Racial happiness

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Racial happiness

This topic contains 91 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by  Draxynnic 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #100204

    Athei
    Member

    It was entertaining at first, but now when I think about it, it’s not that great to have all races be all buddy-buddy with other races, there must be some ages old grudge that some races hold against another race. And I don’t like how you can have all races under your banner and there won’t be any complaints from any of them. Even if you are elven leader, and every other city you have is orkish, elves would still be cool with it and everything – “We are diametrically opposed, but we respect our differences and we are not at all feeling threatened with the rising ork forces that already possess majority of the territory in this land”… That sounds a bit like a bullsh*t now doesn’t it?

    What I would like to see (in the patch, dlc, whatever) is to have racial happiness, with the various factors leading to the overall racial satisfaction with you and your leadership. And I would definitely make some races hate the other races, at least a little, for example:

    • Dwarfs hate Goblins
    • Elfs hate Orks
    • Draconians hate Humans

    And vice versa.

    So the racial happiness tab would look something like this:

    “(random Dwarven city here)

    +50 happiness – Leader is a Dwarf;
    +50×2 happiness – Dwarf general (hero);
    -50 happiness – Goblin general (hero);
    -100 happiness – Dwarf general died in battle;
    +50 happiness – Enemy general defeated;
    +10×6 happiness – Battles won (15 turns left);
    -10×2 happiness – Battles lost; (7 turns left)
    +30×3 happiness – Dwarven cities (and metropolis);
    -30 happiness – Goblin cities (and metropolis)”

    So the Dwarven racial happiness would be – 150(?), which would mean that Dwarves are content, and you would not get much moral bonus for your Dwarven units for that. But that would mean that your Goblin units hate your guts and would use any opportunity to betray you. And if you force them to fight, they will have terrible moral (which is only natural), and would not be of much use to you.

    There you go, I hope you like my idea, and I hope that I made it easy to read, and understand 🙂 Ofc, I’m not expecting it to work precisely as I suggested, but I just wanted you to draw your attention to something I think may be fun to have in a game 🙂

    Cheers,

    Athei

    #100215

    ShortBear
    Member

    I actually really like this solution for the alignment problems. It’s not super heavy handed to the point of preventing any race mixing whatsoever and it doesn’t just boil down to “make every mechanic the same as AOW2”.

    Another thing to consider is that maybe some races like others more? The average human probably finds elves beautiful and romantic while goblins might find orcs to be the coolest thing ever (race combos could probably use more ironing out 😛 ).

    I like this and I hope we see something like this at some point.

    #100243

    alyra
    Member

    I like your solution but I prefer the way it is in the game 🙂 many years in the timeline have passed since AoW2 and in that time a lot of things can happen! and I suppose a lot of things will hopefully happen still!

    #100244

    Erwin
    Member

    This discussion has come up a multiple of times and we don’t really want to force the races to like or dislike each other by default. It would limit the creation of certain campaigns/stories and this is something we rather avoid.

    However, from a personal view, I think it might be cool if you could somehow put relation values of races in for certain maps or with a mod at some point. Do note this is just my personal view and doesn’t represent what we are working on at the moment or what we will do.

    #100257

    Sathra
    Member

    I don’t really like the idea of preset, well, racism. Its, dunno, immature I guess.

    Though having certain races pre-disposed to particular events (I.e. Orcs getting an improved morale boost from declaring war, Goblins to razing of a city or something) wouldn’t be terrible either.

    I do like the idea of ‘reactive relations’ though. Racial relations towards a faction being based on actions done by said faction to that race.

    #100290

    Athei
    Member

    @shortbear I thought about that too, but I’m unsure how the Elves would think of Humans, and if the Orks would think of Goblins any more than slaves, and what about Dwarves and Draconians, so I decided to only mention hate, that is a lot easier to think up 🙂
    More ironing needed that’s for sure.

    @alyra Oh there will be a lot of wonderful things happening I’m sure of it 😀

    Though having certain races pre-disposed to particular events (I.e. Orcs getting an improved morale boost from declaring war, Goblins to razing of a city or something)

    @sathra More racism here than in what I suggested 🙂 If those two races find pleasure in doing thing that are considered evil, they must be evil by default…

    I do like the idea of ‘reactive relations’ though. Racial relations towards a faction being based on actions done by said faction to that race.

