I have one big question bfore I download this. Is it a modpack that can be played without a preset scenario? Random maps and so forth?
[MOD] Fall from Heaven II
- Thread starter Kael
- Start date
Jean Elcard
The Flavournator
Nikis-Knight
Deity
You would need to replay the first scenario, Fall of Cuantine, and make a different choice at the end.
Does the .exe file require a certain program to start installation? when i try to use it, all it does is ask if i want to select a program to open the file.
Kael
Deity
Sounds like its not an .exe. Make sure that their is a .exe extension on the file. That is all windows needs to realize the file is an executable and not a data file.
Well i had to move the program by jump drive from one computer to the other because of a lack of internet. Could that cause a change? The download site said it was a .exe, but you're right, the computers are seeing that download as a file.
Nevermind, got it sorted out. Thanks for the help.
thx again kael for your hard work and effort, especially nr. 18 is nice.
also, short question: for which time (about) is the new version planned? february or march? and what will be the main focus on this?
WaKKO151
Chieftain
I have played all these mods exstensivly. If its able to download I have played it. Bugs, CTDs, OOs. It doesn't matter. I play it. I play Civ4. Thats what i do.
Bottom line, and the point here is that Fall from Heaven 2: Fall Further Expansion is Better then the original game it was built on.They built the game based on one major idea. Replayability. And they did an OUTSTANDING job. Without Kael and his team I would have stopped playing Civ4 after the first month long campaign on huge conquest was done.
Now I can enjoy a game that is fundementally different everytime I play it.
Bottom line, and the point here is that Fall from Heaven 2: Fall Further Expansion is Better then the original game it was built on.They built the game based on one major idea. Replayability. And they did an OUTSTANDING job. Without Kael and his team I would have stopped playing Civ4 after the first month long campaign on huge conquest was done.
Now I can enjoy a game that is fundementally different everytime I play it.
OK, first off I'm living in the past. While everyone else is enjoying the latest, greatest from Kael and company (scenarios and everything!!!), I'm stuck back at the .31 level due to a lack of an Internet connection (except at work! Please don't ask why...). Anyway, not knowing when I might get Internet back and wanting to try some "mods" on my own (being a programmer myself), I tried to do a few things at the .31 version and have some questions that hopefully someone (?) can answer. I would have posted this to the main Civ 4 thread, but I'm fairly certain that these are specific to custom FfH logic.
1. I've always been a fan of pikemen and their ability against mounted units so I decided to try adding them back in from the .25 version (changing the "xml" as necessary for new or changed tags). Everything works OK BUT the art work. When I look at the "art" definition, I see something like the path "/Art/Units/Civs/Malakim/...." (probably not exactly right) so I figured that this directory would be SOMEWHERE on my computer. BUT... even after a full search of my entire drive (I even went into the registry and tried a search) I find no such animal. I know it works since the art is there when I go into the .25 version and the .31 version has similiar paths in the civilization art style xml. So... How does this work? Is it some kind of packed or zipped file? If so is there some way to extract the art work for pikemen?
2. My wife is a big fan of Cassiel (she thinks he's cool looking) and the Grigori civilization (she really likes their world spell). BUT -- she hates the fact that they cannot have a religion. So, being too smart for my own good, I told her that I could fix it. I went into the "Cassiel" leader profile and removed the "Agnostic" trait and went into the "Grigori" civ profile and gave them the ability to construct temples. Well, this permitted them to research (and found!) religions and gave them the ability to build temples. But... when my wife tried to adopt a religion for the Grigori lo and behold she was blocked from doing so. What is the setting that controls this? I looked over both the leader and civ "infos" xml and couldn't spot anything that really looked like such a control.
3. OK... I'm a big fan of shadowriders and their ability to play havoc on other civs (along with gaining experience points in preparation for later war). But I have a problem with a "fat mouse". I keep accidentally clicking on the "declare nationality" button instead of picking a new promotion -- like an idiot I know. But, seeing as Shadows can both "declare" and "undeclare" nationality, I figured that I could provide the same capability to shadowriders. But... After looking at both the shadow and shadowrider xmls till I'm "blue in the face" and setting controls where I thought necessary, I still can't get the shadowriders to "undeclare" nationality. Does anyone know what setting controls this?
Thanks in advance for any advice that can be provided and my apologies for such a lengthy note.
1. I've always been a fan of pikemen and their ability against mounted units so I decided to try adding them back in from the .25 version (changing the "xml" as necessary for new or changed tags). Everything works OK BUT the art work. When I look at the "art" definition, I see something like the path "/Art/Units/Civs/Malakim/...." (probably not exactly right) so I figured that this directory would be SOMEWHERE on my computer. BUT... even after a full search of my entire drive (I even went into the registry and tried a search) I find no such animal. I know it works since the art is there when I go into the .25 version and the .31 version has similiar paths in the civilization art style xml. So... How does this work? Is it some kind of packed or zipped file? If so is there some way to extract the art work for pikemen?
