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
|

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

wargamer
Zim Xero wrote
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.

@Zim Xero,

This alliance may be too powerful -- both on account of them being the only players with elephants and their relatively safe positions on the map -- however, if they weren't allied, Carthage would likely very quickly capture the Numidian capitol in a few turns and then become even more formidable.   Even if Carthage doesn't go for taking out Numidia right away, Numidia will be hard pressed to build up an empire while fending of even nominal forays by Carthage.  But I acknowledge that even as AI, this alliance always dominates the western half of the map, unless an all-out effort by the German player is directed immediately against the Carthaginian capitol.
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,

Just downloaded the new version of 3rdCentury BCE Wars, and it doesn't work.  After choosing it and setting up the players (human and AI), and then clicking the "Play button, I just get a new version of the same gray game set-up screen again, i.e. with options for Choose Game/Load Saved Game/Game Options and choosing player types.  This occurs whether choosing ver 1.0 or 2.0.  I moved the old, original version of the game/map out, so that isn't the problem.
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 comments guys!

I have a new version almost ready to go, but unfortunately under 1.3.2.2 I'm still having the 'game can't count units' problem I had before.  Essentially, I have triggers that look to see if a player has 3 or more Warlords, but unless those 3 warlords are stacked together the game allows additional warlords to still be built.  If all 3 warlords are in the same territory, then the trigger fires.  I've tried both directpresence and alliedpresence, to no avail.  Renaming the Warlords Huey Dewey and Louie and having triggers that look for each of them is the workaround I'm considering at the moment.

I've noticed that Dynamix Rome likes to focus on Greece and Macedonia, instead of Carthage and Numidia.  I'm thinking this is the key to better balancing the western half of the map, and have a thought or two on that which I'll play around with.  Also, I may have made Paraetonium a little too strong when I adjusted the starting units there, as I'm noticing Numidia is now focusing amost all of it's attenion on Rome.  I'll scale things back a bit there and see if I can get Numidia focusing on Egypt a little sooner.

A quick solution would be to break the land bridge I made between Greece and Southern Italy, but I want to try something else first.

I've also noticed that the Seleucids are getting waxed fairly regularly under AI play.  I'm playtesting an adjustment to their starting units now.

More two hit units are still on my to do list, in a future version.  Right now I'm focused on the Warlords situation.

I have verified that victory conditions are working, at least for Greece.  I restart most games before an empire is able to control 10 VC locations, so I haven't seen if Macedonia, the Seleucids, or Parthia get the victory message (although they have the same coding as Greece so I don't see why not).  Also, I haven't taken the 3 alliances up to 15 VCs as of yet.  In retrospect, it occurs to me that with 20 VCs on the map, this requires said alliances to control 75% of the VC locations, which might be a little excessive as the game is pretty much a steamroller by that time.

Finally, I'm not sure why the game isn't starting for you wargamer.  I do know that if you make changes to the zip file while the game is running this causes problems, but I'm guessing that you closed and restarted the program already.  I'll probably have a new version up in the next day or so with all the changes incorporated, so let me know if you still see a problem with the next update when you install it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
OK guys!

I went another way with the Warlords for now.  A warlord appears on turn 3, 5, 7, 10, and every 4th turn thereafter.  Note that if you have three undamaged warlords stacked together on a turn when a Warlord is scheduled to appear, you will not get a new Warlord...  I'll fully implement the 'rule of 3' later.

I've also made some tweaks to the initial setup.  Also, Ithica is now its own territory (on both maps), which acts as a buffer between Greece and Italy.  Numidia now has two capitals, which changes where Dynamix deploys and moves units (watch out Egypt!).  Dynamix Rome is now heading north a little sooner...

I've watched Greece wax Macedonia in three straight games, so I'll be looking at tweaking the Macedonia situation in the next update.  I've noticed that my minor tweaks of the Seleucids seemed to have helped, as they are now sticking around for a while.  In fact, that side of the map seems to do a lot of territory trading, with Macedonia being the only player that isn't staying competitive.  

