Re: 270BC updates? can someone make a relief image?
i havent really been in these discussions before so lets not start today :) imo the map is not ballanced, so any change can make it better or worse, but a reballance is needed anyhow (if u want this map to be a serious LL map)
my gaming experience tell me that anti rome has the edge on this map in lowluck, so far i havent seen parthia conquer a well played selucid, and meanwhile whole of rome is burned to the ground ending the game. mayhaps this can be taken into account when adjusting the game
about those units, yah they are awesome for sure. are those all or did someone receive a complete new unitfolder with those upgrades?
01- Base unit zoom set at 87.5 (map.properties) In map notes it's written down "Unit size should be 87.5%". Aside from this, I think 87.5% is the best (even 75% would be good), since most of the images are highly pixellated, which means that they look bad at 100% but are highly zoom friendly, looking the best while a bit zoomed. It also greatly temper style differences, not only as a matter of the units added by me (I cared to overremove borders, so to end up with units about as pixellated at the borders as the other ones), but also between the Hepps Egyptian archer and the other Egyptian units; moreover, units at 87.5% are more in line with the compact scope of the map (this is not a kind of map you will ever need to zoom).
02- Moved sea zone graphic from baseTiles to reliefTiles and added the pre-Hepps sea zone graphic to baseTiles (totally hidden when map details are on); also, moved the rectangle in the lower left corner (with various info) from baseTiles to relief tiles How the map looks with Map Details on is unchanged. On the other hand, now, if you switch map details off you'll have exactly the same graphic as the pre-Hepps one (nostalgia, nostalgia...), but with the Hepps colour (which means readable numbers in Egypt), the alliance decoration south of the map and the TripleA logo in the north-western part of it.
In general, I think that the biggest reasonable amount of fancy graphic should go to relief, not to base, to give a meaning to the existence of the "Show Map Details" option. Not really sensible to have it switching some details off and leaving up the rest. Moreover, it's usually on the sea, connecting to the land, that, sometimes, you need to remove relief to be absolutely sure about connections between territories.
03- Removed the "TripleA_ancient" (so named by me) logo in the upper left from the reliefTiles and added as a decoration, instead (in the same place as before) It fits more as a decoration (all ancient TripleA quality game should have it, maybe). Anyway, practically, the only effect is that it will be shown with Map Details off and won't be affected by blends.
04- Substituted the polygons file with the one of the old game, since now switching details off will remove the rectangle with the unit stats in lower left corner
05- Readded in 270BC folder the "med" image the old folder had (and that it is again, now, the baseTiles), renaming it "polygonsImage"
06- Added blends (off as default), you can see it by clicking on View/Show Map Blends (only with Map Details on) Night effect (same as my MEAD)! Useless... But why not?
07- Substituted the fort, fort_hit, legionaire, velites units with the new ones by Hepps (r.i.p.); modified by Cernel by removing background, adding shadows of the old ones and adding the smoke of the old fort_hit (old images kept in the folder with an "_old" added to their names)
08- Since it seems that choosing to assign hits to warelephant is not going to be as much of an easy decision as in the past, added a gore-darkened version for the warelephant_hit, waiting for Hepps to resurrect and posting an elephant jumping on its feet or something
09- Moved some capitals and some placements to be in a more historically correct position (or avoiding being blatantly wrong, like Thessalonica) and avoiding/reducing superimposing with units in the starting setup Changes are: capitols Roma +2,+4 pixels; capitols Sparta +45,-45 pixels; name Sparta -39,+0 pixels; capitols Thessalonica -110,+22 pixels; name Thessalonica +33,-12 pixels; moved the second placement spots of Thessalonica to the last one; added another placement spot in Thessalonica before the new last one; capitols Carthago +24,+36 pixels; name Carthago -12,+12 pixels; moved the fifth placement spots in Carthago to the last one; capitols Alexandria +48,+12 pixels; name Alexandria +0,+12 pixels; moved the fifth placement spot in Alexandria to the last one; capitols Antioch -40,+57 pixels; name Antioch +0,+6 pixels; moved the sixth placement spot in Antioch to the last one.
xml or xml related changes:
10- Substituted the default tech tab (showing Jet Power, Super subs...) with info about who can produce what (the "-" identifies stuff that the relative player can produce) As now, I think a tab like this it's needed, because nowhere it's specified who owns what. If you don't like this, maybe create an empty tech tab to get rid of the silly V1 tech but, in this case, I think it would be reasonable to add a table in notes about it, since as now the only way you can verify who has what is by using the battlecalculator (and the battlecalculator shouldn't be supposed to cover this).
