Failed Missionary[IMPLEMENTED]

[Ramstormp]

As mentioned elsewhere, I do not like the way failed missions work... a bit too depressing, and costly.

I suggest that at least some of the time the missionary pops back out of the village as a failed, disillusioned, or discouraged christian unit. The unit would be almost useless at most tasks, but would be able to do some low key preaching in the church, and eventually become an expert at preaching.

This would seem more historically accurate to me, since most missions probably did not end successful, nor end in martyrdom, they just ended with the missionary giving up and going back home.

EDIT: (Removed some of my original ranting, which was unclear and have become irrelevant)

Attached is the art that I had come up with, which I am not really that pleased with, and really would like to see something better if possible.



EDIT:

Concept (as suggested by RayStuttgart):

It should work under these conditions though:

1. The "Failed Missionary" should only happen for Expert Missionaries.
(Normal Colonist in Profession should still simply be lost when failing to establish a Mission.)

2. The chance of loosing[sic(on behalf of the dead-in-the-water keeping opposition)] the Missionary still exists
(Missioning Failure: ~ 50% Loosing[sic] Missionary, ~50% Getting Failed Missionary.)

3. The Failed Missionary should be pretty much useless for everything except Producing Crosess (still being worse than Expert Preacher)
(Failing Missioning should never give some kind of "reward".)

4. For real flavour the "Failed Missionary" should be integrated seemlessly into the mod - not a "badly intgrated useless Unit"

- Allowing it to use Learning by Doing so it can become an Expert in a Profession (e.g. Preacher) again
- Not allowed to use Missionary Profession again
- Not allowed to use a Combat Profession
- Having a good looking Unit with reasonable animations
- Writing proper Colopedia entry (or adapting existing ones)
- Potentially writing one or two small Python Events for it
...

5. AI should of course use it as well
(but that should be no problem and not need special programming)

6. Otherwise we do not make this more complicated and hard to explain
(e.g. not making "failing missions" even more powerful by giving bonus immigration point)

EDIT:
7. There would NOT be an xml tag in Civ4UnitInfos that gives the player the ability to adjust to personal preference, it would be in GlobalDefinesAlt, in case he wants to give a ‘Normal Colonist Missionary’ a chance to become a ‘Failed Missionary’ unit; however, in the default release this feature would only apply to the ‘Expert Missionary’ units.


Added(As suggested by Devolution and mostly based on summary of RayStuttgart):

8. If a Mission (of Player A) is replaced by another Mission (of Player B), a Failed Missionary is also spawned for Player A.
So we would have 2 (possible) cases for "Failed Missionaries" being spawned:

• 
  
  
  • An Expert Missionary fails to establish a Mission. <-- original concept
  • A Mission is replaced (successfully) by another Mission. <-- new addition
  • This would also apply to situations where Natives renounce missions <---newest logical addition

9. The "Failed Missionary" should not be spawned in a Player City.
It should be spawned on the plot of the Native Village instead.

 

[raystuttgart]

Generally Missioning is a really strong strategy.

Benefits (Converts and Attitude Improvement) outweight by far the risks (loosing Missionary and Attitude Worsening).
Especially since the risk of failure is really low for the first missions and only later on - once you have a lot of missions for that Native Civ - really get high.

However, the suggested small change of "instead of loosing Missionary getting a Failed Missionary" is not that dramatic.
Also, it does add a little bit of flavour. (Something new and unused.)

It should work under these conditions though:

1. The "Failed Missionary" should only happen for Expert Missionaries.
(Normal Colonist in Profession should still simply be lost when failing to establish a Mission.)

2. The chance of loosing the Missionary still exists
(Missioning Failure: ~ 50% Loosing Missionary, ~50% Getting Failed Missionary.)

3. The Failed Missionary should be pretty much useless for everything except Producing Crosess (still being worse than Expert Preacher)
(Failing Missioning should never give some kind of "reward".)

4. For real flavour the "Failed Missionary" should be integrated seemlessly into the mod - not a "badly intgrated useless Unit"

- Allowing it to use Learning by Doing so it can become an Expert in a Profession (e.g. Preacher) again
- Not allowed to use Missionary Profession again
- Not allowed to use a Combat Profession
- Having a good looking Unit with reasonable animations
- Writing proper Colopedia entry (or adapting existing ones)
- Potentially writing one or two small Python Events for it
...

