Ideas, Requests, and Feedback

[Kurrel]

In my playthoughs, I've noticed it's relatively easy to raise the AC but that there aren't many controllable ways of lowering it. If Lawful Evil wants to conquer and not send to hell, perhaps more ways of getting it under control would be a good idea?

Perhaps priests could craft 'Holdmarks' inside their civ territory that reduce the AC by a certain amount but that can be popped for massive hell damage to the local terrain?

Perhaps you could add a wonder that can be built by any civ, "Shimmering Pylons", that gives the same effect that is currently granted to good civs, such that hell terrain cannot spread inside the civ who builds it? The image is of tall obelisks creating a curtain of light, on one side of which is healthy land and on the other side, not even a meter away, is hell and all it's vile ills.

-

On another note, I really enjoy the concept of the Heron Throne. It'd be cool to see it enhanced to a Circle of Thrones, or the like. Being able to build one throne in a city with a palace (Civ palace, season palace or conquered palace?) that grants a specific bonus.

Examples could include
Lion Throne, granting bravery traits to units produced in it,
Throne of the Peaks, granting +1hammer to mountains and hills,
Silken Dais, granting +1culture for every plot yielding 3coin.

 

[Niveras]

Though with the new spell autocasting for Sanctify, even evil civs can keep hell from spreading to their lands, with a little foresight, planning, and investment.

Though perhaps that will change yet again with the new spell mechanics.

Perhaps you could add a wonder that can be built by any civ, "Shimmering Pylons",

/JudicatorAdaris: You must construct additional Pylons. Pylons. Pylonspylonspylonspyonspynspyspppp....

Unrelated note: Elegy of the Elohim and the Sheim counterpart (the +/- armageddon counter rituals) should probably be disabled when the Hallowed Ground option is enabled. The AI seems to waste time building them even when the counter is inactive. This assumes it is even possible for the game to allow/disallow certain production orders based on game options.

 

[Pohlmann]

idea:
as the new sidar manage to decrease their population (which is very much plain stupid in terms of realism ) by the reduced plot radius, how about some sort of stocking up the supplies even more?

i thought about creating a building by a cityspell that grants -6 food for the next five turns, then no yieldchanges and on deactivation of that spell +6 food for 5 turns. that way you could use the smokebomb for a while without your cities starving to death

 

[PPQ_Purple]

This was mostly planned already, though I just thought of the Law/Chaos effect.

Overall, this means that eventually EVERYONE has to deal with Hell.

Actual list for hell spread:

• Lawful Good - 80
• Good - 70
• Chaotic Good - 60
• Lawful - 60
• Neutral - 50
• Chaotic - 40
• Lawful Evil - 40
• Evil - 30
• Chaotic Evil - 20
• Ashen Veil - 0

I am not sure if I get this right but Chaotic = Supports Demons and Lawful = Hates demons right?

In that case should the order not be something like this:

• Lawful Good (Good and actively opposes the AC)
• Lawful Neutral (Neutral and actively opposes the AC) and Neutral Good (Good but does not care about the AC)
• Neutral Neutral (Neutral and does not care about the AC) and Chaotic Good (Good but actively increases the AC) and Lawful Evil (Evil and actively opposes the AC)
• Neutral Evil (Evil and does not care about the AC) and Chaotic Neutral (Neutral but actively increases the AC)
• Chaotic Evil (Evil and actively increases the AC)
• Ashen Veil (Self explanatory)

It would make way more sense since the Chaos vs Order thing should effect it more than the good vs evil thing.


I mean judging by your list, someone who is good but actively raises the AC actually has less chance to get hell terrain than someone neutral who is fighting the AC actively.

 

[azzedar]

just had to look up if basium and hybo were chaotic- well they are. that way your explanation makes sense.
althought i wouldnt think that 'neutral' means they dont care about ac. more like theyre somewhere between or have goals that are more different than the usual against/for pattern, or are just not extremist law-followers or extremist slobs.
cant get connection to the online wiki at the moment but i think that most of the elohim leaders are not lawful. which would directly oppose your theory, unless their alignement will be adjusted.

in d&d 3.5 absolute neutral (as in neutral neutral) meant people just want everything to stay the way it is - which once again opposes ac and the world turning hell. they just dont have the ambition to side with a choice (until things get real awkward)

 

[Opera]

Lawful/Chaotic has nothing to do with 'actively rising the AC'.