11- In notes, changed "hellenes, romans and phoenicians" to "Hellenes, Romans and Phoenicians"
12- In notes, changed "cataphract, trireme, warelephant" to "cataphracts, triremes, warelephants"
13- In notes, removed "This map was original made from a pre WW2 (1936) map but it is cut and <br> edited to suit 270BC era. " Can't see the reason of specifying that a high quality map called 270BC feature a map meant to suit the 270BC era. Also, referring to that ghostly 1936 map can induce people to wander aimlessly in search of it.
14- In notes, substituted "Territory names is based on citys at the time give or <br> take 500 years (not easy finding names to all)" with "Territory names are based on cities at the time given or <br> take 500 years (not easy finding names for all)" Typos! Can TripleA live without them? Maybe. Out of curiosity, I've put "finding names for all", in google, obtaining, 42,900 results; then, I've put "finding names to all", instead, obtaining 5 results, of which 3 TripleA related. LOL.
Now... I shouldn’t really be the one to do grammar corrections. Maybe an Englishman will tell better (for example, not sure if it must be "given time"; or if "time given" is fine too, as well) (I left "or take 500 years" because it doesn't sound too bad).
15- Changed the moment at which all units repair from end round to before non combat move (but I didn't set the <stepProperty name="repairUnits" value="false"/> to endTurn (should I?))
Since damaged units are going to be repaired anyway, it's better having them repaired right after combat; this way the battlecalculator via ctrl+B will be always reliable and we will avoid pointless confusion and useless use of placement spots.
16- Changed turn order to have combat move before purchase Soulfein, Ice, Ajmdemen and anyone else of the few 270BC players I asked about this, except Dany, affirmed it would be much better this way (combat move before purchase much better than after); Dany just said he doesn't care, since he's good both ways all the same. Aside from this game, I think about 3/4 people prefer combat move before purchase, in general. I think combat move before purchase will be clearly better in this one, especially for multiplayer games on the lobby (speeds up and no wonder if the dude is afk or thinking).
17- Changed "RomanAlliances" to "RomanAlliance", everywhere in the xml Must be a typo
18- Added a Victory Condition system capital based (victory end round) (did it with triggers, without adding victory cities to the map, to keep the territory tab clean and avoid adding a column to the stats tab):
8 Capital Victory (default): 8/8 capitals
7 Capital Victory: 7/8 capitals
6 Capital Victory: 6/8 capitals
I just believe a game should not go out of the development section if it doesn't have at least a victory condition. How can you win if noone tells you when you win? I doubt it ever existed a commercial game without any victory conditions. And if it did, it shouldn't have.
Anyway, to keep the starting option menu clean, you may prefer to take out of the menu all of them except only for the 8 Capital one, checked as default (I dislike the menu going to two columns).
19- Added a notification.properties with the victory notifications
20- Added "Modified by Veqryn" Seriously. Every time everyone not being the creator does the slightest mod involving rules, setup or anything play-related stuff (not merely cosmetical) it needs to be specified (better to add the date of the last edit, too, if not a whole change log). As they were, the credits were deceiving, since it seemed like the map had been finished by "Doctor Che" and, then, two Hepps and Veqryn dudes just bailed in to do cosmetic enhancements. It's also polite towards the original creator not attributing everything play-related to just him: maybe he would think your changes suck...
If you're fine with my victory condition, you might have to add me too...
bugs and obsolete things related stuff
- substituted all <option name="isTwoHit" value="true"/> with <option name="hitPoints" value="2"/> (btw, the "isTwoHit" property keeps working with the new engine; is it normal?)
