World disasters

[Zechnophobe]

Yeah MC's idea is very cool. Unfortunatly we stay pretty busy just trying to implement, balance and work the kinks out of the current armageddon path. Putting multiple armageddon pathes in would take to much time for the benifit it offered (if we had 3 different paths thats a lot of code and time that wouldnt even be used in most games).

Have you considered adding a little wiggle room to when the AC events occur? Blight could be at 40 +- 5, for instance?

Also, I really think there needs to be some kind of actual AC event a lot earlier, around 15 to 20. Something that does something, to perk up the eyes and ears of the players to know that things are going wrong.

Having the first AC event be this huge colossal bummer seems like way too steep of a curve.

 

[Ajidica]

I think that there needs to be an armageddon victory for AV civs. Currently there is no real reason to increase the AC beyong increasing your summons strength by a percentage or a few more planar gate units. Since the Sheaim want to destroy the world, shouldnt it make sense for them to win by doing that?

 

[Kael]

Have you considered adding a little wiggle room to when the AC events occur? Blight could be at 40 +- 5, for instance?

Also, I really think there needs to be some kind of actual AC event a lot earlier, around 15 to 20. Something that does something, to perk up the eyes and ears of the players to know that things are going wrong.

Having the first AC event be this huge colossal bummer seems like way too steep of a curve.

I like the predictability of the Armageddon events occuring on a set number. It allows players to plan. I know it isnt realistic but it makes it more strategic. For example some players may plan an attack for right when Blight hits, or want to recall all their major units for Stephanos's release.

I dont want to make it so loose so the player has to pull back to defend and then sit and wait for a long time for something to happen.

But, there has been a lot of work done around the AC events in 0.34. One of the biggest problems with the 0.33 version is that all the horsemen are right beside each other and potentially can release within a few turns of each other. Also I think the game waits to long before events start happening.

We are currently playtesting some significant changes to the AC events. Blight strikes at 30 and Stephanos is relased at 40 (though he is a little smaller than the 0.33 version). There is also some significant changes to Buboes, Ars and Yersinia coming and all the events are spaced out more evenly.

So when I say that I love MC's idea but don't want to do it because I dont think its worth the time. Its not because I dont want to take the time to make changes. Its because Id rather spend the time improving the current Arm path then implementing new ones.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I thinks this change will enhance both the feel and the fun of the game. Looking forward to it

 

[Monkeyfinger]

We are currently playtesting some significant changes to the AC events. Blight strikes at 30 and Stephanos is relased at 40 (though he is a little smaller than the 0.33 version). There is also some significant changes to Buboes, Ars and Yersinia coming and all the events are spaced out more evenly.

I'd like to see Blight and Stephanos switched (so Stephanos at 30, Blight at 40) and Stephanos made weaker. Stephanos would serve as an introduction to the AC, a message that if you keep racking it up, stronger menaces are going to show.

I have to agree that Blight's kind of a poor introduction to the AC since it's one of the harshest effects and is pretty unique in what it does.

Any plans to give the horsemen that scorched earth behavior discussed in another thread? As long as they hole up in cities they're not much of a menace.

 

[Kael]

Any plans to give the horsemen that scorched earth behavior discussed in another thread? As long as they hole up in cities they're not much of a menace.

Oh yeah, thats not a problem in 0.34. They will come for you.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Hmm. I guess that's a bit more interesting.

The current biggest issue with the AC though... is that I literally can't remember the last time it got to 40. It just doesn't seem like it grows very fast, or at least not on standard size maps. I mean, I play as Tasunke, and rip through anyone on my continent, but since the only thing raising the AC are city RUINS (Which I left none of) it's still at zero after this obviously armageddonesque behavior.

Have you considered maybe causing AC bumps for each civ defeated from the game? A good hefty chunk, based off of the total number of players. Way I see it, if there's only 4 of 16 civ's left, for example, the AC should be through the roof!

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

zechnophobe, just use 'last days' and the AC will definitely grow fast

 

[Domingo]

Just echoing the desire for an Armageddon-based victory condition. Maybe through a building only buildable at a certain Armageddon counter level. Evil civs seem to get stuck hoping for a conquest victory in most games I play.

 

[Mailbox]

Hmm. I guess that's a bit more interesting.

The current biggest issue with the AC though... is that I literally can't remember the last time it got to 40. It just doesn't seem like it grows very fast, or at least not on standard size maps. I mean, I play as Tasunke, and rip through anyone on my continent, but since the only thing raising the AC are city RUINS (Which I left none of) it's still at zero after this obviously armageddonesque behavior.

Have you considered maybe causing AC bumps for each civ defeated from the game? A good hefty chunk, based off of the total number of players. Way I see it, if there's only 4 of 16 civ's left, for example, the AC should be through the roof!

I think the ease at which you can completely remove a civilization from play and not incur any penalties (in fact it's better to wipe someone out instead of just warring for one city, which is the historical norm, because of the "we yearn for our motherland"). Either a large AC bump or a significant diplomatic penalty should be incurred for wiping someone out completely. I doubt even evil civilizations would stand by and watch someone be destroyed, especially when they'd realize they would be next (if the AI was smart).

 

[fuzzy_bunnies]

Have you considered maybe causing AC bumps for each civ defeated from the game? A good hefty chunk, based off of the total number of players. Way I see it, if there's only 4 of 16 civ's left, for example, the AC should be through the roof!

