Wredniak2003 wrote:
@Varadhon



I believe that by implementing the mechanics you suggest probably game would become more "realistic" or "logical" however you want to call it tbh. I also believe that would make the conquest more tedious. Especially on larger maps when you would have to conquer 10 or more enemy cities. While having to wait 4-8 turns for city to start working normally would be imo fine, even giving it -50% to FIDSI for 10 turns could be manageable anything more would slow down conquest too much imo. (1)



As for coming up with racial interaction that would require serious work to make it right and balanced. While diplomacy is not yet in game it was planed and developers have put a time for this to be implemented. Adding another serious feature will probably move release date and increase costs. (2)



I also find it little ironic that you are opposed to faction transforming into another faction but you seem ok with razing a city and settler of your race magically popping up out of nowhere. (3)



I think the real reason about our disagreement is the fact you find the conversion of one faction into another major flaw while I find it rather minor inconsistency. (4) That makes it much easier for me to over look it in favor of the city conquering mechanic I do enjoy.



I'd also disagree with your opinion that, ah let me quote it:





If I just conquered the 15 pop city with 4 districts razing it and starting new city with 1 pop and no districts is hardly a viable choice.



"Keep in mind, if you want a city to be 100% yours, you always have the option of destroying it and re-founding the city." (5)



To sum up fun from me is way more important that making sure everything is 100% logical. End even with your approach I still would find some issues like imo necrophages would never willingly work with food. Nor any race would be fine with them living in any serious numbers in one place. So only way to deal with that would be forcing player to raze the city which would be hell of balancing issue. And in the end I really don't want to play as conglomerate of many factions. I am afraid we will not agree on this issue. (6)

1. There needs to be some sort of mechanic to slow down conquest. I think we agree on that based on re-reading our previous conversations. We obviously disagree on the mechanics. A simple FISDE penalty is a totally viable way of going. My position is that such a mechanism is overly simplistic and far too shallow. Again, this problem was solved in previous titles. The game should be innovating, not reinventing the wheel where it's totally unnecessary.



2. All features take time and resources to implement. This doesn't really say anything unless the cost of implementation is prohibitive. The immersion value of being able to create a multiracial empire is worth some sort of expense. One of the things I seriously disliked about ES was its lack of immersion. The totally fungible character of population in ES was a serious contributor to that problem. I don't like the fact that the same mistake is being made, especially since EL is a huge improvement over ES, which was already a very enjoyable game. If having a rational city conquest mechanic in place is too costly, I'd happily wait for its addition in a paid-for expansion. Assimilation of defeated players appears in the "we'll see/maybe after release" category of of the G2G feedback page. See here.



3. This is a false conclusion. I passed precisely zero judgment on the attributes of the settler produced as a result of razing a city. I'm NOT okay with the idea that such a settler would be from one's starting faction.



4. I see it as a major flaw because it is immersion-breaking. Immersion is part of what makes 4X games enjoyable. ES's primary problem was that it wasn't nearly as immersive as it could have been. Maybe you see things differently.



5. Two points. First--so what? You've still deprived your opponent of a city. That's an accomplishment in the war. How is that not viable if your objective is to defeat your opponent and win? Second, cities shouldn't disappear from the map once razed. They should become rebuildable ruins. That would add immersion to the game.



6. I haven't asked for the system to be 100% logical. I want it to be at least rational. The current conquest system that inexplicably transmutes population of one faction into population of another is so implausible that it becomes immersion-breaking. It's this breaking of immersion that I find distinctly NOT fun. I don't accept that razing a city is a special balancing issue--perhaps you can illustrate how--especially given that razing a city is already a feature in the game. Unfortunately, it looks like we indeed won't agree on this issue because what you and I find "fun" don't appear to match.

Are we going for a game or real life here? Personally, I like playing games and I really don't care how close they follow real life. After all, buying people with money? Life Stealing? Plenty of non-realistic things. I say don't worry about this.

Trithemius wrote:
My reflexive pedantry (sorry!) on this topic aside; I think we have to be careful about making too much of historical analogues - or at least being too obvious in doing so. Auriga has massive geographical and biological differences from Earth at any time in its history.

I'd disagree because we are not discussing history but rather human mentality. Especially probability of nations working with other nations (races) and we are using earth history to provide examples. I guess some faction could be more open to strangers (or less) but unless specified in their description I believe we could use our species as a base

Adventurer_Blitz wrote:
4. The Ottoman empire was based around turkey, going on to control the Islamic centers of Mecca, Medinah, Baghdad, and Cairo along with most of North Africa, the Eastern middle East, and most of the lands of the Byzantine Empire in the Balkans. Persia under the Safavids fought actively against the Ottomans and the Mughals in India. They were located in what is now known as Iran. Here I think you were talking about the pre-roman Persians in which case these nations are separated by somewhere around one thousand years.

Anatolia (essentially contemporary Turkey) and Rumelia (contemporary Greece and some other nearby states) were the core of the Ottoman Empire from the 1300s - 1900s; there were a lot of expansions and contractions in about six hundred years of empire! You are quite right about the Safavids and the Achaemenids being a good historical space apart, being divided by the Macedonia, Seleucid, Parthian states.



My reflexive pedantry (sorry!) on this topic aside; I think we have to be careful about making too much of historical analogues - or at least being too obvious in doing so. Auriga has massive geographical and biological differences from Earth at any time in its history.

Perhaps city-seizure behaviour could vary with culture?



Necrophages presumably eat everyone, and produce more necrophages from the Food surplus.

[gamemechanically:Foodstockpiles?halve/quartertheinitialpopulation?]



Broken Lords might be given a choice to "accept converts" (citizens who wish to be converted to Broken Lords) and then either expel or convert the remaining citizens to Dust?

[gamemechanically:TenththeinitialpopulationtheneitherDuststockpiles(soul-leeching)orInfluencestockpiles(showingmercy)?]



Vaulters are a bit tricky, but they seem open to new things but also quite clannish - they might have a mercy vs. enslavement option. These options could also apply to other "conventional" factions too.

