Increasing the interest of multi-races strategies

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 Increasing the interest of multi-races strategies

Tagged: 

This topic contains 18 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  ดอกดาวเรือง 2 years ago.

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #249096

    Hiliadan
    Member

    In most games I’ve seen (in PBEM), players stick with their starting race and most often than not, try to get Monoculture with 8 cities of the same race. Migrating cities is easy, and getting evil alignement is also a generally good strategy with no drawback: empire boost, Pure Evil Empire Quest (EQ), possibility to plunder, raze and migrate. Monoculture is very good as it gives three free T3. Multiculture on the other hand is pretty lacklustre with 5 support from 5 different races for a difficulty much higher than Monoculture (try to get 5 different races!! on a small map, that’s basically impossible and even in larger maps, it’s pretty complicated, except if you play 4vs4 and all allies have different races).

    You gain a lot of advantages from playing only 1 race with racial governance (RG) and high race happiness providing morale bonus for your units. You gain no advantage from playing multiple races, except your increased production options and thus potential higher adaptability. But except if you want to get flyers and you play one race with no flyer (and thus you want Elf or Draconian or Halfling cities), there is no real need for such increased diversity of units.

    I think it’s a shame game mechanics favour playing only 1 race like that. The game would be more diversified and fun if it was more viable to play more races in a given game.
    So how could we boost incentives to play multiple races?

    I see the following levers:
    – better rewards from Multiculture: each unit would be a support OR a T3
    – lower difficulty of Multiculture: needs 3 races or 4 races (but seems like a bad idea because in team games, would be pretty easy)
    – increase the time needed to migrate by 1 turn for all migration (my favourite idea, pretty neat and make Mab’s Boon more useful)
    – create a multiracial race governance (not sure if that’s moddable) that increase only if you have more than 1 race in your cities. E.g. X points every turn where X is the number of races in your cities. It would provide Empire-wide boost to economy or military as current RG (e.g. all Irregulars get +5 HP or all cities get +5% all income, etc.)
    – create abilities based on multirace stacks or units (not sure if that’s moddable) e.g. +100 happiness for each unit of different race in the stack, +1 melee if a friendly unit of different race is adjacent in tactical map, etc.
    – make it more rewarding to get cities from new races: give (temporary?) bonus to (the first?) cities outside your starting race that you get into your empire

    Thoughts?

    • This topic was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Hiliadan.
    #249098

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    1) The player should get a garrison of units in a joining allied town;

    2) Make migration a REAL migration, that is: chosing migration means, the conquered town builds a settler (according to production, with no cost for the conquerer, under the conquerers control(!)), [That is, the conquerer now has a settler of the unwanted race], and upon doing that the town is empty of population and will produce nothing, unless resettled (with a settler); the town in question keeps all buildings, that will work only after resettling.

    The difference with plundering/destruction is: you get no loot, but a settler of the conquered race, and you don’t get race happiness deduction.

    #249099

    Hiliadan
    Member

    Option 2/ would be quite a change! And make mono-race strategies much more difficult because you would have to build all your settlers from that race. Interesting idea!

    Option 1/ would also boost strategies with one race in the case where you absorb your own race and in cases where you take back a city that belonged to you but was taken by the enemy.

    #249102

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I see them both together.
    Option 1 is to make vassals more feasible – vassaling and joining takes 10 turns and you miss out XP for beating the garrison. You also pay twice, and you can fulfill quests only (without further ado) when you are near enough, otherwise you have to hike back and so on.
    It would also support a join of far away towns (that fast scouts make contact with).
    Usually you can ally with them, but joining is too risky when you miss a supply line. Getting a garrison, that is, keeping PART of the vassal garrison, would be interesting.

    The second thing would make it a lot more difficult to accelerate your RG points. Absorbing might simply be the better option most of the time, but since it is more difficult to get new races into the folds of your empire, especially on smaller maps, that’s how it should be.

    #249105

    I don’t know if it is feasible but could “evil” troops have more upkeep?

