That's interesting Kael, thanks. I guess that means march of the trees and randomly spawned treants don't cause WW while Divine III summoned ones do. I suppose you would have to create a tag to make a unit like skeletons avoid WW. It would be cool and thematic if it was done.
War weariness + big stacks
- Thread starter DaveGold
- Start date
Angel-Julia
Fall from Heaven2 ROCKS!
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 127
I agree, i think skeletons shouldent produce WW. I see skeletons as expendable troops, nothing more than a low lvl fireball to throw at the enemy to soften them up.
I remember a Amurites game where i was attacking the elves, and the ancient forests spawned trees that i didnt want to fight with my normal units. so i created a defencive wall of skeletons, about 10 tiles long, and 2 skeletons thick at all points. this held the trees in place, the trees killed a skeleton each turn, and it defended my mages etc from being attacked by the trees(my valuable units would stand 1 square behind the skeleton wall). I naturally replaced skeletons every turn so i could hold my position and slowly advance the wall of skeletons till i was in bombardment range of a city. i thought this was an awsome tactic.... till i discovered my WW through the roof, i must have lost thousands of skeletons with this tactic, and it totally destroyed my economy.
i dont think the vilages care about the death of a skeleton, they are already dead anyway. so why should something that is already dead cause WW when they die a 2nd or 3rd time?
one idea would also be to make different creatures have a different ww multiplier. e.g. a skeleton may cause 0.1 WW, while a high priest may cause 5 WW.
maybe a aggresive race (infernals?) gains extra WW from lost units, and then WW decreases when they kill an opponent unit(more souls to feed on). this sounds nice in theory, though i'm not sure how it would work with thegame dynamics.
I remember a Amurites game where i was attacking the elves, and the ancient forests spawned trees that i didnt want to fight with my normal units. so i created a defencive wall of skeletons, about 10 tiles long, and 2 skeletons thick at all points. this held the trees in place, the trees killed a skeleton each turn, and it defended my mages etc from being attacked by the trees(my valuable units would stand 1 square behind the skeleton wall). I naturally replaced skeletons every turn so i could hold my position and slowly advance the wall of skeletons till i was in bombardment range of a city. i thought this was an awsome tactic.... till i discovered my WW through the roof, i must have lost thousands of skeletons with this tactic, and it totally destroyed my economy.
i dont think the vilages care about the death of a skeleton, they are already dead anyway. so why should something that is already dead cause WW when they die a 2nd or 3rd time?
one idea would also be to make different creatures have a different ww multiplier. e.g. a skeleton may cause 0.1 WW, while a high priest may cause 5 WW.
maybe a aggresive race (infernals?) gains extra WW from lost units, and then WW decreases when they kill an opponent unit(more souls to feed on). this sounds nice in theory, though i'm not sure how it would work with thegame dynamics.
Fafnir13
King
Undead shouldn't cause WW.
Summons (permanent or not) shouldn't cause WW.
Animals shouldn't cause WW.
Golems shouldn't cause WW.
Angels and demons shouldn't cause WW.
Did I miss anything?
Summons (permanent or not) shouldn't cause WW.
Animals shouldn't cause WW.
Golems shouldn't cause WW.
Angels and demons shouldn't cause WW.
Did I miss anything?
Randolph
Warlord
From a balance perspective it would be terrible to have Golems not cause WW, Lurchip is doing just fine, they hardly need to be immune to WW!
I agree with undead and summons, and I don't think there would be a balance problem.
Frankly the most important thing to do is to make an informative civilpedia entry on WW.
[edit]
Also, the more I think about it the more inclined I am to think it's not really a huge problem. There is a separate issue regarding the AI's propensity to declare war where a campaign is infeasible and it's reluctance to make peace when further hostilities are unlikely to benefit it. Those AI eccentricities result in WW sometimes becoming a more chronic problem than I think it was intended to be, but the mechanic itself, while far from ideal, isn't the root of the primary problem.
I agree with undead and summons, and I don't think there would be a balance problem.
Frankly the most important thing to do is to make an informative civilpedia entry on WW.
That's similar to my "based on Strength" idea, I like it but it would probably be a pain to implement, and be confusing if it wasn't based on a simple number like unit strength.
[edit]
Also, the more I think about it the more inclined I am to think it's not really a huge problem. There is a separate issue regarding the AI's propensity to declare war where a campaign is infeasible and it's reluctance to make peace when further hostilities are unlikely to benefit it. Those AI eccentricities result in WW sometimes becoming a more chronic problem than I think it was intended to be, but the mechanic itself, while far from ideal, isn't the root of the primary problem.
Emptiness
[]
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,922
WW should be caused by the loss of any unit as a defender (because the implication is that you are losing battles).
WW should be caused by the loss of any unit as attacker, with the exception of summons (they are expected to die weakening the enemy), undead (they're already dead), and animals (bear steaks, anyone?). This includes non-summon Golems, because they are hand-crafted with pride. (Seeing your toys smashed is very disheartening.) I'm not sure about Demons or Angels, because I'm not sure how lore handles their "death". If they are destroyed by death in Erebus then they should cause normal WW, but if they just return to another plane then I'd suggest 1/2 normal WW.
I don't believe that any WW should be caused by defeating an enemy unit. That concept is a hold-over from BtS, where war is supposed to be a horrific thing that any civilized people will abhore. I don't really see any of the civs in FfH2 (with the possible exception of the Elohim) who would feel that way. Fantasy settings tend to be harsh and war-prone, and the people who live in them tend to be appropriately hardened. WW from combat losses makes sense, because units lost means that there is a danger that the war will go bad and enemies will be attacking our cities soon. A successful campaign with few or no losses shouldn't worry anyone (on the winning side, obviously). If this change would mean that WW would not be enough of a factor, then the amount of WW produced by losing units could be increased (with a greater increase for units lost in friendly territory, because that implies losses against an encroaching enemy).