- removed: <property name="Two hit battleship" value="true" editable="false"> <boolean/> </property>
- Changed "info name="270BC" version="1.4"" to "info name="270BC" version="1.4.1""
(outside of adding victory conditions, I've made no changes to the proper rules)
Going back to the changes made with the 1.4, I want to highlight once again that the first point is more serious than just a matter of personal tastes (and actually, in this case, my personal tastes favours it):
The changes made to the Elephant really need to be rethinked because it makes the battlecalculator no longer reliable without using OOL.
I can tell you that using OOL is a pain and a simple (as a matter of unit stats) map like this should not require at all the use of OOL to maximize/minimize winning probabilities.
But I've already said that; and I'm sure Veqryn perfectly understood what I meant.
To make it more intelligible to other gamers, let's make an example:
You attack/defend with 2 warelephant and 1 swordman;
You take 3 hits;
To maximize your left power you should assign all 3 hits to the warelephants;
Then, you would remain with 1 warelephant and 1 swordman (total power 5 and 2 hipoints total, for the rest of the combat).
Instead, the battlecalculator will take the swordman before killing any warelephants;
Then you would remain with 2 warelephants (total power 4 and 2 hitpoints total, for the rest of the combat).
It may seem a trivial thing, but it can have some serious relevance:
For example, if we have a territory with 9 Elephants and 6 swordmans (you can sub the swordman with spearman in defence and with hoplite in attack);
after taking 15 hits the battlecalculator will have only the 9 damaged warelephants left (18 power and 9 hitpoints);
while, if you want to maximize your remaining power, you should have 3 damaged warelephants and 6 swordmans left (24 power and 9 hitpoints);
this is a pretty big 6 points (1 autohit in LL) loss that it's going to make the calculating with the battlecalculator relevantly unreliable in some situations (that may as well happen: warelephant spamming is not that uncommon).
Using OOL is not really an exciting solution, because of its painful clumsiness and high probability of messing up/doing errors, while using it.
Also, probably many of the dudes to whom you asked were not experienced enough about this sort of non common game dynamics to foresee this problem at once and for sure; so, you should ask them again if they are actually fine at having the battlecalculator no longer reliable outside using OOL.
There's nothing bad about chariots being bad (270BC it's not biblical Egypt of pharaohs with chariots everywhere, but Egypt is a successor state phalanx based... But whatever, this game is so fucked up everywhere as a matter of representativity; so, no point). On the other hand, chariots supporting infantry makes sense, because they were more of a thing to broke the enemy formation for the other troops.
I've seen that there's actually no need to use invisible units to do something like NWO bunkers but without the biggest nonsense. So, my new proposal is this (something in between of NWO and the old 270BC rules):
Starting from the old 270 BC rules (production of Forts just like normal units):
***Allow for building only 1 fort per turn also where there is not a city but there is a legionaire unit***
(everything else just like the old 270BC)
This can be obtained by just keeping all of the old Fort rules and just adding this to the attachment for the legionaire unit:
<option name="canProduceUnits" value="true"/> <option name="canProduceXUnits" value="1"/> and adding this to all units except only for city and fort:
<option name="requiresUnits" value="city"/>
This way we won't have the two biggest absurdities of NWO bunker rules, namely:
.On a territory with N production and a factory you won’t be allowed to place N units + 1 bunker (the bunker counts for the max as well) (no reasons the bunker being a free production shot)
.On a territory with N production and a factory you will be allowed to place up to N bunkers in one turn (no reasons why the richest territory on the map, with a city in it, shouldn't be able to produce more bunkers than the crappiest territory with no city)
Anyone please tell what you think about this proposal of mine as a mediation between the old rules and the NWO bunker rules. Probably the people to whom Veqryn asked just thinked that the only possible alternatives where the normal place method or the NWO one. Of course, the old way was stupid and needed a change (just look at Messana, starting with 4 forts and no city, while you can build forts only in citys...); but, I don't think it's needed importing NWO rules: I think just keeping the old 270BC rules plus allowing to place 1 fort per turn also in territories with 1 or more legionaire but no city is a better solution.
Anyway, the point 1 (warelephants and battlecalculator) is the most important one and I think you must do a 1.5 edition of this game in which the battlecalculator is totally reliable with no OOL.
