Rhye's Catapult
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
I'm just going to throw this out here, but in my opinion, taking a city or cities away from a player without a chance to resist is really, really, really BAD gameplay design. I get what you're trying to do, but it's really frustrating that I can have one or more of my cities handed over to a newly spawning civ without any chance for me to try to stop it.
For example, in my game as Egypt I conquered the two cities in the Israel/Lebanon area. When the Arabs spawned I wasn't given any notification but I lost Jeruselem, which I had been spending a lot of time and effort on improving to protect my border against Persia. A large amount of my army was stationed there and the city was just automatically lost. I really think that is just WRONG. It took me quite a while to get things organized enough to take it back.
Maybe an alternative would be to flip barbarian and even AI cities automatically, if you must, but give the player a chance to resist. If one of my cities is chosen to 'flip' give me a dialogue box that says something like 'There has been an Arab uprising in Jeruselem, should we try to hold the city or let it go peacefully?'
Then, if I let it go, maybe I get a slight relationship boost with Arabia. If I don't, maybe force a war declaration and give them a couple extra units, but for god's sake at least let me TRY to hold on to my city.
At the very least the player should be somehow compensated for having one or several (!) cities stolen. If I had done a lot of my expansion into Arabia my whole game would have been screwed over. Otherwise gameplay will feel really artifical 'Oh, I can't conquer that city or take that resource because it will be MAGICALLY taken away with no chance of resistance after I've owned it for a thousand years.'
(Otherwise it seemed like a preaty cool mod so far.
)
For example, in my game as Egypt I conquered the two cities in the Israel/Lebanon area. When the Arabs spawned I wasn't given any notification but I lost Jeruselem, which I had been spending a lot of time and effort on improving to protect my border against Persia. A large amount of my army was stationed there and the city was just automatically lost. I really think that is just WRONG. It took me quite a while to get things organized enough to take it back.
Maybe an alternative would be to flip barbarian and even AI cities automatically, if you must, but give the player a chance to resist. If one of my cities is chosen to 'flip' give me a dialogue box that says something like 'There has been an Arab uprising in Jeruselem, should we try to hold the city or let it go peacefully?'
Then, if I let it go, maybe I get a slight relationship boost with Arabia. If I don't, maybe force a war declaration and give them a couple extra units, but for god's sake at least let me TRY to hold on to my city.
At the very least the player should be somehow compensated for having one or several (!) cities stolen. If I had done a lot of my expansion into Arabia my whole game would have been screwed over. Otherwise gameplay will feel really artifical 'Oh, I can't conquer that city or take that resource because it will be MAGICALLY taken away with no chance of resistance after I've owned it for a thousand years.'
(Otherwise it seemed like a preaty cool mod so far.
)
Fintilgin, I agree with what you say. I am trying to keep things simple and improve it step by step, to limit the amount of bugs.
But this issue should be faced sooner or later. The alternative design you have proposed can be good, however it should always keep in mind that new born civs must be helped cos they always start disvantaged.
Remember that if player's cities never flip, there's the risk that the player can stop new players to grow powerful placing units and cities in the spawn place.
This is far worse than avoiding certain areas, fearing losing cities
But this issue should be faced sooner or later. The alternative design you have proposed can be good, however it should always keep in mind that new born civs must be helped cos they always start disvantaged.
Remember that if player's cities never flip, there's the risk that the player can stop new players to grow powerful placing units and cities in the spawn place.
This is far worse than avoiding certain areas, fearing losing cities
Rhye said:
I'm really glad to hear that will be addressed in some way. As for players being really gamey by putting units and cities near spawn points, I've got mixed feelings about it. It's cheap and stupid, yeah, but I'm not sure the mod should be built around preventing people from doing it. If people want to ruin their game you can't stop them. They can always just jump into Worldbuilder.
Here's an idea to make the game a bit less deterministic. I'm not sure if you can do this before the 18 Civ limit is lifted or not, though. Basically make which new civilization spawns a bit random. For example, in some games Germany spawns, in other games Poland spawns instead. Instead of Persia, sometimes it's Babylon. Instead of Spain, sometimes it's Portugal. Carthage sometimes, instead of Rome. Netherlands instead of France. Basically there's a chance to spawn an alternate 'major' power in roughly the same geographic area.
