3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod, WIP thread

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod, WIP thread

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
Hey y'all!

Someone was looking for another scenario that is better suited for Dynamix.  Here is the 270 BC Mod that I did, which helped me get my feet wet so I could tackle Ancient Empires.

Latest version: see March 1st 3:16 PM post on pg 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.

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

No claims as to how well balanced it is, but I had fun playing the various empires nonetheless.

I'd recommend using 1.3.2.2 stable for this.  When I zipped this up earlier tonight, every time I tried to run it under 1.4.0.0 Unstable with the Dynamix AI it would lock up on builds after a couple of turns.  However, Dynamix runs perfectly fine under 1.3.2.2 with this map.  Go figure.

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

This may have given me a clue as to what's going on with my other map with Dynamix.  Off to strip out some code (to make Ancient Empires 1.3.2.2 compliant temporarily) and see what happens...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

wargamer
This post was updated on .
Thanks for providing this  Mod.  I like the idea of having all the empires start out small.  In effect, it would seem to be a lite version of your Ancient Empires Mod, using the 270 BC Mod.  

However,  I get the following error message when running it:

Warning: validation was turned on but an org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler was not
set, which is probably not what is desired.  Parser will use a default
ErrorHandler to print the first 10 errors.  Please call
the 'setErrorHandler' method to fix this.
Error:
URI=jar:file:/Applications/Games/Triplea.app/Contents/Resources/Java/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=1966: The content of element type "attatchmentList" must match "(attatchment)+".

                                                                  ***

I first tried putting it in  my ~/Documents/triplea/maps folder  (I'm on a Mac) and leaving it as a zip file; however, I notice that it doesn't come with a _zip.properties file like the usual downloaded mods, so then I unzipped it and put it with the other Mod folders in the maps folder of the application package, but got the same error.  I am running triplea 1.3.2.2.

The Mod does seem to play, however, so it isn't a big deal, but still thought I'd mention it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
wargamer wrote
Thanks for providing this  Mod.  I like the idea of having all the empires start out small.  In effect, it would seem to be a lite version of your Ancient Empires Mod, using the 270 BC Mod.  

However,  I get the following error message when running it:

Warning: validation was turned on but an org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler was not
set, which is probably not what is desired.  Parser will use a default
ErrorHandler to print the first 10 errors.  Please call
the 'setErrorHandler' method to fix this.
Error:
URI=jar:file:/Applications/Games/Triplea.app/Contents/Resources/Java/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=1966: The content of element type "attatchmentList" must match "(attatchment)+".

                                                                  ***

I first tried putting it in  my ~/Documents/triplea/maps folder  (I'm on a Mac) and leaving it as a zip file; however, I notice that it doesn't come with a _zip.properties file like the usual downloaded mods, so then I unzipped it and put it with the other Mod folders in the maps folder of the application package, but got the same error.  I am running triplea 1.3.2.2.

The Mod does seem to play, however, so it isn't a big deal, but still thought I'd mention it.
I've seen the same error message for a few months now, so I'm assuming there's a line of code somewhere that I deprecated with my changes that wasn't deleted/modified.  It's good to know it's specific to my 270 BC mod though (I have a few different scenarios installed, so it could have been any one of them).  The error is just annoying, and as you noted does not affect gameplay in any way.

On another note I had do delete/disable a LOT of features from my Ancient Empires WIP to make it 1.3.2.2 compliant, but it plays fine with Dynamix under 1.3.2.2, which adds to my suspicions that Dynamix is having issues of some kind under 1.4.0.0 unstable.  A lot of things were changed with 1.4.0.0 (I didn't realize how much until I ended disabling a LOT of code to get my scenario to work under 1.3.2.2), so this doesn't really surprise me.

Without terrain modifiers and a few other things, my A.A. WIP just isn't as much fun, and I'm still adding more units for the other empires in any case...

And now 1.5.0.0 unstable is out... still keeping my fingers crossed that we get a new AI guy to tackle Dynamix soon.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

hepster
Wargammer I just spent hours correcting little things (on my map).

This error message is one of the nice ones because it specifies exactly where the issue occurs.

Line=1966: The content of element type "attatchmentList" must match "(attatchment)+"

On line 1966 of the XML there is something wrong with the attachment list for a unit (or something).