 

[azzedar]

Lawful/Chaotic has nothing to do with 'actively rising the AC'.

with the new system it somehow will have something to do with it. if u are chaotic good and see the ac rising you will react different than the ones lawful good.
i just pointed out that, although it might not have been designed that way, its an interesting coincident that basium and hyborem are both chaotic, as an example.

 

[dunedainjedi]

I think Opera's trying to say that the AC really boils down to good vs evil. After all the only chaotic good civ that benefits from a rising AC is the one from Viatos' modmod.

 

[Sjru]

Here's a good idea:

We all know the AI sckks when we talk about battling and keeping hero's alive. (They of course excel at economy, in most cases).
Making a good battle AI is very hard, and it is impossible for an AI match a competent player in the field.

But there's also "challenge" option when you create your custom game, and then I had an idea: Why not add another "challenge" button that gives the AI a free and steady amount of units when at war?. I'm not talking about let the AI get free SoD, but to give them 5 Axeman (or Champions/warriors, depending on the tech) every 10 or 15 turns. Something like the "Art of defense" Bts scenario.
However, of course, those units should be applied when they're facing a war against a Human (otherwise, AI-vs-AI wars could last forever) and should be used against human (Is a challenge option, right?).
The main goal should be to give the AI more advantage in term of battling with more units. That's all.

I hope someone like this.

 

[azzedar]

Here's a good idea:

We all know the AI sckks when we talk about battling and keeping hero's alive. (They of course excel at economy, in most cases).
Making a good battle AI is very hard, and it is impossible for an AI match a competent player in the field.

But there's also "challenge" option when you create your custom game, and then I had an idea: Why not add another "challenge" button that gives the AI a free and steady amount of units when at war?. I'm not talking about let the AI get free SoD, but to give them 5 Axeman (or Champions/warriors, depending on the tech) every 10 or 15 turns. Something like the "Art of defense" Bts scenario.
However, of course, those units should be applied when they're facing a war against a Human (otherwise, AI-vs-AI wars could last forever) and should be used against human (Is a challenge option, right?).
The main goal should be to give the AI more advantage in term of battling with more units. That's all.

I hope someone like this.

interesting suggestion, but i dont think i would ever use it. im getting already annoyed as it is with the highest difficulties where some civs have the tendency to regularly spam your borders with tedious stacks of low units of semidoom.

 

[Sjru]

It is intended as a challenge. And in my games, hardly the AI have enough spare units to attack, most of those units die in the way to my borders (savages, animals, other civs, etc). And it might annoy you because they pillage or do silly things (Like sending their mages to the front lines, killing them to my city walls or sending their Sphener to the bottom of my lands alone, where it is easy prey if I sacrifice some units).
I have another idea regarding pillage, though.

 

[Valkrionn]

just had to look up if basium and hybo were chaotic- well they are. that way your explanation makes sense.
althought i wouldnt think that 'neutral' means they dont care about ac. more like theyre somewhere between or have goals that are more different than the usual against/for pattern, or are just not extremist law-followers or extremist slobs.
cant get connection to the online wiki at the moment but i think that most of the elohim leaders are not lawful. which would directly oppose your theory, unless their alignement will be adjusted.

in d&d 3.5 absolute neutral (as in neutral neutral) meant people just want everything to stay the way it is - which once again opposes ac and the world turning hell. they just dont have the ambition to side with a choice (until things get real awkward)

As Opera said, Ethical Alignments don't influence the rise of the AC.

Lawful/Chaotic has nothing to do with 'actively rising the AC'.

However, it would have something to do with how the AC affects you, if we implement my suggestions; Lawful/Chaotic civs would have it spread to them at different rates.

Here's a good idea:

We all know the AI sckks when we talk about battling and keeping hero's alive. (They of course excel at economy, in most cases).
Making a good battle AI is very hard, and it is impossible for an AI match a competent player in the field.

But there's also "challenge" option when you create your custom game, and then I had an idea: Why not add another "challenge" button that gives the AI a free and steady amount of units when at war?. I'm not talking about let the AI get free SoD, but to give them 5 Axeman (or Champions/warriors, depending on the tech) every 10 or 15 turns. Something like the "Art of defense" Bts scenario.
However, of course, those units should be applied when they're facing a war against a Human (otherwise, AI-vs-AI wars could last forever) and should be used against human (Is a challenge option, right?).
The main goal should be to give the AI more advantage in term of battling with more units. That's all.

I hope someone like this.