Whatever system is adopted, perhaps some adjustments to the exact rates of WW would be appropriate. Also, as I mentioned before, I think that WW should scale with map size. The loss of one unit on a duel map will almost certainly represent a larger amount of potential military might than would the loss of one unit on a huge map.
WW should be caused by the loss of any unit as attacker, with the exception of summons (they are expected to die weakening the enemy), undead (they're already dead), and animals (bear steaks, anyone?). This includes non-summon Golems, because they are hand-crafted with pride. (Seeing your toys smashed is very disheartening.) I'm not sure about Demons or Angels, because I'm not sure how lore handles their "death". If they are destroyed by death in Erebus then they should cause normal WW, but if they just return to another plane then I'd suggest 1/2 normal WW.
I don't believe that any WW should be caused by defeating an enemy unit. That concept is a hold-over from BtS, where war is supposed to be a horrific thing that any civilized people will abhore. I don't really see any of the civs in FfH2 (with the possible exception of the Elohim) who would feel that way. Fantasy settings tend to be harsh and war-prone, and the people who live in them tend to be appropriately hardened. WW from combat losses makes sense, because units lost means that there is a danger that the war will go bad and enemies will be attacking our cities soon. A successful campaign with few or no losses shouldn't worry anyone (on the winning side, obviously). If this change would mean that WW would not be enough of a factor, then the amount of WW produced by losing units could be increased (with a greater increase for units lost in friendly territory, because that implies losses against an encroaching enemy).
Whatever system is adopted, perhaps some adjustments to the exact rates of WW would be appropriate. Also, as I mentioned before, I think that WW should scale with map size. The loss of one unit on a duel map will almost certainly represent a larger amount of potential military might than would the loss of one unit on a huge map.
Well, I think after all of the current fixes are made (on the to do list), and then after Cultural-INfluence warfare is included, and AI-fixes for that ... then we should rework War Wearniness on a Civ-by-Civ basis
(for instance, some simply don't like foreign wars, some have MORE war weariness within their own borders as opposed to none at all, many are sad only from lost units and not from foreign "victories", and some might even be non-sad by level 1 deaths, while SAD at a level 2+ death, and SUPER SAD at a level 6 death ... I would say the Hippus, Sidar, and *possibly* Grigori would be more sad based upon unit level, although the Grigori would probably also be sad with other things as well (while the Hippus would be sad with Intra-cultural warfare, but not sad with Foreign conquest, and Sidar would be uncaring of Homeland and Neutral deaths (even uncaring of a level 6 death in homeland .. Super Sound with homeland battles/deaths) ... yet Super Sad with Foreign wars) ....
Meanwhile Illians would only be sad by lost units, Super Sad (anarchy?) from the loss of a Winter Priest, but not at all saddened by battles ... if lost no units, no WW.
(for instance, some simply don't like foreign wars, some have MORE war weariness within their own borders as opposed to none at all, many are sad only from lost units and not from foreign "victories", and some might even be non-sad by level 1 deaths, while SAD at a level 2+ death, and SUPER SAD at a level 6 death ... I would say the Hippus, Sidar, and *possibly* Grigori would be more sad based upon unit level, although the Grigori would probably also be sad with other things as well (while the Hippus would be sad with Intra-cultural warfare, but not sad with Foreign conquest, and Sidar would be uncaring of Homeland and Neutral deaths (even uncaring of a level 6 death in homeland .. Super Sound with homeland battles/deaths) ... yet Super Sad with Foreign wars) ....
Meanwhile Illians would only be sad by lost units, Super Sad (anarchy?) from the loss of a Winter Priest, but not at all saddened by battles ... if lost no units, no WW.
Undead is the only thing on the list that I agree shouldn't cause WW, I can see the point with Golemns but Luchiurp is already crazy powerful and the 'handcrafted with pride' explanation is very good. I guess summoned tigers would just be cannon fodder, but as living units and a kind of 'pet' I can understand WW for them.
The primary Angle and Demon users get huge WW reductions anyway so making them free is academic. Otherwise Angels are limited to random dungeon pops and demons are all limited units aren't they? Beasts of Argus ect. I can't see any civ racking up too much WW off of angels and demons unless there is some mainline mass producible troop I'm missing.
The primary Angle and Demon users get huge WW reductions anyway so making them free is academic. Otherwise Angels are limited to random dungeon pops and demons are all limited units aren't they? Beasts of Argus ect. I can't see any civ racking up too much WW off of angels and demons unless there is some mainline mass producible troop I'm missing.
Ah yes, I forgot they where demons and not undead. I can see an argument for them not causing WW. OO already has things going for it when it comes to WW, so it would be cool if their main unit was exempt from it as well.
The only two ways to get non limited duration elementals is the ToE and Pyre of the Seraphic isn't it? I see the point about exempting elementals though, I don't know why anyone should care if they are killed.
The only two ways to get non limited duration elementals is the ToE and Pyre of the Seraphic isn't it? I see the point about exempting elementals though, I don't know why anyone should care if they are killed.
fjordan
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 210
In my current game I get 4 WW for every unit I kill while attacking his capital so something is wrong here. I think at the moment WW is very unbalanced. You should not be punished this much for striking back someone that attacked you. My empire is in turmoile and I haven't killed even 20% of his main stack (I am just reducing the SoD with shadows) and a few boats, let alone I took a city. You could soften it a bit by excluding summons but I really think it needs some balancing. Waging war should remain a valid choice even with the huge stacks the AI builds.
Similar threads
