Landscape changes

Under your empires influnce

I think it would be awesome if thew landscape was dictated by your empires value system and how they treat it. Meaning if you value your enviroment ther land in your empires borders will turn lush and productive, basically a paradise that is unspoiled. However if your empire values industry over the enviroment or is an evil empire your lands will turn into a blasted wasteland, and the closer to your capital the more intense the effect(For both good an evil) There should also be an intermidiete mix.(Border regions between to opposing empires)

Here is an example. The fallen manage to conquer a large chunk of territory out an empire that values its enviroment. Over the course of time the enviroment changes from prestine forest to a volcanic wasteland.(Due to empire values, magic spells and empires preferance) This could be reversed if the territory is recalled by the empire that values its enviroment.

Also the lanscape should confer bonuses, for example the fallen prefer the dark twisted lands (Similar to Mordor, so therefore thy would recieve combat and resource bonuses if they have a city in that area) These bounes decrease or disappear in different land types, for example a recently conquered settlement in a sunny happy woodland area would confer no boneses or even impose penalties however trhe longer they are able to hold the settlement the land will slowly change to their preferred type and thus they would get there bonuses again. This could also be reversed, the humans take a chunk of fallen land and over time it turns from a dark wasteland to a pleasant area for them to live in.

Of course these changes need to take place over a long period of time as rapid changes is kinda silly. And since these games can go on for a long time it would be a cool feature.

 

I hope I managed to convey my idea clearly, I hope you also like it too. :)

5,506 views 9 replies
Reply #1 Top

I do hope that there's nothing like this, since it sorta adheres to the "puppy-kicking"-evil dichotomy.

Just because I'm "evil" doesn't mean that I don't value nature, for example. Just because I think that all humans should be murdered in violent ways, reanimated as undead to work in my mines, and then be tortured to RE-death, doesn't mean that I don't have a soft spot for cuddly rabbits.

Especially since I enjoy playing what's generally percieved as "evil", but try to keep everything "clean" and "superior". I'd dislike this for the same reason(s) I despise having my architecture include compulsory spikes as soon as I start killing "innocents" (here known as "inferiors"). I hate to bring up World of Warcraft here (mostly because I abhor what it has become), but imagine me as the Blood Elves (before they went cuddly and betrayed their Sovereign).

Just because I'm superior to you and don't care what happens to your weakling race of degenerates, doesn't mean that my pristine sylvan woodland or towering cities of splendor has to suffer.

 

:p

Reply #2 Top

I did not say just because your evil, it all depends on your empires values, which as the channeler I assume you have control of, so if your evil yet value your woodlands then thus you would be able to keep them. There would be nothing preventing a "good side empier" from turning their lands into a volcanic/industrial wasteland if they want too.

 

Its dicated on the choices you as the ruler makes, and the values you and your subjects have.(Not wether your good or evil.) I just used them as examples.

Though just to spite you I may just turn your woodlands into an ash heap LOL there is that value of spiting your enemy as well, you know adding insult to injury LOL

Reply #3 Top

I like the idea of being able to control the look of the landscape.

You should be able to have verdant landscape, or dead landscape (e.g. undead) or volcanic landscape.

I also agree that it might be better based on player preference. For example, you might have a race of cruel fae who have beautiful forests that they enjoy, whilst still being basically evil and tormenting people.

Reply #4 Top

Interviews and statements by Stardock do seem to indicate that terrain will change based on who occupies it and what their alignment is.

Reply #5 Top

And there will be be lots of "land" spells that affect it. I hope there' will be som eother kind o ftransformation : hard fights should burn the land, places should have names after hard fights, some great roads (with lots of caravans) should earn a name "the golden road". It doesn't change the game gameplaywise (or why not? A boos tin economi cin a road thaht has some kind of defense, or a unit patrolling it, or special contract etc..)) but it would add so much flavour :)

Reply #6 Top

I agree with luckmann.   Evil should not = death.    (death can = death though, thats fine by me)    My evil forests should be like the forests in the move "Unico" where the trees try to trap people and the squirrels have evil eyes.

Reply #7 Top

Agreed.  I want to have intimidating forests for my "evil" empire!  And as a neutral, I want my industrial wasteland cities mixed in with my pleasant countryside.  The pleasant country is to breed more workers for my decaying cities... for some reason when people are miserable they just don't seem to copulate as much... it isn't like they are slaves, they should just be content with toiling in my factories (occasionally with some pointed persuasion) until they die.  Turning out third rate products for penny's a day is a worthwhile life right?

Reply #8 Top

if they develope this type of system there should be bonuses to environment protection/industry developement

it's much harder to move an army through a swamp then if the swamp has been cleared and drained for development

Reply #9 Top

I actually believe in terrain changing by spells.

Look at "global mayhem" topic.

 

EDIT: I said is so nicely as if confirming my religion :D