Victory

@Zurai:
1) Noone said it is a builder Victory. Its a Victory that can be archived by combination of different Strategies.
2) We do not want the AIs to play for winning in FfH (as i said i might code AIs that play for winning, but only after we are as good as finished, and those will be switchable on/off)
If you want Ais that play for winning, the first thing you can cancel will be Diplomacy - there wont be any diplomacy left - because backstabing is the best way to win.
Second thing you can cancel is even triing to play a builder game as the AI will always simply conquer you if you try.
Therer are much more tings along these lines. Simply look at multiplayer. If you have not won in a game were the others play for winning at turn 300 or so than you are wiped from the map. Is that realy the kind of game you want to play?
 
Chalid said:
@Zurai:
1) Noone said it is a builder Victory. Its a Victory that can be archived by combination of different Strategies.

This thread was started raising the issue that there are no non-conquest victory methods in FFH. The very first post, by you yourself, stated that the ToM victory was coming in the next patch. That implies that it's intended to be a non-conquest victory condition, else what's the point in saying anything about it? EDIT2: Plus you DID actually say, in the changelog thread, that ToM was a "Mana related/builder victory".

EDIT: As to the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. What you said is patently not true, but I don't feel like arguing it.
 
Well, one way to make a tech "victory" the AI is bound to go for but humans won't is to have a highly overvaluable and under-costed Armageddon wonder that literally ends the world (and means everyone loses) if built.

The AI would go for it like noone's business based on the value of whatever bonuses it provides (provided Chalid or something doesn't specifically tell it not to), the human player never would. Attach it to the last available tech, and hey presto, it's a tech victory.
 
Zurai said:
This thread was started raising the issue that there are no non-conquest victory methods in FFH. The very first post, by you yourself, stated that the ToM victory was coming in the next patch. That implies that it's intended to be a non-conquest victory condition, else what's the point in saying anything about it? EDIT2: Plus you DID actually say, in the changelog thread, that ToM was a "Mana related/builder victory".

I should have said noone said that it is a pure Builder Victory. About the other Quotes what i inteded to say and what you read into them are obviously two pairs of boots.

Fact is that you can archive the Tower Victory with only minimal warring on Maps of size of Standard and above (about as much as the Spaceship as you wont have always aluminum there). If you can not you were very unlucky when the map was randomized.

But if you had read the New Features Thread (as long as it was available to the open) you would at least know that my First Proposal for a new Feature in FfH2 was a builder type victory (dating to Feb 22, 2006, 12:55 AM).
The difficult task was designing a victory that feel unique for FfH and is archiveable with minimal war, but not too easily.

EDIT: As to the rest, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. What you said is patently not true, but I don't feel like arguing it.
One more question about the second part. What of the said things do you think is not true?
a) that you cannot rely on any diplomatic partners as they would backstabb you any time to gain an advantage
b) that you will be conquered if you focus on economy instead of military
c) that most games will have been decided after few hundred turns by conquest/domination

@Wilbowman: Nice Idea ;) You have completed the Word Project "Unraveling of the World". You have lost.
 
I, personally, disagree with you, Chalid, about diplomacy itself having no value in a multiplayer game. The Diplomatic victory condition is one thing, but diplomacy itself is alive and well in games where everyone plays to win. For example, if you have two deer, and your neighbor has two clams, then you might as well make the trade as it benefits both of you while not making either of you any more vulnerable.

When two people are in contact but on two different continents, it becomes pretty easy to see how the two players might be backstabbing people on their own contienents, but still manage to cooperate with people on the other continent. Of course, I still must admit that the AI doesn't backstab nearly as much as is realistic.

Another point I feel I should raise: when I say "play to win," I'm not saying that all of the AIs should conspire against the human player to make sure he won't win; I'm just saying that the AIs each, individually, want to win, and are willing to backstab and destroy anyone that gets in their way, be that person AI or human. If all of the AIs did gang up on the human player, yeah, I'd probably have to turn it back to Settler.
 
I've won a cultural victory with the Khazad lately and I've been wondering... how does this type of victory fit in the FfH universe? Conquest and Domination are traditional methods of wining, Religion goes along with the flavour of the mod, as does Tower of Mastery... but what about Culture?
 
evanb said:
I've won a cultural victory with the Khazad lately and I've been wondering... how does this type of victory fit in the FfH universe? Conquest and Domination are traditional methods of wining, Religion goes along with the flavour of the mod, as does Tower of Mastery... but what about Culture?

Instead of a quantitative religious victory, you could see the Culture victory as a qualitative worship victory - in your best cities you worship a certain god so strongly that s/he comes to your help to defeat all your enemies.

Of course, this would make more sense with Mylon's holistic culture.
 
Well, I think the Cultural victory fits in well, we're talking an empire that becomes so "civilised" it basically leads the world through force of culture. In fantasy literature, examples of that kind of "superkingdom" abound....
 