    @sathra That was the idea 😉

    @erwin I’m glad we think alike to a certain degree, ofc it would be better to have an option to turn racial relationship on/off (whether it be patch or mod). But my original idea was to have races judge you based on your behavior towards them, with racial relationship being just a bonus idea 🙂 (I tried to make it sound like one idea, because I was too lazy to write 2 posts…)

    Anyway I’m glad you guys liked it 🙂 I’m a DnD guy and I have a bit… traditional views concerning the races and relationship between them.

    That being said I think it’s more important to have races that are reacting to your actions and decisions. For instance if I raze to the ground every Goblin city, I don’t think Goblins in my army should like me much (not to mention my Goblin hero, who’s some influential Goblin general or something)…

    And there is a lot of things already in the game that can make races change their opinion of you for better or worse… Like founding/migrating/razing their city, hiring/losing/killing a hero of that race, and maybe even a small bonus for recruiting/losing/killing racial T3 units, number of metropolis of that race, number of gold medal units and many other things 🙂

    #100296

    Sarog
    Member

    This discussion has come up a multiple of times and we don’t really want to force the races to like or dislike each other by default. It would limit the creation of certain campaigns/stories and this is something we rather avoid.

    I really appreciate this thinking. I would hate to have someone else’s genre biases arbitrarily imposed on me.

    I really like the idea of players being able to set relations for ourselves, to represent the history and prejudices of the particular fantasy we’re trying to build with a map. I could also go for some kind of diversity penalty such that having too many races absorbed – regardless of what they are – hits your morale. Just please don’t hit me with racial alignment or cliche race rivalries hard-coded in my race’s genetics.

    #100300

    Hulahn
    Member

    I agree with @erwin and @sarog, for sure. So far, Age of Wonders has been a very open environment where we can pick and choose pretty much whatever we want, and how we put it all together for each game. I’d prefer it stay that way.

    #100308

    Athei
    Member

    @sarog and @hulahn Are you going to say something about my MAIN idea, or you just found something you didn’t like in there and decided to rant about that instead?! Especially since @erwin said that they wont change that.

    Let me remind you what is this topic mostly about:

    What I would like to see (in the patch, dlc, whatever) is to have racial happiness, with the various factors leading to the overall racial satisfaction with you and your leadership

    I do like the idea of ‘reactive relations’ though. Racial relations towards a faction being based on actions done by said faction to that race.

    But my original idea was to have races judge you based on your behavior towards them

    That being said I think it’s more important to have races that are reacting to your actions and decisions.

    So your post are useless, since this is not a “Do you want races alignment” survey, but “What do you think about races judging you based on your actions” topic…

    #100336

    Sarog
    Member

    @sarog and @hulahn Are you going to say something about my MAIN idea, or you just found something you didn’t like in there and decided to rant about that instead?!

    So your post are useless, since this is not a “Do you want races alignment” survey, but “What do you think about races judging you based on your actions” topic…

    Charming. I’d suggest finding a healthier outlet for your rage than random people on the internet.

    A Triumph employee said something that I liked and I voiced my appreciation. Positive reinforcement is important, and this forum belongs to Triumph, not to you. What you think about the uselessness of my post doesn’t concern me. Considering that I made grand a total of one post in this thread before you found it prudent to leap down my throat, you can hardly accuse me of derailing it.

    If you want your ideas to have influence among professionals, you would be well served by developing some emotional temperance. Flipping out at the first hint of an opposing viewpoint doesn’t do much for your credibility.

    #100337

    Athei
    Member

    Charming. I’d suggest finding a healthier outlet for your rage than random people on the internet.

    You presume too much.

    this forum belongs to Triumph, not to you.

    Nor to you, so I really don’t care for your opinion on the races and their relationship or whatever but

    you can hardly accuse me of derailing it.

    you did derail my post so I want to get it back on track, you can hardly accuse me for doing so.

    If you want your ideas to have influence among professionals, you would be well served by developing some emotional temperance. Flipping out at the first hint of an opposing viewpoint doesn’t do much for your credibility.

    If you want your posts to be of any relevance to anybody I suggest you start writing about things that are discuses in that topic, which again you did not do, so you made another useless post.

    If you want to say something relevant to the things I’m talking about, please do.
    But if you don’t, go and derail somebody else’s topic.

    Thanks in advance.

    #100338

    Garresh
    Member

    @sarog and @hulahn Are you going to say something about my MAIN idea, or you just found something you didn’t like in there and decided to rant about that instead?! Especially since @erwin said that they wont change that.

