Is less more?

[far_wanderer]

In general, I am vastly more in favor of improvements and replacements than I am additions. FF is nearing my threshold of comfortable complexity. That said, it's not there yet, so I'm really only concerned about the future given the growing trend of "make every civilization super-unique". About all I would want changed currently (outside of the magic system, which I'm working on myself) is:
-simplify the Scions (which I have ideas for)
-simplify the Jotnar a little (which I don't have ideas for)
-get rid of swamps
-organize all of the various convoluted "not-technically-Agnostic" mechanics into actual religions.
-either remove corporations or improve them to be worth the added complexity.

 

[Webrider]

If you want to cut stuff go back to ffh, I like all the additions. I can't play vinilla ffh anymore, it annoys me to have to. When I couldn't get 51 go connect on my old 32 bit vista with several uninstalls and reinstalls all the way back to taking CIV 4 completly off my computer and reinstalling from scratch all the way up to ff and patch B. It still wouldnt play. It would connect fine but do a rendering error or something, can't remember exactly. I built a new computer so we could play multiplayer. BTW Civ 4 is meant for a 64 bit system with lots of memory. I thought my old 32 bit 3.2 core 2 was enough this I7 with vista 64 puts it to shame.

Add more stuff to ff as long as it doesn't cause OOS crashes.

One thing I wish was possible would be a check mark to eliminate a race from possible choices of random for human or AI. I like to get a random race except a few I don't like to play as much. I wouldn't eliminate any from the game, I might like to give them a try sometime. I personally don't like the city limitation of the Kuriotates... and btw should maybe be in the bug thread I played them yesterday .. got them on random selection and I couldn't build any units or buildings... We had to restart.

More is definatly better if I get to vote. It makes for a much more random start.

 

[Valkrionn]

There is already a gameoption to limit random civs. Should be near the bottom... Click it, and it brings up a menu to select them. Also, Kuriotate cities in multiplayer start as settlements... Prevents OOS's. Your units have a spell to promote them.

 

[WarKirby]

I think the civ limiting option doesn't work in multiplayer. The tooltip says it causes OOS issues

 

[Valkrionn]

Did not know that... Don't play multiplayer.

 

[Dave Lawson]

I'm tempted to agree with both sides on this. Is there stuff in the game that is unecessary? Hell yes. Is that cool? Well also yes.

My concern is that too much content has been added without effectively integrating it into the AI. I'd be all for restricting some content and polishing off the remainder such that the AI is more competetive.

If you play primarily multiplayer, though, I think the more the merrier.

 

[far_wanderer]

I had a recent insight into this topic, which is that there is a significant difference between adding new things and adding new categories for things.
For example, I currently have to make the choice (with most civs) about which religion I will follow. Adding a new religion makes that choice slightly more complex, but it's still one choice. In contrast, adding the commander system to the game added an entirely new choice.
I think that distinction is important.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Stacks. I think stacks need to be cut down in size.

Fewer massive armies means more turns of fun warfare and less hours of 'build x stacks of YY doom'.

 

[civ_king]

Mazatl+Cualli can be 'merged' have leaders from both sides but Mazatl stuff can only happen with good alignment and Cualli is bad it works in Orbis

 

[Valkrionn]

That's something I REALLY dislike in Orbis, personally. I like having both in game, and would much rather make them more unique than merge them.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

agreed, I like both lizard civs

 

[TC01]

Personally, instead of cutting stuff (which I'm against), I think that the best way to reduce content would be to eventually drop many FF features into modules, allowing more control over what we have in each individual game. Then someone could download a "Fall Further Base" and then download modules from here to add to it.

I would probably play with most of those modules enabled, though, so I don't care if that happens or not. But I think that would be the best way to "cut" content without actually getting rid of it.

 

[far_wanderer]

That's something I REALLY dislike in Orbis, personally. I like having both in game, and would much rather make them more unique than merge them.

You do know it's possible to have more than one leader of the same civ in a single game, right?

 

[Valkrionn]

You do know it's possible to have more than one leader of the same civ in a single game, right?

Of course. Rather hard to do when you prefer to leave AI civs on random though.

I suppose I should correct my previous post: It's not having both in game that I care about, but the POTENTIAL to have them both in game. Every game I play has random enemies, at most limited by alignment.

Besides, by the same argument why not combine the Khazad/Luchuirp? They'd be Neutral/Good. Or Ljos/Svarts, as good/evil... Or even Bannor/Clan.

 

[far_wanderer]

Of course. Rather hard to do when you prefer to leave AI civs on random though.

I suppose I should correct my previous post: It's not having both in game that I care about, but the POTENTIAL to have them both in game. Every game I play has random enemies, at most limited by alignment.

Besides, by the same argument why not combine the Khazad/Luchuirp? They'd be Neutral/Good. Or Ljos/Svarts, as good/evil... Or even Bannor/Clan.