I've also discovered that playing Germania but leaving the Scythians under AI control seems to end badly for Germania.  The Scythians need to make a beeline towards Germania, so that they can distract the Romans once they boil out of Italy.  I've made some tweaks for Germania, and have gummed up the works a bit for Rome to slow them down an extra turn or two before they come into contact with Germania. I've been mindful to not make the defending neutrals too strong here, hence convincing the Roman AI to go East immediately through Ithica instead, but I think more needs to be done.  Feedback on this is welcome.

Updated unit icons are also included in this release.

The 'old' D6/lite version is now called Basic, the D12/full version is now called 2.0/Deluxe in the scenario selector.
Deluxe map version: 2.0.0.1
Basic map version: 1.0.0.1.

Again, I recommend using 1.3.2.2 stable for this map.  1.4.0.0 and 1.5.0.0 lock up on the first AI turn on my computer, YMMV.

Once I get a bit more feedback, I'll submit this to the map repository (probably in the next week or so).

Here's the new zip:
3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip

Feedback is of course very much appreciated!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

wargamer
@Eschelon

This update for version 2 does work for me, i.e. I'm not having the start screen re-appear over and over, and the javascript error window no longer pops up when I start the program.  I'll give it a try now.

Thanks for all your work on this.
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
Just played the new ver. 2 as Carthage vs. AI (dynamix) for all other parties.  Noticed that Parthia does better than in ver. 1, as do Carthage and Numidia.  The latter I attribute to the fact that elephants are far too cheap.  I noticed that all the other units have at least doubled in price, but elephants have only gone up by 50%.  Given that elephants have two hits and are 8/7/1, I'd say make them cost at least 30; given that they support two units, the cost should probably be even higher, perhaps 32.

I do like the increased unit costs; it makes for lower unit proliferation.  Limiting the number of units to be placed in a territory to half (rounded up) of the PU value is a good idea too, and gives increased need to build towns.  Also like how forts and walls give support.

Not sure about the warlords.  Having them and an overlord early on makes it easier for early conquests, but I'm not sure how wellthe AI handles them (partly because I wasn't careful enough observing).  As a player, I made sure never to triple of warlords, in order to receive a new one every fourth turn.  I am not sure the AI players does this.  I also saw the AI using them rather prodigally as plain light cavalry for taking territory two spaces away and as screening units.  Understand that this is an AI issue, but then having these units around makes them more effective for the human players, thereby weakening the AI play.

Also have a question on the archer support as well as that of other units.  Is this only on offense or defense as well?  Given that walls and forts provide support, I assume it is for defense as well, but not sure with conventional (moving) units that provide support.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
Thanks again for the feedback!

Archers provide both offensive and defensive support to allied units.  Note that walls and mounted units provide the same type of bonus, so the bonus doesn't stack when both are present, although of course the number of units supported does.  My logic on this is that if you are hiding behind a wall, cavalry won't be of much help.

The new Warelephant buy cost was based on a formula I came up with which I use for all units, but I certainly can increase the cost for them in the next build.

I tried including a buy cost for Warlords (in the background) to convince the AI that they are valued units not to be tossed away lightly, but that didn't seem to have any effect.  Once the rule of three is fully implemented, this will help on the AI front a bit as they will just recycle the ones they tossed away.  Technically humans could do this too, but I'm guessing humans will be more frugal about losing warlords, as then they have to wait for the new ones to be depoloyed and moved to the front lines.

Mainly, this build is about testing the new concepts and such, and to start work on balancing things based on additional feedback.  I personally like the fact that the AI seems to build both archers and cavalry, incidentally putting the support bonuses to use, and as a player it does influence my build strategy.  Rome seems more competitive in this build, and since the Rome AI likes to build siege equipment this means it puts the siege bonus to use often, along with the missile, mounted, and command bonuses.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
New Deluxe version: 2.0.1.1

Download here:

3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip

Changelog:
(it's about bloody time I started one of these, need to remember to include one with the next upload)

Basic version is unchanged.

Deluxe version changes:

- Warelephants have increased in price to 29.  Also, Numidia and Carthage are each limited to 6 Warelephants: you will get a 'not allowed' message if you attempt to build more than the allowed total, and will be allowed to choose your builds again.