    Let me remind you what is this topic mostly about:

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Athei wrote:</div>
    What I would like to see (in the patch, dlc, whatever) is to have racial happiness, with the various factors leading to the overall racial satisfaction with you and your leadership

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Sathra wrote:</div>
    I do like the idea of ‘reactive relations’ though. Racial relations towards a faction being based on actions done by said faction to that race.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Athei wrote:</div>
    But my original idea was to have races judge you based on your behavior towards them

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Sathra wrote:</div>
    That being said I think it’s more important to have races that are reacting to your actions and decisions.

    So your post are useless, since this is not a “Do you want races alignment” survey, but “What do you think about races judging you based on your actions” topic…

    They said what they think. They don’t like it. And neither do I for that matter. Shadow Magics alignment system, while interesting, didn’t actually help the game overly much since most evil races were not as strong as good races. Not that it can’t work, but I honestly don’t miss it much.

    #100343

    Athei
    Member

    @garresh Ok, please explain to me how did you managed to miss the point? I cannot make this any simpler than this… I even quoted myself, and you still miss the point! Which means that you didn’t even bother to read that before quoting it…

    Ok, from the beginning – Erwin said two things:

    1. That he personally would like to see some relation values of races in some maps
    2. BUT!

    3. They won’t implement racial alignment or racial relationship

    So there is nothing more to talk about that. Even if you agree with that or don’t agree with that it matters none, because they are not changing it.

    Now: I said “But my original idea was to have RACES judge YOU based on YOUR behavior towards THEM“.

    Now in simple words: If you are good with Goblins they like you, if you are mean toward Goblins they don’t like you.

    Please, don’t derail this topic any more than this!

    #100348

    I don’t think I would like any preset quarrels/hostilities between races, especially specific races, as I really appreciate the way it is done in the game and I think it would diminish the current atmosphere. I think Triumph made a good decision changing that.

    I DO like the idea of race relations towards the empire, though. The good old AoW1 style: you raze/migrate human city, humans do not like you; build/upgrade/migrate to a human city, humans like you.

    #100349

    Sarog
    Member

    I DO like the idea of race relations towards the empire, though. The good old AoW1 style: you raze/migrate human city, humans do not like you; build/upgrade/migrate to a human city, humans like you.

    That implies a racial hivemind that crosses imperial boundaries. Say I conquer a human city and a nearby elven city that were both part of the same empire for fifty turns. Their geographic proximity and the fact that they were peacefully being part of the same realm for such an amount of time would suggest these two cities have at least some close ties. But the human city wouldn’t care if I razed its elven counterpart, and would care if I razed a human city on the opposite side of the map that had belonged to a completely different empire?

    #100351

    But the human city wouldn’t care if I razed its elven counterpart, but would care if I razed a human city on the opposite side of the map that had belonged to a completely different empire?

    Well, there you got a point for sure. But I guess that could be helped by applying the general relation faktor as it is for AI players to (inependent) cities: something like “Declared war on ally -300”

    But then I guess all of this is good for a mod or two (including the initial post) but I do not think it would make for any good Triumph AddOn. Just like Erwin said.

    #100356

    Athei
    Member

    But the human city wouldn’t care if I razed its elven counterpart, and would care if I razed a human city on the opposite side of the map that had belonged to a completely different empire?

    Yea, why not? If you are razing cities then you are most likely evil tyrant, and your subjects fear you rather than love and respect you. So when you raze an elven city to the ground humans in your empire will condemn that act of evil but do nothing about it. But when you raze a human city, every human in your empire will start to fear for his own life, and you may even expect them to rebel rather than simply wait to be next. 🙂

    Besides games should be fun, not 100% realistic, there are even stranger thing in game but noone ever question them – for instance: How come only elves live in elven city? What it there are 72% elves, 13% humans, 9% dwarves, 6% draconians and 3 goblins? Should you be able to recruit some human or dwarven soldier there even if it is an elven city?

    But that would be too much, and maybe not that much fun. But I think race relations towards the empire can be fun, and will make you look at your empire not only as “units spawning factory”, but as your subjects that are watching you and judging your every action.

    #100375

    Garresh
    Member

    @garresh Ok, please explain to me how did you managed to miss the point? I cannot make this any simpler than this… I even quoted myself, and you still miss the point! Which means that you didn’t even bother to read that before quoting it…

    Ok, from the beginning – Erwin said two things:

    1. That he personally would like to see some relation values of races in some maps
    2. BUT!

    3. They won’t implement racial alignment or racial relationship

    So there is nothing more to talk about that. Even if you agree with that or don’t agree with that it matters none, because they are not changing it.

