Negotiation?

[Worsas]

I like that it´s possible to negotiate with the opponent wizards in MoM but Momime doesn´t have that feature. Do you think of implementing it later on?

[Implode]

You mean diplomacy, exchanging spells and such? Yes... later on.

But really, does anyone use this? You don't just always slag 'em? :)

[Worsas]

:D Of course I do..

But keeping an opponent wizard from attacking me, and if it´s only for some turns, can be useful, especially when I´m fighting against several of them.

Will there also be a mirror where the wizard appears?

[Implode]

Honestly I haven't thought about that yet. At the moment you can see the enemy wizards on the F9 screen from the start of the game, before you've even met them. I haven't thought about what I'll do with that in the long term - I probably will try to show the empty gems like the original MoM does.

Although there was things I didn't like about the original MoM here, e.g. someone you've not met yet casts Just Cause and so you learn who they are - yet their gem is still empty unti you actually bump into their units.

[Virm]

possible solution to the global enchantments issue you just mentioned would be to go ahead and show that the spell was cast and maybe have it show in the correct player's color, but only display that "Someone" cast it. Whether the color is shown or not somewhat depends on how you plan to have the banners/colors work in the end.

as far as diplomacy goes, it would make sense to do this around the same time as building an in depth AI, or at least get the framework built. That way you'd already have a basis for how diplomacy would work with each possible personality type.

as always, feel free to ignore my suggestions if you've got other ideas.

[Implode]

That way you'd already have a basis for how diplomacy would work with each possible personality type.

I suppose its because I always play on Impossible when diplomacy is a non-starter, but I find the whole concept of diplomacy and personality types in MoM pretty amusing.

I mean, this strikes me the same as playing Command & Conquer and GDI & NOD saying, lets dismantle all those tanks we've built and be friends, or playing Doom/Quake/some other FPS and saying, put down that rocket launcher and lets hug! Diplomacy in MoM is just so two faced, even if you're maintaining a good relationship with a wizard now, you know you're going to kill 'em in the end (whether with units or the spell of mastery) because, well, that's the point of the game!

I like the "Someone has cast Just Cause" idea by the way :)

Implode.

[Coyote]

You start inserting multiple human players into the mix, and you will start getting diplomacy, exchanging spells, etc. I know that the original MOM doesn't have a good diplomacy AI, but that doesn't mean that diplomacy isn't used in warfare. Its called the temporary-allegiance-so-we-can-bash-that-other-guy, but other-guy-does-deal-behind-scenes-and-you-get-back-stabbed type fun.

There's a board game called Diplomacy... and man, its all-out war if you've ever played it.

[srw46]

I like the diplomacy feature and I think it has a great amount of potential. Whilst allegiances may not last ultimately I think a temporary alliance or peace can make sense within the context of the game.

Many other games in the genre actually have an allied victory option which allows two or more players to win by virtue of removing the opposing, non-allied players. This would be an excellent feature to see in MoM in my opinion. It would allow for 'comp stomps' where two humans could team against the computer players. I understand that is not to everyones tastes and some people would say the point is to have one solo winner, but then that is the point of an optional setting, they just wouldn't have to use it.

I would personally play games of both flavours.

I have always lamented the brief part diplomacy has to play in MoM. I enjoy it for speeding up research and for stopping enemies from harassing me during initial setups. MoM obviously has some built in 'go to war' threshold once you pass a certain power.

I think what would scale much better is to set that threshold as power difference rather than a power value. That is to say, the enemy wizards compare their power to yours and if you exceed them by a certain amount, they declare war.

[Implode]

Many other games in the genre actually have an allied victory option which allows two or more players to win by virtue of removing the opposing, non-allied players. This would be an excellent feature to see in MoM in my opinion.

Yeah, I think that would be quite nice to see too, I've played plenty of other games which included it, although I can't remember having ever actually let a game finish like that... I remember playing games of Civilization where two of us would ally, wipe out all the AI players and then suddenly there's be 100 tanks lined up along our border between each other while we tried to find the most effective time & place to stab each other in the back :D

It would allow for 'comp stomps' where two humans could team against the computer players.

Yeah I can see that, whereas original MoM is 1 vs 4, you could play say 2 vs 8. Or another idea is I will probably add a "Super Impossible" and "Ultra Impossible" difficulty level, then by bumping up the number of units per grid cell from 9 to the max of 20, you'd then have very difficult lairs/nodes to try to take out between you as well.

Back on alliances and allied victories, if you're totally allied to a player, what about things like whether you gain any benefit from overland spells they've cast (e.g. Crusade), or whether you can load your units into their transports (and what if you then declare war on them)?

