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 7 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #100978

    Athei
    Member

    I ran with the idea that you cannot please everybody. It should be hard enough (which is not atm) to lead the empire composed only of humans, not to mention empire composed of 6 races! That’s nothing illogical, I mean there must be some edicts or something that benefit the elves but not the orcs (for example) and vice versa. Or just a oversight on your part…

    And it should not be some big penalty, maybe -10 with each new race in the empire.

    And I think the leader’s race should feel “more equal” than other races in the empire, and that’s why they should feel unhappy if the leader (who is the same race as them) treats other races “better than them”. And if some other race have more cities than they do, they will feel upset because of it, and you will be pressured to migrate some of their cities even if you don’t want to.

    Which will in turn make that other race hate you a bit, and you will lose some good points, but that’s how it should be. I refuse to believe that you can be a perfect leader so easy – pure good, and all races love you. You should achieve that, not just get it after playing for a bunch of turns…

    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…

    I personally quite liked how it worked back then, if you wanted to have elf and ork in the same party you had to be peace keeper, and hero leading them had to have bard’s skill…

    But since in this game there is neither fixed racial alighment, nor racial antipathy, even if they implement what I’m suggesting there should not a case of that happening unless you screw up something big (like having 3 dwarven and 1 goblin city, and than migrating 2 dwarven cities to goblins, and dwarves are your main race or something)…

    #100983

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    I ran with the idea that you cannot please everybody. It should be hard enough (which is not atm) to lead the empire composed only of humans, not to mention empire composed of 6 races! That’s nothing illogical, I mean there must be some edicts or something that benefit the elves but not the orcs (for example) and vice versa. Or just a oversight on your part…

    And it should not be some big penalty, maybe -10 with each new race in the empire.

    And I think the leader’s race should feel “more equal” than other races in the empire, and that’s why they should feel unhappy if the leader (who is the same race as them) treats other races “better than them”. And if some other race have more cities than they do, they will feel upset because of it, and you will be pressured to migrate some of their cities even if you don’t want to.

    Which will in turn make that other race hate you a bit, and you will lose some good points, but that’s how it should be. I refuse to believe that you can be a perfect leader so easy – pure good, and all races love you. You should achieve that, not just get it after playing for a bunch of turns…

    The number of races per empire penalty does not make any sense so please drop it; the rest of your ideas are essentially sound. The reason is that prior to the 19th Century there was not generally speaking a single centralised legal system uniting all the various territories.

    Since all the cities will have their own adminstrations and laws, it does not make sense to have your leader having to decide matters on a regular basis, favouring either elves or orcs. The elf cities will all have similar elflike laws, the orc cities will all have similar orclike laws and nobody is dictating anything centrally except possibly religious leaders which will be seperate anyway.

    There is no situation like you described that will inevitably arise whether you have 1, 3, 6, 8 or 100 races in your empire. You could perhaps impose your own race’s customs and religion on others, but that is a deliberate act.

    #100987

    Athei
    Member

    The number of races per empire penalty does not make any sense so please drop it

    Ok 🙂 It’s not that important or anything, I just wanted to explain my thought process.

    #101120

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    Which will in turn make that other race hate you a bit, and you will lose some good points, but that’s how it should be. I refuse to believe that you can be a perfect leader so easy – pure good, and all races love you. You should achieve that, not just get it after playing for a bunch of turns…

    That is the real problem, that being Good is a no-brainer because one does not ever have to make any sacrifices for it.

    #101217

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I think a racial happiness system would provide more of an incentive to be evil, and you don’t need silly things like ‘no positive modifiers’ or ‘Race A gets unhappy if Race B has more cities than them, so you need to migrate cities and lose good points in order to maintain harmony’.

    Instead, it’ll naturally fall out through a fairly simple process:

    To remain good, a leader generally has to be content with the races of the cities they acquire, as they are when they acquire them – you can generally afford a few migrations, but you have to be selective about it. This means a good leader will naturally end up having to split their resources among multiple races – which means, in turn, that none of them are likely to end up really high.

