It was an option in the mod-mod Masters of Mana, (or in base CIV4 don't remember)
"need complete kills"
on option like that would help to work for everyone.
"need complete kills"
on option like that would help to work for everyone.
You should have to beat all the cities, not just your opponent's capital.
- Thread starter Noobnoob2015
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No.
Because the fun starts to be tedious long before you are finished.
If you absolutely want it, I am 90% sure you can mod it to work like that. But I do not want them to waste time adding that and making it a fun experience.
Because the fun starts to be tedious long before you are finished.
If you absolutely want it, I am 90% sure you can mod it to work like that. But I do not want them to waste time adding that and making it a fun experience.
- 1
- 1
The last thing the game needs is the losing side getting to stall and play hide&seek. if you lose both your capital and leader then you don't have much reason to stay in the match in most cases beside annoying your opponents.
- 1
- 1
My very first game I killed all the enemy cities. I was wondering why I had not won the game. I just kept playing and expanding my empire. Like 20 turns later I found the leader underground all by herself. I killed her and won the game.
Ah sorry, forgot that only one players vision should be taken into acount. Others, well they should just mod it in, even if it is outside of the scope of what can be modded (victory conditions are not moddable to my knowledge) You bought the game after all, it is only yours, they are there to "get along the ride" that's all :/No.
Because the fun starts to be tedious long before you are finished.
If you absolutely want it, I am 90% sure you can mod it to work like that. But I do not want them to waste time adding that and making it a fun experience.
- 6
Oh wow.
Apparently those 19 Downvotes are all just from me?
Beause clearly, there is only one player that thinks so?
Could you explain me how I did that? Without even pressing the button 19 times?
There are no downvotes on my post (at this time)
The OP might have 20 "respectfully disagrees" (and no no where it states "downvote") but my proposition, of an optional rule did not got one (till now at least). Also the current system does not even solves the "hide and seek" aspect, as a hidden hero suffice to propagate the game. Having more end game victory options is a + so i don't see why anyone would opose, beside the self-over-centered view of "i don't like it, they shouldent spend time on it". And that is this view in itself i wanted to point out, to explain and show my disagreement of it. (even it might not go through, i guess, but in the slight chance that it does, it was worths the effort)
there are no down votes on my post. I am not the OP (last time i checked i had no multiple personalities)
The OP might have 20 "respectfully disagrees" (and no no where it states "downvote") but my proposition, of an optional rule did not got one (till now at least). Also the current system does not even solves the "hide and seek" aspect, as a hidden hero suffice to propagate the game. Having more end game victory options is a + so i don't see why anyone would opose, beside the self-over-centered view of "i don't like it, they shouldent spend time on it". And that is this view in itself i wanted to point out, to explain and show my disagreement of it. (even it might not go through, i guess, but in the slight chance that it does, it was worths the effort)
So I finally played it out and of course the ruler was also defending the capital so after the siege he just stopped existing and his expansion victory was also off the table. I don't know, the reinforcement mechanics do feel a bit weird. I just ignored his beacons, ignored his other cities and armies and just marched my 3 strongest armies into his capital, sieged it and won. He had like 7 armies standing in his capital and I would have lost against all of them, but I only had to fight 3...as I said, a bit anticlimactic. This was on hard, gonna try out brutal next.
A hidden ruler.
And it only happened because the player was not aware they had to kill the ruler.
I want to clarify, because I was unaware that the leader survived and I have over 60 hours in the game, simply because EVERYTIME I have taken the capital city, the faction has died. I assumed that's how it works. If not, then maybe design the AI to RUN! Like any rational leader would do if they know they're going to die. That would solve this dilemma.
But the contrary can happen too, i once ruined a run (thank you auto saves) that i was aiming for magic victory, and when the ai attacked me, killing his leader ended the run. And that was once they had been reduced to a single city (not the throne but in 60 turns they could have built one seriously) and lived in opression for the time i needed to research everything. So what i want to illustrate is:
"more options is more better"
"more options is more better"
As someone who was actually playing base Civ 4 while waiting for AoW 4 to release, I can confirm it has that option.
You could have also simply taken one of the beacons and stopped his victory that way, so I really don't see the issue here.
- 2
You need to take control of throne city, and kill the leader.
It happened to me that i took control over capital, but the leader was somewhere else with his army.
It happened to me that i took control over capital, but the leader was somewhere else with his army.
Yeah, but then he would still have been alive and the timer would have just stopped and he could have build a new beacon. So that's quite a difference to taking the AI out completely in one strike. As I said, I don't have a great solution and I don't think the will change this. But it does feel a bit anticlimactic to only fight 3 armies and one siege and you're done while the AI had at least 10 armies and 6 cities.
I think it should be made so that if after an initial assault is won the defender still has armies in reinforcement range, the city shouldn't be conquered. It would need attacking again utnil all defenders in range are cleared, but instead of another long siege (in fact, one could make arguments for repeating siege being a desired option, while all sieges would have shorter timers as a tradeoff) an instant battle on the siege battle map would trigger. That's roughly how it worked in Planetfall (without the siege system, naturally).
It's hard to think of a general systemic solution to an issue of defeating an opponent this way feeling cheesy or anti-climactic other than improving the campaign AI. A lot. For starters, it's way better at developing its cities than the Planetfall AI was which is great but also not really a huge accomplishment. Now it needs to learn to make better armies so it's not so easily squashed in a single siege. I've only completed few games so far and I'm in lategame in another, but I'm yet to see AI actually recruit or summon a tier 4 unit - not to mention tier 5. The one t4 I've seen in my last game I'm pretty sure the AI got from a wonder. Secondly it needs to value the life of its leader a little bit more - not throw it at every obstacle, protect them from a certain death if theres a chance for a rebound (could even be personality dependent).
OK so you took the throne city and then immediately take out the leader right?
Since the AI could just move its throne city and still play for victory through beacons changing the priorities it has to protecting its throne city and leader (after one is taken / killed) and making it enable to move their throne city should do the trick.
However I suspect at least the moving their throne city is prevented to not draw out the games to long (which I appreciate at the moment).
Yeah, the leader was part of the armies defending the capital. So it was siege, one siege fight, done. I'm not even sure if you can move your capital when it's being sieged, that would feel a bit cheesy. And even if it's possible, the AI doesnt do it, like it doesn't attack my capital which would probably be the only way the could potentially stop me.
Another is lore: the idea is that the Godir need to be kicked out of the world to be defeated, which can be only done by killing them and removing the single city that can revive them.
Which I personally like, even if I agree that it needs to be improved. Two ideas come to mind without sacrificing the wizard-god fantasy:
1. The more cities the player has, the more powerful the Crown City is because it absorbs mana from other cities. Thus the defending player can cast especially powerful spells the more major cities he controls. So assaulting the Crown City of a player who has ten more advanced cities would be suicidal (but maybe worth the risk)
2. The Godir can construct an expensive but valuable building in any highly advanced cities that allows him to respawn there. Thus, to win you must both kill the godir and all potential spawning cities. But while having many spawning cities would be safer, such buildings require a high tier city, take long to construct and eat a lot of mana so having too many is just unfeasible
For both cases, I'd only count the most advanced cities. It would make it harder to ignore all cities while still making it possible to take risks by ignoring the rest of the wizard's empire.
- 1