E) What about removing the ability to be supported from the Velites (realistic and good for historical representativity, to give more importance to the legionaire) and adding to the Velites too the ability to allow for building forts (so to maintain the Velites as being not exactly the same as the Spearman)
D) To me it seems dumb that there are 2 different units, the slingers and the peltasts, with the exact same values... Any thoughts?
What about a menu option to export the screenshot without adding the stats (you can do it manually modifying map.properties; but not that intuitive for most)? Here it is a printable 270BC map, obtained by exponting the screenshot with no units and no stats (usable to print it on a canvas material and play it real):
Nowadays you can't really do thing without stumbling in some problems...
You remember the "canProduceXUnits" I proposed to used in my previous post?
"Damage From Bombing Done To Units Instead Of Territories" must be true in order to have the "canProduceXUnits" working (otherwise, it will just produce by the production value of the relative territory)
<property name="Damage From Bombing Done To Units Instead Of Territories" value="true" editable="false"> <boolean/> </property>
Meaning that, if the above one is not true and you have <option name="canProduceXUnits" value="N"/>, any the territories with any of these factories will, instead, produce till its maximum placement (normally equal to the production value) (that can be higher or lower than N).
As a side note, it would have also worked with "SBR Affects Unit Production" true, but this option doesn't exist anymore in 1.8.1.
I've no issues with this thing (I don't need this to be addressed) (although the MEAD I sent you will always place up to the value of the territories with the 1.8.1, since "SBR Affects Unit Production" is not supported anymore (so, I've set "Damage From Bombing Done To Units Instead Of Territories" true, and it works again)), but anyone who wants to have a map in which you bomb territories and you have some units that can produce X, won't be able to have both.
In the MEAD I sent you I already wrote down that "If, at least, 1 amongst "SBR Affects Unit Production" and "Damage From Bombing Done To Units Instead Of Territories" is true, the property "canProduceXUnits" works (otherwise, it doesn't; so it just count as the -1 default, that means that unit production is limited by the production value of the territory, or by other properties).", but forgot to report it.
Anyway, this may as well never happen but, in case you keep the current behaviour, I suggest specifying inside pos2, beside the "canProduceXUnits", that it needs "Damage From Bombing Done To Units Instead Of Territories" being true, in order to work. Personally, if it is something hard to correct, I suggest just noting it in pos2 and leaving the current behaviour.
In order to test it, you can use Feudal Japan Warlords by Rolf Larsson and just set "Damage From Bombing Done To Units Instead Of Territories" to false. This way, you will be able to place 10 units (the production value of all territories) where you should be able to place only 1 (the loyalty, that it is the same thing as the industry of my MEAD).
1) Going back to 270 BC, I saw that I've forgotten to modify "RomanAlliances" to "RomanAlliance" in the alliance table in the notes tab. So, if you agree that it should be called "RomanAlliance", you should modify that too.
Also, I think that the difference between the Hepps Egyptian archer and the other units it's to pronounced, so I suggest to substitute Hepps archer with this, that it is something in between of Hepps one and the old one, and coherent with the rest of the images:
2) So, I suggest substitute the current (Hepps') archer with this one:
as a reference;
this is Hepps' archer, instead:
this is the old archer, instead:
As you can see, I've removed the borders (making it worse but similar to other units) and added the shadow of the old one.
So, basically, the revisions I propose are the ones in the map I posted above plus these 2 last ones (correct the last RomanAlliance occurrence and sub the Egyptian archer)
(I suggest leaving Hepps' archer in the folder, renaming it archer_hepps)
Of course, my two main suggestions of
A) making sure that the battlecalculator will be always reliable without order of losses (revise warelephants) and
B) just keeping the old 270BC rules for placing forts, with the only added ability to place 1 fort in territories with a legionaire but no city,
p.s.: I've seen that Heeps posted a damaged warhelephant image in this tread; maybe use that, instead of my gore darkened one (anyway, one of the two is surely better than nothing).
c. did not include step property to repair units, as this would mess up the ability to change repair to start of turn
d. added option to switch repair to start of turn
I have also accepted the change for Forts. I don't think NWO forts are bad at all, btw.
For Warelephants, I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you. Having to do OOL will only matter when the battle is close enough that it will make a difference on the outcome. This is the best possible change to both gimp elephants while encouraging combined arms.
Re: 270BC updates? can someone make a relief image?