Exactly what argument are you assuming by the phrase "same argument"? Because it certainly doesn't match mine. My reasoning for the Cualli and Mazatl being combined is predicated on them also ceasing to be agnostic and gaining unique variations of currently existing religions. If that happened, the remaining differences would be:

• World spell (their world spells need work anyway)
• Hero (the Scions already have a different hero for each leader)
• Palace mana

Palace mana is the only actual obstacle, and frankly we could use a few more civ's that do something unusual with their palace.

That's why they could be combined. As to why I think they should, it's because they are both agnostic and have a unique terrain type. Both of these things detract from the game and so I like to see them trimmed whenever possible. Agnostic civs mean that religion won't play a diplomatic factor that game (and religions other than my own are less likely to ever even be founded), and terrain specialties mean that there will be a large chunk of land that no other AI will ever use. When those things happen occasionally, it adds flavor to the game. When they happen at least once a game it spoils it. For me as well, the motivating factor is wanting to use random civs.
The Ljosalfar and Svartalfar do fall mostly into the same argument (although I would exempt them because I wouldn't want all of that art to go to waste and the AI knows how to handle forests), but your other two examples do not in the slightest.

 

[Iceciro]

See, far wanderer, it sounds like the key problem is that you don't like the agnostic or terrain changes >_> not that there's a good reason to combine them. I don't feel agnostic civs detract from the game one bit, and I like the way some civs change the terrain to make it their own.

I think the only reason people champion combining the Mazatl and Cualli is that the Cualli are weak on uniqueness. The Mazatl aren't though, so that's more of a localized problem.

 

[far_wanderer]

See, far wanderer, it sounds like the key problem is that you don't like the agnostic or terrain changes >_> not that there's a good reason to combine them. I don't feel agnostic civs detract from the game one bit, and I like the way some civs change the terrain to make it their own.

I think the only reason people champion combining the Mazatl and Cualli is that the Cualli are weak on uniqueness. The Mazatl aren't though, so that's more of a localized problem.

Actually, it's that I don't like agnostic civs or civ-specific terrains and therefore I have good reason to want them combined. I thought I was fairly clear on that.
I also want to be clear that I am not against the concept of agnostic civs or civ-specific terrains entirely, I simply think there are far too many of them and a Mazatl/Cualli merge would cut down on their appearance without removing any actual content.

As to the Cualli lacking uniqueness, the fact that you and I consider that an accurate statement is yet another reason why they should be merged. They have a unique road, a completely unique art style, a unique way of handling their hero, a unique tech, a unique improvement, a unique civic, a unique leader trait, a unique "religion", and a pseudo-unique terrain feature. The only reason they aren't considered one of the most unique civilizations in the game is because another civ is using all of their tricks. The fact that two of the four most unique civs in the game need further complexity to differentiate them from each other is a sign.

I would be perfectly fine with some civs reshaping the land provided that 1) the AI understood terraforming, so formerly occupied lands would actually get used, and 2) they didn't all look the same. It's very boring to wander into lizardman territory and see that every tile has become Marsh/Swamp/Jungle. The Scion's purple hazed plains are no better. The Illians at least punctuate things with some occasional trees and a diversity of improvements.

Agnostic civ's I'm not okay with, however. Agnostic means several things, each of which by itself detracts from my games a lot.

1. The odds of an AI founding a religion in this game just went down even further.
2. This civ will not care what my religion is. They will not like me if I agree with them or dislike me if I don't.
3. There are at least six fewer ways to play this civ. One of the big claims of FFH2 is that every civ plays differently under every religion. Agnostic civs can't do that, unless something else is added they only play one way.
4. This civ will never change alignment. See 2 and 3.

Now, I can understand that it's a lot of work to create a new religion, so I'm accepting of Agnostic as a placeholder, but it's not a substitute. The reason this irritates me so much more with the Mazatl and Cualli is that they already follow existing religions under different names. They don't need new religions, they just need their current unique units and buildings to replace existing religious ones.

 

[Iceciro]

Out of curiosity, how many AIs do you have in a game? I've never had an issue with the AIs founding religions, though... I got beat to Order in my last game (admittedly I pushed it back a little, but still.)

I tend to get at least the Grigori/Cualli/Mazatl each game, though. (I've disabled the Illians because their worldspell irritates me to no end.)

 

[stupidnewbie]

(I've disabled the Illians because their worldspell irritates me to no end.)

Oddly enough, I haven't seen the Illians cast stasis in quite some time. I'll look into it.

Edit: Oh I get it, they have to have five or more cities to want to cast it.

 

[Jabie]

I think the only reason people champion combining the Mazatl and Cualli is that the Cualli are weak on uniqueness. The Mazatl aren't though, so that's more of a localized problem.

The Lore could be slightly reworked to make the Mazatl / Cualli an internal struggle, mirroring the external struggle being played out by the Bannor / Clan. Two dominant philosphies and only one can win.

For an added complication add a Neutral lizardman Leader who finally switches alignment on research of Ways of the Wise / Wicked (and can't be traded those techs)... Which way is he going to swing - Will you have a potent in your war against Armageddon or a dangerous adversary on your borders?