Or, similarly, to sort of help solve the above problem, if I as Egypt move strongly into the Arabic peninsula, detect that don't spawn the Arabs, and spawn another power somewhere else in the world, like the Zulu, or Carthage, or the Mali early or some sort of couterbalance like that. Or give my nearby AI opponent a boost. Give Persia free Islam, extra units, a golden age, and cash and such. Instead of the Arabs being created Persia just grows much more powerful.
Tank_Guy#3 said:Rhye, don't forget your Civ 3 companions. We need our Rhye's of Civ fix occasionally (fix as in referring to a drug fix, not so much a patch or update). But updates are always good too.
oh no please!
Blasphemous
Graulich
How about the following model for players (and AI?) resisting rising-civ-flips:
There will be a few stages for this.
STAGE 1: This is about four or five turns before the civ spawns. A dialog pops up: "My liege, many of our subjects in Jerusalem yearn to leave your control and join their brothers to the east, who are preparing to form a new kingdom! Shall we prepare to leave this city and let the damn rabble have what it wishes?" (This text would be variable-based of course, depending on your civics, the new civ's starting civics, location of city, and location of new civ's spawn.)
1a: Then if the player (/AI?) agrees, half the city's population dwindles away over three turns, a bunch of it randomly allocated to the player's other cities and maybe one or two pop just disappearing. For the first turns after agreeing to leave (until stage 2) the player may not bring units into the city or take them out (when you try you receive a popup: "My liege, if we pull those troops out all hell will break loose!" or "My liege, the people of Jerusalem will not tolerate us bringing new troops into the city at this point!").
1b: If the player refuses at stage one to leave the city (in the first dialog), it has a chance of, say, 15%*pop-5%*garrison to riot immediately. Also every turn for four turns it has a 50% of losing one pop, and there is a 25% chance that one garrison will be killed at random (no matter what unit it is.)
STAGE 2: This is the turn before the civ spawns.
2a: If the player chose to let the city go in stage 1, on the last turn before the flip and spawn, a popup comes up saying "My liege, our former subjects in Jerusalem are about to join their brothers from the east. We had better pull our troops out of there before they're overrun by their mobs!" If the player leaves their troops there at this point, there is a high chance (75%?) war is automatically declared with the new civ when it spawns, half the units flip over to it, and the rest die. There is also a -4 to relations ("You tried to keep our brethern under your control with your brutish army!" or something). There is also a slight chance (25%?) the city riots but stays under your control for now. If you really just let the city go you get +2 with the new civ ("You let our bretheren in your former city join us peacefully!")
2b: If you tried to keep the city in stage 1, the city riots (if it wasn't already rioting) and you receive a popup: "My liege, our subjects in Jerusalem are out of control! Are you sure we shouldn't just let the idiots go and have their new king?". If you let them go at this stage, you lose half your garrison in the city and the rest goes right outside the city, staying with full movement points. When the new civ forms the city flips and you get +1 with the new civ ("You let our bretheren join us after all.") If you still try to keep them, each unit in the city has say, 40% chance to just die, and the rest receive 5% damage per pop in the city. When the new civ spawns, you are at war with them and get -5, "How dare you try and control our people!?" but the city stays yours for now.
STAGE 3: This is one turn after the new civ spawns. You only get this far if you kept the city until now. City riots, 10% chance for each unit to die, all units get 5-25% damage, 10% of pop disappears, you get popup: "My liege, Jerusalem is going insane! The people there want to join those foul, foul Arabs, and they're attacking our troops! Maybe we should just let them go? It's hard to enough to fight those damn Arabs at our border, can we handle having them amongst us as well?" If you let them go, each unit you have there has a 10% chance of escaping to your border, and the rest either die or flip (50%-50%). The city flips.
If you don't let them go, again 10% chance for each unit to die, all units get 5-25% damage, 10% of pop disappears, but the city is yours for as long as you can hold it. And your diplomacy hit gets another -2.