Just to add a little idea of my own; I personally think Regicide (as sort-of mentioned earlier in this topic) would be an interesting victory condition (or at least something that could add to victory) that wouldn't necessarily require there to be a state of war.
The leader of each nation would be represented on the map as a Hero Unit and each could possibly get unique bonuses according to the leader they are (be it a bonus to combat with certain types of units, a +% production bonus to troop training in a city, whatever) as well as some basic bonuses common to all that are present (eg giving a bonus to happiness when present in the city. Not necessarily happiness though, but perhaps 'stability' in some cases. Perhaps a bonus to culture whilst present?).
Akin to the Shogun leaders in the Civ 3 Conquests scenario, the leader would be upgradable throughout the game - depending on what techs are available and what kind of leader they are in the first place (so some turn in to fine warriors, some into Archmages).

The leader could be killed in a variety of ways.

The first is, obviously, in battle. This could cause a Civ to be knocked out of the game and for their cities to go to whoever is culturally dominant there (or whoever has the nearest and largest army nearby). If there is no specific cultural influence from another nation, a city could become Barbarian (or join the ex-Civ's closest allies).

Alternatively, a leader could be assasinated. If an assassin finds the location of the leader, they could then attack them FIRST. There would be a chance, however, that they fail automatically and end up fighting with the strongest unit in the stack (or weakest, depending on whether or not they have Marksmanship which might increase the chance of a confrontation with the leader?). If the Royal Guard are present, success has an incredibly slim chance (unless they have Marksmanship). When all is said and done though, a leader might have some kind of bonuses (through experience or in the nature of the leader themselves) that help them against assassins. Additionally, buildings (like Castles, Dungeons, Palaces) might lower the assassins chance of success.
If a leader is assassinated, then Anarchy sets in and civil rest occurs throughout the civilization. Cities may flip to other nations or declare themselves independant (Barbarian) if they were already unhappy.
A leaderless-civ might survive (apparent heir? hasty elections? coup?) though, dependant on a number of things. If their economy is doing very well (one of richest three nations?), then its decided that the merchants or nobles take over the countries ruling (if available, Aristocracy and/or Consumption civics are switched to with no chance to change for a while? A sort of temporary enforcement). If the nation has a large army (size of army is within top three nations?), then its put under Martial Law (temporary Despotism/Military State?). If a Holy City is present in the nation and the majority of cities have this religion, then the Priesthood take charge (temporary Religion/Theocracy?). Perhaps some others too. If one of these isn't met, the nation is 'dead' and is broken down into independant states (barbarians) or joins other nations.
Because of the loss of leader, a surviving nation would lose its Civ traits (good and bad? Just good?) perhaps? It may gain new ones, dependant on leadership though (Financial or Organised for Merchants? Aggressive or Raiders for Military? Spiritual or Philosophical for Clergy?) but only one new trait would be obtained. Seafairing may be untouched for issues of balance?
If a nation DOES survive the assassination or the attempt fails, there is a chance that they can uncover who sent the assassin. If they do, it creates a BIG penalty to diplomacy with that nation (and makes later attempts harder?).

The last ideas I had at the moment for a sort of regicide was through magic or an Armogeddon spell of sorts to control or curse/kill a leader.
Casting the first spell would cause a random leader to gradually come under your control (at the end of a set number of turns, the leader becomes your unit to do with as you please which could then perhaps convert other cities? The nation left behind would become, after a turn or two of 'thinking things are normal?', like that of one who had lost its leader to assassination. This new leader could, of course, be disbanded instantly which would have the same effect. Alternatively, he could also be added in your own civ as a 'super specialist' or, in some civs, put in a cage to bump up the GPP nicely).
Casting the second sort of spell - the curse - would cause a leader at random (or perhaps ALL leaders?) to gradually suffer from a wasting sickness, permanently lowering his strength, little by little, every turn. The presence of various healing buildings in a city - and a High Priest - would slow this process but couldn't reverse it. The only thing that could completely halt the process is a Wonder of sorts, buildable after the curse is set. This wonder would either instantly stop the curse or give a bundle of resources that allow the construction of something incredibly cheap (1 hammer building) that stops it. The advantage of the 'bundle of resources' (say, the wonder gives 6 'cure' recources... and perhaps life mana? or it may require it?) is that these cures could be given to other nations suffering from the curse to stop their leaders dying (which might shift power in an interesting manner). The original 'curse' spell may also provide one cure as well so that the one who originally causes it is 'immune' or is in a position of power to trade it off to others so they don't suffer its effects.
A nation that loses its leader to the curse may also suffer unhealthiness in general but may act akin to a nation who's leader is assassinated (and so might remain in the game).

Of course, most of it probably isn't remotely possible and I really shouldn't try imposing anything upon you at all after all the good work you've done so far, but I thought I might try brainstorming a thing or two and see if I did anything useful ^_^;
 
The complexity might make it kinda not worth it in the end though; especially if the AI doesn't understand it.
Still, part of me has always liked having some kind of representation on the battlefield and the regicide condition always was something I liked.
 
Interesting ideas, Samael, and I won't pass judgment as it's up to the team to do that, but I do see that having every nation have a leader unit might take away the flavor of Civs that already have their leader in as a unit (Mercurians, maybe others later), which might not be such a good thing. I can see you've thought it out, though.
 