[gamemechanically:reducepopulationto1;thenchoosetogainFoodorIndustrystockpilesfromenslavedcitizensorInfluencestockpilesfrommercy]



Wild Walkers could deal with captured cities in the same way as the Vaulters (above) do; I don't get a good strong sense of their style of imperialism as distinct from conventional humanoids though. Perhaps they are anti-slavery so might not be able use those options? Perhaps they ransom citizens for Dust stockpiles instead? They might also practice colonial migration and allow movement of population from existing cities to new ones to "seed" growth? (I suggested something like this elsewhere semi-recently: /#/endless-legend/forum/5-general/thread/1120-redunant-techs)

[gamemechanically:similartoVaultersbutwitharansomoptiontogainDuststockpiles?]



The hinted Roving Clans Faction might be more assimilationist than the other factions and be able to keep the population wholesale; converting them to citizens as per the current alpha-build of the game. I am not very sure about their flavour and culture though so this might be at odd if they are insular rather than accepting.

2. Going on a genocidal rampage should definitely have severe immediate consequences. I'm not trying to promote any good or bad stance right now but it should have severe repercussions. First off, such an act should destroy your entire diplomatic system, causing you to be in many wars with more altruistic factions, only your closest allies, perhaps sharing similar goals should stay on your side. Second, if you do this it would be interesting if members of all races got a major defense bonus against you, as they know you will kill them all rather than trying to assimilate them. And third, many of the peoples of your empire, i.e. the minor factions would see this as a horrible act and would likely rebel against you. I definitely have no opinions either way over good vs evil policies, but going on a killing rampage should have consequences, definitely not many bonuses, but on the other hand you would make your game all the more interesting because of it! Think of all the role-playing opportunities for custom factions!

4. The Ottoman empire was based around turkey, going on to control the Islamic centers of Mecca, Medinah, Baghdad, and Cairo along with most of North Africa, the Eastern middle East, and most of the lands of the Byzantine Empire in the Balkans. Persia under the Safavids fought actively against the Ottomans and the Mughals in India. They were located in what is now known as Iran. Here I think you were talking about the pre-roman Persians in which case these nations are separated by somewhere around one thousand years.

Varadhon wrote:
Yes, you could, though I'm surprised that anyone would feel that way. I don't have a problem with you thinking that, but I don't regard it as a reasonable choice and feel that not allowing for potential multi-faction states is a backwards design choice. (1)







Pursuing such a genocidal goal OUGHT to come with a steep downside. So what? (2)







If there were sufficient food stores, I could accept that as a possible explanation, for SOME of the population. That still doesn't explain the aesthetic change of the city. If it were to change slowly, borough by borough over time, I'd be at least slightly mollified. I still wouldn't like it, but it would be more palatable than the present system. (3)









History is rife with examples of one group of people being ruled by another or of multiple ethnic peoples living in one polity. Sometimes it goes well (Switzerland, the United States). Sometimes it works until internal and external forces dismember it (Austria-Hungary). As for "primitive" peoples, Rome, ancient Persia, and the Hellenic empire of Alexander the Great were all extremely cosmopolitan. (4)







Yes, the actual name of the option is "salt the earth." I'm not reading additional information into the name--it appears to be arbitrary. Plenty of historical cities have been razed and their ruins were still around as a foundation or useable as a source of quarry stone. Even Carthage, which provides the historical source for the term "salting the earth" still has visible ruins. If this really were "salting the earth" then it would imply that the ground itself would be unusable. That's not in practice what happens. (5)

1. I think it is best here to agree to disagree on that as for me both are good choices depending on implementation, game setting ect.



2. Why should it? This is not a "morality" game. It shouldn't try to promote good behavior as it isn't educational tool but just something to have fun. If anything "evil" options should have actually more imminent gains while good should give benefits over time if you insist on assigning value to actions per it morality standing. As it is now keeping the city is better unless you are already overextended or it is in bad spot for your race. I'd be much more willing to accept your reasoning with multi-national states if both options were equally viable but giving different results. For example if I need to rise the city fully to preserve the "purity" of my faction then give me +20% Bonus to fids (as it makes my people work harder or whatever). Or give multicultural empires -10% Fids empire wide per each different faction and -5% per each city (with potential techs/mechanics to somewhat mitigate that but even then multicultural states should never be as efficient as unified ones). That would actually make you think if you raze the city or not; instead of just promoting "assimilating" anything right and left. Or if you don't want it to work like that then at least allow 1 food supplies and some dust gain per 2 pop in the razed city. Then I admit I do have a choice under the mechanics you propose. What you propose now I can compare to storming enemy city with army of 6 settlers because I CAN DO it, doesn't mean it really is an option. I'm fine with you proposing system that doesn't give me option to have pure faction empire but please don't insist then I can just raze the enemy cities then and call it an "option" (I will not again repeat argument that any multicultural mechanic concerning necrophages is unrealistic).



3. I never claimed pop should stay the same. If you reread my post I mentioned that population should decrease during the "flux" state to 70%-75% of original population (but not instantly to allow quick recapture of the city with minimal cost).



4. I'm pretty sure we could find examples in history to support both stances. I believe that in case of any such willing cooperation either external factors were at play or it was not a direct result of conquer but marriages, unions ect. And Rome imo is terrible example. If you want to describe it in the terms of EL they treated everyone as minor faction. Only people born in Rome (the city) were Romans, their armies were actually mercenaries for the most part and all they did with conquered provinces is establish strong military presence and collect taxes. There were no cooperation, no assimilation with the exception of taking the Greek culture and making tweaks to it. If anything they would be a good base for the current faction biography competition so if you would want to base idea on them it imo would require empire wide penalty to pay for the cost of keeping peace. I don't remember much about Alexandrian Empire but I believe it lasted whole 30 years... Persians (ottomans and Persians were same nation right? I feel little ignorant here) were closest to the idea you propose in the seance they let "infidels" live if they payed more taxes. And all that is without adding complication of mixing different races.