    Would make for quite a downside if your troops are more expensive, or more likely to desert etc.

    Maybe attach an upkeep modifier to the tag ‘evil’?

    #249111

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Isn’t that pretty much the opposite of what one of the original concepts for good and evil mechanics was? 😛

    There’s a certain feeling of success here that racial governance and happiness was introduced because people were saying that multiculture was the way to go and there was no benefit to going monoculture. Now the pendulum has swung the other way… perhaps it worked too well?

    Having a governance benefit from going multiracial seems worthwhile, but rather than a separate track, maybe it could add onto existing ones? In the current system, going evil both nets you more points (because you have a higher racial happiness) and concentrates them into one race, which is arguably more useful. To counterbalance this, we could introduce a ‘cultural transfer’ bonus, whereby racial governance is boosted at a rate proportional to the number of other races in your empire. This should never end up being higher than if you migrated all those cities to the race in question, but it would help prevent multiracial empires from falling as far behind, and in particular, it would give a newly acquired race in the mid-game a much better chance to build up to racial governance upgrades that are relevant.

    Another consideration might be to introduce more ways for a Good leader to build racial happiness. It’s working-as-intended for the best way to get high happiness to be to go full Nazi with clear favouritism to your chosen master race, but at the moment it’s hard to boost racial happiness to any significant extent without migration (which, of course, tanks it for some other race). We used to have a system by which racial happiness could be influenced by how happy your cities were of that race, but that became too much of a spiral – however, it might be possible to come up with other ways you can improve relations with a race that don’t involve giving them new cities. Or you could have a flat bonus to racial happiness that comes with being Good and a penalty for being Evil (said penalty being something you can offset through favouritism).

    #249113

    Isn’t that pretty much the opposite of what one of the original concepts for good and evil mechanics was?

    I don’t recall all the details.

    But, my thinking was quite simple here. Evil ===> greed ===> higher upkeep.

    But yes, there was a time when people were complaining that multiracial was the only way to go…

    #249121

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You could go even further with that idea. I wouldn’t call it greed, but (also) corruption. But instead increasing upkeep and increasing bulding costs, you can simply decrease income. For example, you might deduct -10% income per town level, starting with village:
    Outpost: unaffected
    Village: -10%
    Town: -20%
    City: -30%
    Metropolis: -40%

    (Halved for slightly evil)

    In theory, it would also work the other way round (bonus income for being good), but it makes more sense to keep things tighter: the need for gold is a good evil motive and it can’t hurt to support that.

    I don’t know whether you can mod this into the game, though.

    You might also reduce the income from Dwellings and Vassals, for example by 25%. It would also be interesting to reduce the gold you find via exploration.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by  Jolly Joker.
    #249125

    Hiliadan
    Member

    Getting a garrison, that is, keeping PART of the vassal garrison, would be interesting.

    Ok so you meant towns changing status from vassal to join Empire. I thought you also counted absorbed cities. Then that makes sense.

    Guys, you’re already moving off topic. The issue is not that Evil is easier than Good, I don’t think it is. The issue is that it’s easier to play mono-race, whatever the alignement is, rather than multi-race. You don’t need to go migrate everything to get Monoculture. Usually I take my indie vassal, I migrate 1 city and I build 5 other (including maybe some given by allies). Migration is a minor thing.

    I can hardly believe that people were complaining that multi-race was the only viable option in the past (before RG introduction).

    What about the ideas I proposed? And the two from JJ (especially the one on migration, directly linked to this issue)?

    #249128

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    It’s not that easy, because migration and good/evil are “in the same basket”, since extensive migration automatically leads to becoming evil.

    Anyway, there are two issues, and they depend on map settings. If you play WITH settling, then monoculture is within your own power to achieve – just build enough settlers and found enough cities, and you are there, migration or not.
    If you play WITHOUT settlers, than monoculture is COMPLETELY dependent on migration, that is, it’s STILL within your power to achieve, just by different means (and “going evil”).
    Multiculture, however, isn’t “achievable” – you cannot actively do anything to go for it.

