3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod
Deluxe Version 2.0.1.6
Basic Version 1.0.0.1


Hey y'all!

Someone was looking for another scenario that is better suited for Dynamix.  Here is my 270 BC Mod that is better suited for the Dynamix Land AI.

NOTE: If you are planning on Single Player vs. Dynamix AI play, I recommend you use 1.3.2.2 Stable for this map.  Due to Dynamix AI issues with the latest version of TripleA, Some Dynamix capability has been removed from the latest 1.5.x.x. versions, which prevents purchase of restricted units from the AI unit mix.

TripleA Version 1.3.2.2 Stable can be found here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/triplea/files/TripleA/1_3_2_2/


This is a 'start from scratch' scenario, where you have only a couple of territories, and have to fight your way out from there.  There are a total of 10 empires - Germania and Scythia have been added, and are allied, along with the African Alliance (Numidia/Carthage) Roman Alliance (Rome/Egypt), as well as the other four empires (Greece, Macedonia, Seleucia, Parthia), whom are NOT allied with anyone.  It is pretty much a free for all game that is optimized for single player play.

All naval components have been removed/abstracted.  Some territories now connect across bodies of water with other territories: notably Thapsus to Melita to Sicily to Southern Italy, Southern Italy to Delphi, Byzantium to Pergamum, as well as some Egyptian, Scythian and Parthian connections across water bodies.  

Essentially, if an island or other territory is close to another territory/island across a body of water, check to see if you can move there.  I'll document all of them at some point in the future if anyone cares.

There are two versions:
  -The Basic Version is essentially the same as 270 BC, with the addition of Germania and Scythia.  
  -The Deluxe version adds new units, combat support rules, restricted production of certain 2 hit units, and changes combat values to a D12 system.

As there are no naval units, Dynamix is well suited for this scenario.


Thanks again to Dr Che for putting together such a fun scenario (270 BC) in the first place!


See this thread for development history:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/3rd-Century-BCE-Wars-a-270-BC-mod-WIP-thread-td7229655.html


I plan to add unit descriptions and such to this thread at some point.  In the meantime, the game notes included in the game file should adequately explain the various new units and concepts in this scenario.
Any questions regarding this mod should be asked here.

Game file here.  Scenario has also submitted to the map repository, and I will add the map repository link here if it is accepted.

3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip

3/27/15

Note: A more recent version of this map has been added to this thread, designed for the new HardAI.  More details on the more recent version may be found in a more recent post in this thread, HERE.

For those who prefer playing against the Wisconsin LandAI, you should still use the version in this post, and TripleA version 1.3.2.2.  The Wisconsin Land AI does not function correctly on this map when using more recent versions of TripleA.

The  updated version of this map is designed for TripleA 1.8.0.5, using the newly developed HardAI.

IMPORTANT: You will first need to download the most recently updated prerelease triplea.jar file (as of 1/15/15 or later, when this note was first added), which can be found here:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/tripleamaps/files/TripleA/prerelease/

Simply rename the current triplea.jar file in your 1.8.0.5/bin folder to tripleaold.jar or some such, and save the newest triplea.jar to this folder.  That way, you still have the 'official release' .jar file for later in case you find some issue with the latest prerelease.

Since this requires the use of a prerelease .jar version, I will NOT be requesting this to be added to the map depot at this time.

The most recent version of this map is here, with updated artwork.  Note that I've indicated the sea links on the new map:
3rd_Century_BCE_Wars3_0.zip

This version is a prerelease version, 0.9.4.  I'll release an 'official' 1.0 version once 1.8.0.6 is released in a few months (at which point people will no longer need to hunt down the prerelease.jar file).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Veqryn
Administrator
you should update the basetiles to show the linkage of territories across water
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Rolf Larsson
Veqryn wrote
you should update the basetiles to show the linkage of territories across water
I agree, without some visibility, how should someone know which territories are connected.
You can do it many ways, the easiest may be using a decoration for it, like I did for Feudal Japan map for example. Please make this update and I can upload the map. Seems to work fine as far as I can say after a short test.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
I've been very focused on other projects, but I was playing this again recently, and found a couple of loose ends.  They have been fixed, and the updated file has been uploaded.

Roman Warlords are now fully implemented (new icon), and City Walls now have a different icon from regular Walls.  As noted in the game notes, Walls can be built anywhere (1 per turn max), whereas City Walls can take up slots in the production cue of a city.

I have NOT tested this with more recent versions of TripleA (and Dynamix has been pretty much abandoned), so I still recommend using 1.3.2.2.  I've included the link to 1.3.2.2 stable in the first post.