    An evil leader, however, can migrate to their heart’s content. This means an evil leader can decide that some races just aren’t worth the effort of maintaining good relations with. Instead, the evil leader can migrate every city of an unfavoured race to a favoured race, which grants them positive points towards their favoured races on top of having fewer races that they need to keep happy. The negative side is that the races they’re dispossessing will hate them, but who cares? You’re evil, you were planning to conquer their cities with force rather than buy them off with weakling diplomacy (iron price, gold price…), and once you’ve conquered them you’re planning to force them out with nothing more than they can carry on their backs (much of which will be stolen by your soldiers before they reach the borders) – no citizens of that race will stay in your empire long enough for their hatred of you to matter! Except possibly as slaves, depending on just how you interpret how the ‘migration’ mechanic actually works…

    Basically, a good leader will likely end up with a variety of races, which all have fair to middling happiness values, while an evil leader can end up with a couple of races (or even just one) that are fanatically loyal (possibly partially through the leader maintaining a racial supremacy policy) – and other races that hate them, but that hatred doesn’t matter because they’re not in the empire anyway.

    #101221

    Kaiosama TLJ
    Member

    I don’t think that introducing an Happiness penalty for just absorving cities from different races is necessary, because it’s already a challenge to make a multi-racial army in the first place, especialy if we consider early game.

    In the early game it’s better to focus full development on one city and let the others grow alone and generate Gold to not “exaust” your coffers, and normally this one city will be your throne city. Fully building two cities at the same time in the early game is suicide with low resources.

    And even if you have the resources there’s also the distance factor. Most of the time the other race cities will be a bit far from the rest of your empire, so bringing these two races together can take some time.

    Not to mention that some races works better in “isolated” stacks rather than mixed with others. The Draconian Elder buff is really good but only work on Draconians, Dwarfs move on montains faster but an non-Dwarf unit can slow them down because they lack Mountaineer, and so on…

    Making an multi-racial army is not impossible, but due to time and resource comsumption it’s more an luxury for long single player games, and I see no problem with that. You earned it, you keep it. 😉

    However, making units from other races suffering a morale penalty if you Plunder/Raze cities from their races is logical an I can roll with that.

    #101223

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    I don’t think that introducing an Happiness penalty for just absorving cities from different races is necessary, because it’s already a challenge to make a multi-racial army in the first place, especialy if we consider early game.

    I really do not really understand what are on about. Multiracial armies are the norm because early neutral cities of other races join you and it is usually easier to conquer cities and then recruit the AI’s own units using captured cities.

    Basically, a good leader will likely end up with a variety of races, which all have fair to middling happiness values, while an evil leader can end up with a couple of races (or even just one) that are fanatically loyal (possibly partially through the leader maintaining a racial supremacy policy) – and other races that hate them, but that hatred doesn’t matter because they’re not in the empire anyway.

    We will have to be careful however not to make being evil a no-brainer instead. We need to make it so that other players with races absorbed into their empire get upset when you oppress their races, even to a degree if they are not the dominant race.

    Also it could be made the case that cities get upset if you ally with a player which has oppressed their race and will be happier if you at war with them.

    #101224

    Athei
    Member

    Basically, a good leader will likely end up with a variety of races, which all have fair to middling happiness values, while an evil leader can end up with a couple of races (or even just one) that are fanatically loyal (possibly partially through the leader maintaining a racial supremacy policy) – and other races that hate them, but that hatred doesn’t matter because they’re not in the empire anyway.

    However, making units from other races suffering a morale penalty if you Plunder/Raze cities from their races is logical an I can roll with that.

    Also it could be made the case that cities get upset if you ally with a player which has oppressed their race and will be happier if you at war with them.

    Yea, I really want those thing ingame, I think it would be much more enjoyable and challenging. I get excited even thinking about it.

