Prolonging interest

[GePap]

Something that would keep the game interesting at any time, not only the end, is the possibility of internal problems. I think this has always been the biggest problem with all civ games, that each civ is treated as monolithic, and collapse and defeat can only come from the outside, yet many states collapse due to internal problems, or a combination.

The possibility of civil war, of civs splitting, would certainly make the game more interesting, be it the splitters becoming another civ (which does not make much sense given the specialization in FfH), or another part of that civ with a different ruler. Having this mechanic would make players have to focus on their internal situation as much as the external. What internal mecahnism would make these things more likely to happen, I don't know. But given how avid a user of espionage civs turn out to be in regular BtS, if there was a possibility of civs bribing local lords towards rebellion, then it might also givs AI's a way to try to undermine a leading civ, and somehting the player could use as well.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

Actually, the civs being so unique, having breakaways of other civs is more likley. Most breakaways, civil wars, rebellions, etc. arise out of inabiity to relate with the government and vice versa.

I'd be fine with this if events foreshadowed certain civilizations being spawned and aloowed you to influence it. Like a group of vampires has been spotted in an area. you can kill them and stop Calabim, or let them live. The advantage of letting them live is you know which civilization you will get.

i.e. Luchurip cities have grown unhappy. A string of events involving devouts of Nanotsuelta (Keeper of Good magic) are growing in strength. They want scholarship as a civic. As you refuse they declare indepedence. You can then attack them or let them live. The Amurites are thus born.

 

[JDexter]

It would be a great challenge (in a good way) if different groups in your civilization were trying to take over the rule or leave the empire. For example if you had more than one religion in a city, or a city without your current state religion, this/these city/cities could, through an event rebel (where you might be able to chose "let them go" -> founds a new civ, "make them stay" -> loose 3/4 of the population, cause unhappiness in other cities, negative diplo modifiers...). It'd be similar to a cultural turnover to another civ, except religiously (and maybe founding a different civ). Of course this would also work through all other events or civics (if you make choices that aren't to the liking of certain groups in your civ).

 

[xienwolf]

Though having your Civilization split up and fracture on you if you don't tend to it sounds fairly nice as a mechanic for "realism," I cannot think of any way in which I would enjoy doing it For me even just the Inflation (which is partially meant to tear your Civilization apart if you are not doing things right) is a PITA to me.

 

[Kael]

Incidently the origional FfH2 design was speced to address this problem (which I think is native to Civs design). That answer was supposed to be Armageddon and its effects as late game excitement. What can we do to make that a better answer?

 

[Roghar]

Have the four horseman/wrath etc focus more on the leading player(s)?

In general though I think the problem is that the winning conditions taket oo long to achieve. You know you have won long before you can achieve a conquest or domination victory, its just hours and hours of mopping up. It would be best to reduce the winning conditions substantially, then games would be shorter and interesting throughout. In most good strategy board games winning conditions are set long before a person has complete domination, makes it interesting and really has players focus against the leader long before he is too dominant.

 

[jwin]

I think one of the problems is specifcally due to an AC effect. If you are playing on a higher level, the AI starts out with advantages and can usually proceed quite well. When blight comes, they are not prepared for it and don't recover well. While theplayer has water adepts and spare workers to get things back up quickly, the AI suffers more permanant damage. I think this is one thing that gives the player an advantage later in the game.

The AC does liven things up as it grows. To rubber band and draw back large empires, perhaps as the horseman appear, feature that grant unhappiness or sickness could appear. Large empires would be more likely to have these negative features.
To affect empires with large culture, barbarians could be drawn toward higher culture areas, or the horseman and avatar could be made more likely to appear in high culture areas.
To prevent super tech avancing and outpacing the AI in late game, would it be possible to add tech leaking after a certain point. I have seen it in another mod from the start, and I think it was an advantage to a player who new how to work the system. If it only started after you reached a certain high level tech, it would prevent you from getting too ar ahead.

Or, how about xp gain for combat being proportional to how far behind the leader you are. If your score is half as high, maybe you could get an extra 50% from combat. It would work to make same tiered units level a little quicker and be more competitive.

Just my random thoughts.