Sea crossings are still not shown on the map.  If I ever find time, I might edit the tiles at some point, but I have no desire to edit the full map and then re-tile it.

'Land Bridges' are here:
Barcino to Palma
Genua to Aleria to Caralis
Gades to Tingis
Thapsus to Melita to Lilybaeum
Messana to Croton
Tarentum to Ithaca to Delphi
Sparta to Cydonia to Rhodos
Athens to Rhodos
Rhodos to Halicarnassus
Rhodos to Sardis
Byzantium to Pergamum
Byzantium to Nicaea
Theodesia to Sinda
Attalia to Salamis
Memphis to Aelana
Persepolis to Teredon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
OK, so I have an updated version of this map designed for TripleA 1.8.0.5.
You will also need the most recently updated prerelease triplea.jar file (as of 1/15/15, when this post was added), which can be found here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/tripleamaps/files/TripleA/prerelease/

simply rename the current triplea.jar file in your 1.8.0.5/bin folder to tripleaold.jar or some such, and save the newest triplea.jar to this folder.  That way, you still have the 'official release' .jar file for later in case you find some issue with the latest prerelease.

Since this requires a prerelease .jar version, I will NOT be requesting this to be added to the map depot at this time.

New map is here, with updated artwork.  Note that I've indicated the sea links on the new map:
3rd_Century_BCE_Wars3_0.zip

Anyways, I'm calling this version 2.9.9.1 for now.  I'll release an 'official' 3.0.0.0 version once 1.8.0.6 is released in a few months (so people don't need to hunt down the prerelease.jar file)., plus that'll leave me a few version numbers before I hit map version 3.0.0.0


I've also made a couple of changes:

  -- Overlords which do not attack in a given turn may place one foot unit valued at 6 PU's or less from the build cue, in whatever territory they are currently in.
-- Roman Forts are now Wall upgrades: when placed in a territory, the Fort replaces a wall in that territory if a wall is already present.  Same for CityForts/CityWalls.  
--Territories containing Cities may build up to 2 citywalls/cityforts per turn, and those builds no longer count against the build cue limit.  This is in addition to the 1 wall/fort per territory per turn that are allowed in any friendly territory.  
-- Overlords produce 3 PU/turn, and Warlords produce 2 PU's per turn.  
-- The 'lesser' Roman Warlords have been renamed Legates, to help eliminate any confusion.

This map has been updated to use the new Hard AI that Redrum has added to the game.  The other AI's (Wisconsin, etc.) are currently unable to build everything in the unit mix, so I would recommend not choosing those AI's for now, until someone gets around to fixing a few tag issues in those A.I.'s.

For those wanting to play against Wisconsin's LandAI, I still recommend downloading the version at the top of this thread and using Triplea Version 1.3.2.2, which is the last TripleA version wherein the LandAI is fully functional for my map.

The AI's are not building fortifications currently, but all other units are functional.  There are a couple of issues r.e. build mixes/AI preferred builds, which I hope to see addressed by future triplea.jar prerelease versions, and I'm also experimenting with adjusting unit values here and there.  In the meantime, any feedback on unit values and such is greatly appreciated!

Here's a small pic showing off the new map.  Note that a bunch of game notes have been added to the bottom of the map.  Almost all of the information found in the game notes under the help menu can be also be found by looking the text which has been added to the bottom edge of the ingame map.  This is essentially a somewhat modified 270BC map.



Here's an ingame shot, from turn 1:

3rd Century BCE Wars Ingame Screenshot

Again, feedback is much appreciated!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

redrum
Administrator
@Eschelon - You need to make sure to include 'faction' in your support attachments as some of them aren't working properly:

        <attatchment name="supportAttachmentMorale1" attatchTo="warlord" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
            <option name="unitType" value="peltasts:slingers:spearman:swordman:velites:legionaire:barbarian:axeman:hoplite:hypaspist:immortal:phalanx:spartanhoplite:ballista:onager:cavalry:cataphract:horsearcher:chariot:archer:wall:fort:citywall:cityfort:legate"/>
            <option name="side" value="offence:defence"/>
            <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
            <option name="bonus" value="1"/>
            <option name="number" value="4"/>
            <option name="bonusType" value="morale"/>
            <option name="players" value="Numidia:Carthage:GermanicTribes:RomanRepublic:GreekCityStates:Scythians:Macedonia:Egypt:Seleucid:Parthia:Neutral"/>
        </attatchment>
        <attatchment name="supportAttachmentMorale2" attatchTo="legate" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
            <option name="unitType" value="peltasts:slingers:spearman:swordman:velites:legionaire:barbarian:axeman:hoplite:hypaspist:immortal:phalanx:spartanhoplite:ballista:onager:cavalry:cataphract:horsearcher:chariot:archer:wall:fort:citywall:cityfort"/>
            <option name="side" value="offence:defence"/>
            <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
            <option name="bonus" value="1"/>
            <option name="number" value="3"/>
            <option name="bonusType" value="morale"/>
            <option name="players" value="Numidia:Carthage:GermanicTribes:RomanRepublic:GreekCityStates:Scythians:Macedonia:Egypt:Seleucid:Parthia:Neutral"/>
        </attatchment>
        <attatchment name="supportAttachmentMorale3" attatchTo="overlord" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
            <option name="unitType" value="peltasts:slingers:spearman:swordman:velites:legionaire:barbarian:axeman:hoplite:hypaspist:immortal:phalanx:spartanhoplite:ballista:onager:cavalry:cataphract:horsearcher:chariot:archer:wall:fort:citywall:cityfort:legate"/>
            <option name="faction" value="allied"/>
            <option name="side" value="offence:defence"/>
            <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
            <option name="bonus" value="1"/>
            <option name="number" value="12"/>
            <option name="bonusType" value="morale"/>
            <option name="players" value="Numidia:Carthage:GermanicTribes:RomanRepublic:GreekCityStates:Scythians:Macedonia:Egypt:Seleucid:Parthia:Neutral"/>
        </attatchment>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
Thanks for pointing that out.  I hadn't noticed Warlords giving support to enemy units, but it's probably a good thing to add the 'allied' tag in any case.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Irinam
Hi Echelon,

I've played your mod being the Roman Alliance against all others beeing HardAI.
Added the allied-tag for Warlords and Legates to have them work proberly.

Took me about 35 rounds to achieve victory (14 VC)

• Great work! It was really fun to play!

• I like the removal of ships
 – now there are true choke Points
 – the HardAI works great without ships

• I also like the removal of capitals.
 - In my game it played out quite nicely with the germanian tribe beeing pushed back by my romans,
  beeing forced to invade first spain an later north africa.
  Of course, Carthago and Numibia were hard pushed by my Egyphian troops...

• great Introduktion of Support-attachments!
 - you are forced to have a good unit mix to optimize stats
 - having units with a nominal Att of 2 attacking with up to 7 really satisfactory!

• I like the restriction of 2-hit Units. They are great units if used proporly but with only 6 on the map,
   you value them even more and no danger of pure 2-hit stacks (Like on the LOTR map)

BUT:
The unit prices are not well balanced!

Example: I never once build a Roman legionaire!
Why?
Auxilary:      At 2 Def 4 Price 6
Legionaire:   At 4 Def 4 Price 8
Catapult?:    At 7 Def 5 Price 12 (+2 Support for 2 Units)

Now for 24 PU: I could buy 3 Legionaires or 2 Auxilary and one catapult

3 Legionaires = 12/12/3 - 24 PU
1 Cat + 2 Aux ” 15/17/3 - 24 PU

And even if one or two hits are taken...

2 Legionaires = 8/8/2 - 8 PU lost
1 Cat + 1 Aux ” 11/11/2 - 6 PU lost

1 Legionaires = 4/4/1 - 16 PU lost
1 Cat             = 7/5/1 - 12 PU lost

You should take two things into account when/if you rebalance unit costs:
1. The support-attachments are great, but they must be represented in the unitcosts!
    Perhaps not with their full points, but at least partially!
    So the Roman Catapult, being 7/5 and having 2x2/2 Support, the unit CAN be worth up to 20 PU (with your current price System of one Att or Def = one PU)

2. you should value the first hitpoint of a unit, perhaps with one PU?

Example:  
Auxilary:      At 2 Def 4 Price 7
Legionaire:   At 4 Def 4 Price 9
Catapult?:    At 7 Def 5 Price 17? (+2 Support for 2 Units)

3 Legionaires = 12/12/3 - 27 PU
1 Cat + 2 Aux ” 15/17/3 - 31 PU

Personally, i would still build no Legionaires, but at least a little bit better...

Greetz,
Irinam
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
Irinam wrote
Hi Echelon,

I've played your mod being the Roman Alliance against all others beeing HardAI.
Added the allied-tag for Warlords and Legates to have them work proberly.

Took me about 35 rounds to achieve victory (14 VC)

• Great work! It was really fun to play!