    Not to mention that it would make different races FEEL like different races, and not the same race with different appearances and abilities…

    Oh, and…

    We will have to be careful however not to make being evil a no-brainer instead.

    I don’t think that will happen, after all we have so many indies that are more than happy to surrender to us (guards) or to offer us peace (cities). I think now will be real struggle NOT to be neutral…

    #101226

    Bouh
    Member

    Do you people played the campaign ? The campaign is all about how races want to be happy together, and how racism and racial favoritism lead to war.

    What about the elves fighting elves, the goblins fighting goblins, the dwarves fighting dwarves, etc. Why should there be any racial bond between cities when races went beyond the barbaric and primitive racial bonds with politic ?

    There is no place in AoW3 for innate racism, because that’s what it is. Races actually evolved and became civilised, and now don’t care about the race, they care about how evil or good people are, not about the form or color they borned in.

    #101231

    Athei
    Member

    @bouh This not about races hating each other. This is about races hating or loving YOU (leader) for treating them bad or good. It doesn’t even matter if you are good or evil, you can be pure evil and your race(s) will still love you if you are good to them.

    And no matter how civilized a race is it will not forgive you for hurting members of its race. You wont ever EVER hear an Elf say something like: “You nearly destroyed elven race, but you treat goblins so good that I just can’t be mad at you <3”

    P.S. And ofc we played the campaign, and I’m unsure if you noticed but this is a wargame, I mean noone would play it if there is no conflict… Ok, some people would, but those people are farmville players, not us…

    #101233

    This definitely needs implementing imo. Couldn’t agree more with op. Some great examples, too.

    #101236

    Athei
    Member

    @age_of_philip Thank you, I’m glad you liked it 😀

    And thanks to all other posters so far, this is becoming something really nice IMO!
    I just hope that devs are reading this too…

    #101249

    Bouh
    Member

    @bouh This not about races hating each other. This is about races hating or loving YOU (leader) for treating them bad or good. It doesn’t even matter if you are good or evil, you can be pure evil and your race(s) will still love you if you are good to them.

    And no matter how civilized a race is it will not forgive you for hurting members of its race. You wont ever EVER hear an Elf say something like: “You nearly destroyed elven race, but you treat goblins so good that I just can’t be mad at you <3″

    P.S. And ofc we played the campaign, and I’m unsure if you noticed but this is a wargame, I mean noone would play it if there is no conflict… Ok, some people would, but those people are farmville players, not us…

    You didn’t get what I mean : why a goblin should care more about what you do to goblins than what you do to elves ? This is what I call “civilised”. They are concerned about what *you* do more than to *whom* you do it.

    And why should a good goblin be concerned about what you do to evil goblins more than what you do to good dwarves ?

    You are saying that racial bonds should prevale on actual actions. This is what I call barbaric and primitive.

    In AoW3, an evil city will like you for pursuing war and masacre whereas a good city will like you for pursuing harmony and avoiding war.

    The last missing explanation is the bond between your leader and your cities : in AoW3, you absorb cities or migrate them. In the two cases, I see it as the “conversion” of the city leaders and rules to follow your goals and methods.

    #101258

    Athei
    Member

    @bouh That’s just the way it is.

    In our modern “civilized” society if you are white human, and you catch a black human stealing, and accuse him of that, other black humans will accuse you of racism, in spite of all the evidence you may have. Not to mention other nations…

    And we are all humans!

    Only time when elf is going to like dwarf more instead of the other elf is if that particular elf and dwarf grew up together, or if they robbed the bank together or something. And they are just one elf and one dwarf – so it’s literally impossible for the elven city to like dwarven city more than some other elven city.

    And there are no good or evil cities. That’s far more unrealistic than anything I may suggest… Every city is neutral, with good and evil inhabitants, and when you conquer the city you banish the evil ones (if you are good leader) or kill, enslave the good ones (if you are evil). And then that city may be considered “good” or “evil” but majority of the people that live there will still be neutral.