- Barbarians now have 2 hits(!).  They are also more pricey (16).  The Germanic Tribes and Scythia are each allowed a maximum of 6 (similar to Warelephants, above).
Barbarian Barbarian_hit

- Chariots also now have 2 hits(!).  Cost is 15, limit is 6, as above
Chariot_hit

- Egypt now has Cavalry.
Egyptian Cavalry

- Phalanx - A new unit used by Carthage, Greek City States, Macedonia, Seleucia, and Parthia.  2 hits, Att 5 Def 6 Mov 1 Cost 15, classified as a Foot unit.  Limit 6, as above.
Note that these may only be built in specific territories - Carthago, Athens, Thessalonica, Antioch, and Persepolis.
Phalanx Phalanx_Hit

- The Romans are allowed to purchase Warlords.  Cost is 20, limit is 6.  Note that they can still get free Warlords on top of the 6 limit, but they may not buy any more if they've hit the limit of 6.

- Note that stacking 3 undamaged Warlords together still nixes your free Warlord if one is otherwise available that turn.  I haven't rewritten the triggers to fully implement the Rule of Three yet (I'll tackle this in a future update).

- Numidia doesn't get any additional love (2 hit units) this time around.  They are limited to 6 Warelephants, as is Carthage.  I felt this was best for game balance, feedback is welcome.

- Help file has been updated.  There were a few incorrect values, and the above changes are explained in the help file.

- The Alliances (African, Roman, Germanic) now only need 14 VC locations to win (not 15).  Also, let me know if the total victory trigger for these guys is working correctly for ya... the four loner Empires still only need 10 VC's to win, and I've seen the total victory trigger fire for most of them.

- Several tweaks to the starting setups and Neutral setups.  Note that since Barbarians now have 2 hits, some Neutral territories are a little tougher to crack now...

-You will note that some of the costs for the 2 hit units I've introduced are a little low.  This was done deliberately, and as they are limited to 6, this should not present a problem.  I may drop the cost for Warelephants a bit in future versions if game balancing requires this, but for now the higher cost should help balance the strength of the African alliance a bit.



This still isn't quite ready for the map repository, btw... still looking for feedback and some coding still needs to be done.  I'll submit it when I feel it is ready, which should be in the next couple of weeks hopefully.

That's all I can think of for now.  As always, feedback is welcome!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

wargamer
@Eschelon,

You're on a roll here with updates.  Kudos.  I've played a couple of games now of version 2.0, one as Carthage and one as Macedonia.  I like the Ithaca barrier; however, it might be a wee bit too strong, as I haven't seen Rome try to break through it to march on Greece.  I like how Numidia and Egypt mix it up more.

I notice one idiosyncrasy -- at least I think it is one:  When playing Carthage, new Warlords pop onto Corduba at the beginning of the turn and then take a turn to move; whereas the Macedonian player gets to choose where to place new warlords and they appear in the normal placement portion of the turn.  The big difference is that Carthage is forced to start all warlords in Corduba whereas Macedonia can place them in any city.  Haven't looked carefully at how the other AI countries place theirs.

A couple of tentative thoughts on the version 2.0.1.1 unit changes:  I'd perhaps up the max number of 2-hit units a bit -- perhaps to 10 or 12, perhaps including a trigger at some turn, say around turn 15 (or 20) or there abouts to jump from 6 to 12 max.  This is because unit stacks grow in the later stages of the game, so it only seems reasonable to have  a few more of such units to defray losses; otherwise they lose their tactical worth.  The higher prices will also help to limit their number.  I like that you give the other players 2-hit units (and I like the image/icon for the phalanx unit), although historically speaking, the Parthians didn't have Phalanx troops; perhaps allowing them the horse archers is enough of a unit advantage, so that they don't need phalanx units.  Another possibility, for historical purposes, would be to make two classes of cataphracts for Parthia, with 2-hit cataphracts representing The Immortals, essentially the imperial guard of the Persian/Parthian forces, and limiting their number too.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
Thanks for the additional feedback wargamer!