5. Oh yes there are ruins but would anyone consider it feasible to rebuild them? Or just move the city few kilometers away? I'm not claiming there wouldn't be ruins I'm questioning a plausibility of rebuilding them. So for now I'd consider any such ruins only a pretty thing to look at, not a workable feature. Or a most +1 to production on that tile if the city is not settled in the same spot (per your argument about the building material source and even that It probably should only be limited in time making it more complicated to implement).



Too sum up I can imagine multicultural empires in EL but that would require rather significant effort and 180 degrees turn (making it entirely different game) and in the end not the best way of resource management; while you insist that only your way is the right way (or is clearly superior). Those poor people who disagree certainly can do so but are clearly misguided. (Please don't be offended I'm attempting to be humorous here). What I am saying is mostly that I quite like the current system despite it's flaws. Instead of trying to rework it which may not be plausible I'd try to improve it so it is not so ridiculously irrational. Just forcing you to siege the city for X amount of turns and then making it practically unusable for another X amount of turns would be enough to slow down the conquest. Such mechanics may already be planed as at this stage all there is in game is conquest so slowing it down doesn't make sense now. During that amount of inactivity some population icons could be grayed out or be red for example to stress the conversion is not instantaneous. And yes during that time city could slowly change it from faction A to faction B (assuming graphic designers have a time and money to implement that). Maybe that is just me but I believe focus should be on gameplay mechanics first and only the there should be added visual features like that. I don't say they are unimportant just less important.



That said I still find multinational empires are not EL, but would actually welcome single faction that would exploit such mechanic (probably in DLC).

It also occurred to me that we took rather extreme stances on the issue and I should stress that I'm not dismissing your concerns and you did rise valid points. In the end developers have finite amount of time and money. I think taking the game in different direction that we want is not always the worst thing. At some point in our suggestions we should try to limit ourselves in scope of proposed changes and maybe focus on improving the features instead of changing them (I'm pretty sure I myself have asked, on this forum, for things that don't fit this description but I'm trying to restraint myself ^^")



Sadly we produced so much text (and put enough passion into it) devs may view it as "quarrel" instead of discussion (which I feel it was) and stay away from the topic, especially as we took the thread over from OP ^^"

Wredniak2003 wrote:
1. Nope it just makes it more popular imo. And I could say i fundamentally disagree with multi-faction states.

Yes, you could, though I'm surprised that anyone would feel that way. I don't have a problem with you thinking that, but I don't regard it as a reasonable choice and feel that not allowing for potential multi-faction states is a backwards design choice.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
2. No, if I were to want pure faction under mechanics you propose I'd be severely punished for attempting that. With current mechanics I can research every tech in the era before moving to the next. The fact that it is possible doesn't make it a viable option. For your statement to be true either I'd need a reliable way to quickly turn alien faction into my (which you are opposed too) or you would need to have severe penalties to those cities to balance out me having to raze every enemy city.

Pursuing such a genocidal goal OUGHT to come with a steep downside. So what?

Wredniak2003 wrote:
4. Then how about that: If you look at how food stockpile works at the moment you are able to get 1 extra pop almost instantly, sometimes even more during single turn. Is it so implausible that when one faction takes over the city majority of original population dies and rest run away which meant my factions gains only empty city? That city already has build infrastructure and housing to support fixed amount of population. Then my factions during X turns of inactivity when the city doesn't produce anything uses that resources (which would otherwise be used as in normal city) combined with whatever spoils there were to buy enough food for rapid expansion? That idea is based on the fact that the growth is not limited by the reproductive capabilities of the faction but available food to support it. It would already be supported in game by how food supplies work.

If there were sufficient food stores, I could accept that as a possible explanation, for SOME of the population. That still doesn't explain the aesthetic change of the city. If it were to change slowly, borough by borough over time, I'd be at least slightly mollified. I still wouldn't like it, but it would be more palatable than the present system.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
As for distinction about fantasy and sci-fi is that more primitive cultures usually are more likely to be close-minded, rash and choose "permanent" solution for their enemies instead of trying to work with them.

As per assimilation of minor faction I see it more like client races not equals plus their are minority they are not a real threat to major race domination. It will be terrible example but they are more like gypsies who live everywhere and don't really care who rules the land; major faction cooperation would be like asking usa and russia to play nicely. Also consider than at most there are only 3 faction villages that mean only 3 pop per entire region and spread out at that not concentrated in single city. For the marketplace heroes/units ect... they are mercenaries and again the quantity is incomparable. Another bad example: I may be nice to the Russian who lives next door but I won't suddenly feel desire to become Russian myself or for my country to join or for a union with Russia. And most of my neighbor won't trust him because he is not local.

History is rife with examples of one group of people being ruled by another or of multiple ethnic peoples living in one polity. Sometimes it goes well (Switzerland, the United States). Sometimes it works until internal and external forces dismember it (Austria-Hungary). As for "primitive" peoples, Rome, ancient Persia, and the Hellenic empire of Alexander the Great were all extremely cosmopolitan.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
5. There seems to be an misunderstanding here. Last I checked i believe the actual name of the the option to raze the city is "salt the earth" (if I am wrong about that and confused something then my bad). That in my mind implies total destruction of anything usable in that city. So even if there were any ruins left they would not be possible to rebuild them. Actually in that situation much easier would be to build a new city instead. Then if this is the case and the option is in fact called salt the earth then what you propose is contradicting the very idea behind the option. If the buildings have suffered enough damage then it is actually easier to raze them to the ground than to try to repair them. Minor villages are just that; small and you just burn them to the ground so they can be rebuild with little cost. We are talking about cities here which are much bigger and additionally it wasn't quick destruction, it was an coordinated, well thought action that took several turns (years) and I will repeat that imo by calling it "salt the earth" it is implied that faction that did it tried to do their best to make it impossible to rebuild.

Yes, the actual name of the option is "salt the earth." I'm not reading additional information into the name--it appears to be arbitrary. Plenty of historical cities have been razed and their ruins were still around as a foundation or useable as a source of quarry stone. Even Carthage, which provides the historical source for the term "salting the earth" still has visible ruins. If this really were "salting the earth" then it would imply that the ground itself would be unusable. That's not in practice what happens.