    The easiest thing to do here is probably to change the requirements for Monoculture and Multiculture, and here the following comes to mind:

    You have a Monoculture, if you have at least X towns, with a total of at least Y population and one race is at over Z% (percentage is shown in RG list).
    Example, you get monoculture, when you have at least 7 towns with at least 100 K population and one race being at 90+% pop.

    Accordingly, Multiculture COULD be about not having a dominant race. You might get multiculture, if you had
    1) at least 7 towns with at least 100K and
    a) 2 races at over 45% total pop each
    b) 3 races at over 30% total pop each
    c) 4 races at over 22.5% total pop each or
    2) have towns of 5 different races.

    This would make Multiculture obviously achievable, the advantage being, that the first settler of each race comes for half price.

    The good/evil problem is indirectly connected, because migration gives evil points (and also fighting fleeing guards). Letting guards flee (for good points) loses the all-important XP, though, which means, in an ideal game, letting the guards flee should net the XP of the guards you’d get for killing them and divide them equally onto your troops plus one hit for each, while fighting them would give only half the gold.

    Anyway, requiring settlers for migration is slapping a cost onto migration as well, just in a different way.

    In the end we need something practical, and modding Multi requirement seems the most easy.

    #249136

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I don’t recall all the details.

    I believe the idea was that the more Evil you were, the cheaper your unit upkeeps were, on the theory that evil empires were more militaristic and it was easier to keep people in the field for long periods, while good nations need to offer soldiers more pay to keep them in the field for various reasons (civilian life is more attractive, you can’t execute people for desertion if the formally resign, etc etc). There was some counteracting bonus for good, but I don’t recall what it was.

    It was from pretty early on – I think it was scrapped before the beta even started. I just find it amusing that your suggestion was basically coming full circle. 😛

    I can hardly believe that people were complaining that multi-race was the only viable option in the past (before RG introduction).

    Basically, people complained that there was no reason not to. Multiculturalism had distinct benefits – you could, in principle, settle a location with the ideal race, and you had a wider range of units to choose from. The only reason not to bring a new race into your empire if you could was if you knew that the new race offered nothing you actually wanted, but this is specifically deciding that a given race was worthless to you, not to focus on a particular race.

    Choosing to go monoculture gained you literally nothing, while costing you the potential benefits of having multiple races to choose from.

    It’s possible that the mark was overshot a bit, and I don’t think the Monoculture empire quest was as big then as it is now.

    It’s not that easy, because migration and good/evil are “in the same basket”, since extensive migration automatically leads to becoming evil.

    Pretty much. Going monoculture is basically a matter of settler spam (which can be hard to do in the required numbers if you have a decent number of neutral settlements around) or migrating existing settlements. If you’re getting there by migration, you’re becoming evil.

    Currently, becoming evil penalises your diplomacy… but that’s not a big deal in a competitive multiplayer game, I expect. If evil did have bigger penalties, then that would make mono-race strategies a harder choice. Even if you cityspam your way to the empire quest, once you do start capturing cities you’re going to have to choose between turning evil, or leaving their original inhabitants in place.

    #249138

    So is settler “spam” a root cause then? :S

    #291915

    Hiliadan
    Member

    Would it be technically possible to add buildings like Beacons which can only be built once per player and per race for that player (is it possible to have 2 Beacons of the same race, one for each player?)?

    Then we could have for instance 3 unique buildings called “Source city” that gives cities +100 city happiness, while all cities would start with a base modifier of “-100 vast empire” (or better would be if the “Source city” buildings could remove the “-100 vast empire” malus)?

    That way, you tackle two issues at once:
    – beyond 3 cities, your extra cities have lower morale and it’s not as easy as before to just expand forever
    – you are encouraged to play multiple races as you can build 3 “Source city” for EACH race

    #291917

    gladis
    Member

    – better rewards from Multiculture: each unit would be a support OR a T3

    For

    – lower difficulty of Multiculture: needs 3 races or 4 races (but seems like a bad idea because in team games, would be pretty easy)

    Against because too easy like you mentioned.