5. AI should of course use it as well
(but that should be no problem and not need special programming)

6. Otherwise we do not make this more complicated and hard to explain
(e.g. not making "failing missions" even more powerful by giving bonus immigration point)

----------------

Summary:

Personally I am fine with this suggestions - if we do it properly and do not overexagerate it by being overpowered or overly complex.
Efforts and risks should be quite low. (The feature is really tiny.)

But we need more feedback. -> Please create a poll for it to check acceptance.

@Schmiddie:
If you like it, could you take a look at the graphics?

 

[Schmiddie]

Do we really need another graphic? Why can't we use the existing ones?

What I mean: Is there a requierement for changing the graphic?

 

[raystuttgart]

Do we really need another graphic? Why can't we use the existing ones?
What I mean: Is there a requierement for changing the graphic?

Since it is a new Unit, it of course also needs its own graphics.
(But as we see, Ramstormp already has such graphics.)

If you think the graphics (and animations) that Ramstormp has created / chosen are good enough, everything is fine.
(I have not checked the graphics myself yet ingame. But from the first screenshots they look good enough for me.)

It should also be possible to notice the difference between "Normal Colonist as Missionary" and "Failed Missionary" easily on first sight without having to zoom to max.

I just thought that our graphical expert should take a look to check if they are working fine to prevent issues later on.

Summary:
We do not need other graphics than the ones that Ramstormp has created / chosen if they look good and are working fine.

-----

What about the feature / change itself?
Do you like it, are ok with it or do you see problems?

Spoiler :

As I said:
Personally I think it just adds a bit of flavour and thus I am completely ok with it.
It does not really change anything dramatic considering balancing - if we do not overexagerate.

 

[Schmiddie]

Hm, maybe I do not understand the feature so far.

Could one please also upload the graphics here? I will check them.

 

[raystuttgart]

Hm, maybe I do not understand the feature so far.

The feature concept is very simple:

If an Expert Missionary fails to establish a Mission there is a chance that the Unit is "transformed" into a "Failed Missionary" (instead of always being lost as now).
The "Failed Missionary" being a new really weak Unit - that has a tiny Bonus on Crosses but is useless for everything else.

-----------

Ramstormp does not like to loose his Missionaries when they fail to establish a Mission because he feels the Player is punished too much.
He also already implemented the feature for himself. (But small details for finalizing it are most likely still missing.)

Now we are trying to figure out, if team and community want to have it integrated.
(I have not yet checked the graphics or code myself but would do so, if the idea is liked.)

For gameplay and balance it is almost irrelevant.
However, it does add a little bit of atmosphere and flavour.

It is more or less "just another small event", that can happen a couple of times a game.
(Of course we can also write one or two small Python Events using the Unit "Failed Missionary" give it even more flavour.)

Could one please also upload the graphics here? I will check them.

Currently only Ramstormp has the graphics.

 

[Ramstormp]

I suppose most of my motivation was to be able to take the risk of sending a missionary before the appearance of an evangelist. For instance, in my game yesterday I had a couple of firebrand preachers that had no church space, so my thinking is that the second most historically logical thing to do with them is send them as missionaries. Of course all of them failed to establish a mission, but I got them back as failed missionaries, which was fun. I finally got them to not look like a floating igloo.

But either way, as long as we can make an XML tag that says something like FailedMissionaryRateModifier and adjust to personal preference I don't mind making the official release only give a small chance to the evangelist.

Not sure exactly what to put in the poll, but I'll come up with something.

I attached the graphics.

 

[raystuttgart]

For instance, in my game yesterday I had a couple of firebrand preachers that had no church space, so my thinking is that the second most historically logical thing to do with them is send them as missionaries.
Of course all of them failed to establish a mission, but I got them back as failed missionaries, which was fun.

Well ok, if you use Firebrand Preachers for missioning, that pretty much explains, why you failed more often with Missioning.
(They are not balanced for being used as good Missionaries - because they are too valuable as Preachers and not intended to replace Expert Missionaries.)

The way I suggested to implement the feature would lead to the same result though - they would still be removed when failing to set up a Mission - because Firebrand Preachers are not "Expert Missionaries".
If we really want to apply this to units other than "Expert Missionaries" I would most likely vote against the feature.

Please clarify such details in your concept - as you intend to implement it.
(Otherwise people do not exactly know what they are voting for.)

By the way:
Missions created by other Units than "Expert Missionaries" spawn Converts much slower. (It is not only about the success chances.)
Personally I almost consider it a "waste of ressources" to use anything else than Expert Missionaries for Missions.