    I understand that you want all races to be equal, and that’s admirable, but it should not be such an easy thing to achieve that you can do it without trying.

    It may not be what you want, but believe me it cannot be worse than it’s now, things right now are really ridiculous…

    I mean, right now you can be Pure Good Hitler (human for instance), and all races will love you!
    You can bring all races, except humans, to extinction and all you have to do is to spare some fleeing indies, accept some peace offers and found some (human) cities and you will be pure good?
    All nonhuman towns will be razed or migrated and they will still love you and believe in you and open their city gates to you when you offer them peace even though they know that you have a reputation of razing nonhuman cities?
    NO WAY IN HELL!

    #101264

    Bouh
    Member

    In our modern “civilized” society if you are white human, and you catch a black human stealing, and accuse him of that, other black humans will accuse you of racism, in spite of all the evidence you may have. Not to mention other nations…

    And we are all humans!

    It just happen that AoW3 races are a lot more civilized than us. People like you describe are only middle age monkeys.

    And cities do have an alignment : the city council must already have banished all the good or bad people.

    Things right now are good for me, and they already are. It seems things are not like *you* want.

    And what you describe with your “pure good hitler” is higly unlikely. To do that, you will need creation spells. And this is an edge case more than anything else.

    #101269

    Athei
    Member

    I mean, right now you can be Pure Good Hitler (human for instance), and all races will love you!
    You can bring all races, except humans, to extinction and all you have to do is to spare some fleeing indies, accept some peace offers and found some (human) cities and you will be pure good?
    All nonhuman towns will be razed or migrated and they will still love you and believe in you and open their city gates to you when you offer them peace even though they know that you have a reputation of razing nonhuman cities?
    NO WAY IN HELL!

    This is a fact. As GoblinCookie said to be good is a no-brainer. In my every game I have 1000+ good points, and it’s quite stupid cause I don’t play like saint.

    You are naive, or just want to have your little utopia without actually having to do anything to obtain it.

    Whichever it is don’t matter much. You do not have facts. I’m using logic to explain to you why some normal things happen, and you talk about some “middle age monkeys” crap. If you don’t like the current state of the world and you run from it to AoW3 you missed the game. Go play with something with ponies.

    #101272

    Bouh
    Member

    What ?!

    Look, this is a fantasy game. Why should it be exactly the same as our world ? Isn’t what fantasy is about ? To not be like our world ? I know dark fantasy is fashionable these days, but everything don’t have to be dark with sex and violence in it.

    Preceding episodes have been about racial relationships. This one is about good and evil. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it. But who are you to say this game must be changed to accomodate your tastes ?

    #101278

    Taykor
    Member

    Suggestions here are either too complicated and counterintuitive (and therefore unwelcome) or contradictory to the game story, or both.
    I don’t think they are necessary.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by  President.
    #101282

    Kaiosama TLJ
    Member

    Do you people played the campaign ? The campaign is all about how races want to be happy together, and how racism and racial favoritism lead to war.

    I don’t think that’s the issue here, even I that didn’t played all of the Campaing yet know what is all about. The problem is that they just simply don’t give a fuck due to nostalgia.

    I’ve already said in other threads that I recognize the current aligment system has it’s share of problems, but as I can see this is also an opportunity to old AoW fanboys that just wanted Shadow Magic HD to come out and whine complain the new system sucks and that the old one was perfect and didn’t need any change. (and also a big fuzz about how they miss their big vibrators Wizard Towers, even thought they were not on AoW1 to begin with and many other fans also hated them)

    And also “Tolkien nuts” who just want every fantasy story to be like Lord of the Rings. Remember when people whined that Orcs weren’t inherently evil in Warcraft 3 anymore? It’s almost the same deal here.

    #101284

    Again, I think alot of you are missing the real point, namely, does your proposed system promote interesting game play, and not “is it realistic, is it “right” and if you disagree you must be some sort of Racist,” blah blah blah.