 

[Breunor]

I think the effect people are referencing, unfortunately, is not really an FfH issue, it is there in BtS also. However, I do admit it is probably stronger in FfH because the game's complexity allows the human player to use the richness of the FfH system better than the computer. Nonetheless, solving it is hard as they have struggled with it in 'regular' Civ for a long time.

I do think that the AI's 'problem' of not understanding the building requirements for troops well is a partial culprit.

For a solution, I think Kael's idea of having the game get more difficult with time from factors could theoretically work. That is, instead of having techs cost and units, say 40% more on Emperor, have the effects multiply: Extra cost = (1 + 40%) * (1 + turn/1000), or something like that. I don't know if this is a non-starter for coding, but it does seem to get tot he idea. Of course, we can play around with the factors, it would be time/map dependent, etc.

A question for the group -- does playing with aggressive AI make the problem worse or better?

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[kenken244]

I think the best rubberband mechanic is the one that elimnates the need for rubberband mechanics at all. Instead of focusing on the late-game, you should focus on the mid game and prevent civs from ever getting to the point where they are unstoppable. I don't have any real suggestions for this, Improving the AI will probably help a lot, This is just something to keep in mind in the future.

 

[xienwolf]

I do agree that all of the VCs ought to be lowered. In Vanilla Civ you are struggling to gain a Victory. But to fit the flavor of Dark Fantasy, I think you should be struggling to prevent a loss.

So make it a requirement that we fight each other to keep someone from winning on us. If people want a long game and desire to avoid the whole hassle of the VCs, they tend to turn them off.

Alternatively, you can just add in a bunch of easier VCs, same type, but lower requirements. Then you have to decide if you want the short, long, or neverending game.



As for what Armageddon is failing to do: The Horsemen are nasty, that is a nice start. But they aren't tricky. As a single unit, they can be swarmed and finished off. So give them tricks. An Army would be nice, but bland. High Withdrawal or healing rates could be nice, but might be too strong. Spawning all of the Wraiths doesn't seem to help quite enough, so I won't suggest the same for the others, but it was a nice touch.

Maybe you could space the Riders further apart, and make them come with all the previous ones as well? 20 for 1 Rider, 50 for 2, 65 for 3, 80 for all 4? Sure, you are re-killing them, but these are the horseriders... no reason to believe that after a single killing they will stay down.

 

[Vittra]

I do agree that all of the VCs ought to be lowered.
As for what Armageddon is failing to do: The Horsemen are nasty, that is a nice start. But they aren't tricky. As a single unit, they can be swarmed and finished off. So give them tricks. An Army would be nice, but bland. High Withdrawal or healing rates could be nice, but might be too strong. Spawning all of the Wraiths doesn't seem to help quite enough, so I won't suggest the same for the others, but it was a nice touch.

Maybe you could space the Riders further apart, and make them come with all the previous ones as well? 20 for 1 Rider, 50 for 2, 65 for 3, 80 for all 4? Sure, you are re-killing them, but these are the horseriders... no reason to believe that after a single killing they will stay down.

QFT, +1 etc.

 

[Kael]

I think each of the horsemen need a anti-stack tactic. not that they should be immune or impossible to kill, just something to make them less vulnerable to that tactic.

Stephanos has Command I - III
Buboes has the rage spell (this isnt a very effective anti-sod effect)
Yersinia has Cannibalize
Ars converts defeated units into wraiths

They all have fear and are magic immune.

What else do you think should be done that fits their flavor and will make them unique challenges?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Blitz + either Flying or Water Walking.

Mostly, the Horsemen just need a more aggressive AI. Blitz might help though, since I'd guess the AI will probably not be as likely to leave a unit guarding a city if it can keep attacking with it.

(I also think it might be nice for units spawned/converted from combat to get the promotions they would had they been summoned (empower, mostly). (Also, instead of making summons of HN units be HN in the SDK, without any promotion marking it, you should just make HN promotion give HN to summons. Oh, and let HN units capture/spawn units.) )


Last but certainly not least, I think that the Barbarians should again get the mana of other civs to count towards their units' affinity again. I've tested this several times since .25, and never seen any barb units getting any affinity. I'm pretty sure you forgot to add this back i when you converted FfH to BtS (unless you just changed your mind about it and didn't document this as an intended change). (At the same time the Mithril Golem lost its affinity towards Earth mana, which I would like back. )

