On Being a Bad Ruler

[Qthzandra]

On City States-

I've had at least one experience very, very similar to the initial post about being a bad ruler. I lost three Grigori heroes, including a Branding that had managed to survive raging barbs as a scout->hunter and had managed to be the last unit of mine remaining during Orhus' romp that destroyed two other civs on my continent. After getting the axe, he seemed pretty much unstoppable, except by my own mismanagement...which was primarily due to trying to control enough of the continent so that the barbs wouldn't spawn any more. It was very deflating to overexpand and suffer the consequences after this initial success and to lose him especially. I think I quit play FfH for at least 24 hours after that...

Now that I have totally digressed...I also don't think City States should have any culture penalty.

From the Wikipedia:
Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behaviour and systems of belief.

So I would venture to say that City States would be part of the culture rather than a detriment.

I would propose that to properly model the city states of the Greeks, the best example of a problem would be with troops from different cities not working together on the battle field. Perhaps a negative modifier would be in order when troops from separate cities are stacked, the greater number of units from different cities, the bigger the modifier. This would model the squabbling, the powerplays, the slight differences in tactics from not training in a uniform fashion, all the wonderful things that come from independence.

 

[vorshlumpf]

I had another idea of how one might rue the day.

...

This stinks. Frankly. Revolutions are bloody, dangerous, and generally cause for so much alarm that people resist them at every opportunity. (Save for those doing the revolutionizing.)

...

I really like this kind of thinking, but I doubt many people would agree. Therefor I feel it is something that will only be implemented as a mod (to this mod, yes), if at all.

- Niilo

 

[vorshlumpf]

Hmm, how about a penalty to workers for City States? (after reading Qthzandra's post) Squabbling over what gets done could result in it taking longer to build improvements. Does any other civic do this already? I don't think so.

- Niilo

 

[QES]

Hmm, how about a penalty to workers for City States? (after reading Qthzandra's post) Squabbling over what gets done could result in it taking longer to build improvements. Does any other civic do this already? I don't think so.

- Niilo

Unless its a particularly and genuinely unique concept entirely, i think it'd be best to stick to the "civic" format that is currently in operation, bonuses and peanlties for different behavior. I personally would love getting into whole new mechanics, but in the fear of suggesting programing i wouldnt know how to do, I'm still an advocate of figuring out what city-states could be NOW, and then advocating whole new design schema.

-Qes

 

[Xuenay]

Unless its a particularly and genuinely unique concept entirely, i think it'd be best to stick to the "civic" format that is currently in operation, bonuses and peanlties for different behavior. I personally would love getting into whole new mechanics, but in the fear of suggesting programing i wouldnt know how to do, I'm still an advocate of figuring out what city-states could be NOW, and then advocating whole new design schema.

-Qes

Well, since there already is a "workers build improvements twice as fast" civic even in Vanilla, I doubt that making them work slower would require a whole new design schema.

 

[QES]

Well, since there already is a "workers build improvements twice as fast" civic even in Vanilla, I doubt that making them work slower would require a whole new design schema.

Thats very true! I do like the idea, i just hadnt remembered that little truthism. IN that case, i think it's definately something that should be considered.
-Qes

 

[Nikis-Knight]

the slower workers does seem an elegant solution. A trade off I'd make in second, but only in the right situation.

 

[QES]

the slower workers does seem an elegant solution. A trade off I'd make in second, but only in the right situation.

The slower workers solution also denotes the independant nature of cities, you wouldnt see massive public works EVERYWHERE sprawling between cities, and roads and the like, at most youll prolly see a few resources and some more productive tiles worked on, or A LOT of workers..which is still a sacrifice of other kinds. Workers in general would protest working in cities other than their own.....i like this idea.
-Qes

 

[QES]

Another thought on revolutions:

During anarchy, should not (as your own people are pillaging your lands) there be a unfortunate but somewhat likely chance that you could have your lands pillaged (if no barbarians are actively doing this) and/or some of your non-wonder buildings might get destroyed? Each city would have a chance to lose x number of non-wonder, non-ritual buildings (national buildings would still be up for loss). And in this each anarchy period would be a little more tense.
-Qes

