Prolonging interest

[25Hour]

The difficulty of Fall from Heaven, especially on higher difficulty settings, tends to go from very hard at the start (because everyone is effectively stronger than you, due to bonuses) to very easy at the end (because you've out-teched or out-expanded everybody else, and nobody can compete). Most of the time, I consider the game to be "over" when I have about 400 or so points more than my closest competitor. I mean, at that point, I can basically kill off all of my next-strongest competitors to make sure that nobody overtakes me, which allows me to easily (but slowly) win by conquering. It doesn't require a whole lot of thought at that point, and it's pretty dull.

So I was thinking, then, that a cool (and thematic!) way of prolonging interest would be to, when you get to around 400 (or so) points higher than your nearest competitor, have a small percent chance each turn (increasing with the difference in points) that a Really Dramatic Event will jack up the power of one of your opponents. Preferably one you're at war with, or whose alignment is opposite yours, or even just someone you have bad relations with. The event would be something like your opponent getting assistance from demonic/divine allies, and gaining vast amounts of tech and/or one of the ridiculously powerful endgame religious heroes and/or "merging with" (being given) another civ's cities. (The exact bonus could scale with the point differential.)

I know that Galactic Civilizations did something like this, and it really added a lot to the endgame, where otherwise I could've just crushed everyone else at leisure. Plus, it seems like it would be simple to code. So what do you all think?

 

[slowcar]

i would rather like a better AI. Playing BtS i play emperor+agressive ai (or immortal if i want a challenge), in ffh even deity is quite easy if you can manage to hold of hordes of low-level units.
giving the AI more (unfair) boni would be the wrong solution imo

 

[seZereth]

i would rather like a better AI. Playing BtS i play emperor+agressive ai (or immortal if i want a challenge), in ffh even deity is quite easy if you can manage to hold of hordes of low-level units.
giving the AI more (unfair) boni would be the wrong solution imo

but it will take some time until we can spend time on developing the AI, so a short term solution might be good as well for now.

 

[Vehem]

i would rather like a better AI. Playing BtS i play emperor+agressive ai (or immortal if i want a challenge), in ffh even deity is quite easy if you can manage to hold of hordes of low-level units.
giving the AI more (unfair) boni would be the wrong solution imo

Have you tried it with "No AI Building Requirements" turned on? The "hordes of low level units" become "hordes of high level units" quite quickly in that case (much more challenging, but you don't feel as though the AI has "cheated" even though technically it has).

 

[onedreamer]

but it will take some time until we can spend time on developing the AI

Can it be done at all ? Or we're talking of workarounds ?

 

[Vehem]

Can it be done at all ? Or we're talking of workarounds ?

Literal AI work is very possible. All the code is available - there's just no point writing large amounts of smart AI code if the actual game-mechanics are still likely to change - one small change in the mechanics can drastically effect how effective the AI will be at using them.

 

[xienwolf]

For example, it'd really suck if someone had just spent a month trying to teach the AI to use summons properly, and make informed decisions between going for Mages or Conjurers

 

[Caradoc]

A better dynamic would be similar to the one where you are closing in on a Tower victory. When you get too far ahead, the rest gang up on you and declare war.

 

[JDexter]

I feel the same way as the original poster, even though I don't have an idea how to solve this problem. Just right now I don't feel like continuing a pretty nice game (.30k) with the Balseraph because I've overtaken my two big competitors (Malakim and Clan), even though I didn't even "do" much for it except building a regular small empire (few, but well-placed cities, not overexpanding like the AI).

It's sad that those games tend to become boring, especially because I really wanted to play a summoning type of game, and it's already clear that I'm winning by turn 220 or so before I even discovered Summoning and have only built my first two Adepts. Even more so, because I just read today that the magic lines will be merged!

 

[Kael]

Your talking about a "rubber band" mechanic. Its a hard subject to brooch because it punishes players for playing well. Whats the point of takign the risk and doing the work to take the lead if the game comes back and punishes you for it?

A few things to consider (I dont know the answer but id be interested to hear what your ideas are):

1. Is there a way to change the handicaps so that they arent so punishing in the begining but provide a bigger threat later in the game?

2. Is there a rubber band mechanic that we could apply as a game option?

3. Is this an area we could base events on, to give winning players the choice to accept an in game challenge?

4. Are there some flavorful victory conditions that could provide a new challenge for players that have mastered the normal game?


As an example of the 3rd I have been thinking about an event where, if you are the highesst ranked player, you get approcahed by the lowest ranked civilization and asked to lead them. To do so you abandon your civilization and from that point on you play the loser civ, trying to bring them back.

