Broken Hawk
Emperor
Yes. I just supported your point and gave one more argument.
It's a shame. You think people could make better use of their time.
Yes. I just supported your point and gave one more argument.
What vanilla civs have been changed by Fall Further? I've got the Elohim, Amurites, Doviello, and Malakim.
Actually, they really don't in FF. A few new units or a trait, but that's about it. The majority of the stuff in Malakim+ is not in FF, same with Doviello+...
FF probably breaks a ton of kael's rules. That's why he's not making it, and vehem and co are.
Try asking yourself why FFH needed two elven races, two dwarven races, two stealth oriented races, etc.
Would that really be a problem? If yes, why?I fear that a few of the Civs did not have a clear design goal, but instead are a patching together of ideas in order to capture a flavor
Manual wasn't written by the designers though. So it is certainly not accurate about the design decisions behind any of them.
Your examples of "I wanted Golems" would be almost exactly what someone should advise you NOT to do. You should say "I want something which encourages using units as cannon fodder, and leads to unit spam instead of careful guarding of powerful individual units" Then realize that Golems can be a nice fit for that model.
Would that really be a problem? If yes, why?
I just don't find the description "A race of Giants" does an effective job of telling me what mechanics I'll encounter and what sort of decision branches I'll need to figure out.
Oh, yes, I remember now. Good flavor with poor function, yeah. I see your point more clearly now. It's kind of helping, in fact. Realizing things, you know... Well, whatever, I can't answer for someone else so I get out of this thread...The risks of this method are discussed by Kael, Soren and others at the link I provided in that paragraph: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173061
I'll point out that this course leads to risk, not certain problems.
Did you actually read the Jotnar page?
it has exactly what you're asking for.
http://www.vehemence.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Jotnar
Actually, no, I didn't read that one. After finding only history text for the first couple of Civ names that sounded interesting, I posted my concern here.
Grantor said:Example: Design Goal - produce a Civ that uses non-living Golems as their key type of units. Design question that comes up when making that Civ: what race should they be? Answer to that question: Well, I've already got dwarves from making the treasure-mongers; sounds like a good fit here too.
Xienwolf said:I don't think that your examples listed so far for the design goals are really proper examples as per Kael's write-up. Granted, I haven't read it, but I assume it is quoting solid game design practices, which would state that you need a REASON for a thing to be added to the game, as in "I wanted to make people who prefer peaceful gameplay have a race with which they can achieve cultural victories." Your examples of "I wanted Golems" would be almost exactly what someone should advise you NOT to do.