    I think the current system contributes to the feeling that races are a bit generic, because you can easily mix the races and this is, it seems to me, they crux of the issue, that you can mix and match all the races willy nilly in this game, for whatever reason (I think it makes sense personally) whereas before, you simply couldn’t.

    Now, there are several proposed solutions out there such as

    > making the races play more differently than they do now, for example, changing the unlock sequence for their units, or unlocking different units at different buildings etc.

    > introducing new races and classes.

    I personally would like for there to be a politics type simulator that integrates into the game and tracks player actions, and also player position. It is known that when times are good and you are winning, you are happier, and when times get harder, tensions in communities start to show, racial or otherwise. Just look at any European country and observe the attitude shift following the recession. A particular case in point is Greece, and the Golden Dawn, now prominent because people are…well..desperate and unhappy.

    This could translate into the game even more so than it does now. Empire happiness is already there, but I think the effects could be more nuanced, and if you are losing several big battles, the morale effect could be graded according to the casualties suffered, e.g. if it was a big battle and the army that lost was mostly goblins, then everyone is unhappy because you lose, but Goblins are more so because they lost more.

    This does run the risk of introducing unneeded and tiresome micromanagement though, and you could easily make the argument that some political systems actively encourage violence and conflict (you could even say that if it weren’t for the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, we would have had a great many larger scale industrialised conflicts in real life within the last 60 odd years).

    So, the central dilemna is:

    How do you incorporate alignment decisions in such a way that:

    a) the alignment shift makes sense (people keep saying that cleaning out an Undead area should be a ‘good’ act and not an ‘evil’ one)

    b) there are definite trade-offs in choosing alignment actions (the current trade off in losing experience but not losing troops, versus, killing the guards and gaining the money and experience, is a good start) so that the player is challenged and that the ‘default’ comes back to neutral (whereas now, the ‘default’ swings towards good).

    c) Unlock more skills and abilities that are alignment dependent, but make those alignment points harder to get to. For example, unlocking the ability to bribe the guards of an area to join you when you are sufficiently evil, or have them want to join you when you are sufficiently good.

    d) Integrate it all so that there is a picture built up of the player, in other words a player has a reputation, which then gets acted upon by other entities in the game world, e.g. a player could be ‘good’ but always razes Goblin towns, and this reputation means that Goblin towns are likely to resist harder, whether or not the town itself is good or evil.

    e) Make it all fun.

    Ideas anyone? Less attacks on each other please.

    #101289

    Bouh
    Member

    How do you incorporate alignment decisions in such a way that:

    a) the alignment shift makes sense (people keep saying that cleaning out an Undead area should be a ‘good’ act and not an ‘evil’ one)

    b) there are definite trade-offs in choosing alignment actions (the current trade off in losing experience but not losing troops, versus, killing the guards and gaining the money and experience, is a good start) so that the player is challenged and that the ‘default’ comes back to neutral (whereas now, the ‘default’ swings towards good).

    c) Unlock more skills and abilities that are alignment dependent, but make those alignment points harder to get to. For example, unlocking the ability to bribe the guards of an area to join you when you are sufficiently evil, or have them want to join you when you are sufficiently good.

    d) Integrate it all so that there is a picture built up of the player, in other words a player has a reputation, which then gets acted upon by other entities in the game world, e.g. a player could be ‘good’ but always razes Goblin towns, and this reputation means that Goblin towns are likely to resist harder, whether or not the town itself is good or evil.

    e) Make it all fun.

    Ideas anyone? Less attacks on each other please.