I'd prefer to make the AI more intelligent (something actively being done) than allow it to cheat more.

 

[odalrick]

On the topic of hell terrain spread:

Have you considered making it spread slower through +good +lawful lands? As opposed to the current model of the same rate for everybody only some are immune longer.

 

[Valkrionn]

On the topic of hell terrain spread:

Have you considered making it spread slower through +good +lawful lands? As opposed to the current model of the same rate for everybody only some are immune longer.

Something Till suggested in the Wild Mana forums (was a thread about Hell there, started same day as the discussion here; I posted in both) was rather than have hard caps on WHEN Hell is able to spread into territory, have modifiers for how fast it does.

Rather than Hell spreading into Good at 70 and Evil at 30, have it spread into everything. Just have it spread into Evil twice as fast.

Basically, you'd have X% chance for terrains near hell to have their plot counter increased. It has to be increased 10 times for it to become hell. X would depend on the player's alignment, and the current AC; Aim to get it to 100% by the values I listed in my post on it (30/50/70, weighted by Ethical Alignment). When it passes 100, you run a second (third/fourth/etc) check for an extra point of increase... So once it hits the minimum, it WILL spread at the current rate, but if it passes that, it can spread faster and faster.

 

[azzedar]

As Opera said, Ethical Alignments don't influence the rise of the AC.

you misunderstood. i meant it about a general trend, which ethical alignements would prefer which way to handle armageddon. lore-wise.

 

[Viatos]

you misunderstood. i meant it about a general trend, which ethical alignements would prefer which way to handle armageddon. lore-wise.

Guide for alignments I use for tabletop roleplay.

Lawful: In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system...
Neutral: In a logical and balanced way...
Chaotic: By whatever means necessary...

Good: ...improve the situations of innocents and decent people.
Neutral: ...maintain balance and justice.
Evil: ...increase your own power and improve your situation.

To actively want to destroy the world, you have to be nuts, regardless of your alignment. Remember that very few people would describe themselves as evil - they might use words like "unrestrained" or "enlightened", but villainy for the sake of villainy is a quality of the madhouse rather then most actual villains. Evil is about choosing to do what you want without consideration for other people, when what you want happens to coincide with causing pain and suffering.

While sadism of various strains can serve as an "Evil" motivation, the Armageddon serves only one end. Actually supporting total oblivion requires some cognitive acrobatics, either a fervency of faith or a chain of reason that stopped being reasonable forty links ago. By the time you've embraced either option completely, you've generally flipped and tumbled well out of the territory a majority would refer to as "sane".

 

[Valkrionn]

Agreed. It is exactly for that reason that I insist that, aside from the Sheaim, Armageddon is a CONSEQUENCE of your actions, not a BENEFIT of them. No action should be taken just to lead to armageddon.

 

[azzedar]

Lawful: In accordance with the strictures of a higher power or system...
Neutral: In a logical and balanced way...
Chaotic: By whatever means necessary...

Good: ...improve the situations of innocents and decent people.
Neutral: ...maintain balance and justice.
Evil: ...increase your own power and improve your situation.

pretty much the d&d definition, told that people several times myself
i agree about that sanity part. the 'usual' sadist would enjoy the burning cities, the tortured citizens and the fires raining down the sky, but soon or later he would realize that there will nothing left soon.

btw. theres one thing that wonders me now - the sheaim want to undo creation, want to make the world end.
while classic 'demons' are more likely to want the world turned into an eternal realm of torture

what kind of demons are the ffh infernals? what about ceridwen? eternal torture or the long-desired destruction of everything that is? i always thought the latter, but i just cant imagine hybo and his fellows port to erebus just to help smashing everything so that a few minutes later everything shatters anyway?

 

[Viatos]

what kind of demons are the ffh infernals? what about ceridwen? eternal torture or the long-desired destruction of everything that is? i always thought the latter, but i just cant imagine hybo and his fellows port to erebus just to help smashing everything so that a few minutes later everything shatters anyway?

Hyborem is Agares' archangel. Agares wants to undo Creation because he's got daddy issues, and if he can't have the best toys, then nobody else is going to have any toys at all. It's all about ruining it for the other Gods and spitting in the eyes of the One.

Ceridwen really wants to kill the One. She wants his secrets. It is literally driving her mad that she can't have them. Erebus is not her concern. Infinite knowledge and power is.

 

[Valkrionn]

Hmm.... May be a new twist on the whole Ceridwen vs the One thing, but I can't mention it yet.