• I like the removal of ships
 – now there are true choke Points
 – the HardAI works great without ships

• I also like the removal of capitals.
 - In my game it played out quite nicely with the germanian tribe beeing pushed back by my romans,
  beeing forced to invade first spain an later north africa.
  Of course, Carthago and Numibia were hard pushed by my Egyphian troops...

• great Introduktion of Support-attachments!
 - you are forced to have a good unit mix to optimize stats
 - having units with a nominal Att of 2 attacking with up to 7 really satisfactory!

• I like the restriction of 2-hit Units. They are great units if used proporly but with only 6 on the map,
   you value them even more and no danger of pure 2-hit stacks (Like on the LOTR map)

BUT:
The unit prices are not well balanced!

Example: I never once build a Roman legionaire!
Why?
Auxilary:      At 2 Def 4 Price 6
Legionaire:   At 4 Def 4 Price 8
Catapult?:    At 7 Def 5 Price 12 (+2 Support for 2 Units)

Now for 24 PU: I could buy 3 Legionaires or 2 Auxilary and one catapult

3 Legionaires = 12/12/3 - 24 PU
1 Cat + 2 Aux ” 15/17/3 - 24 PU

And even if one or two hits are taken...

2 Legionaires = 8/8/2 - 8 PU lost
1 Cat + 1 Aux ” 11/11/2 - 6 PU lost

1 Legionaires = 4/4/1 - 16 PU lost
1 Cat             = 7/5/1 - 12 PU lost

You should take two things into account when/if you rebalance unit costs:
1. The support-attachments are great, but they must be represented in the unitcosts!
    Perhaps not with their full points, but at least partially!
    So the Roman Catapult, being 7/5 and having 2x2/2 Support, the unit CAN be worth up to 20 PU (with your current price System of one Att or Def = one PU)

2. you should value the first hitpoint of a unit, perhaps with one PU?

Example:  
Auxilary:      At 2 Def 4 Price 7
Legionaire:   At 4 Def 4 Price 9
Catapult?:    At 7 Def 5 Price 17? (+2 Support for 2 Units)

3 Legionaires = 12/12/3 - 27 PU
1 Cat + 2 Aux ” 15/17/3 - 31 PU

Personally, i would still build no Legionaires, but at least a little bit better...

Greetz,
Irinam
Thanks so much for the comments!  They are most welcome and appreciated!

So, the current unit unit costs were tweaked so that the HardAI would build a more 'complete unit mix'.  I haven't had much time to playtest things under the latest builds (Redrum just added the support attachment thing for other types of support in a recent build, it was just looking at artillery and such before, my build costs currently don't reflect this change), so yeah I'm planning on rebalancing the costs again, now that the HardAI knows what to look for.

When I get some spare time again, I'll playtest some new values and post an updated build.  In the meantime, any suggestions that you may have r.e. cost tweaks are most welcome!

You are of course free to share any .xml changes you've made to the game.xml here (i.e. post up your modified game.xml as an attachment), so I can look over what you've tried, should you end up trying some tweaking of your own.

One thing to keep in mind as you are pondering this (as I often do) is that the ability to receive support also has a value of sorts (pretty much the only units that receive support on this map, other than Morale & Terrain modifiers, are foot units).  Not sure what the cost scalar on that is, but it is definitely something to keep in mind.

I tried briefly increasing all unit costs by one a bit ago (to get the AI to build a better unit mix), but changed it back when the AI didn't change it's purchase considerations.  However, this does have me thinking that the 'hit' a unit takes should be reflected in the unit costs.  Two hit units are already increased, but one hit units, particularly the cheap units, helps protect the more important units.  Hence, that 'hit' has an intrinsic value which is really a separate consideration from the attack and defense values.  It's a concept I"m sure I'll experiment with as time allows.

Again, thanks so much for the comments!  Keep 'em coming!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Irinam
I had that bad feeling, that attacking mountains has been too easy...
And i think i found the mistake:

XML wrote
<attatchment name="supportAttachmentTerrain2" attatchTo="mountainpass" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
                <option name="unitType" value="archer:peltasts:slingers:spearman:swordman:velites:legionaire:barbarian:axeman:hoplite:hypaspist:immortal:phalanx:spartanhoplite:ballista:onager:cavalry:cataphract:horsearcher:chariot:warelephant:legate:warlord:overlord"/>
                                        <option name="faction" value="allied"/>
                                        <option name="side" value="offence"/>
                                        <option name="dice" value="strength"/>
                                        <option name="bonus" value="-1"/>
                                        <option name="number" value="9999"/>
                                        <option name="bonusType" value="terrain"/>
                    <option name="players" value="Numidia:Carthage:GermanicTribes:RomanRepublic:GreekCityStates:Scythians:Macedonia:Egypt:Seleucid:Parthia:Neutral"/>
        </attatchment>
Tested it and yes, attacking units do not get the right negativ bonus if the mountainpass is a unit of the defenders (as it will always be in game).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
Thanks for the catch.  Need to change that 'allied' tag...

