Political Replacement Events Change

[LoganLogan0]

Describe your suggestion in full detail below: Hey there, I wanted to make a suggestion about the events in which a faction replaces another in an area, such as the Nethergarde in Black Morass or Horde in Kalimdor. First, specifically addressing the Nethergarde event, only the vassals gain money for giving up titles, while the liege gains nothing, which is a bit silly, considering they could be losing almost all their territory.

Secondly, I think these events tend to be a bit silly sometimes, as often the state of the game ends up quite different then it did in canonical lore, so some changes are strange. For example, the Horde forming in Kalimdor makes tons of sense when its just harpies and quilbor there, but I've seen before the night elves had strong military control over those regions, then, poof, they're magically orcish horde lands.

As for my suggestion to fix this, or at least make it better, is if you could some how trigger it to ask the player whether they wanted to allow the change as it comes, so if a playthrough comes along where, like my prior example of night elves, it doesn't make sense, then the player can simply choose to not have those events fire.

[MemeWizard]

&

[zumbak04]

As for my suggestion to fix this, or at least make it better, is if you could some how trigger it to ask the player whether they wanted to allow the change as it comes, so if a playthrough comes along where, like my prior example of night elves, it doesn't make sense, then the player can simply choose to not have those events fire.

Like you suggest a game rule? Are you sure? Disabling these events means no Theramore, Cho'gall, the Horde and the Draenei in Kalimdor.

[LoganLogan0]

I was thinking more along the lines of: 1. Event going to be fired 2. Game gives player an decision event with "yes/no" to event 3. If yes, event fires as normal, horde is created or whatever OR 3. If no, event doesn't fire, no horde creation.

Now admittedly I don't know too much about how to mod events and whether this would be a possibility, but it seems like it would be the best option.

[zumbak04]

I was thinking more along the lines of: 1. Event going to be fired 2. Game gives player an decision event with "yes/no" to event 3. If yes, event fires as normal, horde is created or whatever OR 3. If no, event doesn't fire, no horde creation.

Now admittedly I don't know too much about how to mod events and whether this would be a possibility, but it seems like it would be the best option.

It's possible, but it will be weird... if it's a multiplayer game, the host selects the outcome? It makes the player... like a gamemaster from DnD... but only partially. And basically it means there's no point in AI... because the player decides it anyway.

[LoganLogan0]

I hadn't thought of multiplayer, but yea, I guess the host, the people playing could even decide together if they had a ways of communicating like discord, or just decide from start if host would allow/disallow events when they come. I'm not too sure what your last statement means, there's no point in having it fire for the AI or something? The AI always seems to just say yes to all the events, so I don't know why not to put the choice into the players hands

[zumbak04]

I hadn't thought of multiplayer, but yea, I guess the host, the people playing could even decide together if they had a ways of communicating like discord, or just decide from start if host would allow/disallow events when they come.

Well, I think it will be pretty spammy and time-consuming to make... and partially-working. Like what about the Child of Destiny vanilla event that changes the political landscape greatly? You can disable the Child of Destiny in the game rules though.

So, the game rule to disable the colonization of Kalimdor is the easiest way.

[LoganLogan0]

I meant more just the instant land changing events like the horde or nethergarde formation, rather than an overpowered conqueror spawning, but sure, game rule I guess

[zumbak04]

Well, the Horde declares a war if these lands are held by a player. It doesn't declare on the AI because these wars may take too much time and the Horde (and other colonizers) will need more spawned troops.

The Nethergarde buy lands. It asked your lieges before, but the thing is there can be up to 3 lieges per every province holder, so these events were laggy and buggy (caused a crash).

[LoganLogan0]

Wouldn't it make sense then to just let the horde fight and lose if someone strong already holds the land? So their spawned troops might be enough to take out some harpies and quilbor or whatever, but no horde formation if kaledori or something strong owns them? I mean from a realistic standpoint, only so many orcs are sailing over, so it would make sense for them to just have a set number of soldiers before they have any land (and lose if those soldiers are not enough to take the land)

[zumbak04]

take out some harpies and quilbor or whatever, but no horde formation if kaledori or something strong owns them?

Weeeell, the thing is that 5 independent quilboar tribes may be stronger than the Kaldorei. Of course, if we want the Horde to take all the lands of Durotar and not only one province.

At the start of 583, tribes in Durotar have about... 5300 from tribes and 2500 nomads. So, the Horde needs like... 10000 troops to beat them for sure. Most likely with this army they can beat the Kaldorei as well.

Can't say I do mind, but it will take some time for the Horde, Theramore, Cho'gall etc. to conquer the lands.

[MemeWizard]

Are you sure? Disabling these events means no Theramore, Cho'gall, the Horde and the Draenei in Kalimdor.

You can make gamerule for every one of these events, tho.

[zumbak04]

You can make gamerule for every one of these events, tho.

Ooof, + 4 game rules.

@LoganLogan0 I'll try to give them more troops and make them declare wars... will see what will happen.

[LoganLogan0]

Alright, sounds good