"You have grown too powerful for us"

[onedreamer]

I can ensure you that without that limit winning with conquest/domination would be a lot more exploitable by the human player BUT not by the AI. The AI is not designed to think like that (the AI doesn't think, actually). These limits are a blessing IMO, they were put there based on the experience accumulated from the legacy titles of Civilization. You should also consider that permanent alliances are a side option of the game, and as such they may not be (my opinion: they are not) implemented in the best possible way.
This said, I think the main problem here is FFH2 specific and not Civ4's specific, because frankly I have found that FFH2 biggest flaw is exactly in victory conditions. They aren't remotely as appealing as vanilla Civ, and aren't comparable to the improvements introduced with the rest of the gameplay. This regards especially conquest and domination victories, because gameplay as a whole, and warfare too, is a lot slower in FFH compared to Civ4. It is a shame IMO because victory conditions are an important part of gameplay.

 

[Gelvan]

if you want a faster game take quick and smaller maps...

the victory conditions are good. there are many different possibilities to achieve victory.

the question of this thread is, if it makes sense, that an AI which is your best friend since the beginning of the 30h game you play does not want to ally with you because there is a mechanical, not flavourful, not fun hinderance for a permanent alliance, which you could switch off completely if you don't like it's mechanics. Sure enough it would make you win the game. sure enough that's the point. instead of clicking quit and start a new one.

 

[Fafnir13]

Exactly how is it exploitable? It doesn't let you do anything you can't do already. Team up with the biggest guy around? Vassalize the lowest guys without a fight? Game already let's you do that, just so long as you have the relationship score to allow it. The limiter only blocks such action in the late game.

Also not that at the point when the limiter kicks in, you are in a position where you can usually attack and capitulate any individual Civ within a few turns. If you get them to capitulate, you can demand their resources. If you get them to join peacefully, you don't have that option. So if you go the peaceful path you are making something of a trade-off, not to mention the effort spent in getting the relationship to the proper level.

In the game I keep mentioning, I had Ethne almost up to a friendly level. Just had to get a few more acolytes into her cities and then convince her to convert. I made the apparent mistake of conquering a major force of evil in the meantime, lowering the world's overall score just enough to trigger the "you have grown to powerful for us" blockade. What a wonderful reward for my efforts...

 

[onedreamer]

if you want a faster game take quick and smaller maps...

I wasn't talking of real time.

the victory conditions are good. there are many different possibilities to achieve victory.

Not in my book, and not compared to vanilla Civ. And I didn't say the aren't enough victory conditions, but that they are often unappealing and unbalanced.

the question of this thread is, if it makes sense, that an AI which is your best friend since the beginning of the 30h game you play does not want to ally with you because there is a mechanical, not flavourful, not fun hinderance for a permanent alliance, which you could switch off completely if you don't like it's mechanics. Sure enough it would make you win the game. sure enough that's the point. instead of clicking quit and start a new one.

The question is, if it is your friend from the beginning of the game, why aren't you allied by the near end of it ? Friend doesn't equal ally, btw. The problem lies exactly with the beginning of the game. Can't you see that you could achieve victory too early in the game if this condition was lifted ?

 

[onedreamer]

In the game I keep mentioning, I had Ethne almost up to a friendly level. Just had to get a few more acolytes into her cities and then convince her to convert.

In refarral to the post above, this doesn't equal to "friends from the beginning of the game". If I get it right, you weren't even friendly with her...

I made the apparent mistake of conquering a major force of evil in the meantime, lowering the world's overall score just enough to trigger the "you have grown to powerful for us" blockade. What a wonderful reward for my efforts...

You yourself called it a mistake. It was a strategical mistake, hence you precluded yourself with such a victory. I don't see where's the problem in the mechanics if it was your mistake.

 

[Fafnir13]

In refarral to the post above, this doesn't equal to "friends from the beginning of the game". If I get it right, you weren't even friendly with her...

We were at "pleased" for the longest time. She was worried about my vassals being her rivals and falling under the sway of a heathen religion. I took steps to remedy this, giving many techs, free resources, agreeing to join her war, and devoting production to acolytes to spread my religion. If memory serves, I also had to drop some cash to get her to convert. That took some effort and planning. It would have been rewarded with an ally in any other game, but because I was also busy conquering the world of evil, the game says I get nothing.

You yourself called it a mistake. It was a strategical mistake, hence you precluded yourself with such a victory. I don't see where's the problem in the mechanics if it was your mistake.

