thomas.berubeg
Wandering the World
I'd like the Clan Please.
Pre-EkoNES: Fall From Heaven
- Thread starter Ekolite
- Start date
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Be warned that some civs may not be allowed for various reasons. Currently this list consist of the mercurians and infernal alone. Be warned that there will be no ''Armaggedon Counter'', and no Ascenscion of Auric. Events like tehse are not allowed for gameplay purposes.
Immaculate
unerring
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,623
edit
edit 2
edit 3
edit 4
no- definately the luchuirp... angry golem armies sound good.
orangelex44
Partisan
[sigh]... I'm with Tyrs as a maybe. I would be more than willing to join, but I can't guarantee that I'd have the time. I have no intention of trying to start only to quit almost immediately - that's neither fair nor responsible.
I never understood why no one wanted to let the angels or demons play along. They wanna have fun too!
I never understood why no one wanted to let the angels or demons play along. They wanna have fun too!
Immaculate
unerring
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,623
Will scouts be available with starting tech or will we need to 'unlock' them?
How early are espionage-enabling techs? are they a viable early game option?
When you talked about cradles and hidden maps, can you provide any further information?
How will resource control work without provinces? Just build the mine/plantation/etc where the resource is on the map? what if the resoruce covers an area? which city benefits from the resource if say the dye plantation is mid-way between two cities?
immac.
How early are espionage-enabling techs? are they a viable early game option?
When you talked about cradles and hidden maps, can you provide any further information?
How will resource control work without provinces? Just build the mine/plantation/etc where the resource is on the map? what if the resoruce covers an area? which city benefits from the resource if say the dye plantation is mid-way between two cities?
immac.
orangelex44
Partisan
Immaculate
unerring
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,623
Nice, Immac. You couldn't just pick Lanun and be done with it, could you...
I definately don't want to be stuck playing a civ that describes itself as:
"we are short, swarthy, and dark-haired. Lanun are mercenaries to the last, with no real dedication to country or creed. We are concerned only with money; love or honor are unknown among us. We have gills, we grow fish tails, and our hands are webbed like the Aifon of legend."
Nope- i'll stick to my good old svarts... i mean luchuirp. ...?
orangelex44
Partisan
That was how others described them. You obviously didn't read the whole thing:
In other words, no gills.
In other words, no gills.
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Ok, Scouts require the tech ''Reconnaisance'', which also allows for early exploration/reconnaisance missions. This is a tier 1 tech that costs 20 TP's.
The main espionage tech is ''Tracking''. This allows the Agency building which is you first source of EP's, it also allows spy units which are neccessary for some espionage missions. Tracking is a tier two tech, which means that it csts 30TP's to research.
The Map is a bit of a question mark at the moment. This NES is not feature locked and things are still subject to change. At the moment what I' doing is:
The map has no regions, the players start in a ''cradle'', which will allow for early diplomacy and avoid a player being isolated. In this situation, resources will probably have ''zones'' and all cities within this ''zone'' will be able to build resource gathering improvements. The player is going to be very limitted with city numbers in EkoNES, as there are minor towns, forts and outposts which fulfil various city effects. The main reason for this is because cities have a quite scary amount of details and modifiers and I don't wan the player or myself to be overwhelmed. This also makes this system of resource management more balanced and allows for a colonisation feel, with players competing for minor towns in a certain resource zone.
Upgrading minor towns to cities will be a lot more rare then I made out previously, I think. I will most probably make this the only way to ggain extra cities though.
Immaculate
unerring
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,623
orangelex44
Partisan
I was trying to be funny ....
I fail.
Oh, I know full well you were attempting a joke. I simply find it amusing to CRUSH YOUR DREAMS.
Oh, and in a cursory attempt to stay on-topic, your map idea sounds interesting, Kol. Resource "zones" is a neat idea, though it may be tough to implement. Fewer cities shouldn't be a problem - as I see it, cities should be tough to get. The only reason a lack of cities can become a pain is for money gathering, and your "minor towns" idea seems like it should fix that pretty well.
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Something I'm having trouble with are civics. I'm finding the categories a bit restrictiive, meaning that some interesting options have to be ignored.
My latest thinking is to have three or four civic ''slots'' (or possibly three, with a forth unlocked at a later time). The players can have any combination of civics in these slots, although some few will be mutually exclusive, for example ''Liberty'' and ''Slavery'' wouldn't work well.
As each civic has both an advantage and a disadvantage this should remain balanced. All civics are essentially equal, but provide different pros and cons.
I do prefer this option because it helps make the game more realistic. In the real world, ancient Egypt's ''civics'' could be described as ''Theocracy'' and ''God King'', however under my current system these two civics are both in the Governmental Category and so cannot be used togeather.
There will be a ''default'' option available, with no pros or cons.
What are people's opinions on this? Is it a good idea?
My latest thinking is to have three or four civic ''slots'' (or possibly three, with a forth unlocked at a later time). The players can have any combination of civics in these slots, although some few will be mutually exclusive, for example ''Liberty'' and ''Slavery'' wouldn't work well.
As each civic has both an advantage and a disadvantage this should remain balanced. All civics are essentially equal, but provide different pros and cons.
I do prefer this option because it helps make the game more realistic. In the real world, ancient Egypt's ''civics'' could be described as ''Theocracy'' and ''God King'', however under my current system these two civics are both in the Governmental Category and so cannot be used togeather.
There will be a ''default'' option available, with no pros or cons.
What are people's opinions on this? Is it a good idea?
thomas.berubeg
Wandering the World
Slavery and liberty do work together: liberty for those who are not slaves, and so are real people.
it works in a caste system type Society
it works in a caste system type Society
I like the idea of civics slots a lot. It allows to pick some options that would be exclusive but can still make sense (like for instance slavery + caste system: prisoners of war could be slaves whatever their caste may be), which can be fun and require some story to tell about it. It also allows not to pick a civic in a caegory where all feel bland. 