    – increase the time needed to migrate by 1 turn for all migration (my favourite idea, pretty neat and make Mab’s Boon more useful)

    For

    – create a multiracial race governance (not sure if that’s moddable) that increase only if you have more than 1 race in your cities. E.g. X points every turn where X is the number of races in your cities. It would provide Empire-wide boost to economy or military as current RG (e.g. all Irregulars get +5 HP or all cities get +5% all income, etc.)

    I fear it´s too difficult to implement and doesn´t make much sense. I think the main Option to go for Multirace still should be a higher diversity of Damage channels etc.

    -create abilities based on multirace stacks or units (not sure if that’s moddable) e.g. +100 happiness for each unit of different race in the stack, +1 melee if a friendly unit of different race is adjacent in tactical map, etc.

    Strictly against. I thought about the opposite tbh. Each Unit which is not your race (and you don´t own a City of that race) should get -100 Morale. The idea is to weaken MC tactics. You could simply have each other Race Happiness at -100 at the start of the game but the first migrated City should give +150 Happiness (see next proposal).

    – make it more rewarding to get cities from new races: give (temporary?) bonus to (the first?) cities outside your starting race that you get into your empire

    If it´s possible you could give an additional Bonus of 150 Happiness for the 1st migrated City of each other race (Starting race has 250 Happiness Bonus).

    1) The player should get a garrison of units in a joining allied town;

    Against, the Focus of the game should be on production of Units. There are already aenough possibilities to get Units for free.

    2) Make migration a REAL migration, that is: chosing migration means, the conquered town builds a settler (according to production, with no cost for the conquerer, under the conquerers control(!)), [That is, the conquerer now has a settler of the unwanted race], and upon doing that the town is empty of population and will produce nothing, unless resettled (with a settler); the town in question keeps all buildings, that will work only after resettling.

    The difference with plundering/destruction is: you get no loot, but a settler of the conquered race, and you don’t get race happiness deduction.

    Very interesting. The “old” migrations could still be an Option for an Evil Adept then.

    /gladis

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by  gladis.
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by  gladis.
    #291978

    Rodmar18
    Member

    Boosting multicultural army stacks

    -create abilities based on multirace stacks or units (not sure if that’s moddable) e.g. +100 happiness for each unit of different race in the stack, +1 melee if a friendly unit of different race is adjacent in tactical map, etc.

    Strictly against. I thought about the opposite tbh. Each Unit which is not your race (and you don´t own a City of that race) should get -100 Morale. The idea is to weaken MC tactics.

    I remember AoW 2 where you could have a huge morale penalty when you mixed different races in the same stack (Archons with Undead…) because of faction alignment. Although that mechanics disappeared, I’m not found on going the opposite direction: giving morale bonuses to mixed stacks. As Gladis suggests, increasing Multiculture interest should be achieved without increasing multicultural army stacks’ interest (beyond the variety of unit abilities).

    Boosting the Multiculture reward

    – better rewards from Multiculture: each unit would be a support OR a T3

    For

    A stack of support units with the Meditate trait or some permanent stat boost, and possibly the Volunteer trait (High Morale as well?). Each faction would send your leader a high counselor, and you wouldn’t be too found on sending them as the first wave of your next city siege. Not a stack of T3s though. There is already a “single boosted T4” reward that shouldn’t pale in comparison.

    Lowering the Multiculture requirement

    – lower difficulty of Multiculture: needs 3 races or 4 races (but seems like a bad idea because in team games, would be pretty easy)

    Against because too easy like you mentioned.

    It depends on how difficult Monoculture becomes. I’m not against a more difficult achievement, though, if associated reward is also higher.