 

[jukeboxhero]

Another thought on revolutions:

During anarchy, should not (as your own people are pillaging your lands) there be a unfortunate but somewhat likely chance that you could have your lands pillaged (if no barbarians are actively doing this) and/or some of your non-wonder buildings might get destroyed? Each city would have a chance to lose x number of non-wonder, non-ritual buildings (national buildings would still be up for loss). And in this each anarchy period would be a little more tense.
-Qes

While this may be more realistic, I think it crosses over into "annoying" rather than a good feature. I think people would be put off by having their buildings being destroyed, especially if it seems random. When it comes down to it, the idea is not to completely emulate real life, but to create something fun to play--and I think a change like this would not make it more fun.

 

[QES]

While this may be more realistic, I think it crosses over into "annoying" rather than a good feature. I think people would be put off by having their buildings being destroyed, especially if it seems random. When it comes down to it, the idea is not to completely emulate real life, but to create something fun to play--and I think a change like this would not make it more fun.

Yeah, i agree that the point is to have fun, but were not playign "Utopia" here. Part of the fun is the suffering you survive, and the thriving in the face of harsh circumstances. Now, while i understand that most people would like to just do the math, add it all up, pay the fees, and "win", I think that a goodly portion of we who play civ, like it to be realatively difficult. Hence, some of the masochistic tendencies of some players to play on emperor and the like. It bugs me slightly that revolution is merely another economic choice. Its just another variable in the grand equasion, that, if i practice enough, i'll get down to a rythm that would be nigh-unstoppable. Considering a world that acknowledges "chaos" as a power all unto its own, its a bit disturbing that there is no "natural" chaos that occurs within the limits of normal operations of a civilization. And becuase its always "during anarchy" players would still be thinking in "risk vs. reward". It should be risky to revolt, not merely because your losing your old settings and bonuses, but because during the process of something called "ANARCHY" the decision might have unforseen (and therefore a little tastier) consequences.
-Qes

 

[SchpailsMan]

You can always integrate such behaviour as an option for those who don't want it... except that I think too many options would only make the casual player run away in panic, and in this particular case I agree with jukeboxhero: that would be pretty much annoying. I already try hard not to switch civics too often because anarchy can get bad enough when your empire begins to expand, I think with such a penalty on Spiritual leaders will end up being the only ones that would afford civics swapping in the endgame.

 

[vorshlumpf]

QES, stick around when FfH2 is finished and we can start working on a realism mod for it

- Niilo

 

[QES]

QES, stick around when FfH2 is finished and we can start working on a realism mod for it

- Niilo

Alright alright! <throws hands up in air in surrender> I aquiesse. Its not even the goals of "realism" that i was after...this is fantasy after all.

Thoughts:

Spoiler :

Just the sense that its not merely a "price" im paying. IF that could be acheived through other means, then im all for it. If not well, ill live without. Also, once my little civ is up and running, there arnt really any "dark" features left. Granted i know the team is going to implement mid and late game exploration, so it doesnt feel so safe, but If one has "conquered' Or obtained some sort of ridgid boarders, and is comfy behind those boarders.......there's no threat. Your teching up, your people are happy, cities are prosperous, and your culture is booming.......not much of a "gothic" or "dark" world when everything is going grand.
My ideas were less about "conforming to realism," (though i fully admit that the flavor was realistic flavoring) and more about "maintaining the darkness and gloom of a fallen world." Some of my favorite fantasies are dark existentialist, in which our heros and characters strive and thrive in situations less than ideal. When darkness and "harsh reality" becrush our intrepid heros, and their meloncholy is felt even while doing great deeds...or dark deeds. My goals were less to complicate players lives (thought im not against this) and more for enhancing an already cleaverly designed theme for the fantasy.