Varadhon wrote:
1. There's really nothing to disagree with in this statement because it is so broad. The fact that multiple games have allowed for multiracial states suggests already that that position is more plausible. I fundamentally disagree with the design choice to permit single-faction states. It won't stop me from enjoying the game, but it won't displace MoM for me as the best the game in the genre if it fails to tackle the immersion problem.



2. You HAVE the ability to create a racially "pure" state in the game even under the modifications I prefer. By disallowing multiracial states, by contrast, I am totally unable to experience what I think would be "fun" vis-a-vis this element of the game.



4. None of these objections in any way addresses the wholly implausible nature of the replacement one unit of one faction's population with that of another. I fail to see any relevance in the historical example. As for the factions not being willing to ever cooperate with each other, we already have the assimilation of minor factions as a possibility, the use of OTHER factions' heroes, the ability to buy other factions' forces on the market. Do you assert that those then are just as immersion-breaking? The distinction you draw between sci-fi and fantasy is arbitrary--I don't understand why you draw it.



5. It's not that the war becomes unprofitable, it simply takes longer to get a return on the investment if you have to raze the city and start over. I don't understand the "salting the earth" comment. Where did I ask that the space be made impossible to use? Nowhere. The additional (and separate) feature that I do want to see is that the city not be completely erased from the map once razed, but that its ruins should remain and be capable of reconstruction later. That's not functionally very different from what happens with minor faction villages at present. Therefore, to whatever extent it requires the addition of a feature, that addition is pretty minimal. I don't know why you make the point about razing the city and starting over again as being a solution to the insta-flip problem--my understanding is that you also think the insta-flip mechanic is too fast. Maybe I've misread you.



6. See 1 & 2.

1. Nope it just makes it more popular imo. And I could say i fundamentally disagree with multi-faction states.



2. No, if I were to want pure faction under mechanics you propose I'd be severely punished for attempting that. With current mechanics I can research every tech in the era before moving to the next. The fact that it is possible doesn't make it a viable option. For your statement to be true either I'd need a reliable way to quickly turn alien faction into my (which you are opposed too) or you would need to have severe penalties to those cities to balance out me having to raze every enemy city.



4. Then how about that: If you look at how food stockpile works at the moment you are able to get 1 extra pop almost instantly, sometimes even more during single turn. Is it so implausible that when one faction takes over the city majority of original population dies and rest run away which meant my factions gains only empty city? That city already has build infrastructure and housing to support fixed amount of population. Then my factions during X turns of inactivity when the city doesn't produce anything uses that resources (which would otherwise be used as in normal city) combined with whatever spoils there were to buy enough food for rapid expansion? That idea is based on the fact that the growth is not limited by the reproductive capabilities of the faction but available food to support it. It would already be supported in game by how food supplies work.

As for distinction about fantasy and sci-fi is that more primitive cultures usually are more likely to be close-minded, rash and choose "permanent" solution for their enemies instead of trying to work with them.

As per assimilation of minor faction I see it more like client races not equals plus their are minority they are not a real threat to major race domination. It will be terrible example but they are more like gypsies who live everywhere and don't really care who rules the land; major faction cooperation would be like asking usa and russia to play nicely. Also consider than at most there are only 3 faction villages that mean only 3 pop per entire region and spread out at that not concentrated in single city. For the marketplace heroes/units ect... they are mercenaries and again the quantity is incomparable. Another bad example: I may be nice to the Russian who lives next door but I won't suddenly feel desire to become Russian myself or for my country to join or for a union with Russia. And most of my neighbor won't trust him because he is not local.



5. There seems to be an misunderstanding here. Last I checked i believe the actual name of the the option to raze the city is "salt the earth" (if I am wrong about that and confused something then my bad). That in my mind implies total destruction of anything usable in that city. So even if there were any ruins left they would not be possible to rebuild them. Actually in that situation much easier would be to build a new city instead. Then if this is the case and the option is in fact called salt the earth then what you propose is contradicting the very idea behind the option. If the buildings have suffered enough damage then it is actually easier to raze them to the ground than to try to repair them. Minor villages are just that; small and you just burn them to the ground so they can be rebuild with little cost. We are talking about cities here which are much bigger and additionally it wasn't quick destruction, it was an coordinated, well thought action that took several turns (years) and I will repeat that imo by calling it "salt the earth" it is implied that faction that did it tried to do their best to make it impossible to rebuild.



EDIT: As a side note in the games that allow multiple factions like AoW or Warlock you don't actually play the race. You play the charismatic leader. And I'm much less inclined to disagree or question that such person could "unite" few races.



I also am not fundamentally against multi faction states. However; I do believe implementing them in EL would not work or at very least would take too much time and other aspects would suffer. Or maybe it is because I already assumed the mechanic will not change (and paid for it) and I am comfortable with actual state of things. It also may be because I do own every single AoW game, Warlock and Warlock 2 so if I want to play multiracial empires I can do it there. I can't at the moment recall the game with EL system besides Civ and those imo are different enough to not compete. It probably is mixture of all above factors reinforced by my believe that factions are too different for any meaningful cooperation within one empire.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
1. I agree reinventing the wheel is not a goal but I don't believe all games should follow the same format even if they are all 4X. As for slowing down conquest the cool down before you can use the city (4-8 turns) would imo be enough. Or require siege for 1 turn every 3 pop.



2.Well you said you believe that ability to build multiracial empire is what you want, and that is exactly opposed to what I want. As I said before there is enough of games giving you that option. I'd want one that allows your race to remain "pure" for the lack of better word.



4. As you said you see it as major flaw and immersion braking. For me empire that consists of necrophages, broken lords and wild walkers and working is a ferry tale and immersion braking. Look at our history; Germanic counties fought nonstop for few centuries before unification, Spain is not united and half of the country wants to split off. And we all are the same race. For you one race turning magically into other is unacceptable for me it is having such different entities like factions in this game working together, you said this would be balanced by unhappiness ect... I strongly believe If I as a nature loving creature was forced to accept vaulters cities focusing on science and producing ton of pollution I'd be more than unhappy. This is not sci-fi setting (although even there xenophobia would play major role) it is more of the dark ages and here intolerance is bread and butter. I'd even prefer "unconquerable" cities with auto-raze feature than those highly improbable idea of such different entities working together. For me that is immersion breaking.