How does all that sound to you? We can let the AI go through the same, using a random system based on leader personality. I think this kind of system would let players keep their cities if they really want, but it will be pretty damn hard. It also gives you a bit of a prize for letting it go right away in the form of keeping some of your pop. We can also probably make a few places here where you refuse to release the city also give the new civ pop and/or units to make it even harder.
There will be a few stages for this.
STAGE 1: This is about four or five turns before the civ spawns. A dialog pops up: "My liege, many of our subjects in Jerusalem yearn to leave your control and join their brothers to the east, who are preparing to form a new kingdom! Shall we prepare to leave this city and let the damn rabble have what it wishes?" (This text would be variable-based of course, depending on your civics, the new civ's starting civics, location of city, and location of new civ's spawn.)
1a: Then if the player (/AI?) agrees, half the city's population dwindles away over three turns, a bunch of it randomly allocated to the player's other cities and maybe one or two pop just disappearing. For the first turns after agreeing to leave (until stage 2) the player may not bring units into the city or take them out (when you try you receive a popup: "My liege, if we pull those troops out all hell will break loose!" or "My liege, the people of Jerusalem will not tolerate us bringing new troops into the city at this point!").
1b: If the player refuses at stage one to leave the city (in the first dialog), it has a chance of, say, 15%*pop-5%*garrison to riot immediately. Also every turn for four turns it has a 50% of losing one pop, and there is a 25% chance that one garrison will be killed at random (no matter what unit it is.)
STAGE 2: This is the turn before the civ spawns.
2a: If the player chose to let the city go in stage 1, on the last turn before the flip and spawn, a popup comes up saying "My liege, our former subjects in Jerusalem are about to join their brothers from the east. We had better pull our troops out of there before they're overrun by their mobs!" If the player leaves their troops there at this point, there is a high chance (75%?) war is automatically declared with the new civ when it spawns, half the units flip over to it, and the rest die. There is also a -4 to relations ("You tried to keep our brethern under your control with your brutish army!" or something). There is also a slight chance (25%?) the city riots but stays under your control for now. If you really just let the city go you get +2 with the new civ ("You let our bretheren in your former city join us peacefully!")
2b: If you tried to keep the city in stage 1, the city riots (if it wasn't already rioting) and you receive a popup: "My liege, our subjects in Jerusalem are out of control! Are you sure we shouldn't just let the idiots go and have their new king?". If you let them go at this stage, you lose half your garrison in the city and the rest goes right outside the city, staying with full movement points. When the new civ forms the city flips and you get +1 with the new civ ("You let our bretheren join us after all.") If you still try to keep them, each unit in the city has say, 40% chance to just die, and the rest receive 5% damage per pop in the city. When the new civ spawns, you are at war with them and get -5, "How dare you try and control our people!?" but the city stays yours for now.
STAGE 3: This is one turn after the new civ spawns. You only get this far if you kept the city until now. City riots, 10% chance for each unit to die, all units get 5-25% damage, 10% of pop disappears, you get popup: "My liege, Jerusalem is going insane! The people there want to join those foul, foul Arabs, and they're attacking our troops! Maybe we should just let them go? It's hard to enough to fight those damn Arabs at our border, can we handle having them amongst us as well?" If you let them go, each unit you have there has a 10% chance of escaping to your border, and the rest either die or flip (50%-50%). The city flips.
If you don't let them go, again 10% chance for each unit to die, all units get 5-25% damage, 10% of pop disappears, but the city is yours for as long as you can hold it. And your diplomacy hit gets another -2.
How does all that sound to you? We can let the AI go through the same, using a random system based on leader personality. I think this kind of system would let players keep their cities if they really want, but it will be pretty damn hard. It also gives you a bit of a prize for letting it go right away in the form of keeping some of your pop. We can also probably make a few places here where you refuse to release the city also give the new civ pop and/or units to make it even harder.
sounds very complicated from the point of view of the one who should program it 
Well, I have finished another test-run of v046b,
here is the table-report. And an end-map.
Tech flow is not bad, as the game was over in 2018,
but I would still make it slower in the Biology-Industrialism range,
and perhaps would make the end-techs faster...
As I watched replay,
I saw that the barabrians had havoc in the ancient age,
and in AD 600 there was only 2 civs alive: China and Japan!
here is the table-report. And an end-map.
