Vassals and mana

[hbar]

I'd say I agree with dwhee on this one. I've had vassals and allies alike offer me their mana unprompted. I think the palace mana, at least thematically, implies that these powers are innate to a civilization - the mana is as much a part of that civ as their UUs or their traits. Considering that, the palace mana should be valued much higher than the mana they mine themselves. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to consider some of the prouder civs more willing to die than give up the essence of their patron gods.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

excellent discussion, dwhee definitely has a point here.

I guess what I hate is how if you capture/raze a civ's capital city, their palace will just pop up somewhere else in their territory. WTH? this shouldn't happen, you should keep your capital well defended, it's supposed to be the key city of your empire imho. of course, capturing an enemy capital and thus capturing their palace might be overpowered and so palaces could be set to always get destroyed upon city capture. I wouldn't like that but would be a nice custom game option.

being able to demand techs from vassals would be nice indeed.

the AI should be thaught a couple things basically: to demand vassals for their mana, to vassalize civs so they can demand their mana ( instead of destroing them altogether ) , and of course how to achieve a ToM victory through dispelling mana nodes and rebuilding new ones. having a victory condition that's human only is lame imho.

 

[Jules.lt]

I like the idea of getting one mana when you destroy a civ. It's still worse than keeping them alive, since you forgo the 2 other manas, but you get less incentive to keep 1 pop vassals around.

What about this:
When a capital is conquered, the palace is transformed into a "ruins of the XXX palace" building that produces one mana (the one most relevant to the conquered civ).
As long as those ruins exist, the displaced palace of the civ is replaced by a "palace of the XXX leaders in exile" that is essentially a palace without the missing mana (and doesn't become productive ruins when conquered).

I think it would be fitting if razing the city left a mana node of the appropriate type, too.

 

[shapecharge]

How about if you loose your capital and you want your palace back you have to build it instead of auto granting a new palace.
Its already an option if you want to change your capital, so you or the AI just has to choose one of your surviving cities and build your palace if you want a new capital. This would cut down on the leaving a pop 1 city just for thier mana, as you may not want to keep a vassel around waiting for the tons of turns that pop 1 city is going to take just to rebuild a palace(if the AI even chooses to), and make defending your own capital all that much more important.

 

[Warskull]

The "don't use it" argument is absolutely idiotic and anyone using this argument should be ashamed. I propose using the "don't use it/turn it off" that they should introduce 20 highly imbalanced features that break the game and if you want a decent game "don't use them" or "turn them off." If not using stuff fixed problems why are they wasting their time balancing the game when they could just be adding a ton of features? Show how the OP's point is wrong and the 3 free mana from AI vassals with a single square city is fine.

The point is simple, in AI games leaving a single tiny city alive tends to benefit you more than having a a vassal with a decent amount of territory/resources or wiping them out completely. This is because their palace equates to 3 free mana that you cannot get if you wipe them out. Ideally wiping a civ out and leaving a single mini-city standing and taking a vassal should net you the same result.

Some ideas:
1) The palace requires 1 city or settlement per mana. So a civ forced into a corner only produces 1 mana while a civ with 3 cities can give you the full 3 mana.
2) Add a wonder whenever a civ is wiped out "[Civ X] Refuge." Gives you one of each mana for that civ, but has a small chance the city you build it in will revolt and try to reform the civ (which goes up with unhappiness.)
3) When you take over a civ's city there is a chance you plunder their palace technology and get the ability to build their palace as a national wonder. The chance would be small, but go up as they have fewer cities (to a 100% chance if they only have one city.)
4) When a civ is wiped out all other civs at war with that civ can steal 1 mana of their choice.

 

[dwhee]

the mana is as much a part of that civ as their UUs or their traits. Considering that, the palace mana should be valued much higher than the mana they mine themselves. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to consider some of the prouder civs more willing to die than give up the essence of their patron gods.

Thanks for pointing this out. From a lore standpoint, this is why I object to the notion of taking all of your vassals mana. It would be the same to me if you were also able to recruit their unique units and heroes.

Gekko]
I guess what I hate is how if you capture/raze a civ's capital city, their palace will just pop up somewhere else in their territory. WTH? this shouldn't happen, you should keep your capital well defended, it's supposed to be the key city of your empire imho. of course, capturing an enemy capital and thus capturing their palace might be overpowered and so palaces could be set to always get destroyed upon city capture. I wouldn't like that but would be a nice custom game option.

I don't like it when palaces move, but that's a key part of civ and seems like it would be tricky to change. Honestly, I just wish they didn't give you any mana. Mana should be a "unique resource" of every civ. Except not exactly unique.

What about this:
When a capital is conquered, the palace is transformed into a "ruins of the XXX palace" building that produces one mana (the one most relevant to the conquered civ).
As long as those ruins exist, the displaced palace of the civ is replaced by a "palace of the XXX leaders in exile" that is essentially a palace without the missing mana (and doesn't become productive ruins when conquered).

I think it would be fitting if razing the city left a mana node of the appropriate type, too.

This is what I had in mind when I suggested a mana incentive for conquest earlier. You could go so far as having a new, unique "ruins" that each civ leaves behind when destroyed, one of the resources granted by which would be the civ's signature mana-type. Personally, I still only support this reward being given when a civ is completely destroyed. But I wouldn't be entirely opposed to no more moving palaces.

The point is simple, in AI games leaving a single tiny city alive tends to benefit you more than having a a vassal with a decent amount of territory/resources or wiping them out completely. This is because their palace equates to 3 free mana that you cannot get if you wipe them out. Ideally wiping a civ out and leaving a single mini-city standing and taking a vassal should net you the same result.