 

[xienwolf]

Well, assuming that they ARE parallel to the 4 Horseriders, then whichever one is supposed to be WAR ought to cause every unit within 3 tiles of him to gain Hidden Nationality. Then the players may be tempted to fight one another. I think that would be a blast, and I know that the AI would fall for it BIG TIME. They just seriously despise HN units.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pestilence should have his own support units created. Call them Plagues if you want to. They are Bomber Jets, and he is a Carrier. So cargospace of 7 or however many you give him, and they can do Airstrikes at a range of 5. I rarely make it to the point of having jets/bombers in Vanilla, and don't use them when I do, so I will clarify that I want them to be able to hit land units and do massive collateral damage to stacks, so if Airplanes can normally only hit cities, change that They should destroy improvements if the tile they attack had any, and destroy buildings randomly if they happen to hit a city.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Famine, I think that he should be Invisible (just to annoy people and force them to get scouts. Not Animal Invisible, but full Invisible, like Shadow units, so very few can actually see him).

Add to that: He causes all units within 5 tiles of him to have a Defensive Combat Strength of ZERO, but he himself cannot attack. Instead he spawns low strength "Disease Mites" (you can use the graphic I made for the Midas Flies, it is a cute trick that happened on accident). Now, the fact that they are low Strength is almost pointless, because they will also have a defensive strength of 0, unless they happen to get far away from Pestilence somehow.

The trick for this one is that the more you attack him, the more of these little buggers you spawn, and you MUST kill them, because if they are allowed to have a turn then they will kill your people (defense of 0 and whatnot).

To make this one more pressing, I would encourage either having Pestilence heal slightly from Combat, or spawn the flies by some means OTHER than combat. The point is to ensure that he WILL spawn quite a few before you can get rid of him completely.

Another fun thing you can do with him is to make the Disease Mites be movement of 2 or more with Blitz. Then they can take down LOTS of units if you are foolish enough to let them live.

Alternative to not letting him attack personally is giving him a CombatLimit of 99, so he personally cannot kill (I just don't like to let him kill things without any challenge since he forces you down to 0 Defense), but this way he WILL attack on his turn to spawn a Disease Mite, which will then almost certainly kill whatever unit he had attacked unfortunately, so that is why making them move of 2 or more with Blitz is just more fun.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that whichever one is Death should do a MASSIVE AOE spell which affects all tiles that are 2 or 3 away from him. Hardcoded to put any unit it hits down to 10% health, so it can't kill them, but sure puts them out of the fight. The catch is that it doesn't hit the squares directly adjacent to him, only those at a bit of a range. So you have to close the distance fast if you want to actually be able to fight him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly you can have them change their AI to target the highest Culture Value city on the map which doesn't belong to the Barbarians, and allow them to spawn a strong defender for the city when they take one, but not defend it themselves? Then they should wander all over the map, but tend to harass the leading player the most.


Yes, each of this sounds like a sickeningly powerful unit, but each CAN be killed, you just have to sacrafice a lot to do so. But the alternative, of letting them live, is much worse. And THESE horseriders I would wet my pants with fear at the thought of allowing them to come to Erebus.

If you allow the escalation of Horserider attacks, I would say that under these designs I would have WAR be first (and consequently 4 times showing), then would come Pestilence, Famine and finally Death.

EDIT: And of course all should have Water Walking so that nobody is safe from them no matter where they initially pop up. Could also prevent them from glitching out on the "Must attack Highest Culture City" thing. Which by the way shouldn't change targets until they take over the one they are currently on (otherwise you could Ping-Pong them by reclaiming your first city when they are halfway to the second one)

 

[Verdian]

As for what Armageddon is failing to do: The Horsemen are nasty, that is a nice start. But they aren't tricky. As a single unit, they can be swarmed and finished off. So give them tricks.

You hit the nail on the head. Single units, while difficult, don't really provide much of a strategic challenge. I have two suggestions for tricks.

1) Let the AI civilizations succumb to Armageddon, once the AC is high enough. Have them make a deal with a devil (or angel), become mutated, or something else to help them survive. The ones suffering the most with the lowest score could have an option to become corrupted by it. Give them bonuses as a result of the hell terrain, automatic promotions so they get a percentage of the AC, or other buffs. This would solve the problem of the AI being too easy at the end of the game and having trouble dealing with Hell terrain. But, this could also step on the toes of the Sheim and Infernal.