The Carthage warlord thing was an attempt to see if I could get the rule of three trigger to work, and quite frankly I forgot about it.  Numidia also currently has a Cirta placement restriction, but you may not have noticed that.  I'll change it back in the next build.

The Parthian situation is an interesting one.  With their fast cavalry, they are already pretty powerful, and I wasn't really comfortable giving them two hit cavalry.  Also, that's what Warlords are for.  I gave them the phalanx more for completeness than anything, to allow them to remain competitive without ubering them.

Reading up on the Parthian infantry situation, their focus was more on cavalry, and their infantry would best be considered light when compared against the other empires heavy infantry of the day.    Hence, the Immortals were on their way out in the 3rd Century BC, but were still a factor.  Of course, since the Immortals weren't packing around all of that extra weight, and being the best of the best also helped offset this deficiency to a degree, this is why they were still quite effective.  The comment that caught my eye, though was that in order to maintain their 10,000 strength, soldiers from other units were immediately recruited into their ranks on the battlefield to replace losses.  So in this regard, at least as far as numbers were concerned, it would make sense to make these a two hit unit.

Once I arrive at their combat values, I'll change out the Phalanx for the Immortals in the next build.

I've seen Rome blast through the 'Ithica Wall' on at least one occasion in AI play earlier in the game, and a few times later in the game, so for now it's doing what I designed it to.  I'll run a few more tests and adjust it accordingly.

Still not happy that the AI isn't building any walls or forts; which is more evidence that both Moore and Dynamix don't look at isInfrastructure builds.  I could change them back to 'regular' units, but then they could only be deployed at city locations, which I guess isn't all that bad...

Barbarian

I have noticed that the Germanic Tribes seem to do well in the early game under AI play, and the two hit Barbarians definitely help, but they will generally fall under a concentrated assault by either Rome or Carthage.  When I play the Tribes against Carthage and Rome AI's, I look to open the door between the two to convince both AI players that they need to deal with their arch rival first, but this situation can deteriorate pretty quickly depending on where Rome is concentrating their forces.  It'd be nice if the Germanic Tribes had a few more territories between them and the Mediterranean for buffering, but I have no intentions of reworking this map.  I have an entirely different map which addresses this which I will release at some time in the coming months, assuming I can figure out how to speed up AI play on said map without removing a few empires...

There may be a way trigger wise that I can use to increase the 'limit of 6' rule in the late game, I'll look into that.

Again, thanks for the feedback!  More comments welcome!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

wargamer
@Eschelon,

As you're still welcoming it, here's another two-bits from me (FTR, I'm still playing ver. 2.0):

I've played a few more games, primarily as Seleucid, against AI (dynamix).  I've notice a couple of times that Rome does, indeed, break through Ithaca, so I think the initial neutral Ithaca force contingent is, in fact, fairly well balanced.

The Seleucid position can be a tenuous one: it an be up against 5 states fairly early in the game; in that way it is a good, challenging one to play.  It is helpful that Numidia has more of a proclivity to go after Egypt now, as it helps to relieve some of the pressure off the Seleucid Empire.

I REALLY, REALLY like the combat support rules now.  It's a good way for accounting for combined arms attacks.  Now making a well-balanced army of foot, cavalry, archers and leaders pays.  I also just like the idea of getting combat bonuses; it makes one feel like one is getting something for nothing.  It is also nice in that the different force compositions of various neutral territories vary a bit more; before there wasn't any difference between barbarians and swordsmen, or axe men and cavalry as the neutrals were always on the defense.  I hope that more mod developers would consider more extended combat support, akin to what you have implemented, in order to encourage realistic force compositions.

Regarding the best -- really the only viable -- Germania (BTW, from its location and the time frame, it would make more sense to call it Gaul, but that's just a historical quibble) strategy, I still think going straight away against Carthage in the Iberian peninsula and keeping a neutral buffer between Germania and Rome is best; if a opening is made through neutrals, Rome will begin moving large forces north, and tend to go for Namnetes before Corduba.  

