stables building will require an Ivory resource nearby and will be required to build elephant units (but it will be available only for some civs). Also, perhaps I can make them "national units" (limit per player), so you can't have too many of them. An alternative would be making Ivory a strategic resource, but I don't think it's a good idea.

If you do that, then there is no limit on number (OK, the national thing, but that always seems kind of artificial). Why not just have elephants as a strategic resource like horses? Who gives a darn about ivory anyway? It's just another luxury resource (1 of many). Using them as a strategic resource would be much more flavorful, especially since you are loosing all the modern strategic resources (even if you introduce copper, you still have a lack of strategic resources).

That's assuming that it is "either or". you can have elephants (strategic resource) and ivory (luxury resource) at the same time. One is the map resource and the other produced by a building (either direction works). That is perhaps a little confusing, however. But if it's an either or situation, I'd much rather see them given full status as a strategic resource.

[Edit: note that ivory was also gotten from other animals, but particularly whales (narwhals and sperm whales and I think orcas too). So an ivory-producing building that requires nearby elephants or whales would make sense (if you really feel that the ivory luxury is vital). I still think that an elephant strategic resource adds more to the game than another luxury, though.]

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-12: Elephants and Resources

@Pazyryk: Maybe you're right, I imagined an Elephant icon on the strategic resources panel, and I think I like it The Ivory luxury resource is not a problem, the problem is that I plan to make the elephant units available only to some civs, so this resource would be useless for the rest of them. But now when I think of it, I can set Elephant Warfare as "TechCityTrade" for this resource, so the other civs won't get it at all, but they will still be able to build camps on them and get the extra yields. I'm not sure about the buildings that require a nearby resource, like the Circus. Can they be built without having the "TechCityTrade"?

For the list of strategic resources in my mod see post #80, in my current plans Copper is a bonus resource that allows building Forge and Mint. Coal and Oil are still in the game, I'm not sure if I should make them bonus or strategic (some civs will have access to the "industrial branch" of the tech tree that allows using them). Aluminum and Uranium are gone, new strategic resources will be Wood, Stone (I'm not sure about this one, maybe I'll make it just a bonus), Mithril and Mana.

 

[Pazyryk]

I haven't gotten to resources yet. It's a real pain with the Lua. I did think about a possible shortcut to make this less work than it might be otherwise (if it works):
1. Do all your xml stuff
2. Open AssignStartingPlots.lua and do a bunch of cntr-h text replacements (case-sensitive). E.g.,
aluminum -> mithril
Aluminum -> Mithril
ALUMINUM -> MITHRIL

Then swap out other modern ones in a similar way. The number may or may not work out, and oil is a little weird being land and water (unless you have a good fantasy resource that does that too). You still might want to do a few additional tweaks. But, if this works, it could be a useful shortcut (because AssignStartingPlots.lua is one heck of a monster to edit).

 

[PawelS]

I'm going to get rid of resource placement in AssignStartingPlots completely, and use the the good old-fashioned method from WorldBuilderRandomItems instead (is uses the values defined in XML), so I don't have to program the placement of every resource separately. Also I don't feel the need to add extra resources at player starting locations, maybe except one resource per civ that is important to that civ (Horse for Griffites, Stone for Calx, Wheat for Halflings etc.)

 

[texdionis]

Just in case you are not so willing to stay with FFH terminology, I'd suggest the name "Divinestone" instead of "Mithril"

 

[Ahriman]

I'd definitely go with elephants as a strategic resource.
I'd also suggest that rather than "national units" with a fixed limit per player, that you think about creating culture-linked strategic resources that then get generated by the palace or particular national wonders. For example, a religious civ might have several super-priest units, each of these could require one unit of the "Warriors of Faith" strategic resource, that is generated by a UB palace for the the religious civ and a couple of religious national wonders and maybe a world wonder, and maybe 1 copy from a very high end religious building.

I think there is huge scope for using strategic resources, it is such a promising mechanic.
I would also make sure to try to make the resources really strategic by making them actually rare; so you have a core set of modest strength resourceless units, and then superior units that require the strategic resource. This helps make strategic resource units feel rare and special.
In vanilla Civ5 strategic resources are far too common, so they are rarely binding constraints.

I would also against requiring particular buildings to be present in order to build particular units. That is really not fun (I get the tech for the buildnig, then have to construct or buy the building before I can start getting any units; it also messes things up with upgrades), and AI tends to not do it very well. I would go with a strategic resource system for special units, not a building pre-requisite system.