Implode.

[Coyote]

Back on alliances and allied victories, if you're totally allied to a player, what about things like whether you gain any benefit from overland spells they've cast (e.g. Crusade), or whether you can load your units into their transports (and what if you then declare war on them)?

Or enter an ally's empty city to help defend it? Donate units, etc?

It can be as integrative and complex as you're willing (and able) to code it.

I think it'd be fun, though if a free for all is what I get, I'll still be happy.

Oh on that note (2 players vs the computers) that sounds like an excellent victory option.

[Richrf]

In the original MOM, I think you used diplomacy chiefly for trading spells really... to get stuff you might not get.. in your spellbook

I always wondered what would happen if you had peace treaties for x turn type deals (or any kind of similar deals) were enforcable..

Or maybe you could break them but with some kind of magical backlash...
e.g losing half your skill, half you mana reserves etc...

[Clythoss]

Here my 2 Cents.

Iam not someone who plays on very hard.In fact i prefer medium or easy difficulty levels.I like diplomacy, but i don´t like the fact how mom and similar games handle the fact that you are a human player. The Comp players come and demand things from you. To get them to ally you have to make them many presents. I always think if the comp players would treat themselves like they treat me there would NEVER be peace between them.

I realy would like that comp players and human players would be treated the same, at least on easier difficulty levels. I mean stronger comp players put demands on weaker players. If they refuse the war gets a bit closer.On the other side weaker comp players should give gifts to stronger players to get on their good side.Regardless if this stronger player is another comp or me in fact. I know this may sound as if it would make the game to easy, but then again you could adjust this behavior for certain difficulty levels.

[srw46]

Many other games in the genre actually have an allied victory option which allows two or more players to win by virtue of removing the opposing, non-allied players. This would be an excellent feature to see in MoM in my opinion.

Yeah, I think that would be quite nice to see too, I've played plenty of other games which included it, although I can't remember having ever actually let a game finish like that... I remember playing games of Civilization where two of us would ally, wipe out all the AI players and then suddenly there's be 100 tanks lined up along our border between each other while we tried to find the most effective time & place to stab each other in the back :D

Yes, we've had games like that too :D

Some games allow an allied victory but some allow alliances yet still operate on a 'last man standing' basis. So you'd wipe out the AI and then be left having to go to war whether you like it or not.

AoW (I think) in particular had a simple 'allied victory' checkbox. It meant you could win as an alliance, basically. If it was not checked then you could still ally but ultimately would have to drop alliances to win the game.

Something the same would offer the most flexibility in my opinion. It's a (seemingly) very straightforward way to add an incredible amount of replayability.

It would allow for 'comp stomps' where two humans could team against the computer players.

Yeah I can see that, whereas original MoM is 1 vs 4, you could play say 2 vs 8. Or another idea is I will probably add a "Super Impossible" and "Ultra Impossible" difficulty level, then by bumping up the number of units per grid cell from 9 to the max of 20, you'd then have very difficult lairs/nodes to try to take out between you as well.

Back on alliances and allied victories, if you're totally allied to a player, what about things like whether you gain any benefit from overland spells they've cast (e.g. Crusade), or whether you can load your units into their transports (and what if you then declare war on them)?

Implode.

It's a question of complexity, I suppose.

I remember in AoW : Shadow Magic if you were allied with somebody you could fight in their battles but you had to have your units adjacent to the square they initiated the battle in. We would meticulouslya rrange our big fights to we could help one another and they were the most epic fights we ever had.

The more complicated you make the alliance the more work it is, I suppose.

I would be inclined to not allow things like entering cities or transports because of the problems they present. I would keep overland spells only count to the player, which makes sense and keeps things simple.

It would be great to allow allies to join combat, perhaps in the same nature as described above.

But all that said, even the mere ability to ally together with another human for comp stomping or extended funcitonality allowing you to ally with AI wizards indefinitely would be a gigantic boon.

[Zenir]

Personally I was always big into capturing as many spells as possible to buff my heroes, or simply expand my abilities to counter others better. Without spell trading that leaves just looting, which is significantly harder to get more spells from. I understand often you had to sell your soul for a very measly spell, but it gave the comps a fighting chance, allowed me to help the enemy of my enemy and myself at the same time, and isn't that what diplomacy is about? ;)

[nyarlathotep]

You mean diplomacy, exchanging spells and such? Yes... later on.

But really, does anyone use this? You don't just always slag 'em? :)

My strategy is to load up on the enhancements, but I'm low on the spellbooks. I try and weasel the good spells from the other wizards, while giving them junk.

Then I slag 'em. :)

So yes, I would love it if you could add that functionality.