What would you change?

[Bad Player]

I think you might be able to see more clearly over ice??? If you are an army advancing over ice you should be more vulnerable since anyone can see you in contrast to the white ice and also you can't run away fast.

 

[Xanikk999]

But my point is defense shouldnt be lowered in desert or ice for that matter because the strength of your armor and formation is still the same.

If there was any cover that would ADD to your defense. But having no cover SHOULDNT LOWER YOUR DEFENSE! It should be neutral!

 

[Sureshot]

ice = snow = probability of snowstorms and such, plus it would be flavourful

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If you're travelling across the desert, supply lines become an issue, the ground isn't well suited for temporary fortifications, you can be attacked from all sides, etc. Further, it's a nice gameplay mechanic.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

But my point is defense shouldnt be lowered in desert or ice for that matter because the strength of your armor and formation is still the same.

If there was any cover that would ADD to your defense. But having no cover SHOULDNT LOWER YOUR DEFENSE! It should be neutral!

What Chand said, and besides, armies are more than machines, the biological systems can themeselves be degraded by heat and dryness, i.e., some of your armies are dying of thirst or heat stroke.
This is better represented as -% defense than losing health because AI doesn't understand losing health.
heck, even golems would perform more poorly in deserts as sand got in their joints, etc.

 

[Bad Player]

But my point is defense shouldnt be lowered in desert or ice for that matter because the strength of your armor and formation is still the same.

If there was any cover that would ADD to your defense. But having no cover SHOULDNT LOWER YOUR DEFENSE! It should be neutral!

But if your army is in a desert they are dehydrated and overheated so they are less able to fight. A real life example of this is the defeat of the Knights Templars.

 

[Yorgos]

Ice costing 2 movement, and giving +15% def, and reducing visibility (basically an anti-sentry promotion)

Plus 15%? Did you mean minus, just like the desert? I'm fond of the idea, though it should come with a promotion negating the disadvatanges.

mountains costing 3 movement so they arent super highways, and having like +100% defense (so that the creation of rangers doesnt turn mountains from blockades to superhighways... instead it would go from blockades to near-blockade, you'd be able to put your own rangers up there to defend your new openings)

That's the system used in civ3, and I can tell you that it didn't worked very well. The impassable mountains first appeared in civ3's Warhammer mod, and it proved to be one of its most important gameplay impovements (probably that's where the developers of civ4 got the idea). But a limited ability for certain units, or with certain promotions, may have an appeal. And the 3 movement cost should be applied anyway.

 

[Bad Player]

Why didn't it work well allowing people to wander across mountains? It seems realistic (e.g. Hannibal's crossing of the Alps) doesn't it?

 

[Yorgos]

If you can cross mountains, they are like a heavier version of the hills. Not a big deal. But when they are impassable, or available only for some units, the terrain becames more dynamic, allowing more interesting strategies.

But I wasn't fair about Warhammer, mountains there weren't completely impassable. Flying units (practically very versatile land units) could cross them. The same was true about some barbarians. In addition, workers could climb mountains and build roads, thus making them passable for all units. Of course building a road on a mountain took about 20 turns.

Now that I'm thinking of it mountains shouldn't be completely impassable. And making them available only for rangers is even worse.

 

[eekhoorn]

Would it be possible to not wake up the casters when they level? I like to keep a bunch unleveled, so I can chose later. Its a bit of a nuicance when they keep bugging me everytime they level.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents to this thread: if units have enough xp to be promoted, and you fortify them without leveling, they won't wake up when they level again. So if you fortify your 2 xp magi without taking a promotion, they'll be silent and won't bug you when they reach 5 xp, 10 xp, ...

Same with defenders in a city though, if you fortify a unit that can be promoted, and the city get's attacked a couple of times and your unit gets more xp, it'll still remain fortified and won't come asking what to do with the xp.


On the desert issue: I definitly like how it is now, also makes scorch a lot more fun. If you have a city or fortress in a chokepoint, just scorch the earth before it so you can kill enemy troops gathering there or bombarding your defense.