Tech flow is not bad, as the game was over in 2018,
but I would still make it slower in the Biology-Industrialism range,
and perhaps would make the end-techs faster...
As I watched replay,
I saw that the barabrians had havoc in the ancient age,
and in AD 600 there was only 2 civs alive: China and Japan!
Attachments
Surtur
Warlord
How about this:
- a few turns before a new civ spawns, barbarians will spawn in this area
- when the civ spawns ONLY the barbarian cities and units will flip to this civ
The player would have a chance to hold his cities from the barbarian attackers but it should be very hard. I think this would reflect history nicely and is also easy to implement.
- a few turns before a new civ spawns, barbarians will spawn in this area
- when the civ spawns ONLY the barbarian cities and units will flip to this civ
The player would have a chance to hold his cities from the barbarian attackers but it should be very hard. I think this would reflect history nicely and is also easy to implement.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Yes, but you must admit it would be very realistic and balanced!Rhye said:sounds very complicated from the point of view of the one who should program it
Besides, the programming may be tedious but I would imagine most of it isn't all that complicated. It's a complicated collection of simple things, you wouldn't have to get too deep into reprogramming the game (unless you give the AI the same choices of course.)
That is a simpler implementation, but it seems even a bit simplistic to me. In many cases this kind of thing didn't happen by people gathering to conquer the city from without. It makes more historical sense to set up a model that has the people take over the city from within. The way I see it, they should only try and take it over by force with actual units once they have their own nation (which may even just represent they have a sense of coherent nationality, enough to gather and try and gain power together). In the model I proposed, if you don't let the people have their city it's almost definately gonna result in a war where they can try and take it by force. And the city would be weakened from the struggles so you would really have to work hard to keep it.Surtur said:
It's unrealistic to basically make it so "other people" come and try and take the city and the city stays completely on your side until it flips, if it flips. The whole point is that the people were already there, they just hadn't allied themselves together as a coherent nation. Maybe we should also always make cities near a newly spawned civ get a chunk of the population to switch to the new nationality (in the little bar thingy that shows the nationalities of the city). We can even create a model based completely on that little bar, I guess.
Well, I re-read Blas's points on the city-flip issue and I guess it would be good to implement that, and yes, I guess it is NOT that difficult to code it, maybe it takes time to do...
So maybe in the end Blas's concept would be the way to follow... eh...?
So maybe in the end Blas's concept would be the way to follow... eh...?
Blas' idea is a cool one if we can get it to work correctly. It is very annoying to build up a city only to have it flip right away, especially if it is not right where the new civ spawns. An example would be when America soawns, the Aztec city in the area of New Orleans always flips to America (which always made me scratch my head).
My persian empire is now under HEAVY assault by Horse Archers, I fear that they will not survive
My persian empire is now under HEAVY assault by Horse Archers, I fear that they will not survive
Blasphemous said:
the heavy part is the popups. If you can get rid of them, it's all more simple
now listen to this:
5 turns ealier than the spawn,
a popup appears if there are any city or unit in the flip area:
"Many of our subjects in the Arabic penisula yearn to leave your control and join their brothers, who are preparing to form a new kingdom! Shall we prepare to leave these cities and units and let the damn rabble have what it wishes? Our refusal may upset Arabia and its friend civilizations!"
(or something like that)
if yes -> flip
if no -> new civ, and other 2 neighbour civ declare war to the player.
5 turns ealier than the spawn,
a popup appears if there are any city or unit in the flip area:
"Many of our subjects in the Arabic penisula yearn to leave your control and join their brothers, who are preparing to form a new kingdom! Shall we prepare to leave these cities and units and let the damn rabble have what it wishes? Our refusal may upset Arabia and its friend civilizations!"
(or something like that)
if yes -> flip
if no -> new civ, and other 2 neighbour civ declare war to the player.
Rhye said:
Other 2?
That means a total of 3?
Isn't that too heavy?
And how comes if these other two civs are far, far away in distance?
Is that realistic, say, I am Egypt, and I don't want to flip to Arabia,
and thus I get Arabia, India and a 3rd, who can be even sg. like China as enemy?
Nearest neighbour would be enough...
Similar threads