As to question 4 I have been thinking that if we put that former event in we could force it to trigger in certain conditions (if you are the lead player and such) and the victory condition would be that you would have to take over the loser civ and raise them to be the most powerful 3 times (or whatever).

 

[Verdian]

I have the same play habits as 25hour, and agree with what he is saying. I've played hundreds of games, but only achieved victory in a a dozen or so. I just get bored with the late game mechanics, which is a shame, because it causes me to miss out on a lot of the game.

I do think events are the way to solve this problem. Tying events to a civs tech choices, as well as score, would be one way to safely and thematically keep the game interesting. For example, lets say you are playing with a civ and they have Council of Esus religion. If your score is x% higher than theirs, a city of yours could convert to the Svart (they infiltrated your city and took over). Now you have to decide if it is worth going to war over.

As for the rubber band mechanics, an option to apply a percentage increase to , , and based on the difference between your total score and your nearest rival could work. That sounds like a difficult formula to make, though . One based on what the turn was may be easier.

Some examples of new victory conditions:

- Survive Armageddon and defeat the Avatar of Wrath
- Control X amount of coast line
- Cover the land in trees
- Gain control of all of the unique features
- Make everyone evil or good (neutral is too easy)
- Destroy Basium and Hyborem
- Build the Tower of Mastery without founding any religions, or having those cities

Some of those could even be victory conditions for an individual civ, and each one could get one.

 

[phoulishwan]

I found a fun way to spice up the end game. I play mostly huge maps on marathon games though so they are long, but Raging Barbs, Wild Lands & Pre-populated Barb world with no settlers allowed. Makes it a dangerous world filled with animals for a long time, you'll even wonder if the combination is broken as you see no barbs beyond what the pre-populated barb cities build. Just when you think it's safe to start taking over the world, the raging barbs start to show up...turn 800ish! Worg riders, axemen & swordsmen pop up everywhere but because no settlers are allowed they'll never stop as the nationals borders will never cover every inch of the map and it'd take way more hunters and hawks than anyone can afford to clear the map of fog, so they just keep coming and as the game goes on longer the stacks just keep getting bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger, roads are already covering the map so they get to you fast, and most likely have the copper or iron promo's...it's like the start game raging barbs except they come at you when you're well developed so turtling it up isn't an option you need to fend them off to stop their pillaging or they are hurting your economy, probably not overly challenging as you're units should be well up to the task of dispatching them but it adds a little late game spice to keep you on your toes.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

The problem with the AI is that it doesn't know how to organize an allied attack against a stronger opponant. In real history, a large nation would have reason to worry if they are attacked by more than one power, even if the two of them together are smaller than themselves. Once neighbouring kingdoms smell blood, everything goes downwards.

The easy solution would be to add the holy war option to both the overcouncil and the undercouncil. Furthermore, code the AI in such as way that when they are voting for or against the holy war, they will weigh in the military power of the whole alliance rather than just their own power.

AI no building requirements: yeah, that really helps. I'm tired of facing 200 scouts.

 

[JDexter]

- Survive Armageddon and defeat the Avatar of Wrath

This is a BRILLIANT idea!

The other ones aren't so interesting in my opinion, but if this one get's in FfH somehow (modmoders, hello?) it would be awesome!

 

[BeefontheBone]

Your talking about a "rubber band" mechanic. Its a hard subject to brooch because it punishes players for playing well. Whats the point of takign the risk and doing the work to take the lead if the game comes back and punishes you for it?

A few things to consider (I dont know the answer but id be interested to hear what your ideas are):

1. Is there a way to change the handicaps so that they arent so punishing in the begining but provide a bigger threat later in the game?

2. Is there a rubber band mechanic that we could apply as a game option?

3. Is this an area we could base events on, to give winning players the choice to accept an in game challenge?

4. Are there some flavorful victory conditions that could provide a new challenge for players that have mastered the normal game?


As an example of the 3rd I have been thinking about an event where, if you are the highesst ranked player, you get approcahed by the lowest ranked civilization and asked to lead them. To do so you abandon your civilization and from that point on you play the loser civ, trying to bring them back.

As to question 4 I have been thinking that if we put that former event in we could force it to trigger in certain conditions (if you are the lead player and such) and the victory condition would be that you would have to take over the loser civ and raise them to be the most powerful 3 times (or whatever).