This was a last minute change of sorts.  There used to only be one mountain tag, and I cut and pasted the second tag to reduce the attack values, but forgot to change that tag.

I was handling mountains as a(n indestructable) unit previously, not as a terrain modifier tag (1.3.2.2 doesn't have these).  In that instance, the -1 was getting ignored as well, hence my 'hasty change' when I converted mountains over to the terrain modifier system.

I'll post up an updated build as soon as I can.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

panguitch
If the mountainpass is an immobile unit intended to decrease attackers' power, then not only should faction be changed to "enemy," but side should be changed to "defence," since the mountain pass is on defense.

Greyhawk Wars
TripleA in the original Dungeons & Dragons world

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
Thanks Panguitch.  Since I changed over to terrain modifiers instead of unit modifiers, the main purpose of the Mountainpass unit/icon now is to illustrate where the mountain passes are.  All modifiers have been transferred over to the terrain tag in the 1.8.0.5 compatable build

Terrain modifiers are post 1.3.2.2, which is what this map was originally designed for.  The other AI's do not function correctly on this map post 1.3.2.2, but now that we have the Hard AI, well that's why I finally updated the map...

Been on vacation, I need to go through all the notes on this thread and put together a new build when I get a few minutes.  I'll try to post an updated file by the end of the week.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
OK, so here's my latest build:
3rd_Century_BCE_Wars3_0.zip
This'd be Version 0.9.3

Again, this is for 1.8.0.5 with the latest .jar

Terrain modifiers should be operating properly.  I did note that I had one mountain tag placed in the wrong territory (slightly different name), this is fixed in the .zip file above.

I've changed the build costs (started by adding 1 to each unit's build costs, then tweaked them a bit to reflect support and such).

I also added +3 PU/turn production to cities, to help cover the difference in build costs.  This seems to have made building cities a little more attractive to the AI (not that it wasn't building them before), which I don't mind.

Here's the current stats for things, including the current build costs:


Unit                                 Attack    Defense   Move   Hits    Type  Support  Bonus      Cost

Peltast/Slinger                    2              2            1       1       Foot                                   5
Spearmen/Velite                 2              4            1       1       Foot                                   7
Axeman                              4              2             1       1      Foot                                   7
Swordsman/Legionnaire   4              4             1       1      Foot                                   9
Hoplite                               4              6             1       1      Foot                                   11
Hypaspist                           6              5             1       1      Foot                                  12
Spartan Hoplite                  6              7             1       1      Foot                                  13

Barbarian                            6             4             1       2      Foot                                  15
Phalanx                              5              6             1       2      Foot                                  16
Immortal                             5              5             1       2      Foot   Missile: +1 to 2       16

Archer                                 3              6             1      1       Msl.    Missile: +1 to 1       11

Cavalry                                4             2             2      1     Mount  Mobility: +1 to 1      11
Horsearcher                        3              5             3      1    Mount   Missile:  +1 to 1     13
Cataphract                          6              6             2      1    Mount  Mobility: +1 to 1      18
Chariot                                4              6             2      2     Mount Mobility: +1 to 1      16
Warelephant                       8              7             1      2     Mount Mobility: +1 to 2       21

Ballista                                5              1             1      1      Siege Siege:    +1 to 2       9
Onager                                7              5             1      1     Siege Siege:    +2 to 2      16

Wall                                     0              3            0      2     Fort.  Mobility: +1 to 3        4
Fort (Wall Upgrade)             0             8             0      2     Fort. Mobility: +1 to 4       +5(9)

Legate                                 5             5             2      2    Cmd.   Morale: +1 to 3       17
Warlord                                6             6            2      2    Cmd.    Morale: +1 to 6       20
Overlord                               8             8            2      2    Cmd.    Morale: +1 to 12    25

I'm still not seeing Hypaspists and Spartan Hoplites being built by Macedonia or Greece, as well as no Hoplites by either almost all of the time.  I'm considering deleting Hoplites from the Macedonian and Greek frontiers to see if that changes the build mix.

Same for Horsearchers; I'm not seeing any of these getting built by the AI currently, although I struggle with lowering their cost any more (13 is already a bargain in the long term, thanks to their rapid response/3 move).