I prefer this second one.

2) A new mechanic that increases the threat as the Horsemen destroy cities. Currently, the Horsemen can destroy entire civilizations (or at least keep them busy), which could potentially make things even easier for a player. So let's try something new, in which instead of a city being destroyed causing the elimination of a threat, it creates a new one. Here is how that could work:

Buboes destroys a city like he is suppose to. Done, no more city, one less threat (if it was an AI city). What if instead of destroying the city, it transformed it into a population one city with one building, lets call it "Fallen Remains". This building would cause the city to build an undead unit every turn. This unit would have a lot of movement, and be fairly strong (around champion strength). All it would do is move out and attack. Nothing would want to defend the city, so destroying it would be a minor annoyance once you located it. It would just create a steady stream of undead units. This keeps the threat of an AI city building units that could attack a player, while still letting the Horsemen destroy the world.

An even easier way to do this would be to have the new Graveyard lair spawn on a city destroyed by the horsemen, but I am not sure of the exact mechanics of a graveyard.

 

[WhitewolfIV]

I like the idea of a fallen city being turn into a monster producting machine. Maybe put a "spawn of . . ." on the tile give it a str 8-15 monster and make it produce summon monsters or perm monsters that grant no exp?

 

[Bad Player]

Could colonies (vassals in another continent) have a chance of declaring independence and thus create a (semi) civil war?

 

[Bad Player]

Inspired by Verdain:

How about allowing civs to form a pact with e.g. The One (if good) or The Underworld (if evil). But there needs to be a mechanic so that you would only choose to do this if you are really desperate (it's like selling your soul to the devil)! Thus failing civs might choose to do this to survive.

e.g. In return for a one-off injection of lots of powerful units your civ has to offer up souls for your lord. Therefore you lose 1 population per city per turn (minimum of one). Or you could lose 50% commerce per city per turn forever (as tribute to your lord).


Thoughts?

 

[Tarquelne]

What else do you think should be done that fits their flavor and will make them unique challenges?

Not a unique thing, but I think a high defensive withdrawal for all would be good. Horsemen, after all.

Multiple "lives" for Bubos? He repears elsewhere in the world when supposedly killed. (May disadvantage larger civs, which is err... rubbery.)
Units spontaneously turning to manes/barbarians/something near Ars?
A wave of Blight-like pestilence around Y?
Very high move for Stephanos?

I think each of the horsemen need a anti-stack tactic.

That'd be a big help. Human players seem far more prone to use a mass-attack to take out a tough unit. (The reason Hy. tends to be removed very quickly when he appears near a human in our LAN games.)

But that's a specific example of a general problem with the AC: Humans will not only react more quickly to Arm. events, they'll also anticipate them. Have extra workers for blight, or try to be at peace but well armed when the horsemen arrive.

So anything that'd make Arm. events harder to predict - either in order or timing - would be a help. Alternatively, "hide" the AC count: Use some representation that doesn't give a clear reading. A scowling demonic face that gets bigger/nastier as the AC count goes up, for example. Or maybe just a torch with more/less flame. The ideal solution - except for the work involved - might be to have the terrain graphics change - snow gets "bloody" for example.

Blight: I suggest some combination of
1) removing or reducing the creation of deserts,
2) replacing the removal of farms with the temporary substitution of "blighted farm"
3) A straightforward health penalty

My favorite feature of the Blight, btw, is the removal of Resources. That the one that makes me say "Ouch." And I suspect it's no more troubling to the AI than it is for me.

Changing the subject...
Diplomatic penalty: How about a "This is all your fault!" penalty? (From everyone but the Sheaim.) Applied to the lead player or players when the AC is mid-range and regardless of who has actually run the AC up the most. Since you're dealing with international mass opinion - and Armageddon - I don't think you need to make it reasonable.

 

[snarko]

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?

I always increase the AIs per era modifier. If you do go this route then I suggest changing the bonus to be based on the games era (CvGame::getCurrentEra()) instead of the players. Partially because of the way eras are handled for religions, partially because it currently gives a larger bonus to more advanced AIs than the less advanced ones.