It is certainly not a strategical mistake and it did not preclude me from a conquest victory. It merely precluded me from gaining a conquest victory via the logical lines of allying with someone I had worked hard to have good diplomatic relations with.
I called it an apparent mistake, meaning it's a mistake that really doesn't make sense. Think about it for a minute. Why can I not ally/vassal someone with whom I meet all the normal requirements? Does it hinder game balance? Certainly not. I'm playing a game right now where I forged an alliance with the second most powerful nation in the game. We're on top now and nothing can stop us. Forging alliances early on, well before the block has any chance of kicking in, gives you an advantage. Forging alliances when you already control one third of the world's power or more does not. The block does nothing to balance the game, only make it take longer for no good reason at all.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I'm with Fafnir on this one. it makes no sense at all to punish the player cuz he went on a conquering spree, it should be quite the opposite imho.

 

[onedreamer]

It is certainly not a strategical mistake and it did not preclude me from a conquest victory. It merely precluded me from gaining a conquest victory via the logical lines of allying with someone I had worked hard to have good diplomatic relations with.

It's the same as improving a mana node with the wrong mana type without access to Dispel Magic and have your Tower of Mastery delayed. You did not consider all the aspects of conquering all other civs before allying with Elohim, that's pretty much it. I don't see why it would be a game mechanics flaw. And besides, a diplomatic state of Pleased isn't enough to make you feel like an ALLY of that civ. If you worked hard you'd be Friendly and allied before.

I'm with Fafnir on this one. it makes no sense at all to punish the player cuz he went on a conquering spree.

Well.. pardon me but define "punish". I don't see anything like punishment here. If he didn't go on the conquering spree he would not have achieved the conquest victory anyways. The error he did was the timing with which he persecuted his goals.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

yeah, "punish" is probably not the right word for that concept. basically, conquering a couple civs has actually hurt him in the long run. I don't think it's a lack of strategy and "foresight" , it's just the result of a very gamey artificial limit.

 

[Gelvan]

but can't 2 civs change their attidue after years of peace and trade?
I mean USA and Europe get along quite well, despite some problems 220 and 60 years ago.. okay they are by no means "allied" at the moment, but if we "play" this game of peace for 500 years from now on, wouldn't it be possible at least, (or at last), that they ally?

mistakes should not hinder a player from getting the victory which is most logical. It makes not much sense (to me ) that one has to declare war on the best friend, to achieve a domination victory. (ToM and Altar also will declare war eventually)

@victory conditions
maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but at the moment I'd prefer if the developers put their ressources in balancing, AI-training etc. - later on when the scenarios come, they surely will provide new mechanics, new victory conditions that can possibly be adapted to the main game.

 

[onedreamer]

yeah, "punish" is probably not the right word for that concept. basically, conquering a couple civs has actually hurt him in the long run. I don't think it's a lack of strategy and "foresight" , it's just the result of a very gamey artificial limit.

Gekko, be honest. There are A LOT of gamey limits in this game. The point is that once you know them, you just adopt the correct strategy about them. If there was no way around a limit I would agree, but I don't think this is the case, so again why risking to screw the AI for this ?

 

[onedreamer]

but can't 2 civs change their attidue after years of peace and trade?

uhm... but they actually do. There are diplo boni both for "years of peace" and "open borders".

@victory conditions
maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but at the moment I'd prefer if the developers put their ressources in balancing, AI-training etc. - later on when the scenarios come, they surely will provide new mechanics, new victory conditions that can possibly be adapted to the main game.

Again Gelvan, I wasn't asking for NEW victory conditions but BALANCED victory conditions

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

ok, I'll be honest I hate every single gamey limit, I am democratic

I do see that it's not a gamebreaking limit and that it COULD be needed to help the AI. but it's still annoying and I believe a better solution can be found. for example, if a superpower emerges from the alliance of 2 powerful civs, the others should stop their wars and unite against the newborn huge threat. that shouldn't be extremely hard to code and it would be quite a lot more fun imho. in snarko's options mod you can have an alliance with more than 2 members btw, which would allow the AIs in imminent danger of being obliterated off the face of Erebus altogether to do just that. I still think that a mechanic that allows allies to break the alliance if they both desire to should be put in place btw. single-handedly breaking the alliance should be possible too, but it should cause huge problems ( being considered a villain by anyone, revolts and possibly revolutions, massive unhappiness, etc. ) . alliances are poorly implemented in BTS, and I'm pretty positive that modders could flesh out the concept into something a lot better.

 

[Gelvan]

uhm... but they actually do. There are diplo boni both for "years of peace" and "open borders".

yeah but why can't I not ally with someone who has +35 attidue, only because i got one or two techs more than him?

ok, no probs with balanced victory conditions (even though every thing else should be higher priority imo)

@geeko
truely - an alliance is something like a fusion of two civ's - so the breaking of an alliance should only be possible with a huge civil war...

@something completely different
what if an Alliance had to be earnt somehow? if there wasn't any game limit, but you had to do something to get an alliance?

this would make it impossible for two AI to exploit the Alliance thing, but gives a human player who is in the situation of the OP the ability to get around an illogical war and win the game "honestly".

now... someone provides some ideas HOW TO earn a permanent Alliance and also some already altered xml and py files and we could test this

 

[onedreamer]

Again, permanent alliances aren't a default game option. This means that the AI is not designed to deal with them in the best possible way, and keep in mind that "best possible way" for the AI still sucks compared to the human player. Since modders cannot do so much with the AI, you should consider permanent alliances to be a component "as is". Take it or drop it.