I don't get that one:
If you start with 50 stability, have 0 cultural output and 1 city, you get 50/(1/2) = 100 on next turn, and continually double every turn.
What are you trying to achieve with this equation? Previous turn seems obvious. Cultural output too, but the divider is weird. You may want to apply the divider only to the cultural output or make it so that the cultural stability tends towards a given limit dependent on number of cities.
For instance you may want one city (with 0 output) to tend towards 100 and 3 cities with 0 output to tend towards 33 (100/3). But your current system either diverges towards infinity (one city), stays still (2 cities) or converges to zero (3+cities), which seems wrong. You may want to try something like (Previous turn + 100/number of cities + cultural output + other factors)/2 or anythign along the lines of (Previous * N + 100/number of cities + cultural output + other factors)/(N+1)?
Either that or make sure the cultural ouput and number of cities counterbalance each other (which is easier by + cultural output - number of cities).
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
Yeah I think it does need to be on the city output. The aim of the equation is to make it more difficult to maintain a high culture level with more cities. It should woork as a kind of rubber band mechanic for small nations to allow them to remain competative.
I'll have a look at the formula and see what works.
I'll have a look at the formula and see what works.
Ekolite
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 5,451
For the first time in the development of EkoNES, it has become practical to have RTW-style Governor/General units. I have enough modifiers in cities to allow for lots of interesting traits, so I need oppinions on whether they should be included or not.
The Basics
During the course of the game, ''Leaders'' will arise as events or as the result of projects. The amount of Leaders a player can have at any one time is strictly limitted, possibly equal to the number of cities (or the number of cities + 1) the player has.
Each player will always have at least one Leader. This leader is the Leader for your nation, (the King/President/High Priest/whatever).
Leaders have two roles, they can either act as Govenors or Generals. Govenors are settled in cities, their traits effect their city and they act as the commander of the garrisson if the city is attacked. They can also act as Generals. Generals lead a limitted number of troops in an armmy, and their command skill affects the strength of the troops they command.
Leaders have a powerful effect, but are at risk of assassination by other factions, or death in battle or by natural causes. Lost leaders will be replaced with fresh ones in time.
---
The obvious problem with leaders is the time scale. With turn lengths of 50 years a leader would usually survive a turn and a half. It would also add another layer of complexity to the game.
I'm undecided about this. I think it would be a good mechanism but it would need a way of getting around the timescale problem.
The Basics
During the course of the game, ''Leaders'' will arise as events or as the result of projects. The amount of Leaders a player can have at any one time is strictly limitted, possibly equal to the number of cities (or the number of cities + 1) the player has.
Each player will always have at least one Leader. This leader is the Leader for your nation, (the King/President/High Priest/whatever).
Leaders have two roles, they can either act as Govenors or Generals. Govenors are settled in cities, their traits effect their city and they act as the commander of the garrisson if the city is attacked. They can also act as Generals. Generals lead a limitted number of troops in an armmy, and their command skill affects the strength of the troops they command.
Leaders have a powerful effect, but are at risk of assassination by other factions, or death in battle or by natural causes. Lost leaders will be replaced with fresh ones in time.
---
The obvious problem with leaders is the time scale. With turn lengths of 50 years a leader would usually survive a turn and a half. It would also add another layer of complexity to the game.
I'm undecided about this. I think it would be a good mechanism but it would need a way of getting around the timescale problem.
I'm against leaders if the turns last long.
Some civs could have leaders that last for centuries (elves, dwaves, Sidar, Calabim and maybe some Grigori heroes or powerful mages) but most wouldn't. Conversely, it would also be hard to find a rationale why suddenly elves have a new leader available if the timespan is short (whereas a human leader could just be born, elves are too long lived to get as many children as humans do for a comparable population).
It's also very arbitrary to limit the number of leaders. I can see no reason flavor-wise or from a simulation point of view why the number of leaders should be limited. If it's just a game mechanic that's added, I don't think it's useful in a NES. We can have leaders in our stories, and having leaders kind of restricts the choices. For instance the Roman Republic didn't have leaders the way you depict. If one general died, it hardly mattered. If we need one leader per army, it will make it very hard to split an army, move some units here and others there.
What you propose reminds me of Knights of Honor, which is a cool game, but it's cool because the computer is limited in the amount of what it can handle, and because it's linked to the dynastic system. In a NES, the computer limit doesn't exist, and dynasties don't make sense for many civs.
So overall, I don't like it.
Some civs could have leaders that last for centuries (elves, dwaves, Sidar, Calabim and maybe some Grigori heroes or powerful mages) but most wouldn't. Conversely, it would also be hard to find a rationale why suddenly elves have a new leader available if the timespan is short (whereas a human leader could just be born, elves are too long lived to get as many children as humans do for a comparable population).
It's also very arbitrary to limit the number of leaders. I can see no reason flavor-wise or from a simulation point of view why the number of leaders should be limited. If it's just a game mechanic that's added, I don't think it's useful in a NES. We can have leaders in our stories, and having leaders kind of restricts the choices. For instance the Roman Republic didn't have leaders the way you depict. If one general died, it hardly mattered. If we need one leader per army, it will make it very hard to split an army, move some units here and others there.
What you propose reminds me of Knights of Honor, which is a cool game, but it's cool because the computer is limited in the amount of what it can handle, and because it's linked to the dynastic system. In a NES, the computer limit doesn't exist, and dynasties don't make sense for many civs.
So overall, I don't like it.
