MatBerryman2 MatBerryman2

Neutral towns?

▼

Neutral towns?

from Elemental Forums

One of the things I liked about MoM was the Neutral towns, there weren't many of them but there were a few of them. So on my starting Contient their maybe 6 neutral towns. These towns used to be linked together via roads and were like little mini nations, and were often belonging to other races. And so though you were building your empire these were juicy little targets. And they were always worth taking. So for example my favorite race on MoM was the High elves(they always had LOTS of magic), which I took with a combination of Death (for the dark ritual spell) and nature or fire. And taking over these towns was the best way to get slave races.

This often allowed you to iron out the problems with your own race. High elves for example made tones of magic but had slightly weaker soilders. Thus other races made perfect targets. My Death worshiping High elves O:) .  Would go and annex other races like the Troll giving me regeneration warriors. Anybody else use the tactic of using the 'black channeling' (i think it was called)spell turning your soilders into zombies giving them some nice bonus but preventing them from healing. But trolls regenerat so as long as I won the battle i got them all back. And the Upkeep was a dodle with High elves.

Or say taking over the lizardmen for those cool turtle things.

 

Because though the world is meant to be 'broken' after the catacylsm thing. But i find it hard to beleive their would no be other nations struggling through the dullge without channelers.

So anybody know what is being planned, or perhaps just share a few thoughs?

21,619 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting McCracken76, reply 24



Quoting Frogboy,
reply 16
I don't want to give too much away but consider this:

Remember how if you want knights you need horses. Horses are a resource in the game that you have to harvest. They have to be more than just in yor territory, your town has to build out and put a stable on the horse resource.  That gives your civilization access to horses.

There are other animals in the world other than horses. There are lots of different resources in the world that a city may have built out and made use of that are rare and unique.

That's all I'm going to say about that.


Hm, so let's hypothetically say that early on in the game, the player happens to encounter a small village of lizardmen? Rather than outright conquering it, perhaps the player could gain friendly relations with that village and plop down some sort of barracks/recruitment building and then... presto; Lizard Auxiliary Corps ftw.

Perhaps such settlements could become protectorates or vassals? Just to act as another option to outright conquest. Didn't one of the devs mention something about an advanced diplomatic system...?

So you would like the ability to treat allied / Neutral cities as resource locations?  Build a recruitment center next to the city and you have population caravans going to your cities.  That would rock.

Sammual

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

So, it sounds like we could simply have AI neutral nations that exist as basically AI players.  They might not have all the powers of a player (maybe not cast spells as a wizard) but would still advance cities, create settlers, and have diplomatic negotions. They wouldn't be as powerful as a real player, but would still be a factor.

I think that if a community of neutral cities are left alone for a long time (I know in my MoM games, there are often many towns connected by roads that arn't touched until late game) they should band together as a new player.

I am sometimes annoyed in games like "Sins of a Solar Empire" when online players thumb their noses at the idea of having AI players.  Like the precence of AI players that you can ally with suddently makes it a comp-stomp or something.  

I think there should be neutral slots that can only be filled by AI players that would be specifically placed on the map in such a way that they give an edge to those who try to use them as an ally.   You should have it set so you can lock teams that only locks the player teams with each other (so players cannot back stab each other) but still allows for missions and teaming with the AI players.  I think that would make the neutral AI controlled players much more interesting.  Also, in a FFA game, one player might not just rampage through the neutral towns because he'd rather be the better ally and trick the AI to go attack his enemies.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Personally I think having independent AI empires who don't have magic is a great idea.  Not having a channeler should hobble them sufficiently that they don't win (relying for magical items on more advanced empires the way the American Indians relied on Europeans/Americans for guns), however large numbers of conventional troops and a strong economy should be fairly effective without guns.

And a system where vassals are set up would be fantastic, especially if each of those vassals wasn't simply a tool of the Emperor, but had goals and aspirations of their own (much like the French lords during the 100 years war).

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting lwarmonger, reply 3
Personally I think having independent AI empires who don't have magic is a great idea.  Not having a channeler should hobble them sufficiently that they don't win (relying for magical items on more advanced empires the way the American Indians relied on Europeans/Americans for guns), however large numbers of conventional troops and a strong economy should be fairly effective without guns.

And a system where vassals are set up would be fantastic, especially if each of those vassals wasn't simply a tool of the Emperor, but had goals and aspirations of their own (much like the French lords during the 100 years war).

man, the more I think about it the cooler it sounds.   It would be like Civ 4's vassel system, except it would be useful in multiplayer since I've never seen human players use that feature, but computers would. 