 

[texdionis]

I'd definitely go with elephants as a strategic resource.
I would also make sure to try to make the resources really strategic by making them actually rare; so you have a core set of modest strength resourceless units, and then superior units that require the strategic resource. This helps make strategic resource units feel rare and special.
In vanilla Civ5 strategic resources are far too common, so they are rarely binding constraints.

but on the other side, if you make strategic resources too rare, the result is that when a civ get that resource, it will definitely become too overpowered.
Vanilla system seems to be more balanced.

 

[Pazyryk]

I have to agree with everything said here:

I think there is huge scope for using strategic resources, it is such a promising mechanic.
I would also make sure to try to make the resources really strategic by making them actually rare; so you have a core set of modest strength resourceless units, and then superior units that require the strategic resource. This helps make strategic resource units feel rare and special.
In vanilla Civ5 strategic resources are far too common, so they are rarely binding constraints.

Absolutely. The strategic resource based system is cool in many ways, but then Civ5 doesn't follow through. It should be used in two ways that I can see:

1. Exactly as said above, it can make those high-end units feel special (in a more natural way than "national limit") but still maintain a usefulness for the more regular "grunts". You have some low-end units (warriors, light infantry, etc.) that require no resources or something common (say copper), then some middle units like medium infantry, armored cavalry and so on (using iron or horses+iron), then you have some very high end elites, say knights immortal (horses+mithril) or elephants immortal (elephants+mithril) or whatever. Your army will be a natural mix of these, rather than always being 100% the highest unit buildable by tech level. Of course, you want 100% elite. The reason resource-based elites is better than national limits is that you can do something about it: you can go out and get more mithril, elephants, etc.
2. It can be a civ-diversifying factor if strategic resources really drive you down a different path. This happens to a very limited extent in Civ5: you sometimes have to adapt to geography by focusing on iron- vs. horse-based warfare. But I think this could be developed much more with additional (though individually rare) strategic resources. I find this method of civ-diversifying more surprising and interesting than one based strictly on civ choice at game start (although you can have it both ways at the same time by dropping some strategic resources on the map based on civ choice).

I would also against requiring particular buildings to be present in order to build particular units. That is really not fun (I get the tech for the buildnig, then have to construct or buy the building before I can start getting any units; it also messes things up with upgrades), and AI tends to not do it very well. I would go with a strategic resource system for special units, not a building pre-requisite system.

Agree completely. I think Civ5 does a good job here. Have stables that increase production of horse-mounted units, and so on. Works better for AI. Also, I want to get that unit out quickly when the tech comes, then (later) focus on specializing a city for some particular unit production.

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-13: Answers to feedback

Just in case you are not so willing to stay with FFH terminology, I'd suggest the name "Divinestone" instead of "Mithril"

The word "mithril" originates from Tolkien's works, it's not FFH-specific.

@Ahriman:

I like the idea of civ-specific strategic resources, but I'm not sure about resources generated by buildings, I don't really feel I need them. But map-based resources that can be used as strategic only by some civs is an interesting idea, and I think I'll use it not only for Elephants.

I agree that strategic resources are too common in the vanilla game. To prevent situations where one civ becomes too powerful by acquiring a strategic resource, I'm not going to reduce the number of tiles that have them, but instead their quantity per tile, to 2-4 in most cases and even less in case of particularly rare resources, like Mithril.

About units needing buildings: now I'm convinced to introduce Elephants as strategic resource, so elephant units will no longer need any buildings. And I'm not going to use such dependencies for any other units.

@Pazyryk: I agree with everything you said

 

[Pazyryk]

@Pazyryk: I agree with everything you said

Great minds think alike.

Another thought along these lines:

One problem I often have in any civ game that has civ specialization (Civ5, FFH, etc.) is that my intended game flavor (including civ choice) rarely aligns well with the map. For example, I choose Rome wanting some early classical warfare (legions and ballistas) but then have no iron (and no possibility of a successful rush to take my neighbor's) or have no neighbors to rush. Or I decide I want a game of Wonder building, but then have to restart 10 times to get the marble boost (feel free to call that cheating; if it helps you maintain some respect for me, I never reload a combat result). Let me be clear: I do think it important that the game throw some curve balls that force some adaptation. However, when you start to define civilization flavor very strongly, as is likely to happen in a fantasy mod, then it is just plain annoying when the map is in total conflict with this.