I agree entirely. In my last game, when I was forced to make the decision to vassalize or conquer the Hippus, I considered them and their 5 cities. 5 cities is a fair number, but I just had the Calabim betray me and had to crush their rebellion. So I'm weighing the options- vassalize the decent-sized Hippus and have them contribute minimal amounts to research (maybe one tech) and obsolete military support from their island, OR leave them with one city, take everything else, and take their mana.

It's a no-brainer. I can actually make use of their 4 other cities (they grew from about pop 6 to pop 14 under my control) and I can still reap the benefits of the mana. Win-win. Which is why 1-city vassals are the ultimate winning strategy from what I can tell. And (not that it matters with the AI) but if you pick the right city it's not too difficult to help them defend it either.

 

[Vitek]

I agree that getting palace mana from vassals is bit strange and I would rather see it gone.

Simple if its not broke don't fix it, and it is not broke. Now your opinion assumes that it is broke, but thats your opinion. If there is something you want in the game mod it yourself - heck I have been asking for the ability for the Hippus to sale (and for other civs to buy) Hippus merc units. In my opinion it was an over site per their lore, so what did I do? I went and made my little modular Mod mod so my little Hippus empire could sale their services. Its not perfect, but it gets the job done. I would suggest you do the same, and leave a perfectly good game mechanic alone. Yes the AI can be improved and thats what they are working on, but to remove a feature for a VERY select few is not good for the whole. Your argument is weak, so this will be the last post about this issue from me... There is a point when your just beating a

A Hippus mod is still alive and updated? I really have to try it.

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

I agree that getting palace mana from vassals is bit strange and I would rather see it gone.

A Hippus mod is still alive and updated? I really have to try it.

Yea it lives. I considered making it a more complex mechanic with some python code, but now that we are in endless patching mode... I figured I would just make it simple in design and modular. If/when the patching phase of ice has slowed a bit, I do have plans on expanding the units to include some graphics and a national and/or hero unit. The only issue there would be that it would no longer be modular... The main thing now is that it does not get in the way of any of Kael's main mechanics. And if the Hippus are not in the game, you will never see it. Also they get all their palace goodies back that you originally wanted If you have any issued with it just post in the thread. It worked well for my games, but we can all see how minor things can be missed.

 

[odalrick]

Remove mana from the palace altogether and add a new early national wonder that produces the current mana.

That way you can't play whack-a-mole with the palace until it is in that useless 1 pop city.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

That is one solution. I'd prefer it be very cheap, so it doesn't slow you down much. Of course, that might make the vassals just build it quickly too and so make no real difference. You could make it so that they are unique world wonders instead of national wonders if you prefer. You could make it so that you can capture your enemies "palaces" that way if you like.

 

[odalrick]

About 200 hammers maybe. That's a settler, but doesn't use food. Hopefully that 1 size city will have other priorities than building mana for their liege.

Or a higher cost and have it spawn for free the first time you build a city, neither is particularly hard to do.

But I like the idea of making them World Wonders, although I'm concerned that would make capitals far too valuable. At least wiping out a civ early wouldn't give you their mana, since it wouldn't have been built yet. Would make a nice game option.

 

[Neomega]

You can take just about anything you want from a vassal, (except techs for some reason). It's up to you to decide strategically how bad they need it.

I do think, there should be more fights to the death, or at least for a longer time. I have seen civs capitulate without even losing a city. Again, I think this may be a BTS issue.

 

[Breez]

The "don't use it" argument is absolutely idiotic and anyone using this argument should be ashamed. I propose using the "don't use it/turn it off" that they should introduce 20 highly imbalanced features that break the game and if you want a decent game "don't use them" or "turn them off."

Are you familiar with the "World Builder"? That is a highly imbalanced feature that breaks the game... if you use it.

Why should I care if you use it? Why should I care if you enjoy giving yourself 10 Avatars of War on Turn one?

I have a nephew that likes to play sports games. His idea of fun is taking the All-Star Team and DECIMATING the worst team in the league. I tried to explain to him there isn't much satisfaction beating the worst team with the best team 72 - 0 and presented my point of how much more satisfying it is to use the worst team to barely squeak by the All-Star team by 1 point. Alas he disagrees.

Should we get rid of all lower difficulty levels also? Just force EVERYONE to play at the highest difficulty?

 

[dwhee]

Are you familiar with the "World Builder"? That is a highly imbalanced feature that breaks the game... if you use it.

Why should I care if you use it? Why should I care if you enjoy giving yourself 10 Avatars of War on Turn one?

I have a nephew that likes to play sports games. His idea of fun is taking the All-Star Team and DECIMATING the worst team in the league. I tried to explain to him there isn't much satisfaction beating the worst team with the best team 72 - 0 and presented my point of how much more satisfying it is to use the worst team to barely squeak by the All-Star team by 1 point. Alas he disagrees.

Should we get rid of all lower difficulty levels also? Just force EVERYONE to play at the highest difficulty?

Yeah, let's eliminate worldbuilder. It's simply NOT BALANCED- I can't believe Kael doesn't get on top of this.

You're comparing a feature of the game that cannot be removed (and is lame ) to one that is basically just a "cheat code" for those that want to customize their game. And no, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the topic at hand. I want to be able to play a balanced game of FFH without using worldbuilder, so I wouldn't even consider that an option.

And we're talking about balancing the game here, not making it more difficult. You can see this in the numerous suggestions that have been made to:

1. Not eliminate mana rewards from vassals entirely
2. Give appropriate mana rewards to those that choose to NOT vassalize civs.