Well perhaps then, still, the Mercurian leader is made to somehow stand out even more? And, as it stands, the Mercurians just suffer a penalty when their leader is lost? So they could, essentially, be 'immune' to regicide? *shrugs*

The only thing I'd like to add to the regicide idea really is that, perhaps, there should be some incentive for the Leader to be moved from outside their greatest citadel at times.
In Civ III, Kings were just fortified as best they could in the capital city and it was practically impossible to ever get at them.
With this, since the Leader provides bonuses and is potentially good in combat, one might at times make their leader vulnerable to attack. For instance if they lead the charge in battle. They may provide a bonus to troops present and fight valiantly but they might still be lost. Or they might move to a frontier city to improve production (perhaps a city could rush production with a Leader present via sacrifice? Not for Good Civs though, of course) and, away from the defences of the Palace and a Castle, they might be picked off by an assassin.

One last thing on Regicide is that a Palace, Castle, Walls, or whatever else might provide the leader with an 'Escape Route'. In a seige, the leader (and perhaps royal guard?) could make use of the Escape Route and appear at a random location nearby the city. If all space within the surrounding eight tiles if filled with an enemy, (or possibly even further out, within the second row or even further out still in the case of Kurioates) then the escape fails. Having slipped out of the city, they'd be 'invisible' essentially and only those with sharp eyes (trained spies, assassins, hawks, etc.) would be able to spot them. After a few of turns of evasion (or if the city falls and the leader if then found to be missing), this invisibility would be lost and the leader would very quickly become a target.

Just more ideas as they come to me ^_^;
 
So, could we get some feedback on the Tower of Mastery victory condition here? I'll refrain from posting my own opinion until I've had a bit more experience with it, but I wouldn't mind hearing some others' thoughts on it.
 
Thats a nice idea =P

The Tower of Mastery could give you a unit called Master of All or Almighty One or anything that have alot of str, some nice abilitys, etc just to destroy the oponents for fun...
 
Speaking of all these victorys, i like to see some custom victory screens and music as well, to make this mod a little more different then it is already.
 
I could have won with tower of mastery on my last game, I was building the fouth tower when I won domination. It was a large highlands map. I had 48 cities, I think, or at least I'd built that many oblesiks. Most of them were barb cities.
But I didn't actively persue mana, I think I could have gotten tower victory a bit sooner if I'd aimed for it. And the bonuses from the 4 towers are enough incentive to build them, so all in all I think it's pretty good.
 
I've been feeling a lack of end-game myself. In fact, I haven't completely a single FfH2 game (in a couple I was stupid and let barbarians wipe me out, the rest I dominated but didn't have the motivation to get any of the victory conditions).

I know VCs are a long ways down the development line, but here are a few thoughts:

Religious Victory at 80% is too high. I've never gotten close, and sometimes I've managed to spread religion quite a bit (especially the Order). The problem is that to get 80% you need your religion in every city and only if there aren't too many cities with any other religion. Not too likely, especially if you have a couple of Agnostic civs. Has anyone managed this victory? The only way I can see it working is if you go out on a crusade to destroy any city that has another religion, but this doesn't fit with Kilmorph too well, in my opinion, leaving that religion out.

Having vassal states from the expansion will, in my opinion, greatly reduce the tedious aspect of the end-game, I hope, but some new VC ideas I have are:

- Alignment Victory. You (and everyone else remaining?) wins when only a single alignment is left in the world.

- Civ-Specific Victories. The Khazad could win if their vault gets to 2000 GpC, for example. The Ljosolfar could win if 50% of the land is covered in trees. Shaeim could win with an armageddon tech / wonder.

- Religion-Specific Victories. Similar to civ-specific, and mentioned by others in this thread.

- Niilo
 
vorshlumpf said:
I've been feeling a lack of end-game myself. In fact, I haven't completely a single FfH2 game (in a couple I was stupid and let barbarians wipe me out, the rest I dominated but didn't have the motivation to get any of the victory conditions).

I know VCs are a long ways down the development line, but here are a few thoughts:

Religious Victory at 80% is too high. I've never gotten close, and sometimes I've managed to spread religion quite a bit (especially the Order). The problem is that to get 80% you need your religion in every city and only if there aren't too many cities with any other religion. Not too likely, especially if you have a couple of Agnostic civs. Has anyone managed this victory? The only way I can see it working is if you go out on a crusade to destroy any city that has another religion, but this doesn't fit with Kilmorph too well, in my opinion, leaving that religion out.

Having vassal states from the expansion will, in my opinion, greatly reduce the tedious aspect of the end-game, I hope, but some new VC ideas I have are:

- Alignment Victory. You (and everyone else remaining?) wins when only a single alignment is left in the world.

- Civ-Specific Victories. The Khazad could win if their vault gets to 2000 GpC, for example. The Ljosolfar could win if 50% of the land is covered in trees. Shaeim could win with an armageddon tech / wonder.

- Religion-Specific Victories. Similar to civ-specific, and mentioned by others in this thread.

- Niilo

The mid to late game is the focus of "Fire". I dont know exactly how it will play out yet, but we are looking at pretty ambicious ideas which, if nothing else, will liven up the end game.
 
Back
Top Bottom