I think the ease at which you can completely remove a civilization from play and not incur any penalties (in fact it's better to wipe someone out instead of just warring for one city, which is the historical norm, because of the "we yearn for our motherland"). Either a large AC bump or a significant diplomatic penalty should be incurred for wiping someone out completely. I doubt even evil civilizations would stand by and watch someone be destroyed, especially when they'd realize they would be next (if the AI was smart).

Well, technically your army waltzed into the city, killed the garrison but the rest of the city was left alive and swore fealty to you. That isn't really armageddonesque behaviour. Its not like you slaughtered everyone in the city (which is why razing increases the AC).

If it makes you feel any better, you didn't actually wipe out the civilization, you killed the units loyal to the previous king and assimilated the rest of the population into the empire... then when you approached the enemy palace the king fled into the woods and detonated the palace behind him. He's probably living in a spider hole somewhere out in the desert.

There... all's well that ends well!

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Well, there are civilian deaths attached to conquering a city, see the loss of a population point. You're right though, it's far from being genocide.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

an AC-related victory condition sounds great! it would be especially good for evil civs, I like that

 

[smusebaer]

I would like to see rituals for world disasters.

And we have a vulkano that does nothing... how about spawning meteors?

 

[Blackmantle]

@ Zechnophobe & Mailbox: You err on no AC-increase for eradicating civs. To a certain degree / sorts of.

If you finish of a good civ AC will incease by +5 i belive (which is quite a sizable ammount in my book.), for neutals its +2 i belive. For evil civs it will reduce the AC by -5 (or might be 3 only. Might also be modified by mapsize / relative number of civs...).

So the layout of the civs will to a degree determine if the AC will go up when many civs fall early or the opposite.

Now in FFH there are more Evil civs than good ones overall (at the very start of the game...). So chances are you will even out at +0 or even lower for going all-out conquest with no razing if done very early in the game.
(But one has to say it does make sense, sorts of. Imagine killing of all the bad guys wanting to bring armageddon to erebus or unintentionally doing so thanks to their behavior. Then perhaps the world really shouldn't go to hell... ?
Since there is no chance(?) under those conditions to Hyborem or AV for that matter apearing in the first place i belive. As well as beeing the foundation for a very peacefull game over world-spanning alliance.)
Related to that is that RoK makes evil civs neutral and OO usually coming into the game later so that further tips the game flow to the good guys. (Sounds a bit paradox, but only the civs left standing quite some time after the start usually reach the point were Religions spread far and wide. So chances are some evil civs are eradicated early, others turn neutral midgame leading to a rather non-armageddonesque behavior in many games.)

Also presently there seem to be more events downing the AC lately then upping them at the moment, further tipping the scales in favor of the good guys. More Events like the ancient tome (with tempting rewards at the cost of AC increase or no benefit exept AC decrease as choices.) perhaps whould be needed to ammend that problem of overall low chances of Armageddon / even the first events happening...

Another option whould be to let the Agares constellation Add +1 to the AC if you / other civ don't get the golden Age for running Veil (relative to mapsize civs if possible). Might seem like a very small ammount, but will add up quite remarkably with time / if many civs are around or if living World is checked...
(Downside to that whould be that there is few influence by the player for that. But still seems gradual enough to allow for adaption of strategy / preparations.)


So overall i still agree, regardless of civ-perish indeed having an effect on AC, a bit more dynamics besides beeing forced to last-days option for Armageddon to come around at all should perhaps be implemented.
But i belive that can be done by adding interesting fun / options to the game (like abovementioned Events and comparable tradeoffs.) instead of greathly tweaking behavior / penalties for existing mechanics which work fine imo.

 

[Dora190]

strategic disasters do not have to be world ending, looking at the current climate with banks going et al, they can be very worrying and could no doubt cause real problems.

You've got economic problems, natural famines, metorites/earthquakes happening at sea and inundating all the adjacent coastal cities. Large scale volcanic eruptions. big earthquakes

 

[hbar]

Just echoing the desire for an Armageddon-based victory condition. Maybe through a building only buildable at a certain Armageddon counter level. Evil civs seem to get stuck hoping for a conquest victory in most games I play.

Like an Altar of the Luunotar, but evil!

How about The Liturgy of Havok and Carnage
-only buildable at AC = 100%, creates a black hole that swallows creation
+100%

 

[xienwolf]

Calling down Worldwide Distasters via Ritual would be quite a strategic element. Like Rites of Oghma, but this time you are praying that it does NOT hit your territory.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

Calling down Worldwide Distasters via Ritual would be quite a strategic element. Like Rites of Oghma, but this time you are praying that it does NOT hit your territory.

that sounds nice. and fun too. quite a gamble indeed, but then again it may very well be worth the risk. and seeing how many people love gambling ( often too much though ) , this mechanic would probably be nice to have in the game

 

[Zechnophobe]

Hmm, another part of this discussion, is the seeming fact that NO one save the sheiam explicitly benefit from the AC getting higher. And even they are teetering on the edge of it. As much as they can love to go all nutso with planar gates (Which, you have to admit, are expensive and unreliable) the only benefit they get is a small boost to their summoned units strength, and their worldspell doing a bit more damage. Whereas they take all the health and damage of hell terrain.

So I would really like to see the system be a bit more tilted on the side of the person raising the AC, especially if they do so intentionally. For instance, the Mark of Prophecy just gives +1 AC, what if it also gave +10% strength? Perhaps Blight could be lessened in cities with AV? I don't just want a 'victory condition' out there at the arse end of AC, I want a strategy that compels you to want to increase the AC, or at the very least, compel you to a task that HAPPENS to increase the AC.

As it is, it is completely avoidable in most cases, and doesn't warrant a second look from a strategic stand point.