If you go into the XML  vie the edit function and  then go to the Edit tab...



Paste in the line number...



Then you can eliminate the offending issue.  It may not be right there, as it could be some other attachment that isn't working properly with the content of that line, but it should get you very close.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
Just a quick note that the error message in question refers to the triplea .jar file, not the scenario map file.

URL=jar:file:/Applications/Games/Triplea.app/Contents/Resources/Java/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=1966

After further thought, I'm guessing it is because this map is not currently part of the map repository, and wasn't downloaded through the triplea interface.

As I've noted, the error in question doesn't seem to have any effect whatsoever on game play, at least not that I've noticed in months of playtesting/tweaking.

If there is interest, I'll be happy to submit this map to the map repository, once I get more feedback on the scenario.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

wargamer
This post was updated on .
@Eshchelon and @Hepster,

Thank you for the replies regarding my comment on the error message.

As to the mod itself, I enjoy it a lot.  I like how the different nations have varying unit capabilities, along historical lines, which give rise to somewhat different optimal tactics for a given player.  I've played all sides solitaire, besides the German/Scythian alliance, and found that things seem well balanced; of course, starting with very small states and small forces lends itself to balance.

One bit of constructive criticism I have is that in the later stages of the game (the games invariably get into round 50+), the unit piles start getting very large (100-200+).  There was another thread about this issue for late-game NWO, and one suggestion was to raise unit costs as the game progresses.  Perhaps that is something to consider here, as the game engine slows down when there are piles of 150+ units marching around.  

Such large build-up of units also results in situations where in one player has to spend a lot of turns building up an offensive force on a new active front in order to match the defender's forces that have been building up over time just sitting there.  The defender's build up just makes it take that much more time for the aggressor to build up to practical offensive strength, thereby increasing the number of game rounds and the size of unit piles.  I see this dynamic in particular around the Messana/Croton/Tarentum/Delphi and Jerusalem/Sidon/Antioch axes.  Thus the game becomes much more a matter of production and economics rather than military strategy.  This issue is a bigger deal here than in NWO, where large stacks only come into play in the end- or late-game stages, i.e. round 13+, in my experience.

To be clear, however, this issue is not a deal breaker for me, as I still find the game very enjoyable to play, but it perhaps deserves some consideration.  

One other thing to consider would be to incorporate the new ver. 1.4 alliance rules; that would definitely make the mod more dynamic and varied in game play.

Also, I am curious why you made Corduba the Carthaginian capital rather than Carthage.  Historically, of course, Carthage was the capital, although the colony in Hispania was a crucial resource region for Carthage.  Is this to preclude an easy take over of the African Alliance capitols by an advance on one front?  If so, I understand it; however, it also makes it VERY hard for a Roman, Macedonian or Greek player to advance on Corduba while still holding off the African threat via Sicily.

It also seems that elephants are overly powerful units -- particularly given that they weren't always all that effective historically, e.g. take the battle of Zama.  But in game terms they also seem too strong; perhaps make them 4/3/1/ or even 3/3/1 if they are to still have two hits.   Again, based on historical facts, the elephants didn't have the best unit cohesiveness.  If any units should have two hits, I'd make them the Roman legions and Macedonian cavalry, the latter reflecting Alexander's companions; I'd make the legions two hits because of their training and leadership.  But this is just my historical take on the matter.  As is, the African alliance can play its cards right and have very limited unit losses compared to its opponents, thereby giving them a distinct advantage; perhaps, however, this reflects the "Hannibal" edge.

As is, however, this mod would be still be a great addition to the mod repository, me thinks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
Thanks for the in depth reply!

The 'Elephant' issue is one reason I decided to tackle Ancient Empires (my other mod that 270 BC inspired).  Also, most of the unit stats are essentially the same as they are in 270 BC, with one modification - Elephants now repair at the start of the round instead of the end, so you can counterattack them while they are wounded.  I also added a small handful of units and of course the units for Scythia and Gaul.  Thank Dr. Che for the interesting unit mixes, I think he did a nice job with those overall.

I may introduce Spartans into the submitted version, as Dynamix seems to enjoy using those in my other map.