    Good post.
    a) I think things already make sense. As far as I can tell, people are sometimes unhappy because it’s not the sense they’d like to be, which is different from being nonsense.

    b) I don’t totaly agree with this one : at start, letting guard flee and buying cities can earn you a lot of good points ; but later, razing, looting and migrating cities become interesting options compared to assimilate, and these will earn you a lot of evil points. The problem then is not a problem of balance in itself, but a problem of when do the choices happen : good choices happen in early game and become a lot rarer in late game, and the pragmatic choices follow a good then evil trend. And this might explain why people have strong feelings about how easy or hard it is to be good or evil etc.

    c, d and e) IMO these are ideas and are constrained by b). The alignment system might need some tuning, but IMO it is in the form of more choices more than skills and abilities you unlock with a particular path.

    #101293

    Athei
    Member

    Preceding episodes have been about racial relationships. This one is about good and evil. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it. But who are you to say this game must be changed to accomodate your tastes ?

    In some of my previous post I said I really like this game, but it’s unpolished, and that I won’t stop playing even if devs don’t like my idea. That’s cause I’m grown up.

    Now since I see you are confused let me tell you with simple words – I like how races can be equal, BUT I don’t like how easy they become equal (without players effort) and I don’t like how they are indifferent to everything. If I dedicate the game to destroy some race, and they don’t hate me, that’s fucking stupid.

    Suggestions here are either too complicated and counterintuitive (and therefore unwelcome) or contradictory to the game story, or both.

    How is “if you are nice to goblins they like you” complicated, counterintuitive or contradictory to the story? If I remember correctly (and I finished campaigns before devs had to dumb down the game because some players couldn’t finish the first mission of the elven campaign on easy, which means a long time ago now) in elven campaign there was one goblin theocrat who encouraged his people to rebel because they were mistreated. So as you can see it’s neather complicated, counterintuitive NOR CONTRADICTORY.

    @Kaiosama TLJ What Shadow Magic HD, what Wizards towers?! I’m unsure why you are frustrated… Ok, that’s a lie, I can see why you are frustrated but it has nothing to do with me or the things we are talking about, so kindly show yourself out. Shoo!

    I personally would like for there to be a politics type simulator that integrates into the game and tracks player actions, and also player position. It is known that when times are good and you are winning, you are happier, and when times get harder, tensions in communities start to show, racial or otherwise. Just look at any European country and observe the attitude shift following the recession. A particular case in point is Greece, and the Golden Dawn, now prominent because people are…well..desperate and unhappy.

    This could translate into the game even more so than it does now. Empire happiness is already there, but I think the effects could be more nuanced, and if you are losing several big battles, the morale effect could be graded according to the casualties suffered, e.g. if it was a big battle and the army that lost was mostly goblins, then everyone is unhappy because you lose, but Goblins are more so because they lost more.

    I can see that you understand what I (and some others) are talking about, at least I hope you do, and that makes me happy.

    Instead of telling you what I think may be fun, I will tell you what is not fun at all right now:
    All races are composed of retards. They must be since they are perfectly fine with someone hunting them down to the last man (ork, goblin, w/e). And since they are fine with that someone, they are fine with anybody, so… why are they fighting each other again?
    Why is anybody fighting one another if they are perfectly fine with any leader? “Elven court vs commonwealth?” Nope its RMG… “Not enough resources?” They can just go to any other leader, since they are fine with whoever, and if he happens to hate them and kill them because he is feeling racistic that day, that’s ok too, since they were retarded anyway… “Because one leader told them to fight and kill, other leader’s people because of meh?”

    That’s the way I feel about the races in AoW3. It’s not problem the number of racial units, or the difference between human bard or elven bard, the problem is that if you kill 100 elves, 101th elf will still gladly join you, not hating you one bit even if those 100 elves were his friends and family.

    That’s the problem, it’s stupid and it’s not fun at all. And I’m astonished how some people say that it’s fine the way it is or how it makes sense…

    a) I think things already make sense. As far as I can tell, people are sometimes unhappy because it’s not the sense they’d like to be, which is different from being nonsense.

    Please read my post carefully, and tell me how it’s not nonsense…

    #101301

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I’ve seen a few statements in this thread that racial differences are not what AoW3 is about…

    They’re… partially true, and partially very, very wrong.