2. My wife is a big fan of Cassiel (she thinks he's cool looking) and the Grigori civilization (she really likes their world spell). BUT -- she hates the fact that they cannot have a religion. So, being too smart for my own good, I told her that I could fix it. I went into the "Cassiel" leader profile and removed the "Agnostic" trait and went into the "Grigori" civ profile and gave them the ability to construct temples. Well, this permitted them to research (and found!) religions and gave them the ability to build temples. But... when my wife tried to adopt a religion for the Grigori lo and behold she was blocked from doing so. What is the setting that controls this? I looked over both the leader and civ "infos" xml and couldn't spot anything that really looked like such a control.
3. OK... I'm a big fan of shadowriders and their ability to play havoc on other civs (along with gaining experience points in preparation for later war). But I have a problem with a "fat mouse". I keep accidentally clicking on the "declare nationality" button instead of picking a new promotion -- like an idiot I know. But, seeing as Shadows can both "declare" and "undeclare" nationality, I figured that I could provide the same capability to shadowriders. But... After looking at both the shadow and shadowrider xmls till I'm "blue in the face" and setting controls where I thought necessary, I still can't get the shadowriders to "undeclare" nationality. Does anyone know what setting controls this?
Thanks in advance for any advice that can be provided and my apologies for such a lengthy note.
Asthix
Prognosticator
They mean the combat logic was changed. (don't know if that's really the case though, I wasn'tplaying the mod back then)
Congratulations on the unit strategy text! So few mods ever get to the point where it's added. It really matters to me.
Very impressive Calabim city set C.Roland. Way to go!
Already did that and it doesn't work.
I'm repeating the same thing over and over, but I think it is a very bad idea to tie the ability to play a scenario to having played other ones before. Particularly when here it's not straightforward to just use a Play Scenario/Open Worldbuilder workaround.
Kael
Deity
Why? Having chained scenarios (one must be completed before you can go on to the next one) is a pretty standard convention of role playing games, rts games, fps games, just about every game that offers chained scenarios. Do you disagree with those as well?
Or Tv-Series (they might not require you to watch every episode, or in order, but the story is usually in a specific order), Chapters in a Book (you don't read chapter 3 before chapter 1 do you?), etc. Ok, it's not the same thing. But Kael's example above is the same thing, and I love campaigns in RTS for example. (often play them multiple times too).
Not when it serves a purpose.
You just said:
which means it's common, it doesn't mean it's a good idea, a must have or that it is always well implemented.
For a RPG, it makes sense as you need to get to a higher level in order to be able to continue. So it's not so much a series of games as a single campaign. But even then, you didn't have to complete Baldur's Gate I before you could play Baldur's Gate II.
For rts, I don't play these much, but I dislike such chained campaigns because if I'm unable to beat a given scenario, then all the rest of the game is unplayable. A big difference with rpg's is that there is little or nothing that you carry on to the next scenario in the few rts I played.
I neither like nor play fps so can't say for these.
You didn't quote sports game, but sports management games have this feature and it rocks.
Now there ARE games that offer chained scenarios, for which it makes sense, like Fantasy General or Battle for Wesnoth, and to some extent some of the Disciples series. But in these, as for rpg's, it is pretty clear why you want to chain them: Units you had in the previous scenario are retained in the next one, so having experienced troops, maximising gold, avoiding losses, are important goals of the previous scenario. You just wouldn't play the game in the same way if there was no scenario afterwards (a Pyrrhic victory meaning you'll have very few troops in the next scenario).
It's also interesting in sports management games (Football Manager, Pro rugby manager or whatever the title was...) where reaching a final requires you to have won many matches in the championship.
Note that in the games I think chained scenarios fit well, there is little or no difference in nature between the final stage and the previous one. It's just harder.
My problem with the chained Scenarios in FfH is that they are chained for storytelling reasons, not for gameplay reasons. I mean that there is zero reward for finishing the previous scenario, or none that is clearly announced, documented and understandable. From my point of view, there is a Black Tower scenario that I find boring. I would have to go through it in order to play the next one which I may find fun. What is the point of me spending hours playing something I don't like before I can play another scenario?
On the other hand, if you retain assets (and I mean the plural) from a previous scenario in the next one, then it makes sense. If you can only retain one asset (say one unit), it's hardly worth it as you could achieve the same result without playing by just picking an option. Which means I don't like Disciples as much as Wesnoth because you kept only a few units and items from one stage to the next. And I think Fantasy General was good because the army management part was at least as important as each skirmish. In FFH, you don't offer anything in between.
So to me chained scenarios are a good thing if there is a strong focus of the game is the strategic campaign around the chained scenarios (managing your team/army) and if the final event in the chain is of the same kind as the previous stages, except harder.
In FfH, there is zero stuff to manage outside of each game, and the Civ engine doesn't provide anything for strategic campaigns outside one scenario (unless you dig the Civ2 Spartakus scenario, where you kept your units but changed the rules mid-game). You're just unlockng scenarios which could perfectly well be played without playing the previous ones. It's a negative way of chaining scenarios, whereas Wesnoth or The Manager provides you with units for the next scenario or football match.