The 270 BC economy was another reason that promped me to tackle my own mod (Ancient Empires).  In the late game, you can produce quite a few units in a turn.  I do like your idea of perhaps increasing unit costs across the board (this is essentially what I've done in Ancient Empires), and will look into doing that before I 'officially' submit this mod.

Unfortunately, Dynamix won't work properly under 1.4.0.0, and politics is introduced in 1.4.0.0.  The other two AIs (Moore, EZFodder) have build issues, and IMHO become too easy to push over as they won't build additional factories.  I'm hoping the recent interest in AI programming (two new posters today) will result in some more work on Dynamix, but we'll see.

R.E. Carthage's capital being moved.  The AI's weren't building much at all in Corduba when Carthago was the capital, so Carthage wasn't as competitive against Rome in this instance.  Hence, I moved the 'capital' to Corduba, to encourage the Carthage AI to advance through Spain and open up a second front with Rome.  As the Dynamix AI still builds in Carthago as well once the economy gets rolling, this seemed to work out OK.

I haven't really done anything with victory conditions on this map, so that may be a way to deal with the Carthago issue (i.e. make it a VC territory, and set the opposing players' VC threshold accordingly so that taking Carthago counts towards victory).

BTW, AI 'balancing' is incidentally why you see the 'wall of units' between Numidia and Egypt at the start of the game (the territory with the 18 units).  I did this to give both empires some time to grow a bit before they take each other on.

Historically, several of the other empires (Seleucia, Parthia in particular) also used elephants in their armies, and I have since figured out how to limit production numbers, so introducing a handful of additional 2 hit units for the other empires may be a possibility.

In other news, Ancient Empires is running well under 1.3.2.2 but I still have a lot of tweaking yet to do.  The 1.4/5.0.0 version (which utilizes quite a few of the newer features) is on cold hold until Dynamix gets some upgrades.  I need Dynamix to be able to utilize 'CanProduceXUnits' Infrastructure units, which are essentially my cities which provide defensive support, additional income and some building capability. In the meantime, the 1.3.2.2 version of A.A. seems interesting enough, although it is a LOOOOONG game to play due to the 24 players (20 of them being AI if you play one full alliance) plus Neutral lords.  Not sure what the interest will be for a TripleA solitaire game that takes days to play...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

wargamer
This post was updated on .
@Eschelon,

You're welcome for the feedback.  Thank you for your reply to my questions and thoughts.

I figured the pile of neutrals at Paraetonium was meant as a buffer; however, I hadn't realized that it would also to affect the AI decision making of when to attack through there.  That is interesting to know.

I have one more thought on play balance:

Finally got around to playing the German/Scythian alliance.   It seems like both countries could use a couple of 2-1-1 barbarian infantry units at the outset in order to have a reasonable first-turn attack.  Without them, they have no good offensive moves in the first turn or two, unlike all the others; hence, they are behind the eight-ball from the beginning.  As it is, they are also behind in initial PU's for their starting territories.   I have found this alliance to be the most difficult to win with versus the AI (dynamix).  I have also noticed that when they are AI run, that they tend to be the first countries to get overrun, particularly the Germanic tribes -- generally by the Carthaginians.

I'm guessing you figured that since they are at corners of the map and have no nearby neighbors to contest with at first, that they should start with fewer units.   However, the territories near them are also generally of relatively low PU value too, thus they have a disadvantage that the others don't have.

One other question: the Parthian player has no unit to take advantage of the cataphract artillery support (unlike the Seleucid player).  Seems like the 1-2-1 spearmen ought to be artillery supportable.  Or was this intentional to preclude this advantage for them?

I'm still enjoying this mod a whole lot; it ranks up there with NWO.  But then I am a bit of an ancient military history buff.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
Thanks for the additional feedback!

My thoughts r.e. the Scythians and Germania was to introduce a couple of powers to throw Rome, Carthage and Macedonia off balance a bit.  In playing the 270 BC map, these empires tended to expand too quickly into these areas of the map, and neutral territories weren't really getting the job done, hence my introducing two more empires to slow things down a bit.

Also, historically they didn't have as strong an impact, hence my thoughts on keeping them a little weaker initially.

Finally, this gave players looking for a tougher challenge an underdog or two to work with, kinda like Numidia and to a lesser extent Egypt were in the initial 270 BC scenario (I beefed both of these empires up a bit in my mod).