I love the theme of FFH, and i want it all the more and more each time I play it. When im doing "well," and my civilization is prosperous, I just dont feel the "doom" and "Darkness" that a gothic theme is supposed to represent. ANy ideas on how to bring that back without confusing/frustrating the player?
-Qes

 

[Sureshot]

Must say i agree with ya, usually once i feel im doing "well" the challenge is gone and thats when i feel like starting a new game.

The mid and end game things that are supposed to be coming seem like they'll do the trick. More barb heroes and such would really add to it for me, maybe even giving them some replicating werewolves later on, or dragons having whelps and same for the sea serpents that are coming.

 

[Kael]

Alright alright! <throws hands up in air in surrender> I aquiesse. Its not even the goals of "realism" that i was after...this is fantasy after all.

Thoughts:

Spoiler :

Just the sense that its not merely a "price" im paying. IF that could be acheived through other means, then im all for it. If not well, ill live without. Also, once my little civ is up and running, there arnt really any "dark" features left. Granted i know the team is going to implement mid and late game exploration, so it doesnt feel so safe, but If one has "conquered' Or obtained some sort of ridgid boarders, and is comfy behind those boarders.......there's no threat. Your teching up, your people are happy, cities are prosperous, and your culture is booming.......not much of a "gothic" or "dark" world when everything is going grand.
My ideas were less about "conforming to realism," (though i fully admit that the flavor was realistic flavoring) and more about "maintaining the darkness and gloom of a fallen world." Some of my favorite fantasies are dark existentialist, in which our heros and characters strive and thrive in situations less than ideal. When darkness and "harsh reality" becrush our intrepid heros, and their meloncholy is felt even while doing great deeds...or dark deeds. My goals were less to complicate players lives (thought im not against this) and more for enhancing an already cleaverly designed theme for the fantasy.

I love the theme of FFH, and i want it all the more and more each time I play it. When im doing "well," and my civilization is prosperous, I just dont feel the "doom" and "Darkness" that a gothic theme is supposed to represent. ANy ideas on how to bring that back without confusing/frustrating the player?
-Qes

That is a good question, and a hard line to walk. On the one hand the central law of the game is that you are able to "build a better robot". You get your civilization through its infancy, choose how you will design and control it and by the time you hit the midgame your robot is yours. If you have nothing to fight with it then it runs as you built it, without problems.

There have been a few games that made it difficult just to keep control of your empire. I havent enjoyed that aspect of any of them. In my mind the civilization belongs to the player and all challenges have to come from the outside. We may have some events in "Shadow" (like the carnival escape) that come from the inside, but these will be minor and wont jepordize your empire. Just add minor risks and rewards.

I think a few things in "Fire" will help with this. The first is the Armageddon counter which will make the player a part of the changing world. If he chooses to ignore the world outside his comfortable borders he will pay a price for that.

The second is the War Script. I would like each leader to have a particular goal and a background script that watches for opportunities to push leaders into pursueing those goals. With attitudes, religions and alignments taken into account the script should force things like:

1. Varn's goal is to destory religions opposed to his own. Assuming he is following the Order he attempts to convince other Order civs to declare war as a group against weaker Overlords or Veil leaders.

2. Charadon wants to kill the worst ranked player on any map. If he has access to them and is ranked higher he decalres war.

3. Jonus waits for other civs to go to war before jumping in against whichever of the two he has best access to.

4. Sabathiel is likely to help any leader that shares his religion in a war, or in their request to start a war against someone of another religion.

etc etc.

I think it will make the leaders play more uniquely and push home the effects attitudes are supposed to do, but sometimes are agressive enough for.

 

[QES]

That is a good question, and a hard line to walk. On the one hand the central law of the game is that you are able to "build a better robot". You get your civilization through its infancy, choose how you will design and control it and by the time you hit the midgame your robot is yours. If you have nothing to fight with it then it runs as you built it, without problems.

There have been a few games that made it difficult just to keep control of your empire. I havent enjoyed that aspect of any of them. In my mind the civilization belongs to the player and all challenges have to come from the outside. We may have some events in "Shadow" (like the carnival escape) that come from the inside, but these will be minor and wont jepordize your empire. Just add minor risks and rewards.