Yay! No NWO Bumks!
Now I can delete my 1.3 xml, maybe.
Btw, when running the game with all Moore AI I stumbled into this bug:
0) I've already reported a bug of this kind (Moore crashing when a factory is on the sea). It seems something similar still happens, when the legionaire is loaded into a ship.
Exception in thread "Triplea start thread" java.lang.NullPointerException
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
(I didn't test the other AI)
Here it is the savegame (seems like Moore still think forts are worthless, aye?):
In the meantime, I've given the map some refinements:
1) Modified the TripleA_ancient logo from being 159*159 to being 160*160
LOL, little change... It still look the same, what added is transparent (just to have a round number of pixels, so that zoomed at 75-50-25% it will remain an integer).
2) Moved the SZ 13 number to be displayed in the new lower right corner in baseTiles
Since you prefer the tab being part of the very core of the map...
3) Created a 13 number in relief tiles for the relative sea zone (kept the old unmodified relief, inside reliefTiles folder, renaming it "0_4_old")
Since you prefer the tab being part of the very core of the map... Ad for consistency with the land relief, that have the border effect already, and the PUs value on the lower right corner.
I think the "0_4_old" is to be kept, because I don't know the settings Hepps used, so the quality is lower than that it would have been would have Hepps done it (although, the loss in quality is so small that you can't, practically, notice it).
In this regard, I must relieve that there are inconsistencies in the relief pattern for the sea zone: the border-map sea zones in the western part of the map are just cut (I'd prefer this way for all sea zones, in this particular map, with this particular graphic), while the same kind of borders in the eastern part of it (comprising the southern border of the sea zone south of Suez) are stroked and bordered like it happens in between of different sea zones. If this is meant to artistically highlight a difference between the end-of-the-world borders and game-play borders, then only the west and, maybe, south west, borders should have it, not the north-west ones. Anyway, I believe this is a problem only Hepps could address, were him alive.
4) Substituted the current notes for fort with: "can be placed 1 per turn per territory with legionaire (normal placement in city)"
This is the shortest note I can think of, giving all info about the behaviour (I think it's not necessary to specify that the territory must be owned start turn).
The current note, "can be placed anywhere there is a city or legionaire", would strictly mean that the legionaire is just like a city for the forts (so, you would be able to build forts up to the territory number where there is a city or a legionaire). But, actually, most people would just think that fort placement just works like in NWO (and getting confused when it does not).
Alternatively, if we want to avoid having long notes bloating the cell dimensions of the tab, we can write "can be placed w/o city*" beside the fort and, then, write "can be placed 1 per turn per territory with legionaire (normal placement in city)" under the units tab. What you prefer.
5) Removed the archers_hepps from the "Egypt" folder (duplicate of the one in "misc") and renamed the following units:
"archer_with_marker_at_55pt." to "archer_with_marker_at_55pt"
"hoplite_3_at_55pt" to "hoplite_with_marker_at_55pt"
"legionaire1_with_marker" to "legionaire_hepps"
"warelephant2_at_55pt_with_marker" to "warelephant_hepps"
"warelephant2_HITat_55pt_with_marker" to "warelephant_hepps_hit"
"Roman_unit_development" to "RomanRepublic_unit_development"
(now the default warelephant is at 55x55, as well; so better calling it "hepps", since the only difference from the default one are the removed borders, not the dimensions)
Now the map should be basically looking almost perfect already (imo, the simple zoom 87.5% makes the units nice enough to watch). Of course, if anyone is gonna make new units you can always improve, but at these unit dimensions not very much, imo, and the not-pixellating effect is assured by a bit of zooming, already.
The only two units that I would suggest revising (because they don't look very nice, even at 87.5% zoom) are the Seleucid "legionaire" and the neutral "axeman" (the Egyptian one is nice, instead). If there is around some guy able to draw very nice units, like Hepps did, with the roman legionaire (as it is, the roman legionaire is kind of the most beautiful unit you can possible have at 48x48 pixels) (obtaining the Seleucid legionaire by converting the roman one may be the way to go), that would make the map basically perfect, from a graphic point of view, in my opinion. Of course, if anyone is gonna draw a new art for these 2 remaining units to improve, be sure to do it by keeping the look of them (and their shadows) consistent with the rest of the units.