    Now: I said “But my original idea was to have RACES judge YOU based on YOUR behavior towards THEM“.

    Now in simple words: If you are good with Goblins they like you, if you are mean toward Goblins they don’t like you.

    Please, don’t derail this topic any more than this!

    So we didnt go into massive detail. It still artificially confines the gameplay. If each city is independently aligned regardless of race, why would a group of evil goblins care if I took out a good goblin city? The system has been changed. Its better this way. I still don’t like it.

    #100379

    Athei
    Member

    Ok, it’s your right not to like it. And I respect that.

    Just as how I don’t like current feel that races give. How to put it… It’s like every race is human, ugly green human here, short bearded human there… It just doesn’t feel like I’m playing with different races, and I don’t mean racial units diversity or anything like that. More like if I could ask some elf: “Hey elf, what kind of music you like”, and the elf goes: “Meh”, and than I ask the ork the same thing, and he goes “Meh”, etc. that kind of feeling…

    And than I thought how it is a good idea to separate the races by their opinion of you, how they would like some thing and hate some other things (different races love/hate different things) and with that to subtly bring more depth to the game…

    Hypothetical Situation:

    You have two armies ready to attack the crypt (for instance) 1) full stack of elves and 2) 4 orc units. Since you lost one elven city a bit ago to the enemy player, elves have terrible morale so you have to send them back until they calm down (or else they are going to fumble the whole fight) and instead proceed with the orks, fewer in number but with much better morale.

    And don’t get me wrong I love AoW3, I preordered it while knowing that it’s going to be a great game, and it is! I just feel like some areas are a bit unpolished, that’s all, and I want to contribute anyway I can. I’m not going to stop playing the game if the devs dislike my idea, and don’t implement it in their next patch or anything 🙂

    #100410

    Hulahn
    Member

    So, hypothetically speaking: you have three towns around turn 20 or 30; one Orc, one Goblin, and one Elven. Then, around turn 60, the enemy pushes heavily into your empire and takes the Elven city. The Elves are upset, but the Orcs and Goblins are A-OK..? Should they not all be upset- and, therefore, have all taken the morale hit- for your empire being under attack; and not just based on whether it was “their” town?

    Are we promoting racial happiness, or racism, here? I’d certainly be careful in promoting a system which says, ‘hey, if you attack some Elves and Orcs, we don’t care, just don’t attack *our* kind’. That’s not really cool.

    #100415

    Sathra
    Member

    That’s far too extreme an example. If it was say, 3-4 elven cities taken, then it’d be pretty severe (-25 or 50 for each). But this would be on top of the already present penalty for losing cities in the first place.

    The Elves just notice it more due to it being their cities being taken. Each ‘instance’ would be small enough to ignore, but repeatedly doing it would have increasing effects.

    That and making it only for ‘major’ events. Losing/killing a bunch of T3’s shouldn’t have any effect, its a wargame. Flat-out burning cities would be something to be wary of. Migrating would be so-so. After all, that population has to go somewhere, might as well disperse into your hamlets. Or at least rumours that they’re being re-settled.
    That’s all I envision this to be, simulating rumours going around the land about how Leader X is pillaging human cities, while Leader Y is settling new ones.

    Then racial dispositions would be small bonuses for other events, that may or may not affect other races. I mentioned war for Orcs, due to how 90% of the time in the descriptions they’re a pillaging horde. Maybe not razing for goblins (though they’d probably find it pretty funny), but maybe a city growing a level? (More Goblins! Yay!)

    #100417

    JPoll
    Member

    I personally like Atheis idea. I think it could be implemented on top of the existing global morale system. It feels right that the goblins in your empire shouldn´t like you if you start razing or migrating every single goblin city.

    With both systems working together, your whole empire could suffer a morale penalty if you lost one of your towns to an opponent, regardless of the race of that town. Just like it works at the moment.

    If you decided to raze a town to prevent an enemy from (re)taking it or if you decided to migrate a city, the race of the razed/migrated town wouldn´t like that and would suffer a morale penalty.

    On top of that, one could think about a small racial morale bonus depending on the percentage of towns/population of that race in your empire. For example, if there was a morale bonus of 100 to be distributed amongst the races of your empire and you had like 75% elven cities/citizens and 25% dwarven cities/citizens, your empires elven cities and units would gain +75 morale, your dwarven ones +25 morale.