I think a few things in "Fire" will help with this. The first is the Armageddon counter which will make the player a part of the changing world. If he chooses to ignore the world outside his comfortable borders he will pay a price for that.

The second is the War Script. I would like each leader to have a particular goal and a background script that watches for opportunities to push leaders into pursueing those goals. With attitudes, religions and alignments taken into account the script should force things like:

1. Varn's goal is to destory religions opposed to his own. Assuming he is following the Order he attempts to convince other Order civs to declare war as a group against weaker Overlords or Veil leaders.

2. Charadon wants to kill the worst ranked player on any map. If he has access to them and is ranked higher he decalres war.

3. Jonus waits for other civs to go to war before jumping in against whichever of the two he has best access to.

4. Sabathiel is likely to help any leader that shares his religion in a war, or in their request to start a war against someone of another religion.

etc etc.

I think it will make the leaders play more uniquely and push home the effects attitudes are supposed to do, but sometimes are agressive enough for.

"I'd like mine to go please"

These sound simply fantastic. But i do have a question in regards to their implementation. On paper, I love. But when we talk about inter-civ politics, we all know that some civs are more powerful, and other civs are less powerful. I appreciate the fact that each leader will "put this into consideration" before implementing their war script, but i wonder if that doesnt eventually mean "ganging up on the little guy".

If leaders have to be more or less prudent in their decision making, it would mean that generally speaking their not going to be attacking more "powerful" civs unless they think they've got the ability to do so (at which point i truly question the realative power scale). If civs dont generally attack unless some sort of success is ensured, then civs (even good ones) will be attacking down. If there was some reason for "compassion," like a civ coming to the aid of another civ losing in a war. Then perhaps there'd be some balance. But over all, it would seem like these simply AWESOME script concepts will devolve into "bashing it out" on those that cannot defend themselves. Now, with alliances and such, a lot of that is necessary to equalize the equasion. BUt ive noticed that on a large or standard map, with normal amounts of civs, that 1 or 2 civs will die, to neighbors, before all civs really get involved with each other. Before sea exploration and travel become the norm.

Now, on the "internal" problems vs "External" problems, i do agree with you, we spent time making our robot, and we dont want it to suddenly attack its master when we remember specifically telling it NOT to. So we want outside threat, understandable. But couldnt that "outside threat" be generated within the internal boarders? Through the use of barbarians? I understand that losing a city to schizm might be enough for some players to quit, but if a "large horde of barbarians" appeared, or a "Rebelious faction" appeared, there could be an incentive to A) keep well armed even in peace, and B)feel the satisfaction of putting down a (not truly threatening) revolt.

In dealing with "other civs" there are always immense consequences down the line....your robot may slowly get ******ed if you are in a constant state of war. But the occasional uprising, or revolt (through the use of barbarians) would provide a military endeavor (and enjoyment) without unhappy people (its not war), and without real threat (barbarians cannot maintain cities well enough to pose an internal threat).

Over all..........I am excited and anxiously awaiting "fire". But in general, I think that there are options that are not "a busted robot" that would be consistant in "not" angring players (very important), whilst offering something to do that disturbs the nature of "my robot is perfect and bored".
-Qes

P.s. .15 coming out soon?

 

[Kael]

"I'd like mine to go please"

These sound simply fantastic. But i do have a question in regards to their implementation. On paper, I love. But when we talk about inter-civ politics, we all know that some civs are more powerful, and other civs are less powerful. I appreciate the fact that each leader will "put this into consideration" before implementing their war script, but i wonder if that doesnt eventually mean "ganging up on the little guy".

If leaders have to be more or less prudent in their decision making, it would mean that generally speaking their not going to be attacking more "powerful" civs unless they think they've got the ability to do so (at which point i truly question the realative power scale). If civs dont generally attack unless some sort of success is ensured, then civs (even good ones) will be attacking down. If there was some reason for "compassion," like a civ coming to the aid of another civ losing in a war. Then perhaps there'd be some balance. But over all, it would seem like these simply AWESOME script concepts will devolve into "bashing it out" on those that cannot defend themselves. Now, with alliances and such, a lot of that is necessary to equalize the equasion. BUt ive noticed that on a large or standard map, with normal amounts of civs, that 1 or 2 civs will die, to neighbors, before all civs really get involved with each other. Before sea exploration and travel become the norm.