5. First if I had one enemy then fine but if I have 7 of them it is suddenly not cost-effective to wage war. Majority of wars is not about scorched earth tactics but about taking control of profitable lands. If I need to build all the infrastructure from grounds up it is not profitable. I'm tempted to reverse the argument here; If you dislike the idea of enemy city becoming instantly your race you can always raze it, disband the settler and move your own here to build your city. After all you have just destroyed enemy city and that should count for something. (It is my opinion that choice between 10 food and 1000 dust isn't really a choice and here we are talking about such disproportion).

Second you propose to add another feature so the feature you ask for can work. Especially that the option is not to "raze" the city but to salt the earth so nothing will grow there for years. That imo makes any ruins inhospitable/not possible to rebuild so such ruins would only be in my opinion a visual feature.



6.Well as I demonstrated earlier in this post for me what you propose is not rational either as I don't see multicultural empires working in EL. Walker and BL for me working together even if that makes them slightly unhappy is implausible and immersion braking.

As for razing cities being unbalanced I was talking about specific instance when you had to raze only Necro cities. That would make taking their cities much less profitable than other races and give them advantage.



Your last sentence seems to imply your "fun" is more valuable than mine... I may be misreading it but I got that feeling from it. I'm not saying immersion is not important. I just believe the core gameplay should be enjoyable first for it to gain significance. And as I said what you find immersion braking may be acceptable by others, especially considering that what you propose would be immersion braking for me.

1. There's really nothing to disagree with in this statement because it is so broad. The fact that multiple games have allowed for multiracial states suggests already that that position is more plausible. I fundamentally disagree with the design choice to permit single-faction states. It won't stop me from enjoying the game, but it won't displace MoM for me as the best the game in the genre if it fails to tackle the immersion problem.



2. You HAVE the ability to create a racially "pure" state in the game even under the modifications I prefer. By disallowing multiracial states, by contrast, I am totally unable to experience what I think would be "fun" vis-a-vis this element of the game.



4. None of these objections in any way addresses the wholly implausible nature of the replacement one unit of one faction's population with that of another. I fail to see any relevance in the historical example. As for the factions not being willing to ever cooperate with each other, we already have the assimilation of minor factions as a possibility, the use of OTHER factions' heroes, the ability to buy other factions' forces on the market. Do you assert that those then are just as immersion-breaking? The distinction you draw between sci-fi and fantasy is arbitrary--I don't understand why you draw it.



5. It's not that the war becomes unprofitable, it simply takes longer to get a return on the investment if you have to raze the city and start over. I don't understand the "salting the earth" comment. Where did I ask that the space be made impossible to use? Nowhere. The additional (and separate) feature that I do want to see is that the city not be completely erased from the map once razed, but that its ruins should remain and be capable of reconstruction later. That's not functionally very different from what happens with minor faction villages at present. Therefore, to whatever extent it requires the addition of a feature, that addition is pretty minimal. I don't know why you make the point about razing the city and starting over again as being a solution to the insta-flip problem--my understanding is that you also think the insta-flip mechanic is too fast. Maybe I've misread you.



6. See 1 & 2.

1. I agree reinventing the wheel is not a goal but I don't believe all games should follow the same format even if they are all 4X. As for slowing down conquest the cool down before you can use the city (4-8 turns) would imo be enough. Or require siege for 1 turn every 3 pop.



2.Well you said you believe that ability to build multiracial empire is what you want, and that is exactly opposed to what I want. As I said before there is enough of games giving you that option. I'd want one that allows your race to remain "pure" for the lack of better word.



4. As you said you see it as major flaw and immersion braking. For me empire that consists of necrophages, broken lords and wild walkers and working is a ferry tale and immersion braking. Look at our history; Germanic counties fought nonstop for few centuries before unification, Spain is not united and half of the country wants to split off. And we all are the same race. For you one race turning magically into other is unacceptable for me it is having such different entities like factions in this game working together, you said this would be balanced by unhappiness ect... I strongly believe If I as a nature loving creature was forced to accept vaulters cities focusing on science and producing ton of pollution I'd be more than unhappy. This is not sci-fi setting (although even there xenophobia would play major role) it is more of the dark ages and here intolerance is bread and butter. I'd even prefer "unconquerable" cities with auto-raze feature than those highly improbable idea of such different entities working together. For me that is immersion breaking.



5. First if I had one enemy then fine but if I have 7 of them it is suddenly not cost-effective to wage war. Majority of wars is not about scorched earth tactics but about taking control of profitable lands. If I need to build all the infrastructure from grounds up it is not profitable. I'm tempted to reverse the argument here; If you dislike the idea of enemy city becoming instantly your race you can always raze it, disband the settler and move your own here to build your city. After all you have just destroyed enemy city and that should count for something. (It is my opinion that choice between 10 food and 1000 dust isn't really a choice and here we are talking about such disproportion).

Second you propose to add another feature so the feature you ask for can work. Especially that the option is not to "raze" the city but to salt the earth so nothing will grow there for years. That imo makes any ruins inhospitable/not possible to rebuild so such ruins would only be in my opinion a visual feature.



6.Well as I demonstrated earlier in this post for me what you propose is not rational either as I don't see multicultural empires working in EL. Walker and BL for me working together even if that makes them slightly unhappy is implausible and immersion braking.

As for razing cities being unbalanced I was talking about specific instance when you had to raze only Necro cities. That would make taking their cities much less profitable than other races and give them advantage.



Your last sentence seems to imply your "fun" is more valuable than mine... I may be misreading it but I got that feeling from it. I'm not saying immersion is not important. I just believe the core gameplay should be enjoyable first for it to gain significance. And as I said what you find immersion braking may be acceptable by others, especially considering that what you propose would be immersion braking for me.

I scanned all 6 pages of this forum and didn't notice this suggestion. I'd very much like to see the culture mechanic more fully fleshed out.