I don't have a particular suggestion to fix this, except for the obvious one of very strong starting biases and map adjustments after placement. The tough thing is to do that but still maintain an element of surprise and the need for adaptation.

 

[Ahriman]

but on the other side, if you make strategic resources too rare, the result is that when a civ get that resource, it will definitely become too overpowered.
Vanilla system seems to be more balanced.

I strongly disagree. It is not hard to balance this kind of system at all. You can control resource placement in mapscripts, and you can make strategic resource units more powerful without making them game-breaking.

Look at Thalassicus's Vanilla Extension Mod (VEM). Among many other changes, it increases the rarity of strategic resources while making many of the strategic resource units more powerful, which makes those special units like tanks, battleships, knights and longswords feel much more significant.

* * *

but I'm not sure about resources generated by buildings, I don't really feel I need them

Yeah, I'm not sure, but it is worth thinking about; it might be nice to tie in your ability to have powerful priests to the number of temple buildings you have, or the number of wizards you can field to the number of magic academies, or so forth. And it might be weird to have culturally or civ-linked resources coming from map tiles, whereas it can make perfect sense to have them come from buildings or wonders or UBs.

The basic idea here is that strategic resources don't need to just represent physical resources like iron or mithril, they can represent anything rare.
So you could have "corpses" as a resource for rare undead units that came from cemetaries or something, or "monster" resources that come from laboratories or breeding pits for twisted abominations.

It would be easy to go overboard on this, so you may be right to not add too many different resources, but I think that the strategic resource idea is generally superior (and offers a lot more flexibility) than FFH-style National Limits. You can mimic a national limit by requiring a strategic resource that is generated by a UB palace for each civ.
The one thing I worry about is UI; you really don't want to be displaying all the possible resources that don't apply to your civ. So you would have to find some way of suppressing all the irrelevant ones.

to 2-4 in most cases and even less in case of particularly rare resources, like Mithril

I would say 1-2 resources per tile. This way it is easy to get some, but hard to get many.
You can also tie the placement into mapscript; Thal's VEM hardcodes strategic resource placement by zone, so each zone is guaranteed to have ~5 horses (eg across 3 horse tiles; 2, 2 and a 1), 5 iron, X oil, and so forth, some of which may or may not be in good places for building a city. This makes city placement feel a lot more meaningful, and gives much more of a feeling where the land and resources you have nearby guide your optimal tech path; if you have lots of horses nearby then you follow a horse-tech route, if you have iron you follow a metals route, etc.
I strongly recommend talking to Thalassicus regarding the technical details of how to get this working.

so elephant units will no longer need any buildings. And I'm not going to use such dependencies for any other units.

Excellent!

 

[Ahriman]

is that my intended game flavor (including civ choice) rarely aligns well with the map. For example, I choose Rome wanting some early classical warfare (legions and ballistas) but then have no iron

This is why having some building-based strategic resources might be appealing.

But its also possible to tip the scales by having particular resources appear only or mostly on particular terrain types, and then have particular civs favor that terrain as a starting zone.

or I decide I want a game of Wonder building, but then have to restart 10 times to get the marble boost

Yeah, thats a bit lame. You can still build wonders without marble.

 

[Pazyryk]

Yeah, thats a bit lame.

I always feel a little dirty afterwards.

 

[PawelS]

I don't care much about the flavor thing, I just set the start regions for civs, and perhaps will give them one resource that they particularly need, and it should be enough. Of course in later stages of development, when it turns out that the starting locations really need tweaking, I can go back to this subject.

The one thing I worry about is UI; you really don't want to be displaying all the possible resources that don't apply to your civ. So you would have to find some way of suppressing all the irrelevant ones.

It's not a problem, the resources won't be displayed when you don't have the technology to use them, and those technologies can be blocked for other civs. Your idea about limiting the number of some kinds of units is interesting, perhaps I can create a resource called "Divine Essence", which is generated by religious buildings, and required to build priests... Seems I'm getting convinced to this idea too (Also resources produced by the "racial palaces" can be used to give the civs what they need instead of altering the map.)

About the number of resources per tile: maybe you're right that 1-2 is enough...

 

[Ahriman]

I always feel a little dirty afterwards.