However, increasing the initial forces of these empires can certainly be done.  The initial forces were figured using a formula I came up with, and as these two empires are worth less than some of the others, their initial forces were correspondingly smaller.

I wasn't really aware of the artillery support that the cataphracts were (not) providing, but can certainly put this to use in this scenario.  On my other map, I actually have cavalry, missile, and siege bonuses in play under 1.3.2.2 that support infantry units, so incorporating similar concepts here is certainly a thought.

I'll probably get back to this this soon, as I'm working on other things a the moment.  I very much appreciate the feedback in the meantime.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

wargamer
This post was updated on .
@Eschelon,

I encountered what I think is a glitch in the alliances:  Egypt and the Greek City states seem to be allied, although according to the game notes it is Egypt and Rome that have an alliance (and these latter two interact as such).  The Egyptian units can move into Greek owned and occupied territories.  I encountered this problem while playing the Romans (leaving the Egyptians as AI).  Egypt was doing really well and had already knocked out Seleucid, and hence was roving on deep into Asia Minor and on into Greek territories.  As the Roman, I had to defeat both the Greek and Egyptian forces in a given territory, which seems problematic to me.  Or was this meant to be the case, in order to add some subtle diplomatic/alliance dynamics?

As an interesting strategy aside, I have found in these games, given the proliferation of units, often the situation arises in which one can take the capitol of a state and then let it get liberated in the next turn/turn and then recapture it again in the following round, thereby accruing the PU's again of the twice-captured capitol's nation.  It's a great way of gaining bonus PUs.  Obviously, this should only occur against AI opponents, as a human opponent should know better than to accomodate his/her nemesis in this way.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
Somewhat drastic revamp coming for version 2.1.

Essentially, I've ported over some concepts from my mondo Ancient Empires mod to this map.  These include:

12 Sided dice used in combat.  Base combat values are roughly double what they were before.

Archers provide support to Foot Soldiers.  Mounted Units provide (separate) support to Foot Soldiers as well.  Siege Equipment (Romans only) provides an additional bonus to Foot Soldiers.  All empires now have archer units, btw.

Two new units have been introduced: Warlords and Overlords.  These provide a morale bonus to a number of units, and are formidable in combat.  They can sustain 2 hits, and are 'mounted'.  A warlord is added to each player's production every third turn.  Each player starts with one overlord, and if he dies he cannot be replaced.  This also helps 'balance' warelephants a bit, as now all players have a handful of two hit units.  This also speeds up the early game a bit.

Starting unit mixes for Scythians and Germanic Tribes have been tweaked, replacing spearman with other units better suited for attacking.  Also, some slight adjustments have been made to the neutrals near the Scythians and Germanic tribes, giving them more attractive first turn attack opportunities. Note that having an Overlord as part of the initial setup helps this situation out considerably as well.

Unit costs are roughly doubled.  In addition, factories can only produce a number of units equal to half of the territory value they are in (rounded up).

I've tried to introduce victory conditions, but I haven't playtested a game far enough to see if these trigger yet.

I will release the 2.1 update here in the next couple of days, assuming I don't get distracted.

I will also keep the current version in the map zip file as well for now, with tweaks to the starting unit mixes.

p.s. I'll look into that alliance glitch thing when I get a chance.  Haven't seen that personally, but I may have missed something.

As for your strategy note r.e. capturing, abandoning, and recapturing the capital to increase P.U. income, There are some setting tweaks in Dynamix that may or may not affect this situation a bit.  This has been an issue with TripleA AI's for a while now, I'm sure, and hopefully we get some new AI guys onboard to consider the matter.  There may be some things I can do to adjust the capturing of P.U.s in the meantime.  Suggestions from fellow map makers are always welcome.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
OK, time for y'all to take this thing for a test drive:

3rdCentury_BCE_Wars Version 2.zip

Delete/hide the previous zip folder if you have it, and replace it with this one (they share the same name).


Quick note on version numbers:
I originally designated the version number for this map as 2.0, as it was a variant of 270BC.  However, since the map has it's own name to begin with, I felt it was better to designate the first version of this a 1.0, so as to not cause confusion down the road.  Version 2.0 now refers to the new and improved version (referred to above as 2.1).  As this map has not been 'officially' released yet, better to change this now, before it is added to the repository.