Btw, of course, as you well know, you can have the info rectangle in the map always displaying by making it a decoration. I totally dislike things like that being integrated in the main map, both in real and digital boargames (a lot of TripleA maps, like Napoleon, do it, anyway); and I think that the Notes tab is the place where to put such things, not the main map and, especially, not the baseTiles (they might be good as decorations), but this is only my personal taste. Also, I've read that you already moved it to baseTiles with Hepps, so I made you moving it a second time *LOL*.
And I've read that my proposal about the fort is the same as your old one *LOL*. Probably shoulda have red all of the thread before starting doing stuff... But you guys are so boring to read up on (except Penguins, of course).
I also suggest renaming the units/misc folder to units/alt folder. I just don't like seeing more than 1 folder with the same name (misc) around because "misc" is a main folder being a reference for the engine (I'm not saying it's will cause any problems, of course, but it's like seeing a folder called "capitols" somewhere else, kinda weird). But if you think it's better "misc" for any folders filled with not currently used stuff, I will consider renaming all of mine "alt" folders in my MEAD to "misc", as well.
Regarding the proposal of making very costly units 1 PU cheaper, I'm undecided because this map being a crapspamming fest was a thing clearly envisioned by the map creator, since he adopted, systematically, the +1 cost per +1 value rule (attack, defence or movement). Anyway, I'd make you notice that there are already 2 and only 2 units that are 1 PU cheaper than they should be; these units are the "horsearcher" (that should cost the ridiculous amount of 7 PUs, by keeping consistency (instead, it has +2 cost over the cavalry, in exchange for +2 defence and +1 movement)) and the "ballista". So, to keep consistency and try interpreting the original willingness of the creator, I'd suggest to make all units currently costing 7 PUs or more being 1 point cheaper.
This is a list of all of the cases in which the costs don't follow the general rule of "+1 value = +1 cost"
ballista: cost 5 and should cost 4 (suggestions: give defence 1 (ballista at defence 0 makes no sense, really; but, atm, increasing the defence at 1 would make the onager at cost 7 seriously worse off))
horsearcher: cost 6 and should cost 7
barbarian: cost 2 and should cost 5 (I love how this game has the biggest land frontier of 6 units total for neutral for absolutely no reasons other than adding flavour)
So, all in all, my suggestions are:
Keep the current system of +1 value = +1 cost, except that all units that, under that system, would cost 7 or more, will be cheaper of 1 point
This means, from the present values:
A) Increase the defence power of ballista from 0 to 1
B) Reduce the cost of onager from 7 to 6 or reduce its attack value from 4 to 3
C) Reduce the cost of cataphract from 7 to 6 or increase its attack or defence value from 3 to 4
D) Increase the cost of barbarian from 2 to 5
If, instead, we want to go for a -1 cost for 6+ costs, we would need to modify the same as above plus, also, lower the chariot from 6 to 5.
If we want to have a pure +1 value = +1 cost system, the only changes should be:
A) Increase the defence power of ballista from 0 to 1
B) Increase the cost of horsearcher from 6 to 7 or decrease its defence value from 3 to 2
C) Increase the cost of barbarian from 2 to 5
Sadly, now, any revisions of this kind will present the problem of having to modify the info table in the lower left corner (another reason for hating having tables in the map itself); so, reducing its graphic quality in the process (although it can be done reducing it very slightly) (for the future, I'd highly suggest tables like this one having the variables (values and names) as decorations, instead of being integrated into the table).