I know nothing of the AI engine details; however, is it possible to set a particular territory as an objective?  That would be a useful AI feature (possibly a toggle-able/chooseable one) if not already available.  I realize that this is outside of the purview of your mod development, but just wanted to throw it out there for the record, in the context of this particular mod (I realize it would be a more germane comment in an AI thread).  Such a feature would certainly help Germania's  AI chances.

As the Carthage player, I do like opening up a passage for Rome, because it does put additional pressure on Germania and relieve the pressure against Carthage and Numidian forces trying to invade Italy's toe.

Regarding forts and walls, it doesn't really surprise me that the AI doesn't produce them.  I know I never do as static units aren't too useful given that expansion is the name of the game, so anywhere that such units are placed will generally no longer be on the front lines a few turns on.  The only other time to make them is during desperate times, and then one is likely already doomed anyway.  They do add some tactical flavor the initial neutral set-ups, so I wouldn't get rid of them.  IF there were unit maximum quotas, then defenses would make more sense to purchase when it was no longer possible to buy more mobile units.  As a historical example, the Roman Empire relied more and more on them as it taxed its manpower resources, and so couldn't field mobile forces on all fronts.  Making them slightly cheaper would be another way to encourage buying them; the AI seems happy enough to purchase cities, so it doesn't seem that it is just a matter of being bearish on infrastructure.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
Hey again Wargamer!

Regarding objectives: I don't think the AI sees these (essentially as far as I can tell it just looks for capitals to wipe out), so I'm not sure they'd be worth the effort in single player play.  

In online multiplayer play, objectives are certainly a possibility, and I'm sure this map would work fine under 1.5.0.0 unstable if everyone was human.  Maybe at some point in the future I could implement these, although I have another map which I'd rather be working on for that purpose...

When I originally added the Germanic Tribes, I had them based out of Castra Regina, hence me calling them Germanic Tribes instead of Gaul.  That positon proved too indefensible, so I moved their capital to the west insead.  Gaul makes sense given their current position on the map, though, so maybe I'll change this in a future version (there are a lot of associated tags and such, and I'd rather be working on game balance at the moment).

I had a thought about forts and walls, for those looking to use the Moore AI on this map.  I could have two versions of this unit, one that is a normal build and one that is an infrastructure build (essentially, Wall 1 built by factory, Wall 2 built anywhere).  This way, the Moore AI might choose them as options to reinforce city positions.  I know that under Moore I've had to bust up several Roman forts on the old 270 BC map due to Moore reinforcing Roma and such.

Mountain Pass

I've been debating adding a terrain unit, Mountains, to put in an arc at the top of the boot of Italy as well as across the top of Spain, and perhaps at Thermopylae as well.  Technically there is a lot of mountain craziness going on in Turkey,he Middle east and other areas as well, but my other map covers that topic in a much better fashion.  Said Ancient Empires map is much larger, and the 270 BC map plays a lot faster and his hence more suitable for shorter games, so I see some value in having 3rd Century BCE Wars in the map mix alongside Ancient Empires..

My main concern r.e. a Mountain bonus is that it appears I can only add a bonus under 1.3.2.2, but not a subtractive penalty.  This could force a couple of units (notably Warelephants) over 12 on their combat values if the right unit mix is in place, which bumps them off of the combat display.  Of course, I could simply not give a terrain bonus to units over a certain combat strength to avoid going over 12, but that seems to partially defeat the purpose of having a terrain bonus in the first place.

I've never noticed Dynamix building Roman forts, but then it's been a while since I played the Vanilla 270 BC with Dynamix.

As for the Neutrals, except for the support bonus that Walls provide, I've found that using Barbarians as 'human walls' works just as well.  My main issue is that if the AI isn't building them, this gives a player an advantage of sorts over the AI, one that I've exploited from time to time to stave off counterattacks in my own play.  I've thought about automatically introducing one wall every turn into the unit mix for free, as the AI would at least use them, but this seems like trying to force a behavior rather than giving the AI flexibility.

We are starting to see more combat bonuses (air support, for example) on other maps, and I am glad that the feature is now a part of TripleA.  My biggest gripe was how archers were implemented on the original map, and I think my implementation here makes them more versatile, but not overpowering.  I now agonize often over choosing cavalry versus archers.  Cavalry usually wins out, but only if I'm trying to grab a lot of territory, otherwise I love the 6 defense plus support bonus which archers provide when being attacked.  