Two game files are included with this version.  
The 1.0 map uses six sided dice, and is essentially simply a modification of the 270 BC scenario.  
The 2.0 map uses twelve sided dice, has Warlords and Overlords added, and has several units which provide support.  Unit values have been changed, and there are other changes as well - see the post immediately above.

The map information within the TripleA map chooser window IS updated, should you want to look over unit values and such before beginning the scenario.


BTW,
Warlords look like this:
Warlord

Overlords look like this:
Overlord

It is highly recommended that you use Triple A version 1.3.2.2 and the Dynamix AI.  Dynamix has been locking up about immediately under 1.4.0.0 and 1.5.0.0 on my system, hence defeating the purpose of having a 'land only' map.

Please let me know if Victory Conditions are working.  The African Alliance, Roman Alliance, and Germanic Alliance players require an alliance total of 15 VC territories to win, while the Greek City States, Macedonia, Seleucid and Parthia only require 10, if I coded this correctly.

If Version 2.0 works well enough, I'll submit it to the scenario repository, but I'd like to get a little more feedback first.



Note that you will probably see the following error message when starting TripleA with this map.  This should not affect gameplay, and I'm guessing said errors will go away once this officially submitted and downloaded through the TripleA interface.

Warning: validation was turned on but an org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler was not
set, which is probably not what is desired.  Parser will use a default
ErrorHandler to print the first 10 errors.  Please call
the 'setErrorHandler' method to fix this.
Error: URI=jar:file:/E:/TripleA/triplea_1_3_2_2/triplea_1_3_2_2/bin/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=1966: The content of element type "attatchmentList" must match "(attatchment)+".
Warning: validation was turned on but an org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler was not
set, which is probably not what is desired.  Parser will use a default
ErrorHandler to print the first 10 errors.  Please call
the 'setErrorHandler' method to fix this.
Error: URI=jar:file:/E:/TripleA/triplea_1_3_2_2/triplea_1_3_2_2/bin/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=2324: The content of element type "attatchmentList" must match "(attatchment)+".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

stormyorky
Finally a version that works for me.

Im playing two games right now, as Scythia and Germania. I love the introduction of warlords/overlords.
However a few issues: it says in the helpfile that one can only have a maximum of 3 warlords, but I have more than 3, and they keep spawning every 3rd turn.

Another issue with warlords/overlords, is that the AI seems to use them as expendable landgrabbing fast cavalry. On several occasions, the AI has left a warlord alone in a territory, allowing me to pick them off and thus severly weaken his stack once our stacks clashes.
Also, I noticed it says in the helpfile that warlords/overlords can blitz, but they cant in the game.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
Thanks for the feedback!  

I haven't successfully implemented the 'limit of 3' rule yet, and still need to adapt a trigger to check for this.  Also, I need to add the 'can blitz' to the xml file for the warlords and overlords, thanks for the catch.

Note: here is the updated game file that allows warlords to blitz.  Simply drag/copy and replace this file into the zip file for now, I'll upload a new zip file in a bit, after some more playtesting is complete.  No sense having everyone download the entire zip file twice if it's going to change again shortly.

Drag/Replace file into the zip subfolder: 3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip\games
3rdCenturyBCEWarsd.xml

A new warlord every third turn may be the right number or too many.  I'd appreciate some thoughts on this.  As for the AI sacrificing these, I don't have any ideas r.e. a good way to prevent the AI from doing so.  AI coding is beyond my skill set.  

I could reduce warlord movement to 1, but then it may take longer to get them to the front line.  Also, I don't really want to make them 'flying' units as I like the mechanics of having them vulnerable to counter attacks.  Also, being an 'air' unit would also prevent them from capturing territory, but it would give them some additonal protection as they need to return to friendly territory during the noncombat move... which defeats the 'relentless juggernaut' role I had in mind for them.

Another option might be to automatically replace a warlord on a following turn if the count falls below three or something, but this might encourage throwing them away in battle as they are 'free' units...

Introducing other 2 hit units is still in the suggestion box, and I'll play around with that idea for the next version update, once we get this version working more or less properly.