    Certainly, due to the initial success of the Commonwealth and the reconciliation and then Mending between the elven subraces, the races are no longer grouped up along alignment-based lines. Furthermore, multiracial alliances and empires are the norm – both the Commonwealth and the Elven Court are in this category, the Court being essentially a recreation of the standards of Inioch’s rule. As a result, I don’t think ideas based on punishing people for having multiracial empires, or on the idea that certain races are simply incompatible, are appropriate.

    However, if you look at the campaign and the leadup to it, racial differences do play a large role in the third Age of Wonders. The core conflict, as it was back in AoW1 albeit played out by different actors, is between elven and human standards of living and rulership. According to the timeline, Leonus’ father essentially cemented his control over the Commonwealth by demonising the Elves, blaming them for the problems that the Commonwealth (and humans in particular) were suffering and confiscating their holdings and property in retaliation – the elves responded to this by forming the Elven Court and seceding. Thus, the heart of the conflict – although there is more to it which I’m not going to mention due to spoilers, although I hope everyone reading this knows what I’m talking about by now – is based on racial differences between humans and elves. On top of that, if you play through all branches of the campaigns, there are scenarios involving factions of every other nonhuman race rebelling against or simply abandoning the Commonwealth due to misliking its human-dominated nature.

    Racial differences do seem to be less marked then in previous installments, but they’re still playing a strong role in driving the plot of the campaign. It seems reasonable, then, that handling what different races think of you should play some role in individual games as well. In fact, I can think of a few scenarios in the campaign that could have significantly benefited flavour-wise from hitting the player with a big relationship penalty with one race or another (Court 4 taking the Loyalist route would be one big example).

    #101315

    Bouh
    Member

    Racial differences do seem to be less marked then in previous installments, but they’re still playing a strong role in driving the plot of the campaign. It seems reasonable, then, that handling what different races think of you should play some role in individual games as well. In fact, I can think of a few scenarios in the campaign that could have significantly benefited flavour-wise from hitting the player with a big relationship penalty with one race or another (Court 4 taking the Loyalist route would be one big example).

    You are right, but you are emphasizing the racism part of the story and how it ultimately played out. On the other side of the story, Edward tell us a lot how the commonwealth is about equality among everyone, and various characters show how this line of thought is rather successful eventhough declining.

    The thing is that human and dwarves (the forgotten of the empire ; they are as powerful as the humans as far as I remember) are the best at commercial war, so their greediness lead them to rule the commonwealth. Racism indeed arose, but both the commonwealth and the elven court are against racism.

    In fact, IMO, the conflict is driven more by traditionalism vs progressism than by racism.

    @athei : you don’t want any sense out of the current system. It doesn’t mean you can’t make sense out of it. Did you understand my sentence at least ? “As far as I can tell, people are sometimes unhappy because it’s not the sense they’d like to be, which is different from being nonsense.”

    Can you understand anything you don’t firmly believe in ? And do you understand what “assimilate” means ? I already explained it, but apparently this mecanic goes against your beliefs.

    As you like the nazi comparison : do you think germans were all racists looking to genocide the jews and rule the world ? And how dod they turn communists for half of them and capitalist for the other half as soon as Hitler died ? Is this nonsense ? It’s history, and it’s exactly how AoW3 work : it work on ideology, not racism. Racism is indeed an ideology, but ideology is a LOT more than racism.

    #101322

    Athei
    Member

    @bouh Once again you are missing the point… And yes, I don’t believe in mechanic that makes no sense.

    And not only that it makes no sense but it’s not fun as well. How can it be fun if you are leading the nation composed of insensitive puppets to wage war against another country composed of puppets as well?

    When I started this topic I wanted a complex and deep racial relationship simulator, but now I gave up on that, and I just want things that make no sense to change. “When I hurt you, you hate me”, why is that so hard to understand?