    Making migration a less automatic/easy mechanism

    – increase the time needed to migrate by 1 turn for all migration (my favourite idea, pretty neat and make Mab’s Boon more useful)

    For

    I got a crazy idea (all of Jolly Joker’s fault, not quoting him). What if the migration mechanism could be revised? If you want to migrate, you have to build and bring a settler of the wanted faction to the target city, and then activate a new “settle” option. Migrating would take less(?) time as currently, given the settler’s own producing time. At the end of the migration, you would gain a settler of the original (unwanted) faction. I’ve never understood, back to AoW2, how migrating didn’t impact the nearest city’s population (considered to send in the replacement population). Or, to be closest to Jolly Joker’s idea, the Migration city option would only be accessible when a settler of a different faction stands in the target city’s central hex, and you have enough gold to produce one own city’s settler. Technically, the Migration proper (when you loose any city production) would last only the time needed to produce this second settler or this duration plus one turn, given that the process of producing two settlers would already take time and gold. To help with this, Mab’s Boon could remove the added delay turn, and also give a small discount on any settler production (not only in case of a migration, as the game wouldn’t know). This solution should apply both to a migration inside your empire, and to migrations of newly captured cities (awaiting for their fate).

    Penalties when killing/loosing settlers

    To follow the previous idea, loosing a settler at a battle (or dismissing it) would severely impact the faction happiness. This could limit a settler spamming strategy (you’d have to escort them more), as well as force a player to take care a little of the new settler gained through a migration process (see above). Even more, killing an enemy settler could harm faction happiness because you just killed civilians (the same as when you cast a harmful spell on an enemy city).

    Bonuses when first adding a new faction city to your empire

    You could simply have each other Race Happiness at -100 at the start of the game but the first migrated City should give +150 Happiness (see next proposal).
    – make it more rewarding to get cities from new races: give (temporary?) bonus to (the first?) cities outside your starting race that you get into your empire

    If it´s possible you could give an additional Bonus of 150 Happiness for the 1st migrated City of each other race (Starting race has 250 Happiness Bonus).

    Instead of playing with faction happiness, we could grant the very first new faction city that is added to your empire a unique building called “Imperial Embassy” (a simpler version of Hilliadan’s beacons), that would grant this single city’s Grand Palace a small boost to be debated (less than for the first Grand Palace achievement?). This special bonus would only apply once for each non starting faction, and only at this city (to encourage developing this embassy city, and discourage migrating it).

    Penalties when migrating a lot
    A permanent faction happiness penalty could apply when migrating more than X cities of this faction, and possibly as well a permanent empire happiness penalty for migrating Y cities, because you became before the eyes of all a populace displacer freak. A bit as if Genghis Khan had stopped razing opposing cities for long, but everybody would remember his deeds when he was younger. A little redundant with the evil alignment shift, you could say, but the same could apply to razing/pillaging freaks, by the way and if needed (the difference with existing penalties would be that this ones would be permanent).

    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Rodmar18.
    #291983

    Hiliadan
    Member

    Both the migration with settler idea, and the “happiness penalty for settler killed” are not technically do-able I think. Same for the “Penalties when migrating a lot”.
    You need to think about existing things that could be tweaked to implement your ideas, e.g. Empire Quests, etc.

    Instead of playing with faction happiness, we could grant the very first new faction city that is added to your empire a unique building called “Imperial Embassy” (a simpler version of Hilliadan’s beacons)

    Same, my idea is more complicated because it’s the only technically do-able that I could think about (and it might actually also not be do-able).

    #291995

    I wonder if “migrate” could come with a gold cost.

    Modding wise, possible?

    #292942

    Rodmar18
    Member

    What about a new spell?

    Like if the Migrate option was disabled or trimmed down, and a new avatar city spell was devised to migrate a possessed (or even a waiting for its fate) city. Costs and effect on targeted city could be adjusted, but I don’t know about synergies with other spells. Also, can a spell have a secondary target, allowing the nearest, same-race, owned city to loose some population? Now, is “migrate” a valid spell effect?

    #292943

    ขอบคุณสำหรับกลยุทธชี้แนะ นำต่างๆนี้แทงบอล

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.