Also, the Dynamix AI doesn't seem to use walls or forts.  I may remove these from future versions, as this gives human players a unique advantage.  I know that Moore builds Roman forts, so I'll run a quick game to see if Moore is using walls or not.  Another thought I've had is adding these to the production mix every turn, similar to how warlords are done now, to encourage use of them by the Dynamix AI.  Dynamix is more of an offense AI, I've noticed, which is why I enjoy playing against it!

Quick note: Only the Romans have siege equipment in their unit mix, and as such are the only empire that get to utilize the the siege support bonus.  I consider this as a unique advantage for the Romans, similar to Numidia and Carthage having Elephants, Parthia having units that move 3, etc. etc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Eschelon
Sorry Esch, but there are errors in your map, and it has nothing to do with how you download it.
You need to fix the errors so that no error messages pop up.  

How you download or install a map has zero effect on how the game engine "Parses" a map's xml file.  

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

Eschelon
Veqryn wrote
Sorry Esch, but there are errors in your map, and it has nothing to do with how you download it.
You need to fix the errors so that no error messages pop up.  

How you download or install a map has zero effect on how the game engine "Parses" a map's xml file.
The errors are called out in the following location:
Error: URI=jar:file:/E:/TripleA/triplea_1_3_2_2/triplea_1_3_2_2/bin/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=1966

(note that my triplea is installed on drive E).

This is not where my map file resides, which is in the C: Documents folder.  As such, my .xml is not being called out directly, and hence I have no ideas as to what is causing the error message.  Also, this error message appears on the setup screen only, but does not prevent selection of the map.

As the map plays fine with the errors, I do not consider this a problem.  If anyone can puzzle out what is causing the error, I'm all ears.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by wargamer
Hey again wargamer!

wargamer wrote
@Eschelon,

I encountered what I think is a glitch in the alliances:  Egypt and the Greek City states seem to be allied, although according to the game notes it is Egypt and Rome that have an alliance (and these two interact as such).  The Egyptian units can move into Greek own and occupied territories.  I encountered this problem while playing the Romans (leaving the Egyptians as AI).  Egypt was doing really well and had already knocked out Seleucid, and hence was roving on deep into Asia Minor and on into Greek territories.  As the Roman, I had to defeat both the Greek and Egyptian forces in a given territory, which seems problematic to me.  Or was this meant to be the case, in order to add some subtle diplomatic/alliance dynamics?
I think I figured this out.  I'm guessing you are seeing those 'Egyptian' spearmen that the Greeks are building.  I added spearmen to the Greek unit mix a while back, and borrowed an Egyptian Spearman icon in the process.  I then forgot about it, and thus didn't update the icon with the proper flag.

In the meantime, here is the new and improved Greek spearman, which will be included in the next update:


FYI, I never claimed to be good at this.  I do this for fun, after all, and would rather be playing than coding/photoshopping.  This is why I don't mind asking you guys to point out the stuff I missed.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Eschelon

Error: URI=jar:file:/E:/TripleA/triplea_1_3_2_2/triplea_1_3_2_2/bin/triplea.jar!/games/strategy/engine/xml/ Line=1966: The content of element type "attatchmentList" must match "(attatchment)+".


do you have any attachments without anything in them?

all attachments need at least 1 line of stuff in them, like setting production to zero, or movement to zero or 1, etc. etc.
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

Zim Xero
In reply to this post by Eschelon
Game is much improved in your version, Eschelon.  The only change I would make is to break the Numidia - Carthage alliance.  They are way too strong.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 3rd Century BCE Wars - a 270 BC mod

wargamer
In reply to this post by Eschelon
Eschelon wrote
Hey again wargamer!

I think I figured this out.  I'm guessing you are seeing those 'Egyptian' spearmen that the Greeks are building.  I added spearmen to the Greek unit mix a while back, and borrowed an Egyptian Spearman icon in the process.  I then forgot about it, and thus didn't update the icon with the proper flag.
@Eschelon,

Thanks again for the reply, and for looking into this matter.  Looks like you are right about what was going on, i.e. just the wrong icon image being used.  I thought I had previously checked by moving an Egyptian unit into a Greek occupied territory to test this, but guess I hadn't, because I did just now test this and, indeed, combat occurs.

Looking forward to trying out your new version  2.
12