Fall Further - The Original Thread

[xienwolf]

Well the easy fix to that one is to make it so that the promotions which provide a better city come later in the tech tree, along with unique versions of the settler itself which naturally provide the improved cities.

 

[Ekolite]

i was thinking it would work well if buildings or extra population promotions became avilable at different techs. It could also, help to bring a bit of use to some of the less useful techs.

 

[Jhoniten]

maybe add the cost of whatever buildings are added to the cost of the new settler so in the long run you actually paid for it, just in a different city. Think prefab.

 

[DharmaMcLaren]

The computer needs to predict the future? Since it can't know what promotions you're going to give the Settler, perhaps (this would require a lot of coding for a relatively minor change) if the unit "remembered" where it had been built, those promotions could cost the number of hammers required to build that building, and subtract them from that city, and outside cultural borders the settler could cut down a forest or something (be inactive for a couple of turns) to get the materials required.
As I said, though, a lot of code for a minor change...

 

[DharmaMcLaren]

Well the easy fix to that one is to make it so that the promotions which provide a better city come later in the tech tree, along with unique versions of the settler itself which naturally provide the improved cities.

You needn't have new settlers, just make the promotions require a later tech. Like a promotion allowing settlers to start a city with a Monument could require Philosphy perhaps, and an Elder Council could require Education and Mysticism, etc.
I think that's what you were suggesting anyway, but I don't think new settler units are needed, unless that's to do with the Python(?) changes needed to do the actual building thing.

 

[Vehem]

I've just had messages from both Tarquelne and Arctic circle regarding combining all of the additional civ mods (FF, Scions of Patria and Kunningas/Fjalltindr giant civ).

These two are fairly radical civlizations, but the effort put into both to ensure they remain playable and balanced seems to be significant. Neither are considered finished yet (to be fair, neither are some of FF's) but Tarquelne and Arctic Circle have said they'd like them to be considered to be included in FF.

As always with a big change, I'm posting the possibility of it here first to get some feedback. I'm also going to offer a compromise to those who may not favour the idea. I'm basically looking at ways to allow a player to block *any* civ (original, FF and later additions) from being present in the game. Effectively, you'd have the option of selecting the civs you do not want to be present in the random selection. If you don't like Lizardmen for example, you could just remove the Cualli and Mazatl and still have a random selection from the others. I don't have a reliable way to do this yet, but it should be possible based on the alignment code already developed.

 

[Perkin Warbeck]

As I was reading your post I was thinking "wouldn't it be good to have a way to block civs"
That's a grand idea- would be great to implement anyway- especially if you want a nice random game, enjoy the varied leaders but have just played vs a civ and don't feel like seeing them again right away.

 

[CMHistory]

So long as they are well designed and complement the canon reasonably well, I'm pretty much "the more the merrier". I'd still like to see the Werewolf civ mod get added into Fall Further as well....and adding werewolves, Giants and the Undead at once is very reminiscent of a real, honest-to-gods off-the-shelf expansion, isn't it?

 

[Arctic Circle]

And it would be wonderful to slip into the FF umbrella, I have guided at least three friends through the process of adding Fall Further to their FFH experience. And while they are no computer-illiterates, they do seem to have the opinion that they prefer it as simple as possible. So I agree with what Vehem said in an PM, the absolute majority only get around to patch FFH with one set of 'new civilizations'. And Fall Further are currently the absolute ruler in this area.

Let me again say that I belive in balance vs other civs, and once I get a download that is worth showing, I will listen to those that dare play it when it comes to balance issues. Of course, it can take a month or two as minimum.

 

[Demus]

If given an option to block civs in some of your games, i see no reason not to add them to be honest.

By the way, i've got a balance issue for the mazatl's new system: with the -25% commerce from trade routes by lost lands, you now need atleast 2 commerce per trade route to get any gain whatsoever, since these numbers are rounded down. In other words: if you change to lost lands without having built barter houses and inns in most of your cities, you will suffer quite a big income hit.

 

[Dragonlord]

I also feel 'the more the merrier'!