I think it would force diplomacy to be a factor too.  Because in like, Sins of a solar empire for example, you may not focus on any AI computers in a multiplayer game because you know you are going to crush them anyway.  However in this system, you want to stay on the AI good side like you want to stay on the pirates good side in Sins.  To send them at the other players if possible.  If they become too powerful you will form alliances to fight against them.  It makes neutral cities do more than just take up space and would really bring the diplomatic features to the front of all types of gameplay (except those where that feature is turned off)

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting landisaurus, reply 4

man, the more I think about it the cooler it sounds.   It would be like Civ 4's vassel system, except it would be useful in multiplayer since I've never seen human players use that feature, but computers would. 

I think it would force diplomacy to be a factor too.  Because in like, Sins of a solar empire for example, you may not focus on any AI computers in a multiplayer game because you know you are going to crush them anyway.  However in this system, you want to stay on the AI good side like you want to stay on the pirates good side in Sins.  To send them at the other players if possible.  If they become too powerful you will form alliances to fight against them.  It makes neutral cities do more than just take up space and would really bring the diplomatic features to the front of all types of gameplay (except those where that feature is turned off)

 

Actually I was thinking more about the vassal system in the Magna Mundi mod for Europa Universalis 3.  In Civ 4 your vassals were docile creatures that pretty much did what you tell them.  In Magna Mundi you have a high council of the realm that consists of you (as its head), and all of your vassals.  Your vassals will have their own agenda and rivalries, and will jockey for power within your realm.  Sometimes they will leave your realm for another (because of a variety of factors that are largely in your control), and their support is by no means guaranteed.  If you go to war with a bunch of rebellious vassals a fair number of them will sit out or join the other side.  They may even use the opportunity to launch a civil war.

It makes empire management a great deal of fun, and more than just "I expand, I run into dirty foreigners, I conquer dirty foreigners, I expand some more."  They key is to make having vassals worthwhile.  If there is a benefit to having vassals run portions of your kingdom, then it makes putting up with them better (if not easier) than just annexing them.

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Sammual, reply 1

So you would like the ability to treat allied / Neutral cities as resource locations?  Build a recruitment center next to the city and you have population caravans going to your cities.  That would rock.


Sammual

Yeah, I think that's what was being hinted at, but all this expanded talk of vassalage sounds pretty awesome too. Though I wonder if vassalage will work differently depending upon your faction's tech tree (assuming there's some sort of 'government' branch to research). For instance, in a "good" faction, the vassal system may work as lwarmonger details it while an "evil" faction may be more totalitarian and just conquer smaller towns, enslaving everyone inside to either go into the armies or join the labor force (i.e. get a huge boost to production values).

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

I think McCracken76 & lwarmonger have the right idea based on what Frogboy posted which pretty much confirmed my argument. In short if you conquer them you may lose a special resource. Of course there is always a chance they could turn against you if you don’t let them grow strong but hey that is the fun right??? I truly hope a vassal system like the one in EU3 or better yet CK is implemented.

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

shameless necro

The idea of vassalage and neutral factions without channelers sounds cool, It would really add to the gane as most others do not do it justice.

It would be cool for vassals to give resources and gold and maybe knowledge you wouldn't get if you simply conquered them

Reply #34 from Elemental Forums Top

Dude I would love neutral towns! :grin: :beer:

Reply #35 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Szadowsz, reply 8
... maybe knowledge you wouldn't get if you simply conquered them

Now that's a really neat idea, and would fit with that peacemonger-friendly theme that Scott mentioned recently.

Reply #36 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Szadowsz, reply 8
shameless necro

The idea of vassalage and neutral factions without channelers sounds cool, It would really add to the gane as most others do not do it justice.

It would be cool for vassals to give resources and gold and maybe knowledge you wouldn't get if you simply conquered them

 

Lets hope that is the official plan to a very large extent. The rest seems to be covered in the prior posts. B)

Reply #37 from Elemental Forums Top

I always liked attacking neutral towns in MoM.  At the same time, I kinda wish I could turn them off just to see what the game is like.   It would certainly maket he world seem less previously explored.

Reply #38 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting landisaurus, reply 12
I always liked attacking neutral towns in MoM.  At the same time, I kinda wish I could turn them off just to see what the game is like.   It would certainly maket he world seem less previously explored.

hopefully when making a game iy gives  these types of options