I've been playing FFH2 for almost a decade but only recently installed the more naval AI mod. I really like the improved HUB and AI intelligence. However, why would anybody play with the Revolutions option activated? It basically makes the conquering of cities impossible. You take a city, it loses basically all the buildings, you think to yourself.... "oh well, it saves me a settler, ill just build it back up." WRONG! the city will be in riots and revolutions for the rest of the game. not only that, but troops will randomly spawn and take your workers, pillage your improvements, and attack your units. You're much better off just razing every city you take and sending out settlers with your attacking troops. Yeah, maybe it makes the game more realistic, but I'm playing a fantasy game and throwing fireballs.
More Naval AI complaint
- Thread starter DarkxL0rd
- Start date
black_imperator
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,014
It would probably be better in the MNAI subforum.^^
Anyway, for the issue itself, revolutions has been known as an interesting module but notoriously difficult to balance, whether in MNAI or other mods that use it. I'd tend to imagine that it's even more visible in ffh due to the fact that evil play can be a rewarding play.
Anyway, for the issue itself, revolutions has been known as an interesting module but notoriously difficult to balance, whether in MNAI or other mods that use it. I'd tend to imagine that it's even more visible in ffh due to the fact that evil play can be a rewarding play.
I think that more people check the modmod subforums than the main one nowadays. In recent development versions of More Naval AI, Revolutions has been marked as an experimental feature: https://bitbucket.org/Tholal/more-naval-ai/commits/8302bd1163b77b9befa7587d4d5533f2f44dff8f
That's why it's an option. It's not required to play.
The basic idea behind the Revolutions concept is that civs will rise and fall throughout the game and the player will have some options for switching civs (taking control of the rebels for instance). The civ switching doesn't always work though. And this game option also doesn't always jive well with trying to 'win' the game. It certainly is not balanced in any meaningful way and I included it because I thought it was interesting, thought others might find it interesting, and to also provide a new avenue for modders (some cool scenarios could be built using the Revolutions mechanics).
The basic idea behind the Revolutions concept is that civs will rise and fall throughout the game and the player will have some options for switching civs (taking control of the rebels for instance). The civ switching doesn't always work though. And this game option also doesn't always jive well with trying to 'win' the game. It certainly is not balanced in any meaningful way and I included it because I thought it was interesting, thought others might find it interesting, and to also provide a new avenue for modders (some cool scenarios could be built using the Revolutions mechanics).
I do realize it's an option. I was just commenting that I'm not sure the purpose it serves if it is always a negative outcome when selecting it. It's like hamstringing yourself at the outset. But I guess some people like the challenge of never being able to conquer anything. I thought it would be cool to change a bit so that after 1-2 revolutions, the dissidents have been put down and the city goes along quietly with the empire.... but that's not the case. 80 turns later, the city is still in shambles, unable to produce anything but pain for your empire.
I appreciate the continued responses. I will let you know that I did do all the things to help with instability, i changed civics, left only my religion in it, filled it up with troops. it never really did much except make the dissidents spawn outside the city rather than inside. Also, since its in revolution most of the time, and destroys buildings every time it revolts, building instability-cancelling structures is impossible unless you're feeding it great engineers to insta-finish them. not to mention that if you made peace with who you conquered it from, rejecting terms with the city will sometimes throw you back into war with the civ. I'm not trying to be-labor the point, I'm just letting you know it's always a bad option to select it if you're even THINKING of going for a conquest victory condition.
Hey Tholai,
I like the revolutions feature very much, but it could use a bit balancing, and, above all, transparency.
My suggestions:
1) You could tie revolution chance to city happiness. Conquered/culturally different cities, instead of straight extra revolt chance, should simply have extra unhappiness, scaled with population. That way it would be clearer to player why and how much unhappy people in city are, and how to counter it.
2) There should be more ways to improve stability. Dungeon, for example, should reduce revolts more, and especially culture revolt, for example. Military garrison should probably have order of magnitude stronger effect. If I hold my entire army, capable of conquering entire civ, in a single city, that city should be pretty stable.
3) There could be other things, in addition to bribes, that reduce revolt risk directly. Let's say, Martial Law (reduces population and production, but reduces revolt risk) or Grant Local Autonomy (reduces gold and culture output, but also revolt risk)
4) You could check out History Rewritten mod, which also features revolutions, but the interface is much clearer about what causes them, when will they happen etc.
5) In History Rewritten, Golden Ages swiftly reduce revolt risk, and after golden age ends, it takes a while for revolt risk to increase again. Something to think about.
Thank you very much for your work on FfH! I still play it, often in LAN with friends, and it's awesome!
I like the revolutions feature very much, but it could use a bit balancing, and, above all, transparency.
My suggestions:
1) You could tie revolution chance to city happiness. Conquered/culturally different cities, instead of straight extra revolt chance, should simply have extra unhappiness, scaled with population. That way it would be clearer to player why and how much unhappy people in city are, and how to counter it.
2) There should be more ways to improve stability. Dungeon, for example, should reduce revolts more, and especially culture revolt, for example. Military garrison should probably have order of magnitude stronger effect. If I hold my entire army, capable of conquering entire civ, in a single city, that city should be pretty stable.
3) There could be other things, in addition to bribes, that reduce revolt risk directly. Let's say, Martial Law (reduces population and production, but reduces revolt risk) or Grant Local Autonomy (reduces gold and culture output, but also revolt risk)
4) You could check out History Rewritten mod, which also features revolutions, but the interface is much clearer about what causes them, when will they happen etc.
5) In History Rewritten, Golden Ages swiftly reduce revolt risk, and after golden age ends, it takes a while for revolt risk to increase again. Something to think about.
Thank you very much for your work on FfH! I still play it, often in LAN with friends, and it's awesome!