If I take a developed necrophage city as the vaulters or the wild walkers, that city shouldn't automatically morph into a vaulter or wild walker city. Necrophage culture in that city should take a long time to diminish, and there should be difficulties associated with that (reduced approval, rebellions (real ones), etc). This would go a long way to making these cultures come alive and be more substantial. Currently they come across rather as mindless automatons. "Oh, now your faction rules here, rather than my native faction? Super."



This may already be on the devs roadmap, but in case it isn't, I wanted to throw this out their for community consideration.

@Varadhon



I believe that by implementing the mechanics you suggest probably game would become more "realistic" or "logical" however you want to call it tbh. I also believe that would make the conquest more tedious. Especially on larger maps when you would have to conquer 10 or more enemy cities. While having to wait 4-8 turns for city to start working normally would be imo fine, even giving it -50% to FIDSI for 10 turns could be manageable anything more would slow down conquest too much imo.



As for coming up with racial interaction that would require serious work to make it right and balanced. While diplomacy is not yet in game it was planed and developers have put a time for this to be implemented. Adding another serious feature will probably move release date and increase costs.



I also find it little ironic that you are opposed to faction transforming into another faction but you seem ok with razing a city and settler of your race magically popping up out of nowhere.



I think the real reason about our disagreement is the fact you find the conversion of one faction into another major flaw while I find it rather minor inconsistency. That makes it much easier for me to over look it in favor of the city conquering mechanic I do enjoy.



I'd also disagree with your opinion that, ah let me quote it:

"Keep in mind, if you want a city to be 100% yours, you always have the option of destroying it and re-founding the city."

If I just conquered the 15 pop city with 4 districts razing it and starting new city with 1 pop and no districts is hardly a viable choice.



To sum up fun from me is way more important that making sure everything is 100% logical. End even with your approach I still would find some issues like imo necrophages would never willingly work with food. Nor any race would be fine with them living in any serious numbers in one place. So only way to deal with that would be forcing player to raze the city which would be hell of balancing issue. And in the end I really don't want to play as conglomerate of many factions. I am afraid we will not agree on this issue.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
@Varadhon



Now I have got some sleep I agree that I was overly creative in my explanations. I was only going to point out that despite city belonging to different race the total replacement of it's population by winner is possible or plausible. I guess what I like in the EL is the feeling of playing united and cohesive faction and allowing for cities to stay the same would take away from that. It all comes to personal preference and given a choice I even prefer instant conversion over no conversion at all. I guess we both can agree that taking full control of the city in one turn seems really unlikely but that would be all. I like current mechanic and you don't. I think I'd prefer Civ 5 city conquering mechanic in that aspect more that AoW here. Maybe because I do own AoW1-3 and Warlock where you do keep the race of the city and only in Civ it doesn't matter (mostly because they all are human), so current mechanic is less repetitive for me. Or maybe I just really can't imagine system you propose work better in EL. That is porbably why I can easily forgive what I consider small logical inconsistencies.



Regarding the MoM and AoW example I feel like it is not appropriate. I did not play MoM but in AoW I got the feel the creators were going for the maximum units possible to provide variety. Here devs want the least amount of units possible. Additionally the AoW series there were complex system of relations between races which EL lacks (I'm ignoring AoW3 as I'm not happy how it came out) and saying it can be added is a little bit unrealistic. Just -20 approval on a city previously owned by Necro seems more like a band aid to me than a solution. Additionally even AoW had an option to kick out the race of the city and make it 100% yours. As for MoO i think the game setting is much different if I remember population there were counted in millions, here I doubt even lvl 15 city has more than few thousands. Additionally in MoO you controlled the orbit and if anyone was unhappy down there orbital strike would be a possibility so IMO that made coexisting of different races more plausible. Here on planetary scale things are more... messy.

We certainly agree that the insta-flip conquest of cities as it presently functions is a poor design choice. As you point out, the Civ 5 mechanic is valid in that game precisely because all population is the same race, human. At the very least, a time-delay in absorbing the city should be imposed. Beyond just the plausibility issue, imposing such a mechanic would slow down an invading force and give the faction on the defensive some time to react.



The reason the Civ 5 model is far from ideal is that, by contrast, EL's factions are wholly separate races and the model therefore breaks down. I cannot dismiss the things you call "small logical inconsistencies"--they are manifestly implausible. Even if a city's population were to slowly migrate from one race to another, that population has to come from somewhere. Population growth right now is a function of food production. If population can migrate into a newly conquered city, why isn't it migrating into the peaceful ones you already own? That's totally ridiculous. Further, the architecture of a conquered city shouldn't be changing instantly. If portions of it changed over time, that would be better, but still odd. It's not even clear to me that some buildings would be compatible (how are Necrophage nests usable by ANY other race?).



As for the "complex" system of relations between races being an unrealistic addition, I don't see why. Huge portions of the game, especially the diplomatic options and AI still aren't present in the game. These aren't overly complicated elements--they were present in MoM, which was published in 1994--two decades ago. There's no reason for game design to be going backwards on this point.



Keep in mind, if you want a city to be 100% yours, you always have the option of destroying it and re-founding the city.



For the record, I'm perfectly fine with the concept of being able to change the population of a city over time, but it's implementation matters. I hate the AoW migration mechanic--it is quite possibly the most ridiculous mechanic in the entire game. It's just as implausible as the inst-flip mechanic that currently exists in EL. That population has to come from SOMEWHERE. This population comes from nowhere in AoW. The method I would employ to change a city's population is the MoO2 method of moving population around, unit by unit. This would require making population units racially distinct from one another and would require more "rewiring" of the game than leaving a city as it is.



I don't understand the distinction you draw between population in MoO2 and EL. MoO2 employed a technological fix to overcome mixed race tensions on a colony--it didn't rely on the player's mental fiction to come up with a solution.