Well, that's ok then
* * *

It's not a problem, the resources won't be displayed when you don't have the technology to use them, and those technologies can be blocked for other civs.

Awesome. But that would only work for map-provided resources, right? Where the technology would enable the strategic resource? Or could you get a technology to change the yield of buildings?

our idea about limiting the number of some kinds of units is interesting, perhaps I can create a resource called "Divine Essence", which is generated by religious buildings, and required to build priests... Seems I'm getting convinced to this idea too

Cool. It might not work, but it seems like its worth exploring.
A priestly faction might have UB religious buildings that provide extra resources, and then some templar type soldier units that also require the divine essence resource.

About the number of resources per tile: maybe you're right that 1-2 is enough...

Yeah, I really think that given the usually small size of armies in Civ5 that having 4-5 elite units of a particular type (from say 3 tiles worth of resources) is quite a lot.
I really like mimicking the historic feel of armies, where armies were mostly grunts (often peasant levies) with only a very few elites, like feudal nobles who could afford horses and armor and so could be a heavy cavalry force. I think this makes the battlefield much more fun, in that there is some real strategic tension in where to deploy your elites. Thinking kindof WW2 Armored Fist doctrine, with concentrated panzers punching a hole through enemy lines, vs French doctrines of tanks as infantry support.

It also allows the possibility of having some Roman-type faction which lacks the elites but has higher quality regulars.

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-14

Awesome. But that would only work for map-provided resources, right? Where the technology would enable the strategic resource? Or could you get a technology to change the yield of buildings?

It can be the same technology that allows you to build these buildings, so I think it won't be a problem.

A priestly faction might have UB religious buildings that provide extra resources, and then some templar type soldier units that also require the divine essence resource.

Yes, such units are planned so they can use this resource too.

I really like mimicking the historic feel of armies, where armies were mostly grunts (often peasant levies) with only a very few elites, like feudal nobles who could afford horses and armor and so could be a heavy cavalry force. I think this makes the battlefield much more fun, in that there is some real strategic tension in where to deploy your elites. Thinking kindof WW2 Armored Fist doctrine, with concentrated panzers punching a hole through enemy lines, vs French doctrines of tanks as infantry support.

The problem is, as always, the AI, which probably won't be able to put the elite units where it needs them the most... But the AI is bad at almost every aspect of the game anyway (and was no better in Civ4 imo, the stack of doom combat was just far less complex than 1upt, so the AI could cope with it).

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-15: Civ #12 - Halflings

The Halflings are expert farmers and merchants, which gives them +1 gold from Farm and +1 food from Village. They like to live in large cities, but don't like to expand, which gives them a happiness effect similar to India in normal game (more unhappiness from number of cities, less unhappiness from population). Their units aren't very strong in combat, but they are particularly agile and can withdraw from the battle when attacked. Their gardening skills give them the Great Garden unique building, which provides better effects than the normal Garden, and can be built without access to fresh water. They should also have Slingers, but for now I don't want to make any DLC required to run the mod (and I even don't own them myself).

 

[PawelS]

2011-10-16: 3 food per citizen?

I'm thinking about changing the food requirement per citizen from 2 to 3, like in some Civ4 mods, for example Rise of Mankind and Orbis (IIRC). This would allow more precise adjustments to food yields from resources, improvements, policies, technologies and so on.

I hope the "half food per specialist" policy effect (I'm going to call it "Spiritual Nourishment") will work correctly with this setting, changing it to 1.5 food.

 

[Pazyryk]

I like the idea of 3 food per citizen for the reason you indicated. Also, if you want to keep population down and spread out (which is more fitting for pre-medieval fantasy), then one part of this is to make most tiles not quite self-sustaining. Force civilizations to develop around high-production resource tiles. This will avoid modern sprawl (where almost every tile is developed and there are no wild lands) and ICS at the same time.

 

[Pfeffersack]

2011-10-16: 3 food per citizen?

I'm thinking about changing the food requirement per citizen from 2 to 3, like in some Civ4 mods, for example Rise of Mankind and Orbis (IIRC). This would allow more precise adjustments to food yields from resources, improvements, policies, technologies and so on.

I hope the "half food per specialist" policy effect (I'm going to call it "Spiritual Nourishment") will work correctly with this setting, changing it to 1.5 food.

I would recommend to give it try. It worked out pretty well in RoM's spiritual ancestors for Civ III DyP and RaR as well. You already named the one big advantage yourself.