 

[Anathema]

I don't think it's appropriate to tell players they should simply be aware of and work around an illogical, 'gamey' limit that exists for balance reasons. Ideally players should be able to win their game through logical and lore-appropriate means, such as allying with another idealogically aligned civilization to crush their mutual enemies, regardless of score limitations - and such a limit can prevent this victory. It also prevents players exploiting alliances for too-early and too-easy victories, which is certainly a good thing, but if it also has the unwanted side effect of preventing roleplaying players from achieving a logical victory, it ought to be changed to achieve the desired effect without the undesirable side-effect. Again, it's not appropriate to tell the players who are playing the game as intended that they should go against lore and logic to work around this limit, by doing so you're diminishing the 'fun' of people who aren't trying to exploit anything.

And if there really is no compromise, no valid way to change this limitation so that it functions as intended with no negative side effects, wouldn't it be better to simply turn it off? What's worse, diminishing the fun of players who play simply for fun, or making it easier to win (so easy you might call it an exploit) for players who play to win - in solo games only? Does this supposed exploit -really- matter in a solo game, where a player's choice to exploit affects no one else? And if you think the AI is bright enough to abuse the lack of this limitation to a player's destriment in a solo game, well, I'd love to see an AI that good but it ain't happening in this game.

 

[nadszyszkownik]

OK, so why won't everybody just agree to disagree, then someone will make a "no limits on alliances" game option and we call it a day?

 

[Fafnir13]

Again, permanent alliances aren't a default game option. This means that the AI is not designed to deal with them in the best possible way, and keep in mind that "best possible way" for the AI still sucks compared to the human player. Since modders cannot do so much with the AI, you should consider permanent alliances to be a component "as is". Take it or drop it.

Please not that the "you have grown too powerful for us" also effects vassalization. I realize your post is more in response to other people's ideas and whatnot, but I just wanted to make sure no one is forgetting about that other aspect of the limiter.

OK, so why won't everybody just agree to disagree, then someone will make a "no limits on alliances" game option and we call it a day?

Because I see it as a an obvious flaw from a game design standpoint. I know what the limiter is trying to do, but it simply fails. No game balance is preserved or helped. What's really bad, from my perspective, is that it overrides all other aspects of alliance and vassalization rules with no way to get around it. If it merely raised the requirements, I would have no problem with it. As is, it cuts out all diplomatic methods to victory, forcing the player to go for one of the builder victories or all out conquest. That shouldn't be happening in a game of this quality.

 

[Imuratep]

I also think it's quite a pity that there is absolutely no diplomatic win condition in FFH, even more that the conquest victory is far superior to all other kinds of victory conditions. In vanilla all conditions are doable by all civilizations under nearly all conditions. The spaceship victory is probable as common as the conquest victory. Cultural victory everyone can do in lategame, even the AI does quite well at it. Diplomacy is quite hard, but also doable. In FFH all other ways of winning need a significant greater effort than in vanilla to achieve any other victory condition. For Tower and Altar you need a tremendous production (while spaceship needs just an avarage level). Cultural Victory is very situational and even more boring than in vanilla (come on 100 turns Press enter and fortify your soldiers, which shall ensure your defense) and religious victory is nearly synonymous to conquest. (I don't expect them to be so interesting as in Rhys' and Fall, but some kinda twist would be nice.)
And these conditions aren't even a race as in vanilla as the AI does NEVER try any of these. Isn't it possible to let the AI use the script for Cultural Victory of vanilla at least? Altar victory also shouldn't be too hard. Let for example Einion beeline for Theocracy and then build all Altars. With Tower I understand the problem, because the AI does it not even manage to use mages properly, so why would it understand the concept of Metamagic II?
The peaceful conditions should IMHO definitely get some more support. I'm kinda bored of all games ending with conquest.

 

[Blackmantle]

I also think it's quite a pity that there is absolutely no diplomatic win condition in FFH, even more that the conquest victory is far superior to all other kinds of victory conditions. ...

Only mapsizes normal and smaller (or rather small and smaller) or on very open map conditions (like, say: Pangea). Nearly everywhere else the other types of victory are superior by far. (as in faster to achieve in terms of real-time and turns and easier as well. At least on difficulties above prince).

Quite some conditions to what you describe as superiority. And since most of these conditions don't apply to my way to play the game, conquest is one of the most inferior victory-conditions in my experience... (and on smaller maps domination might very well be superior to conquest for obvious reasons)

On large segmented maps cultural comes as close to diplomatic as you can get by setting the whole thing up (but its still far slower for most than ToM for example...).