To throw some more unnecessary ideas noone cares about (this are not request to modify the game, but, rather, just some simple ideas I would throw out here, waiting for some feedback by various players of this game):
A) Making the "slingers" able to support
B) Making the "hoplite" able to be supported
(this might be justified because, ya know, the sling throws little rocks and the onager throws big rocks... so same thing *LOL*)
-the peltasts and the slingers aren't exactly the same thing anymore (the slingers would become the undisputed best unit of the game), but the slingers will increase at 3 the attack value of the (Greek) hoplites (this is going to make the hoplites a bit better off and reduce slingers spamming a bit (as now, with the slingers 1/1 at cost 2 and the hoplite 2/3 at cost 5, the slingers is almost totally superior to the hoplite, cost wise) (with the change, an army made up of mostly slingers and very few hoplites will be, at least, a bit superior in attack than an army made up exclusively by slingers (as now, substituting slingers with hoplites can only nerf your attack power))
-the cataphract is able to support the hoplite, not only the legionaire, in Seleucid armies (the hoplite of Seleucids is representing the "pezhetairos" of the Macedonian phalanx and, in that system, the sarissaphoroi (heavy cavalry armed with long lance) acted in close coordination with the infantry with the sarissa (the pezhetairoi, commonly currently known as phalangites) in a hammer and anvil fashion; so, it's very weird that the only supportable unit of the cataphract is the legionaire, that evolved totally independently from the cataphract) (as a matter of historical representativity, Seleucids should be more willingly to buy hoplites and cataphracts)
(all in all, these modifications are probably gonna advantage RomanAlliance, since a slingers supporting hoplite is better than a hoplite supportable by cataphract; on the other hand, being the Seleucid's doom so much of a hard affair against a good Seleucid player, even a slight bonus to Seleucid can dramatically alter the game in favour of AntiRomanAlliance)
One may also think about adding the ballista to the production frontiers of the Greek but, imo, no point modifying the frontiers, because this game is so fucked up that, if you start doing such big changes, you'll end up modifying about half of the whole game (in particular, the whole Egypt army is basically wrong and a lot of frontiers would need to be vastly changed, if we're supposed to be in 270BC), comprising the various geographical absurdities (for example, in 270BC Parthia would not be even part of the map, not even in one territory!))
Finally, just to go crazy, one may even think about doing a tech system (off as default to keep the current behaviour of the game) in which you can roll for tech just to add stuff to your frontier (tech activation start turn, preferably). It may also be a totally or partially free tech system, eventually with cities giving you 1 tech token per turn each. For example, Romans roll a dice for making themselves able to produce slingers or whatever. Also, when "tech" is on, a trigger could give you all production abilities of a power when you take his capital (so, if Roma takes Cartago, Roma will be able to produce warelephants, if not able to, already). In this case, Seleucids should start the game not having the legionaire.
Re: 270BC updates? can someone make a relief image?
i will take the map changes and look into the AI issues
as far as further balance changes, you may be mathematically correct on several of those units based on what is perceived to be the map maker's intent. However your suggested changes are not balanced.
Attack is worth more than defense. Movement is worth a lot too, sometimes more than a point on att or def.
All players in this game suffer from having more money than build slots, so those expensive units get built anyway.
I think your suggested unit changes are not balanced for real gameplay.
ok played a game, and analised it, here is my input from current changes:
although i think the elephant is much better now, i do not like the fact that the battlecalculator cannot be preformed optimal with them. people like me will have to do calculations within the calc to get the optimal outcome, and this is an unfortunate delay in a relativly easy map
my suggestion is change them to 3 attack, 3 defence, 2 hit, 1 move, give attack support to 3 attacking units
this way they are calced correctly and i think has similar effect as the elephant is now,
in addition lily needs to be reballanced with either this elephant or a newly suggested 1. for ballance and historical reasons lily may not be captured by rome and greece 1-2 attack when cartage sends max defencive units. at this moment its a coin flip of 60% towards rome, 40% of the cases rome already lost the game in round 1.
i suggest after desciding wich elephant to use, to upgrade cartage defence units to hoplites yust enough so that rome-greece attack will become way below 50 % and thus not interesting. (i can do this calc if you want)
last. rome still needs a small boost imo (not lily attack ;-))
my suggestion is adding 1 fort to capua, 1fort and 1 onager to rome.
those changes wont affect fronts rome can create in different directions, but it does help the defence of rome a bit.
Re: 270BC updates? can someone make a relief image?
I have about 30 versions of different colours and sizes on my old computer. When I get everything off the hard drive I will post some of them as well as all of the unit revisions I have completed for 270BC.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Re: 270BC updates? can someone make a relief image?
I'd particularly like to have the one you used for 270BC, but without the statue in front of it, and, maybe, another 1 bigger (preferably exactly 2 times as big as the one of 270BC).