I don't want to sound harsh, and I'm sorry if I do. I think the scenarios are a great idea and most of them are fun. I think that the idea of achieving one scenario to give bonuses to the others is nice (like the barbarians one). But I feel the unlocking system doesn't add any value except to tell a tale, and frankly there are books for that.
I believe that if you saved the map of scenario1 at one stage and then browsed the units you had in the previous game and reloaded them on a new, bigger or different map, then you would have real chained scenarios. To make interesting chaining scenarios, I think you have to keep stuff from one stage to the next, stuff that matters, that is hard to get or recreate from scratch, and that you will have available right at the beginning of the next scenario. Stuff that you got a liking for, that you developped empathy/attachment for (my English is lacking here, sorry), like an experienced unit you renamed that survived that fight against Orthus, or that sword of sharpness you found after defeating the lich or that player who never missed a penalty. Not something abstract, but something concrete that you can see (maybe not use) right from the start, and which lets you understand that the previous scenario was worth playing.
In Battle for Wesnoth, I often replay a scenario in order to have more good units at the next stage. In FfH, there is no reason to replay a scenario, except once to do everything the same but click the other option in a popup.
Sorry for the long rant.
Kael
Deity
No stress, I did ask the question after all. At least I understand your position, though i respectfully disagree. There is a whole range of reasons why games chain scenarios outside of unit upgrades. Consider a game of Breakout, scenarios in Grand Theft Auto IV, missions in Metal Gear Solid, levels in Little Big Planet. And on and on.
For many unlocking the next challenge is the reward. And although I understand that this does run the risk of forcing the player to slog through bad places to get to later ones he would enjoy more (I have my own collection of games I really like but Ive just stopped playing because I cant bear one part or another). But I still think the pros outweigh the cons.
But part of the reason we offer multiple chains and scenarios without requirements is to try to find a balance between these extremes. But the perfect balance between the two will be a personal preference and everyone will have to make their own call on that.
For many unlocking the next challenge is the reward. And although I understand that this does run the risk of forcing the player to slog through bad places to get to later ones he would enjoy more (I have my own collection of games I really like but Ive just stopped playing because I cant bear one part or another). But I still think the pros outweigh the cons.
But part of the reason we offer multiple chains and scenarios without requirements is to try to find a balance between these extremes. But the perfect balance between the two will be a personal preference and everyone will have to make their own call on that.
I seriously dislike having one scenario affect my strength in the next. I would constantly feel stressed about not doing well enough. And out of a designers viewpoint, how do I make sure this map is fun and balanced, and not too easy and not too hard when the player might come to this map with 10 units and 200 gold, or 100 units and 5000 gold. How do I entice the player to continue? Do I want to force the player to replay from the first scenario just cause he noticed that what he now have on map 5 isn't enough?
That's fine. My biggest gripe here is that, even replaying the scenario, I'm still unable to play the Malakim version of Into the Desert. I can always hack my way through the rest if I want.
I can understand this too. However, to me games have to have replay value, and so doing better the next time is almost a must for me to play a game, unless the game provides alternatives for flavor (much like ffH2 does with its varied civs).
Games that use such systems have several ways of achieving this: Some games make the levels tougher if you are tougher (f.e. in the old NetHack game, the level of monsters is half your level + the dungeon level, so the stronger you are, the stronger the monsters). In Fantasy General, there's only so much gold you can have, and losing any unit you can't immediately replace is almost always proof of bad play. Some games limit the number of units/item you can keep with you for the next scenario. In Wesnoth, you can recall units but need to pay for them, so they don't come for free. Furthermore, you retain only a portion of the gold you had. This game does sometimes force you to replay the previous scenario to get more units, but I think the farthest back I ever got was than 2 scenarios out of a dozen, in one of the 5 or more campaigns I played. So it's possible to have mechanisms that balance the game. Note this is the very same problem as being unable to beat a level/scenario, or being unable to get past a certain point in the game. Also consider that Civ is definitely unbalanced based on sheer luck when you pop 3 techs out of goody huts early in the game vs. getting attacked by 3 barbs, and this is actually harder to balance. Play an MP game against someone who pops bronze working early on when you just uncover a map of the ocean...
Kael
Deity
Incidently we do actually keep some resources between scenarios. We allow Lucian to keep a portion of his xp (if you kept him alive), up to a maximum amount, through the Auric scenarios.
But we don't do it often for the reasons Grey Wolf described. But there isn't a technical problem with allowing the player to retain units or between scenarios. I thought about dramatically slowing research growth between the scenarios, putting a turn limit on each and then always carry over techs that were researched. Bu in the end it made the game less fun (because I had to drop the amount of luck/earned stuff in each scenario because of balance concerns in later scenarios) and would have required a ton of balance work.
So its a design decision more than a technical one.
But we don't do it often for the reasons Grey Wolf described. But there isn't a technical problem with allowing the player to retain units or between scenarios. I thought about dramatically slowing research growth between the scenarios, putting a turn limit on each and then always carry over techs that were researched. Bu in the end it made the game less fun (because I had to drop the amount of luck/earned stuff in each scenario because of balance concerns in later scenarios) and would have required a ton of balance work.
So its a design decision more than a technical one.