-------

And yes, all of us modders (and many players) customize their game according to their personal taste by using XML configuration settings.
We still need to clarify though what we implement and publish as default in WTP core mod.

 

[Ramstormp]

Missions created by other Units than "Expert Missionaries" spawn Converts much slower. (It is not only about the success chances.)
Personally I almost consider it a "waste of ressources" to use anything else than Expert Missionaries for Missions.

Did not realize the slower conversion rate... probably should have noticed it.

I did some editing, using your suggestions as the concept. Not very good at making myself clear.

 

[raystuttgart]

Did not realize the slower conversion rate... probably should have noticed it.

Expert Missionaries converting Natives much faster is the whole reason why they are so expensive and why they are more rare.
The fact that they are simply more successful in establishing Missions alone would not have justified that.

As far as I remember it is also explained in Colopedia.
It is also the same in Original Colonziation.

Modders should notice it by:
--> iMissionaryRate (in XML)
--> Code

Spoiler :

The concept is absolutely the same for "Expert Traders" which generate Money much faster than other Colonists using the Profession.

By the way:

Allowing "Normal Colonists" to become "Failed Missionaries" should probably not be configurable in Civ4UnitInfos.xml.
(Which requires XMLSchema changes, is less performant and more effort to change.)

It should better be a simple GlobalDefine in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml.
(It is also much easier / faster to change for a modder since it is one central Define.)

 

[Ramstormp]

As far as I remember it is also explained in Colopedia.
It is also the same in Original Colonziation.

Allowing "Normal Colonists" to become "Failed Missionaries" should probably not be configurable in Civ4UnitInfos.xml.
(Which requires XMLSchema changes, is less performant and more effort to change.)

It should better a simple GlobalDefine in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml.
(It is also much easier / faster to change for a modder since it is one central Define.)

Well, I may very well have noticed it at some point, but it did not succeed at getting lodged in my poor memory.

Though I loved Colonization 1, I was quite young, probably 13; and my attitude was something like why would I want to produce these dumb bells if I can't even sell them - I need money to get the guns so I can kill the Indians (then I think my game disk broke at some point too soon). Can't say that my attitude has improved that much since then. My method of play is with my brain tied up in first gear, and most of my actions are purely impulse and emotion based. I am an American now, I left my Soviet satellite state's efficient plan economy far behind, and everything is now rash, lavish, generous, (but when gold glimmers) violent and greedy; also quite dumbed down, excessive and sloppy.

I hardly ever read the Colopedia; but the whole motivation for this feature came when I read about a Danish leader's traits and how it was supposed to be pro-mission; so I decided: Hey I am going to mainly focus on missions this game. Except my evangelist failed, and all the other guys that were already on their way out also. No problem, I thought, I'll restart and try again. Maybe the evangelist succeeded that time, but all or most of the other guys failed. Normally I would only send the evangelist to missions - just like I normally only send the expert native trader, not any other simple guy who knows nothing about making money.

Good that you don't think the xml tag was the way to go, seemed like a lot of work, though it would have been educational. Global Defines seem more along the path of things I am already familiar with.

 

[devolution]

I think this feature could neatly solve the situation in which a mission is supplanted by another player's mission. Rather than having the original missionary disappear, the resulting disillusioned and mentally broken failed missionary would get to do the walk of shame back to his closest friendly colony

Btw: I would oppose any form of teleportation \ beaming of units.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I'm not sure if this is worth the effort.

I don't like the idea of a new failed missionary unit. It seems too much detail for no added gameplay.

One other thing. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it is lose/losing and not loose/loosing (which some people are using). That is a different word meaning the opposite of 'tight'.

 

[Nenos]

I agree with @Tugboatspotter
But the main idea is not totally useless. I would connect a fail with the event, slaughter the infidials by the pope.
For example: If a expert missionary fail you've a 60% Chance to get the event if the relation with the pope positiv.

 

[raystuttgart]

I'm not sure if this is worth the effort.

Being "worth the effort" or not is a question that only the modder(s) wanting to create it can answer.
Effort is only a problem if there is nobody motivated to invest it.

In this case however Ramstormp already is motivated and partially implemented it - even though small details might still be missing.
The team is willing as well to do quality checks and give additional support to finalize it.

I don't like the idea of a new failed missionary unit.

Sure, everybody has his own opinion and can share it.
To be honest, the Unit "Failed Missionary" alone does not exite me either.