@Varadhon



Now I have got some sleep I agree that I was overly creative in my explanations. I was only going to point out that despite city belonging to different race the total replacement of it's population by winner is possible or plausible. I guess what I like in the EL is the feeling of playing united and cohesive faction and allowing for cities to stay the same would take away from that. It all comes to personal preference and given a choice I even prefer instant conversion over no conversion at all. I guess we both can agree that taking full control of the city in one turn seems really unlikely but that would be all. I like current mechanic and you don't. I think I'd prefer Civ 5 city conquering mechanic in that aspect more that AoW here. Maybe because I do own AoW1-3 and Warlock where you do keep the race of the city and only in Civ it doesn't matter (mostly because they all are human), so current mechanic is less repetitive for me. Or maybe I just really can't imagine system you propose work better in EL. That is porbably why I can easily forgive what I consider small logical inconsistencies.



Regarding the MoM and AoW example I feel like it is not appropriate. I did not play MoM but in AoW I got the feel the creators were going for the maximum units possible to provide variety. Here devs want the least amount of units possible. Additionally the AoW series there were complex system of relations between races which EL lacks (I'm ignoring AoW3 as I'm not happy how it came out) and saying it can be added is a little bit unrealistic. Just -20 approval on a city previously owned by Necro seems more like a band aid to me than a solution. Additionally even AoW had an option to kick out the race of the city and make it 100% yours. As for MoO i think the game setting is much different if I remember population there were counted in millions, here I doubt even lvl 15 city has more than few thousands. Additionally in MoO you controlled the orbit and if anyone was unhappy down there orbital strike would be a possibility so IMO that made coexisting of different races more plausible. Here on planetary scale things are more... messy.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
As to 1. That would imo produce problems the game is not currently equipped to solve. For example what units would that city produce? If the original faction units you basically are working around 3 units per faction limit and why would they even fight for you? If the conqueror units then from where they come from? I feel like if you would decide to force the city to stay the same race it would also not make any sense for some races as how would nature loving walkers allow city full of scourge called necrophage exist within their domain? Would Necrophages allow Vaulters to live or just ate them all.

I think no matter what some compromises are needed and I can probably came up with more reasons why such option would not be most logical. So which race bonuses apply to such city? Why would a faction allow the city full of their enemies to simply remain as it is? As from gameplay perspective in AoW3 the one of leading complains is actually the choice of race not mattering at all as you easily can have them all not that late in game.



As per 2.

I should clarify winning race would breed among themselves only. As they would be the race with power their grow rate could easily be higher than conquered race not only because of economical reason but there could be restriction on how many children the conquered race can have ect. As for BL needing dust for sustenance; we are talking about civils here do you expect them all die as a protest against their conquerors? They will want to survive so they will work and produce industry or work on the fields providing additional food to the city, and for that they will get some dust... so what if it is too little to sustain them for long? Would their conquerors care? Probably not the more of them dies the quicker "assimilation" will progress. And I'm not talking about assimilation of the race just the city. As for necrophages they would make good slaves for physical labor. And they would not count as 1 pop meaning they are part of the city as citizen. Just that the amount of work they are forced to do equals the work one population "point" would produce. Can't you really accept a scenario when let's say a fraction maybe 1000 of BL are valuable enough for walkers that they are allowed to live as citizen and are provided with needed dust or the fact that few individuals would betray their race in the name of survival? What I proposed is 1/4 of city dies, some population is new from the conquering race. Some population is from conquered race they are not assimilated they just have nowhere to go so they live for now within the city. Some are forced to become slaves and amount of work they do is represented as population points. With time those who didn't want to be there run away, died, emigrated etc.. but the difference was balanced by immigration from the new owner empire and by new births. So the population stays the same but not the percentage of the people in the population. + Some (very few) of the old race managed to become valuable for their captors and made their life much better that they could at home empire. I can easily imagine some of the being that selfish. If I can have BL hero as walker why 1% of my pop can't be BL as well? And during the initial process let's say 2 turns + additional 1 per every 3 pop the city would be idle in that time enough of original population would be replaced to control the city and the rest would happen naturally over time.



ugh It's late here and my English is becoming less and less understandable ^^" Time to go to sleep. I hope it is possible to decipher general meaning behind my post ^^"

1. I don't agree with the reasoning here. The answers seem to be, at a minimum, either (a) the city is yours, but you can only produce your own faction's units from it (MoO2 model), or (b) you're able to produce units from the conquered faction. If (b) seems appealing but unbalanced, then I can think of at least two possible solutions: (i) impose a cultural assimilation period that disallows production of "native" units until the period passes; (ii) permit the production of "native" units only upon the discovery of a relevant late game tech or a Tier IV empire plan. The game is more than equipped to deal with these eventualities.



As to the issue regarding the loyalty of the conquered population, again, imposing a cultural assimilation period is an appropriate solution (see MoO2). If there's a serious lore problem with the cooperation of the subject people, then a happiness modifier for each combination of conquered race-to-conquering race would solve the problem (this was the approach taken in MoM; AoW approximates this with good-v-evil alignments). As to the Necrophages specifically, this is really just a rehash of the question of their being able to assimilate minor factions. I also wouldn't be at all opposed to giving the Necrophages alone the unique ability to quickly (even over one or two turns) assimilate an entire city's population by allowing them to slaughter all its residents and "infest" them. In the reverse, I'd be happy with only being able to raze a Necrophage city and replace it with one of another type.



I take your point regarding the complaints about AoW3, but I don't see the link here. There's a current of thought out there that multiracial armies in AoW3 diminish the value of one's starting race. I see the concern, but it has limited applicability to EL. The problem in AoW3 isn't multiracial armies, it's bland city management. AoW3's cities are functionally all carbon copies of each other. By contrast, faction stats have HUGE impacts on the way that cities and whole empires function in EL.



2. This is far too much explanation for a mechanic that should simply be better designed in order to be plausible. If population were racial, the problem is solved. If the city is conquered and the race of the city remains the same, the problem is likewise solved. The latter would also solve the aesthetic problem because there would be no need to change the appearance of the city. An approval penalty for recent conquest would be totally appropriate until the city is fully absorbed. You've included many different examples, far too many for me to address each one, and I applaud your creativity in coming up with them. The solution you propose, however, becomes increasingly convoluted the more it has to explain away the conversion of a conquered city. The MoO2 and MoM solutions strike me as vastly superior precisely because they are both relatively simple and abundantly more plausible.