 

[Sureshot]

Plus 15%? Did you mean minus, just like the desert? I'm fond of the idea, though it should come with a promotion negating the disadvatanges.


That's the system used in civ3, and I can tell you that it didn't worked very well. The impassable mountains first appeared in civ3's Warhammer mod, and it proved to be one of its most important gameplay impovements (probably that's where the developers of civ4 got the idea). But a limited ability for certain units, or with certain promotions, may have an appeal. And the 3 movement cost should be applied anyway.

i meant +15%, because i imagine its difficult waging wars in ice (think germans attacking (and losing big time) attacking russia in ww2), making it negative might make sense, i just figured thered be reduced visibilty making it difficult to advance in snow and hard to find your enemy (so staying in one place and killing them as they come seems easier, and forests reduce visibility which is part of hwo theyre useful in defense)

doviello should get double movement in ice and maybe an addition defense there too, so that they benefit more from building cities in cold areas (atm they only gain +50% def in tundra, which is usually surrounded by ice, which makes them very vulnerable in general)

then we could have some spells that turn lands to ice and vice versa plus it would add new strategy (like building cities in icelands for obscurity and defense despite the weak yields)

 

[Grey Fox]

i meant +15%, because i imagine its difficult waging wars in ice (think germans attacking (and losing big time) attacking russia in ww2), making it negative might make sense, i just figured thered be reduced visibilty making it difficult to advance in snow and hard to find your enemy (so staying in one place and killing them as they come seems easier, and forests reduce visibility which is part of hwo theyre useful in defense)

Why the germans had so much losses because of the winter wasnt so much about the winter as it was about their lack of supplies. But sure, it would probably be easier to defend in snow then attack in it, on the other hand, the same could be true about deserts. So the question isnt really realism, its gameplay. How do we apply it to the gameplay? I must say, +defense and reduced visibility is a good way to make the terrain interesting. (As well as the required movement)

 

[Sureshot]

ya, thats my thinking on it, just making it like deserts wouldnt be great, but reduced visibility and added defense would be an interesting mechanic that would add some strategy to the ice regions.

 

[Endovior]

I wish that Octupus Overlords couldn't be founded inland. Quite frequently, I find that it is, which is un-flavorful. Is there any way to ensure that it is founded in a coastal city?

 

[Bad Player]

Gameplay-wise you probably would have to make Runes only be founded in a hills city and FoL only be founded in a city that e.g. built on a forest (is it possible to determine that?).

 

[Yorgos]

OK, I agree with you Sureshot and Grey Fox. And I love your idea about turn to ice spells! (air and fire spheres probably?)

 

[Sureshot]

or water or ice (if such ever exists)

 

[triangle]

Actually, after playing today I have decided that the skeleton sound is not the most irritating sound in ffh2.

It's loki's awful "run away!" noise.


That was kinda off topic, but that sound was driving me nuts!

 

[Yorgos]

This run away sound is a fun element added by the team; it's from Monty Python and the Holy Grail classic comedy. I know what you mean irritating when you are on enemy territory and hear it a dozen times at once. However Kael has adjusted it's volume lower for 0.16.

 

[Sarisin]

I've mentioned it before in other threads, and, I suppose it is a vanilla civ thing, but I find the constant requests from other civs to "end agreements with civ XYZ" and their unreasonable trade requests annoying - especially so when you see that the same civs have nothing which they care to offer in a trade.

OK, make a demand if you want, but PLEASE stop badgering me with the same line when I refuse the first, second, and third times.

Also, I really, really wish there was a way I could redline certain resources, war declarations, techs, etc. so the ai civs wouldn't bug me. They can redline, but I cannot.

One other thing I would love: better AI by the civs in dealing with raging barbs. For some reason, they continue to expand and race for Foreign Trade rather than choosing military techs, building up their defenders, and not expanding too soon. I have found it impossible to lose a raging barb game now by just letting the AI destroy itself with these moves.