In order to not destroy balancing of "Failing Missions" it needs to be pretty low value considering gameplay.
(Otherwise "Failing Missions" would become an exploit. It still needs to have a risk / negative consequences.)

And in order to not become annoying the "Failed Missionaries" should stay quite rare.
(I would hate to have too many of these because they are almost useless other than producing a bit more Crosses.)

For casual players, that are completely afraid of bad RnG it might also be a little bit comforting,
that they will not always completely lose a valuable Unit but at least might still get a weaker one.
(Although those player would most likely still reload a save.)

So again, this is not really for gameplay.
(Other than less scaring players that are afraid of bad RnG.)

This is just for adding a bit of immersion and flavour.

It seems too much detail for no added gameplay.

Well yes, this feature will not change gameplay much.
(It is not impactful enough to make a player consider his strategy or anything like that.)

But it adds a little bit of flavour.
(The flavour aspect could even be expanded by 1 or 2 Python Events using the "Failed Missionary".)

The risks (e.g. bugs or impact on performance) are also really low.
And since it is bascially already has been implemented by Ramstormp, why not.

And what I really like:
A new modder is taking his first modding steps and thus learning and getting more experienced.
That alone is something we (team and community) should support.

Summary:
We get another flavour addition that nobody needs to worry about.
Let us give new modders a chance to contribute and learn.

 

[raystuttgart]

I think this feature could neatly solve the situation in which a mission is supplanted by another player's mission. Rather than having the original missionary disappear, the resulting disillusioned and mentally broken failed missionary would get to do the walk of shame back to his closest friendly colony

Btw: I would oppose any form of teleportation \ beaming of units.

Hm, interesting.
This is actually a new aspect to the feature, but I like it.

I try to summarize your suggestions:
--------------------------------------------------

1. You suggest that if a Mission (of Player A) is replaced by another Mission (of Player B), a Failed Missionary is also spawned for Player A.
So we would have 2 (possible) cases for "Failed Missionaries" being spawned:

• An Expert Missionary fails to establish a Mission. <-- original concept
  
• A Mission is replaced (successfully) by another Mission. <-- new addition

2. I agree connsidering the "walk of shame" as well.
The "Failed Missionary" should not be spawned in a Player City.
It should be spawned on the plot of the Native Village instead.

It is more immersive and flavourful.

@Ramstormp
Do you agreee?

 

[Ramstormp]

Hm, interesting.
This is actually a new aspect to the feature, but I like it.

I try to summarize your suggestions:
--------------------------------------------------

1. You suggest that if a Mission (of Player A) is replaced by another Mission (of Player B), a Failed Missionary is also spawned for Player A.
So we would have 2 (possible) cases for "Failed Missionaries" being spawned:

• An Expert Missionary fails to establish a Mission. <-- original concept
  
• A Mission is replaced (successfully) by another Mission. <-- new addition

2. I agree connsidering the "walk of shame" as well.
The "Failed Missionary" should not be spawned in a Player City.
It should be spawned on the plot of the Native Village instead.

It is more immersive and flavourful.

@Ramstormp
Do you agreee?

I do agree, more than I do the actual proposed concept actually. I often miss the messages that declare a lost mission, and this way I wouldn't miss it. I will add on your two bullets up top.

...and thank you for the encouragement.

 

[Ramstormp]

Not seeing a way to edit the poll question, so I suppose this will end up being like any typical American senate vote. You end up getting all kinds of pork added in there that you did not expect.

 

[Ramstormp]

One other thing. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it is lose/losing and not loose/loosing (which some people are using). That is a different word meaning the opposite of 'tight'.

I did actually have some kind of robot syntax loop, sparks flying, moment where I was not sure about my lazy way of dealing with the need of clarifying things coupled with what would be the right and gentleman-like thing to do when quoting someone else. It really is hard to keep up with the double o's. I write 'to' all the time when I mean 'too'.

 

[raystuttgart]

• 
  
  • This would also apply to situations where Natives renounce missions <---newest logical addition

Careful with this !!!
Usually - most often case - Natives renounce a Mission because a War was declared with that Player.

1. Technically: If you spawn a Unit on top of an enemy Native Village this instantly destroys the Native Village.
2. Immersion: In a War with you the Natives would most likely not send your Missionary home, they would probably kill him. (He is an enemy then.)
3. Gameplay: Losing your Missionaries is a price that Players should be willing to pay when starting a War with the Natives. (Wars should have costs.)

Summary:
Simply put a check in the logic to make sure you are not at War.
Otherwise your logic will instantly raze the Native Village.