    #100677

    Athei
    Member

    So, hypothetically speaking: you have three towns around turn 20 or 30; one Orc, one Goblin, and one Elven. Then, around turn 60, the enemy pushes heavily into your empire and takes the Elven city. The Elves are upset, but the Orcs and Goblins are A-OK..? Should they not all be upset- and, therefore, have all taken the morale hit- for your empire being under attack; and not just based on whether it was “their” town?

    You are wrong here, you already have empire happiness that covers this. Orcs and Goblins will be upset about the empire losing it’s city, but since it is the elven city that is lost, elves will be upset the most.

    Are we promoting racial happiness, or racism, here? I’d certainly be careful in promoting a system which says, ‘hey, if you attack some Elves and Orcs, we don’t care, just don’t attack *our* kind’. That’s not really cool.

    And they are different species, so it would be speciesism, which is ok in my book. Humans that love cats or dogs more than other humans are sick.

    That’s all I envision this to be, simulating rumors going around the land about how Leader X is pillaging human cities, while Leader Y is settling new ones.

    That is enough for me, just some small changes to morale, but if frequent enough can make a big impact on the game.

    I personally like Atheis idea. I think it could be implemented on top of the existing global morale system. It feels right that the goblins in your empire shouldn´t like you if you start razing or migrating every single goblin city.

    Thank you, glad you like it 🙂

    #100721

    Hulahn
    Member

    And they are different species, so it would be speciesism, which is ok in my book.

    Aah. So, then, your post should be entitled, “Species happiness,” no?

    No, they are all different *races* (check the Tome of Wonders), and your post was titled correctly. Just as I called it correctly, myself.

    It’s a fine line, that’s all I’m saying…

    #100768

    Athei
    Member

    Aah. So, then, your post should be entitled, “Species happiness,” no?

    Well my post should have been entitled “Racial happiness and unhappiness” but too late to change now…

    However you are right, it does say races in the Tome. Which is strange, I always thought race can only be applied to humans… Not that it matters…

    And believe me this is not about racism. Just like when someone loves his country it doesn’t necessarily make him a Fascist.
    I just believe that losing elven city (for instance) will hurt both orks and goblins (empire happiness) but not nearly as much as the elves (racial happiness). The bonuses/minuses should not be drastic, but if somebody constantly razes goblin cities he should feel their dissatisfaction with him – goblin troops under him will have very low morale, independent goblin cities will not make peace with him, and other goblin players should have low opinion of him as well…

    #100782

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I’m strongly against racial animosities hard-baked into the game, for reasons that have already been discussed. Consider the campaign – we see a number of races associating with one another in the campaign which according to ‘traditional’ fantasy would hate one another… And it WORKS. Simply put, fixed racial animosities don’t fit the Third Age of Wonders. I could see it as an option, but it should be only that – an option for those who want it that can be toggled on or off.

    Specifically, it also needs to be remembered that there are former Dark Elves among the High Elves, and the High Elves model themselves more or less on the time of Inioch, who was able to maintain peace with traditionally evil as well as good races.

    That said, I have advocated racial relations with leaders for a while now. This would be an extra layer on top of existing mechanics like empire happiness and relations with individual cities, but elves (for example) really should care more about how a leader has treated other elves than other races.

    #100823

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    I’m strongly against racial animosities hard-baked into the game, for reasons that have already been discussed. Consider the campaign – we see a number of races associating with one another in the campaign which according to ‘traditional’ fantasy would hate one another… And it WORKS. Simply put, fixed racial animosities don’t fit the Third Age of Wonders. I could see it as an option, but it should be only that – an option for those who want it that can be toggled on or off.

    Specifically, it also needs to be remembered that there are former Dark Elves among the High Elves, and the High Elves model themselves more or less on the time of Inioch, who was able to maintain peace with traditionally evil as well as good races.

    That said, I have advocated racial relations with leaders for a while now. This would be an extra layer on top of existing mechanics like empire happiness and relations with individual cities, but elves (for example) really should care more about how a leader has treated other elves than other races.

    I agree with the concept of leaders having racial relations rather than races BUT the problem arises if we allow positive as well as negative penalties. It would also allow us to snap up deserters as in other games, so we are not totally screwed up should dread siege AND omen happen to fall on the same city at the same time.