Varadhon wrote:
1. Why? I fail to see how it would be a detriment to the game. If you really don't want the other population around, just raze the city and start over. This method worked just fine in MoM, MoO2, AoW (leaving aside AoW's bizarre city migration mechanic). That method should be built upon and expanded, not scrapped and explained away with implausible notions. To the extent that different races could coexist in the same city, that would be great. It would require making population racial, which I would applaud. That's the MoO2 model.



2. If the differences between factions were purely cultural, I'd have no problem with the proposed solution. That is not the case here. The different factions--at least the four we know so far--are more than just culturally different from one another: they are effectively different species. They have immutable characteristics, like the BLs' non-consumption of food. It is simply impossible for the BL to be "assimilated" in the sense that they would ever "need" food. It is equally odd to suggest that the Necrophages, once subjugated, would be able to "breed" with anyone. The model proposed doesn't allay any of my concerns, it only underscores them.

As to 1. That would imo produce problems the game is not currently equipped to solve. For example what units would that city produce? If the original faction units you basically are working around 3 units per faction limit and why would they even fight for you? If the conqueror units then from where they come from? I feel like if you would decide to force the city to stay the same race it would also not make any sense for some races as how would nature loving walkers allow city full of scourge called necrophage exist within their domain? Would Necrophages allow Vaulters to live or just ate them all.

I think no matter what some compromises are needed and I can probably came up with more reasons why such option would not be most logical. So which race bonuses apply to such city? Why would a faction allow the city full of their enemies to simply remain as it is? As from gameplay perspective in AoW3 the one of leading complains is actually the choice of race not mattering at all as you easily can have them all not that late in game.



As per 2.

I should clarify winning race would breed among themselves only. As they would be the race with power their grow rate could easily be higher than conquered race not only because of economical reason but there could be restriction on how many children the conquered race can have ect. As for BL needing dust for sustenance; we are talking about civils here do you expect them all die as a protest against their conquerors? They will want to survive so they will work and produce industry or work on the fields providing additional food to the city, and for that they will get some dust... so what if it is too little to sustain them for long? Would their conquerors care? Probably not the more of them dies the quicker "assimilation" will progress. And I'm not talking about assimilation of the race just the city. As for necrophages they would make good slaves for physical labor. And they would not count as 1 pop meaning they are part of the city as citizen. Just that the amount of work they are forced to do equals the work one population "point" would produce. Can't you really accept a scenario when let's say a fraction maybe 1000 of BL are valuable enough for walkers that they are allowed to live as citizen and are provided with needed dust or the fact that few individuals would betray their race in the name of survival? What I proposed is 1/4 of city dies, some population is new from the conquering race. Some population is from conquered race they are not assimilated they just have nowhere to go so they live for now within the city. Some are forced to become slaves and amount of work they do is represented as population points. With time those who didn't want to be there run away, died, emigrated etc.. but the difference was balanced by immigration from the new owner empire and by new births. So the population stays the same but not the percentage of the people in the population. + Some (very few) of the old race managed to become valuable for their captors and made their life much better that they could at home empire. I can easily imagine some of the being that selfish. If I can have BL hero as walker why 1% of my pop can't be BL as well? And during the initial process let's say 2 turns + additional 1 per every 3 pop the city would be idle in that time enough of original population would be replaced to control the city and the rest would happen naturally over time.



ugh It's late here and my English is becoming less and less understandable ^^" Time to go to sleep. I hope it is possible to decipher general meaning behind my post ^^"

What im sure is that i do not like when i conquere city and in the same turn just buyout a full army there and the city is fully operative.

But how to change it? There is a couple of options:



Fading resistance - new city have a -50 conquere disaproval which fades by 5 each turn (to total of 10 turns) before being in full shape, and you can;t buyout in that time.

Each city has a culture of people. When conquering you need convert pop to your own each pop taking some turns, can do much more before having majority. But im not sure why should it work that way.

Each city has founder culture and it never changes, we asumme that the scope of game is too short to experience such changes. So every foreign city we control will always suffer with this penalty to FIDS. Necrophages will never make good vaulters.

Wredniak2003 wrote:
Well... I agree with you partially. City staying the same would imo be detriment to the game as imo is the instant transformation of one race into another is silly. I think where you conquer the city nothing happens for first couple turns and then you start assimilating it to your empire. Every X pop could prolong this process by X turns. At the end the city loses let's say 30% pop (but gradually so there is possibility to take the city back with minor pop lose). The rest of the population can be explained as mixture of newly migrated people from the occupants of the city, minor factions already living in the city simply switching allegiance, some original population becoming traitors and working for the enemy and others simply having no choice but to make ends meet accepting their new masters while some are even becoming slaves. (2)With time the privileged winners will breed and the slaves will die and the native population will emigrate so the ratio will further change in favor of the new owner. I can easily see the city 50 years later having little to do with conquered race and 100 years later it could be fully integrated city with occasional alien family that would really be just a fraction.



TL;DR Cities never changing are no-no. (1)Cities changing instantly are also no-no. We need middle ground

1. Why? I fail to see how it would be a detriment to the game. If you really don't want the other population around, just raze the city and start over. This method worked just fine in MoM, MoO2, AoW (leaving aside AoW's bizarre city migration mechanic). That method should be built upon and expanded, not scrapped and explained away with implausible notions. To the extent that different races could coexist in the same city, that would be great. It would require making population racial, which I would applaud. That's the MoO2 model.



2. If the differences between factions were purely cultural, I'd have no problem with the proposed solution. That is not the case here. The different factions--at least the four we know so far--are more than just culturally different from one another: they are effectively different species. They have immutable characteristics, like the BLs' non-consumption of food. It is simply impossible for the BL to be "assimilated" in the sense that they would ever "need" food. It is equally odd to suggest that the Necrophages, once subjugated, would be able to "breed" with anyone. The model proposed doesn't allay any of my concerns, it only underscores them.

I'm not thinking the necrophages "become" wild walkers. More along the lines of the original population begins to move on, and the new culture begins to replace it.