Just as Arctic Circle said, I only have one modmod added to FFH - and this is it! I don't want to add more modmods for fear of compatability issues. So... anything you can include - great!!!

The option to exclude civilizations from the random selection would be really great as well - while there is no civ I absolutely hate, I always seem to end up playing against the same ones again and again when I select randomly (which I mostly do).

 

[Ekolite]

It'd also be good for when you want to play without the AC. Its so annoying having the sheaim come up without it on, they really suck wothout having their planar gates.

 

[Mukuu]

If you can keep everything balanced, it could potentially add more variation to the game (more civs = higher chance of AI being different civs).

The idea to block a civ is great though. I am in favor of that for sure. For example, if your playing a Pangaea map, maybe you want to block Lanun...

 

[Tarquelne]

Well, I'm in favor.

One of the first questions for my previous (little) modules is generally "Will it work with Fall Further?"
And I like the criteria Vehem laid out for inclusion, and agree the previous comments about balance and canon.

I'm excited about an option to turn some civs off from game to game. Especially for multiplayer - Through most of .30 we couldn't play with random civs.

I've got a question for FF players:

How would you prefer a non-modular FF mod to be installed? The easiest way would be a zip containing the necessary files. Just over-write the base FF files with the mods files. But you'd have to backup/backout of such an installation manually.

Do you think that'd be good enough? Or would you want a .bat or installer to automate things?

I prefer manual, but I also don't trust installers. (I tend to have multiple installs in non-standard locations.)

 

[KingOfLands]

As always with a big change, I'm posting the possibility of it here first to get some feedback. I'm also going to offer a compromise to those who may not favour the idea. I'm basically looking at ways to allow a player to block *any* civ (original, FF and later additions) from being present in the game. Effectively, you'd have the option of selecting the civs you do not want to be present in the random selection. If you don't like Lizardmen for example, you could just remove the Cualli and Mazatl and still have a random selection from the others. I don't have a reliable way to do this yet, but it should be possible based on the alignment code already developed.

Now that sounds like a good idea. Not only might I be able to go a game without Faeryl for a neighbor, but I could avoid having anything totally unsuitable to the map type I'm playing on show up while still making the opponents random.

Brilliant, if you can pull it off.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Would it be too much to ask for separate options to remove civs from being human and AI playable when loading the game? I often get tired of playing the same civ over and over again when I choose one randomly, but that doesn't mean I would mind having the civ as a rival. Also, you might sometimes want to block an AI from getting a civ that is too strong on the selected map type but wouldn't mind the advantage yourself; conversely, you might want the challenge of fighting civs that are much better suited for the map.

 

[Kasdar]

I am all for it, and heck if I find I don't like a civ I can always turn it off in the XML with just a quick edit. So I won't be heartbroken if you can't get the option to turn civs off to work.

 

[mahazel]

By the way, i've got a balance issue for the mazatl's new system: with the -25% commerce from trade routes by lost lands, you now need atleast 2 commerce per trade route to get any gain whatsoever, since these numbers are rounded down. In other words: if you change to lost lands without having built barter houses and inns in most of your cities, you will suffer quite a big income hit.

In my last 2 games as Mazatl I had lots of money, food and hammers in cities, and I think the Lost Lands are even more powerfull than before. With only 6 cities (2 were on the coast) I could have all Wonders in 4 to 7 tunrs (I`m playing on Imperor level, normal speed) in my capital which had 45 population in 230 turn (city of thousand slums is really powerfull in mazatl hands). I think LL should give only +25% to food (with swamps you have lot of food), +50% or less to hammers, but you can change -25% to 0% for commerce, because it is true that in the beggining it could cut your incomes. On the other hand, when you have Trade + Inn + barter house + bazar of mammon(in huge capital with many merchant specialists) + coast cities with lighthouse and Great Lighthouse + Optics (have I omit something?) ...

 

[Demus]

i was playing the "rainforest" maptype, so no sea trade boosts for me. Still, i agree with 25% less food (you've got way to much food anyway), and even out the commerce

 

[grumpylad]

Works for me, the more the merrier if you're content that you can develop them