The Phalanx units are also not appearing quite as often as I'd like, although I haven't assigned an AI to Carthage recently (it takes a few hours to play this through).  I hesitate in lowering the Phalanx PU cost, although the Greeks and Macedonians/Seleucids primarily focus on slingers/peltasts, and other cheaper units, to maximize their number of builds.

The AI is placing a priority on replacing Warlords and Overlords, which I prefer to see.  Nonetheless, I may look at bumping their costs slightly in the next release.  The HardAI is currently a little too willing to 'throw them away' in some instances, but this tendency is not nearly as bad as the other AI's have been in previous builds about leaving them unprotected.  Hence why I'm considering bumping their costs a bit, to see if that helps the AI value them a bit more/make it not quite as willing to leave them exposed.

Walls and Forts are still not getting built.  The AI does not consider fixed defenses as a practical build currently.

As always, comments and suggestions are most welcome!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Frostion
Version 0.9.3
Ok I tried it out. It’s a big map and I didn’t have time to finish a game. I will mostly give my first impressions.

• I don’t like the big bright red text in the notes, title and “Alliances”. Maybe better with black, dark grey, dark blue or dark red.
Very dark red: #330000
Dark red: #660000
A bit dark red: #990000
Red: #CC0000
Bright red (think it is what you use) #FF0000

• From notes: “Note: Loss of all Victory Cities does not result in loss of monies or income” Monies? What’s that? Do you mean money? One piece of money, many pieces of money. Is so, I think it should say “loss of money or income”

• I noticed that the player listing before game start is not all in alliance-order. I would list all alliance partners two-and-two. It would be easier to see who is who’s friend. I think the order in <playerList> determines the order in the pre-start player listing.

• I don’t like all of the nation colors. Some are to bright and screams in my eyes. I would recommend trying these colors. There are balanced when it comes to brightness and “greyness”:
Scythians: #99004C
Macedonia: #4C0099
Rome: #990000
Parthia: #994C00
Seleucid: #004C99
Egypt: #999900
Germanic Tribes: #4C9900
Greek City States: #00994C

Maybe also change, but I am not sure. I do think that the current Carthage is to bright, almost white.:
Charthage: #808080
Numidia: #009999 or 990099

• I played Egypt … as I wanted to have Chariots  Why do slinger have transport cost 3 when all infantry have transport cost 4? And why have transport cost at all? There are no ships? Can chariots carry an infantry? Maybe there should be mules or something that are dedicated land transports for infantry
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

redrum
Administrator
@Eschelon - Should you be allowed to blitz through a territory that has no units but is a mountain pass?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
@redrum,

I originally didn't have the 'blitz block' in place for mountain passes, but upon discovering the tag, I decided to try it out in this release.

So far I like it, looking forward to feedback.  This particularly affects the Germanic Tribes, which have a lot of mountains nearby.  To be honest, IMHO they can use the help, as this gives them a little extra time to react/build up their units once the neutrals are cleared out.  They have difficulty standing toe to toe with the Romans or Carthage one on one, so allowing for that bit of extra time for the Romans and Carthage to annoy each other helps them out a bit.

That being said, I enjoy really challenging positions, so once the other positions on the map are mastered, the Germanic Tribe's situation is a nice change of pace.

I find that Numidia's position can be challenging IF the Egyptians decide to focus on them early.  I've seen the Hard AI go both directions.  I.E. going after Seleucia/Parthia is typical, but sometimes they go against Numidia early, and Numidia is a bit of a glass house, at least until they take the Egyptian capitals.

@Frostion,

I'll look at your color tweaks.  I usually play with show map details and show map blends enabled, which tones down the colors considerably.  With those settings enabled, it helps to have more 'base color' contrast, so that the empire colors are visibly different from each other when blended.  I should probably add something along the lines of 'this map looks best with details and blends enabled'in the game notes about this.

Here's a screenshot showing how the map looks on my computer with details and blends enabled:



The plan eventually was to incorporate relief tiles that I felt were appropriate to my artistic vision for this map, but to be honest I really like how the map currently looks with just details and blends enabled.

The 'unit count text' is kind of hard to read for Carthage's units, so I was already considering darkening the Carthage color slightly to see how that would look.  The other option would be to go with a color other than white for unit count text.  It's been a bit since I messed with colors though, so I'm not sure if you have options other than black vs white for said text.

As for the .html game notes, yeah a lot of those colors were picked by Dr. Che, I just kept using them.  I'll take a look at your proposed changes.

R.E. Monies.  Yes, that is a real word...
https://www.google.com/search?q=monies+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
In this case, the context is appropriate, as empires get PU's from multiple sources (territories + cities + warlords & overlords, not just territories).