    The problem is that the bonuses would stack when you are just doing which is in gameplay terms entirely desirable to your game, that is building/rebuilding new cities. It would very easy to get your main race to love you by building new cities/migrating cities, which would give you more gold and population growth to build even more cities. This would end up making Incite Revolt for instance rather useless.

    Either we only have negative penalties or we need to come up with harder to avoid negative penalties to balance things out. It would make sense for instance for races to object to their cities being crowded by other races cities, which would reduce the effectiveness of settler spam.

    If you build an elf city next to a human city so the two crowd each other, then your relationship to both races would decline. Also there could be some kind of “it should have been ours” effect which happens when you build/rebuild a city and the closest city is not of the same race, regardless perhaps as to whose empire it belongs to.

    #100829

    Athei
    Member

    I could see it as an option, but it should be only that – an option for those who want it that can be toggled on or off.

    Enough for me.

    That said, I have advocated racial relations with leaders for a while now. This would be an extra layer on top of existing mechanics like empire happiness and relations with individual cities, but elves (for example) really should care more about how a leader has treated other elves than other races.

    That’s the plan 😉

    If you build an elf city next to a human city so the two crowd each other, then your relationship to both races would decline. Also there could be some kind of “it should have been ours” effect which happens when you build/rebuild a city and the closest city is not of the same race, regardless perhaps as to whose empire it belongs to.

    All good suggestions, maybe even negative penalty for all races based on how many races there are in the empire, and maybe main race unhappiness if some other race have more cities than they have or something like that.

    Ofc, not because they hate each other, but because they have different culture, habits, sense of beauty etc.

    #100872

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    All good suggestions, maybe even negative penalty for all races based on how many races there are in the empire, and maybe main race unhappiness if some other race have more cities than they have or something like that.

    Ofc, not because they hate each other, but because they have different culture, habits, sense of beauty etc.

    Given that all the races live seperately in different cities and the multiracial nature of both the main factions ideologies a number of races penalty for reasons you describe does not actually make any sense. Both sides leadership in the game aspire in theory to racial equality not privilage.

    It is better seen as a case of a diplomatic balancing act in which all sides point a finger at you for ignoring their interests, by which they mean access to resources for their cities. There should be a case of ingroup/outgroup/oppressed, the ingroup believe you represent their interests, the outgroup wish to defend their possessions against the ingroup and the oppressed have real grievances against you.

    The ingroup are those who are of the race your leader is and those who are of the race of the throne city. They would not like it when the number of other races desirable cities under their control (cities in which there is more liked terrain than disliked terrain) exceed their own. If there are two ingroups, they will be happy as long as they have half the cities as the largest other group.

    The outgroup is everyone else by default. The outgroup does not care about being a minority, instead it is worried about it’s traditional homelands being encroached upon, meaning that when you build a new city of a different race closer to any of their cities than to a city of any other race they are unhappy.

    The oppressed are those of the outgroup to whom you have subjected to bad stuff, such as razing, looting or migrating. You cannot recruit troops from the oppressed races cities. In order to be placated and go back to being outgroup, you must put right the damage you did to them. They want you to migrate the cities or rebuild the cities you harmed back to their race. They will accept 2 other cities in recompense for the particular city you harmed.

    All in all this should make being Good less of a no-brainer.

    #100955

    Draxynnic
    Member

    All good suggestions, maybe even negative penalty for all races based on how many races there are in the empire, and maybe main race unhappiness if some other race have more cities than they have or something like that.

    Ofc, not because they hate each other, but because they have different culture, habits, sense of beauty etc.

    I’m not really a fan of this on the whole – it harkens back to an experience I had in the original AoW2 campaign where I captured a goblin city and suddenly all my dwarf armies and my one dwarf city were rebelling because the goblin city happened to be bigger than the dwarf city and that flipped my alignment…

    Capturing cities by military conquest should not be something that can potentially lower your reputation among any race apart from the race who the city belonged to (and even there, the penalty should be for declaring war on independents of that race (or leaders with high reputations with that race), razing, plundering, and migrating cities of that race, and so on).

    As has been pointed out several times, the big empires that exist in lore are multiracial. They certainly do have different customs and so on, but it hardly matters if that’s the stuff the strange folk in cities halfway across the empire do. Some of the other envy-based ideas are ignoring some bigger complexities – logically speaking, for instance, no other race should quibble about a leader assigning lots of territory to goblins if that territory is all blighted swampland.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 92 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.