The event allowing you to switch to the (perhaps a - otherwise it'll always trigger for the one-city-on-an-island vassal civ or out-of-the-way in the ice Infernals) lower-ranked civ is a good one, especially for players who like to invest in building up a long game and want to continue beyond the point where a normal victory is inevitable but dull. It could get gamey if it were a VC - leave your cities empty, switch to a neighbour or one of your own vassals or whatever and nab all that lovely territory from your old civ. Then again, that's already true of the switch to the Infernals if you want to game it, and it would always be an option rather than compulsory

 

[xienwolf]

Well, as an event you wouldn't be able to predict precisly when it would happen. Keeping your score far enough in the lead, but your Civilization easy picking would be quite the impressive balancing act, especially since you might have to maintain it for 200 turns or longer.

But yes, I would love an option to pop up saying "You've basically won. Want to see if you can kick your own arse?"

 

[Mewtarthio]

I also like that option. Again, it shouldn't be the last-place civ, since those guys are generally in completely unwinnable positions (plus it could totally screw your shot at the VC if you were just about to take someone's last city when the event fired), but otherwise it looks like fun.

Plus you can play an Evil civ guilt-free, since you're just setting the Good guys up for a more dramatic victory!

 

[Tarquelne]

1. Is there a way to change the handicaps so that they arent so punishing in the begining but provide a bigger threat later in the game?

The longer the game goes on the more stupid "decisions" the AI makes, and (hopefully) the more smart ones the human player makes. So a time-based increase to the AI's difficulty-level bonuses might be very appropriate.

2. Is there a rubber band mechanic that we could apply as a game option?

Some more possible rubber bands:

Cheating Angels: A diety/angel aligned with a losing civ grants that civ favors of some sort - maybe units, cities, production bonuses, research bonuses, techs. Alternatively, the winning civ is hit with something nasty.

Basically a variant of the Infernal/Mercurian involvement, expanding that involvement to other Entities and using a different mechanic.

"You are a Hegemonic Threat": Encourage the AIs to gang-up against leading civs. Diplomatic penalties for high score?

The degree to which AIs in a game _do_ react to a lead player often makes a big difference in how effective they are. In Civ3 I sometimes got tired of so often being disliked by everyone late in the game. OTOH, I tended to see more Civ3 games through to the end - it created a much better challenge.

"Now We are a Hegemonic Threat": Using the Permanent Alliance mechanic have bottom-ranked players declare PA's until they exceed the top-rank score. I think the PA-ing players should be of a like or similar alignment, or share a religion.

Disunity and Dissent: When it looks like your civ. is going to be dominant your people become less united. The external threats don't seem so threatening anymore and domestic rivalries become more important. The Crime mechanic might see a lot of use.

When the dust settles and the other civs pacified, dominated, or destroyed which one of us will be on top?

This rubber-band would involve a set of events having to do with unrest and factionalism within the civ.

Some possibilities:
My way or the highway: One or more cities want a different civic and threaten succession if you don't change.

*Extortion: A faction wants X gold for something, and some barbarian units ("freedom fighters") will be generated if they don't get it. Or units will be granted to an opposing civ.

*Sell-outs: Someone sells the secret to X civ for personal gain, or a national unit is bribed away.

*Jihad: You aren't killing the unbelievers at a sufficiently high rate to please everyone: Declare war on civs X, Y, and Z or else. Or maybe war is just declared...

*Let Junil take his own: Some of our cities contain unbelievers. You know what you have to do.

*Slipping Standards: The people have become complacent and aren't working very hard (commerce, production penalties.) Reduce the Crime rate to X and build a Y to set things right.

3. Is this an area we could base events on, to give winning players the choice to accept an in game challenge?

The switch-civs idea is neat.
Some sort of diplomatic victory might be a fun challenge if you've been a warmonger. (Perhaps a divination reveals that warfare sufficient to Dominate the world would have unpleasant side effects.)

4. Are there some flavorful victory conditions that could provide a new challenge for players that have mastered the normal game?

I've often hankered for a more straightforward FFH2 building-type victory condition. On larger maps a Domination victory, while inevitable, might still take so long that the AI can fulfill a "spaceship" style V.C. when it'd have no hope of assembling the Altar or building the ToM.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

I do like the idea of disunity events. They have a steep price or very negative events will happen. Corruption ,sucssesion, civil wars, etc. would make interesting events. They could culminate with th switch civs events where you are fleeing your own corrupt regime.

(If you can't tell, I've been playing the Democracy Game )

 

[Tarquelne]

They could culminate with th switch civs events where you are fleeing your own corrupt regime.

(If you can't tell, I've been playing the Democracy Game )

Speaking of "I've been playing" - The "Revolution" mod contains code that might be useful in creating disunity/dissent events for FFH2, including a temporary "flee your own regime" result where the AI takes over your civ for a number of turns.

(Deluded fools! Only I can lead us to victory!)