Finally, r.e. transport costs.  I do hope to eventually release another version of this map with naval units/sea zones re-enabled, once I have the land component working the way I envisioned it (it's about 95% there, build costs & AI usage aside).  Those transport costs were carry-overs from the 270BC map, so they would come back into play for the 'sea zone' version of this map.  Essentially both scenarios would be included in said future release (land only version, and the  land & sea version).  The 'sea' version would require significant changes for balance, so that'll be down the road a bit...

Of course, said release would be very similar to 270BC, with my additions of D12 combat, more detailed support regimens, and additional units, so I'm not sure how much demand there would be for a map that plays out 90% similar to the original 270BC.  The lack of naval units is what currently makes my map unique.

Plus, now that I understand the concept of map decorations a bit better, I may take  the 'sea routes' dots off of the base tiles, and add them as map decoration overlays instead (so that they won't carry over to the land & sea version of this map).  Same for mountain passes, although I've considered editing the base tiles for the mountainpass territories, to illustrate mountain chains in the fashion shown below:



Note that the above screenshot is from a map I never released, as it ended up being waaaay too big to be playable in a short time frame... it was a nice experiment in map making at least!

The main reason I'm not chomping at the bit to make this map art change is that the map utilities are no longer functioning properly on my computer (they used to), and I don't understand what is going wrong... I've recently been breaking tiles 'by hand' instead of using the tile breaker, for example, since it will no longer work for me.  I'd need to run the modified 270 BC map though the territory picker again, to define the new territory borders for the mountain chain/pass territories as well as the adjacent territories (as their territory borders will have moved a bit).

But enough about my wish list.  Thanks for the suggestions and comments guys, keep 'em coming!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Frostion
Breaking tiles by hand!? Waaa! You could post your large png here or send me an email with link, and I can try to break it down for you.

“I usually play with show map details and show map blends enabled”I think tripleA’s standard default install setting is “map details-on” and “blends-off”. If you want the map players to have blends on, then I think you would have to write it in the notes. But maybe there is a way to turn it on automaticly?

Regarding colors … maybe the water color on the minimap should be turned down also. But of course to a color that do not “visually” conflict with one of the nation colors.

I tested the colors I recommended  (with map blends on.) There is a very small difference, but it is still visible. You must be the final judge:
Old

New
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
I have these tags enabled under map properties:
map.width=3584
map.height=1536
map.hasRelief=true
map.mapBlends=true
map.mapBlendMode=NORMAL
map.mapBlendAlpha=0.17f
map.scrollWrapX=false
map.showCapitolMarkers=false

I would hope that this automatically activates map blends, but I don't really know.  I'd be curious as to what others see when they first open this map (blends or no blends).

I'll add something to the game notes, and try to remember to mention the 'enable blends' thing when I post up new releases.

Also (@ Frostion), your map looks WAAAAY different from my map (compare your screenshots above versus mine below).  Note that the colors are washed out quite a bit more on my map (which looks visually more appealing to me).  While I certainly want to tweak the colors to make it look better with the settings you have, I'm curious as to what I have set differently to make the colors look more pastel-ish on mine...  I like the pastels look a lot, and that's the visual presentation I'm going for r.e. my color, icon, etc. choices.

My settings for verification purposes (they look like they are the same as yours).  Note that I have map borders set to low in the dropdown immediately below blends.



I seem to remember needing to restart TripleA after enabling blends, at which point the 'pastels' look appeared.  Try that and let me know what happens.

BTW, while I meant to delete/reassign one mountainpass territory, it turns out that I forgot to carry that edit over to my latest zip file.  It'll be in the next release.

Also, Parthia is indeed now building horsearchers, I was erroneous in my last report.  Hoplites, Hypaspists, and Spartan Hoplites are still M.I.A. as far as the AI is concerned though (Carthage might eventually build Hoplites though, once it maxes out Warelephants and Phalanxes).  Phalanxes are now getting built by everyone, although not quite to the levels I think they should be, but then Macedonia and Greece tend to get into a furball very early, and spear fodder seems to be the order of the day for them (slingers).

@ Frostion,

R.E. your color tweaks.  I want to stay away from more blueish colors, as when the sea zones eventually get (re)added to the variant of this map, those might be a bit too close to sea zone colors.  The others look nice.  Greece is currently a little gaudy/bright on my map, so I was going to play around with the RGB a bit to see if I could dial this down a bit but still keep them visually distinct from the neutrals and the Germanic Tribes.  I was about to copy your values over to notepad and transcribe them to the properties and game.xml files when I saw your latest post.