Well, I guess you have the original one at max size, and everything else you derived by shrinking and colortoalphaing that. If you have it, still, and are fine at sharing that, there's no need for posting others.
Fact is, Veqryn, that this map is so close that even apparently very marginal changes have the possibility to really create another game. Already, in the previous version, the ability of Cartagho to hold in Lilly was so close that the anti player needed to put everything possible to make the attack unworthy (for example, you didn't put 1 horse, instead of 1 spear, because even 1 less defence point will put Lilly at risk).
The thing is very different if you play dice or LL; since dice is very complex, let's just consider low luck, to go easy.
Now, with nerfed elephants, if Carta put max def in Lilly, and Roma put max attack, it is average 6.8 units remaining:
If 7 units remain, then, we have a 78% for Greece to take Lilly.
Since average post Roma is 6.8, not 7.0 (and, with 6 remaining, Lilly is dead); this means that we have well over 80% probability that a double strike Roma-Greece will cause the fall of Lilly.
In the previous version, the leftover Roma attack was, still, 6.8 but, with 7 remaining, the probability of Greece win was only 58%, and 98% with 6 remaining (so, all in all, only a bit more than 60%).
Anyway, even now, I think that, on average, even if Carta put a city in Lilly and you have over 80% to take Lilly, doing it is not a good move, because you don't really gain much if you get the 80% (Carta retake, and you suffer in TUV), while you're dead if you get the 20%.
But I'd rather go back to the more clear precedent 60%, that assured that being an averagely clearly bad strategy.
All in all, the current situation with max Carta forces in Lilly is about equal to the precedent situation in which, instead of putting 14 spear, 1 hopo and 2 elephant, you put 13 spear, 1 horse, 1 hopo and 2 elephant. In that case, it was 6.6 remaining. With 7 remaining it was, as said, 58%, while with 6 remaining it was 98%; so, on average, somewhere in between of 70% and 80%, all considered.
In those conditions, experienced player didn't ship 1 horse, because they didn't want to risk an almost 80% probability to lose Lilly; while now you have an over 80% probability, even when shipping max defence!!!
Also, imo, multiple hitpoints unit are easily the worst thing of AAA, aside from very particular uses (it's barely acceptable for immobile units, like Forts, even if I, personally, prefer such things being infrastructures with no hitpoints).
They may be worth something in a map in which all units have multiple hitpoints, 2 or more (with no units with only 1 hitpoints it will be fair).
Of course, if they don't repair, then, it's no problem. But not repairable multiple hitpoints don't make sense, so no reasons having them (having damaged Elephants forever aroud would be even more retarded than having damaged battleships forever around, as it was in Iron Blitz).
Instead, having some normal units with 1 and some other with 2 is just absurd, imo.
And giving 2 hitpoints to a normal combat unit of only 1 player, while all other units are 1 hitpoints is so lame that it is not even fun.
Basically, I think that the game would be made better off by just getting rid of the annoying 2 hitpoints for Elephants, keeping it for Forts only.
I guess, on such a big thing, we should open a poll, to see if people really think that the 2 hitpoints Elephant are really funny or just lame...
Maybe it's to much of a big difference from the original game, but I would just make Elephant into a:
1 hitpoint unit (all units in the game are 1 hitpoint, except Fort)
attack: 2 dice at 4 defence: 2 dice at 4 cost: 12 and, maybe, unable to unload in enemy territories
This, in turn, would need modifying the starting setup, accordingly, so to keep the probability of Lilly falling round 1 equal of under 60%, as it was.
Re: 270BC updates? can someone make a relief image?
for me double hit units can only become acceptable never "fun"
before the elephant was dumb imo, with the last update they became acceptable for me
my personal oppinion is that i rather see em gone aswel, but i can also see the reason why many others love the idea of double hit.others who are not that crazy with numbers as people like cernel and me, use the map on a more fun level and will like em allot.
leave em or dumb em is in that case the same for me.
i would like to point out to my response 3-4 posts back, also concerning lily
p.s.: Anyone can tell me how to add the poll directly to the forum with:
<nabble_embed></nabble_embed> like Veqryn did when asking for the RAM.
Nothing of the code Polldaddy gave me worked.
(I used the free account)