    Lets go with nazi comparison again: When Hitler attacked Poland or France, do you think polish or french people liked him? Were they indifferent to his attack on their compatriots? No. They hated him! (And maybe all Germans as well, but I’m not sure of that, and it’s beside point…)

    That’s what I’m talking about, and that’s what makes no sense in the game, no matter what you say. If you oppress someone purposefully, and they don’t hate you for that, that’s nonsense, not just to me but to everybody (if you tell me it makes sense to you, you are lying).

    I’m almost always playing with all races, treating them all equally, but sometimes if I decide to genocide some race(s) I want them to hate me. Because that is normal, and it’s not racism if you hate someone who is trying to exterminate you and your race of the face of the earth.

    #101330

    Bouh
    Member

    When I started this topic I wanted a complex and deep racial relationship simulator, but now I gave up on that, and I just want things that make no sense to change. “When I hurt you, you hate me”, why is that so hard to understand?

    Lets go with nazi comparison again: When Hitler attacked Poland or France, do you think polish or french people liked him? Were they indifferent to his attack on their compatriots? No. They hated him! (And maybe all Germans as well, but I’m not sure of that, and it’s beside point…)

    That’s what I’m talking about, and that’s what makes no sense in the game, no matter what you say. If you oppress someone purposefully, and they don’t hate you for that, that’s nonsense, not just to me but to everybody (if you tell me it makes sense to you, you are lying).

    I’m almost always playing with all races, treating them all equally, but sometimes if I decide to genocide some race(s) I want them to hate me. Because that is normal, and it’s not racism if you hate someone who is trying to exterminate you and your race of the face of the earth.

    God and I should be the naïve one here…

    So this is how you think ? When something doesn’t make sense to you, you just ignore it ? Or do you actually think the german were evil in the WW2 ?

    You talk about how primitive and nonsensical is the AoW3 alignment system, yet you have no idea about how geopolitic or politic work it seems…

    *Your* idea of racial bonds is the naïve one, and our world is the best proof of it : can you even imagin humans acting as a unified race ?!

    The only nonsense here is what you believe make sense. Racial bonds is a naive idea, and it’s fine in a fantasy world, because the aim is to make us dream and think. But please, don’t tell me racial bonds have anything close to realism. I mean, godzilla is even more realistic than a unified humanity caring for its kind.

    #101331

    @ Bouh, Godzilla IS real, I have seen it.

    #101334

    Athei
    Member

    @bouh Yeah, you just confirmed it. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are ether not reading what I write, or don’t understand english or whatever, but I have finished talking to you because all you say now is bullshit.

    You just said that polish and french were delighted that Hitler slaughtered them.

    Now kindly show yourself out, and may God have mercy on your soul…

    P.S. I saw your profile. You have 436 replays and 1 topic! Are you even playing the game anymore or are you just spamming the forums with the crap I see here on my topic? Actually, just go away, I feel my IQ dropping just writing replays to your posts…

    #101335

    Bouh
    Member

    I will ellaborate a little bit, because I might be a little too personal.

    In AoW3, independant cities are state cities. There are people in the city, obviously, but there also is a governement and rules.

    The comparison with WW2 or anything real world related do not hold between AoW race versus RL nation, it holds between AoW *city* and RL nation. Because the cities in AoW3 are states in themselves, like anciant Greece.

    Hence, what matter is not the race of the other city, races are only a fantasy layer, what matter is the city, and as they are *independants*, as their name tells us, they are loosely bonded. Cities relationships are represented by their alignment : good cities like good cities and good leaders, and evil cities like evil cities and evil leaders ; all this because what matter is politic, not race. What matter is that their friends think like them, not that they look like them.

    Note to myself : insulting others is stupid, don’t do it again stupid me.

    #101338

    Athei
    Member

    Someone that said that people are fine with you when you slaughter their nation called me an idiot. LOL.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 92 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.