Now, on the "internal" problems vs "External" problems, i do agree with you, we spent time making our robot, and we dont want it to suddenly attack its master when we remember specifically telling it NOT to. So we want outside threat, understandable. But couldnt that "outside threat" be generated within the internal boarders? Through the use of barbarians? I understand that losing a city to schizm might be enough for some players to quit, but if a "large horde of barbarians" appeared, or a "Rebelious faction" appeared, there could be an incentive to A) keep well armed even in peace, and B)feel the satisfaction of putting down a (not truly threatening) revolt.

In dealing with "other civs" there are always immense consequences down the line....your robot may slowly get ******ed if you are in a constant state of war. But the occasional uprising, or revolt (through the use of barbarians) would provide a military endeavor (and enjoyment) without unhappy people (its not war), and without real threat (barbarians cannot maintain cities well enough to pose an internal threat).

Over all..........I am excited and anxiously awaiting "fire". But in general, I think that there are options that are not "a busted robot" that would be consistant in "not" angring players (very important), whilst offering something to do that disturbs the nature of "my robot is perfect and bored".
-Qes

P.s. .15 coming out soon?

Im not sure about 0.15 yet.

And I have no problem with some leaders that gang up on the little guy, but I definitly wouldn't want all leaders to act that way. But I do want a player following the veil and using death and entropy magic and surrounded by good ai players to realize that they will come for him. And not a random declaration of war from one of them like it is now. But a lynching from multiple ai opponents at once.

We have created leaders and alignments that would support and seek common goals together, its time they started acting like that.

Small players could survive in the shadow of larger friends. We would have to make sure that there were protective civs to equal out the aggresive ones. Sabathiel might watch all the wars and jump in to help a civ that shares his religion regardless of which side is more powerful. Perpentach may jump in on either side regardless of anything.

 

[Sureshot]

that would be nice, atm once i get high score and have proven i can invade others without any worries it just seems like a slow certain march to victory that i don't want to bother with

 

[QES]

Im not sure about 0.15 yet.

And I have no problem with some leaders that gang up on the little guy, but I definitly wouldn't want all leaders to act that way. But I do want a player following the veil and using death and entropy magic and surrounded by good ai players to realize that they will come for him. And not a random declaration of war from one of them like it is now. But a lynching from multiple ai opponents at once.

We have created leaders and alignments that would support and seek common goals together, its time they started acting like that.

Small players could survive in the shadow of larger friends. We would have to make sure that there were protective civs to equal out the aggresive ones. Sabathiel might watch all the wars and jump in to help a civ that shares his religion regardless of which side is more powerful. Perpentach may jump in on either side regardless of anything.

This is exactly what I want, but I worry about the "intended motivations" of different rulers.

For example, what is acceptable in terms of "winning" a war? For some it might be nothing less than the extermination of the other civilization (many evil civs or PLAYERS....) but in a "fantasy" genre in which compassion does have its moments, would not the "disarmerment" of a civilization be enough? If a good civ conquered and destroyed the military capabilities of a rival nation, would it not be likely that A) the squashed nation might do as the good nations asks (change civics/religion and such) and would not the good nation perhaps RETURN some conquered property (cities) as long as its conditions were met? Many "good civs" want peace...if a good civ went to war against a Neutral civ..would it not be fair to return property in exchange for a non-ploiferation and peace-bind contract?

Cuase if a "lot of little" good guys attack and defeat a really powerful evil enemy, then yes naturally it fits and the evil guy is just wiped out. But what about limited conflicts? Non-total wars? Is this possible? Is the pursuit of "limited-military-exchange" possible for good civs? And would returning lost power (territory) be acceptable in exchange for some other demands?

Just brainstorming,
-Qes