The tile breaking thing isn't so bad now that I've broken up all of the tiles.  Pretty much the only time I need to rebreak anything is when I change the unit values across the bottom of the map (there are 14 tiles across the bottom, but I don't have to change every single one for an edit or two).  I have my photoshop grid set at 256 pixels, with snap enabled, so it's actually not too bad to select a specific tile, cut it, paste it into my 256x256 document, and then save for web as a .png.  Once you get used to it, it's not too bad.  Of course, when I finally get around to doing a new relief map, I may take you up on your offer.

While I think I have all of the file paths correct, when I go to break up the tiles, the map maker program essentially freezes on my computer.  No idea why... I've waited for a few minutes to see if it would 'go', but no dice.  Plus, tile breaking should be a very simple operation.  BTW, the tile joining app works fine for me (I reassembled the 270 bc map using it), but that's a different widget.

Note that I have sucessfully used Wisconsin's widget in the past (for my unreleased Ancient Empires map), so I'm at a bit of a loss.  I feel stupid or something...

I wouldn't mind if someone eventually took another look at the map utility, and redesigned it so it wasn't so temperamental, but that'd require a new coder that is interested in such things to want to take a look at it.  Of course, I may be the only one that is having issues with the Wisconsin Map Maker these days though.  I'm just happy to see that we have Redrum working on the AI!

While I'm sure no one noticed, the original 270 BC map had some partial tiles down the right side and across the bottom.  I made use of the unused space across the bottom for my map notes, and removed the partial row of tiles to the right.  The map used to be 3600 pixels wide, it's now 3584.  I then edited (by hand) the polygons.txt file to 'cut off' the right hand side of the map at 3583 (remember that the pixel count starts at 0), and I also made a minor edit to Pharan (shortened the peninsula a bit to make room for my sea route icon).  



I'm currently in the middle of a pretty interesting game, playing as the Germanic Tribes and Scythians.  I was attempting to remove Carthage from Iberia/Spain, but unfortunately they crushed Rome before I was able to complete my task, and I had to reroute forces to deal with the Carthaginian Horde advancing up the boot of Italy.  Carthage eventually took the Macedonian Capitals, making life even more difficult for the Scythians.  Greece has managed to hang on, and just pushed the Carthagineans almost completely out of the Greek peninsula (Greece owns the Macedonian capitals currently).  

Plus, Numidia has kept Egypt off balance, but Egypt seems to want to concentrate on the Scythians more than it should (note that Antioch is now owned by the Scythians, and that the Seleucids are no more), which has prevented me from sweeping Parthia off the map.  I expect Egypt to disintegrate soon, with Numidia advancing on Antioch afterwords, so I hope to finish off Parthia before this occurs...

Every time I get a large enough force scraped together to steamroller the Carthagineans, Greeks, or Parthians, the HardAI deals me a setback on another front, and I can't send reinforcements to finish the job without losing another front, so up to this point I've not been able to finish off another empire.  Note that the Germanic Alliance only controls 6 victory cities currently (I had 8 at one point), and the African Alliance currently controls 7... With the Parthians at 2 and the Greeks at 4, and the Egyptians at 1 as of Round 31.  On the previous round, I made a mistake, and my 'attack stack' in Sardis was pounced upon and destroyed by the Greeks; I probably should have not taken Sardis the previous round...



Kudos to the Hard AI on this one.  It's done a pretty good job at crushing my attack stacks, pulling together forces from a lot of adjacent territories (particularly mounted units) to blunt my attacks.  I'm not the best TripleA player by any means, but I like to think I can hold my own.  This has been the most interesting game I've played against the HardAI on this map to date.

Save game here:
aaafeb072015.tsvg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars, a 270 BC Mod - Release Thread

redrum
Administrator
@Eschelon - Alright. The AI actually wasn't handling the territory effects no blitz property but I just committed a fix and updated the pre-release. I made some significant improvements to the AI combat move especially when dealing with neutral territories so your next game should be even better!

Looking at the unit prices I think Hoplites, Hypaspists, and Spartan Hoplites are all over priced. I personally wouldn't really build them either. The cheaper 1 hp units are much better for fodder and the 2 hp units only cost a little more than those expensive 1hp so it better to focus on them when looking to buy fire power. I would recommend decreasing the cost of Swordsmen, Hoplites, Hypaspists, and Spartan Hoplites by 1 PU to better balance them.

In terms of map balance, I feel like the nations in the middle of the map need a little buff (Romans, Greeks, Macedonians, Seleucids). They end up having to fight on many more fronts then the other nations which seems to cause them to eventually collapse due to attrition.
123