So I think I've accomplished my goal of making players think a little harder about their purchases.
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
Double post
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
OK, new version for everyone to try.  This is an interim build.

3rd Century BCE Wars 2.0 Version 2.0.1.2


3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip

Changelog:

-Immortals have been added to the Parthians (replacing Parthian Phalanx).  
Attack 5  Defense 5  2 Hits  Move 1  Cost 14
Provides +1 Missile support to 1 Unit, may receive support bonuses for all other support types except Missile.
(BTW: This was supposed to be +1 support to 2 units, but I missed this before release.  Already corrected for next update)




-Mountain passes have been added (Pyrenees, Alps, Thermopylae, Caucasus).  These provide a +2 bonus to the defense strength of Foot and Command units (currently set at 999 units).

Mountain Pass

-Placement restrictions for Numidian and Carthaginian Warlords are lifted, now may be placed in any owned city.

- There are now two types of forts and walls.  
Regular walls and forts can be placed anywhere (limit 1 per territory per turn).  
CityFort/CityWall which may be placed in a similar manner to other builds.  
Purchase prices have been reduced to 4 for Walls/CityWalls and 10 for Forts/CityForts.

- Helpfile has been mostly updated to reflect these changes (excluding the city walls and forts note mentioned above).

That's it for now.  I'm looking for feedback, especially about the mountain passes, since these can dramatically affect map balance.  Since Terrain modifiers were introduced after 1.3.2.2, I had to make this addition 1.3.2.2 compliant for now, due to the A.I. issues under the unstable builds.

The Warlords and other limited unit availability issues that I'd still like to 'fix' won't be done for a bit.  I'm distracted with other things at the moment, so these will have to wait.  In the meantime, unit mixes and initial setup balance is something I'm always interested in hearing about.  Enjoy!

 
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've been putting out the updated versions fast and furiously.  I've still just been playing 2.0, but now I'll try out 2.0.1.2.

FTR, I did, for the first time, find a need to build forts -- at Gades for the Germans, while the they cleared out the Iberian peninsula and held off the remnants of the Carthaginian army coming from N. Africa.

I found another bug related to the placement of Carthaginian and Numidian Warlords:  Even after their capitols are captured -- and occupied by conquering troops, no less -- warlords still get placed on Corduba and Cirta.  You mentioned that the prior bug I mentioned regarding the idiosyncrasies of the the placements of C's and N's Warlords was one you were aware of and have since taken care of.  This new bug was probably taken care of too in that fix, but did want to bring it to your attention in case it was not; as I haven't yet tried the newer versions, I don't know if this is the case.

One other idiosyncrasy that I've noticed: It is possible to place three units in Alesia and Tanais, rather than the two that one would expect, given its PU value (four, which is what it yields).  I'm guessing that this was to give Germania and Scythia a reasonable factory base at the start.

With regard to initial placements, I think it was a good idea to increase the initial neutral contingent in Tarnetum from just one unit to four.  Previously it was too easy to get, especially for a 6 PU territory.  On a related note, I wonder if placing only one neutral is enough in Emesa; makes it too easy to take, although it does seem that Seleucid might need a break at the beginning because it is surrounded by foes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
Hey Wargamer!

From the helpfile:
Note that the cities in Tanais and Alesia (PU of 4) are exceptions, and produce up to 3 units each.


This was done to help the Scythians and Germanic Tribes out, so they could each place up to six units per turn at the game start.  

The next step may be to be bump the PU of those territories to 5, but I'm still evaluating how the game balance plays out.  The Scythians seem to already be doing rather well in AI play, and I'm currently evaluating how the addition of mountain passes is influencing the Germanic Tribes' defensive position.  Note that both of these empires are supposed to be challenging to play in the first place, but shouldn't be pushovers.

There may be other territories which have placement limit anomolies, which I'm fixing as I find them.  the latest I discovered was Jerusalem, which under 2.0.1.2 is set at 2 (should be 4).  If you notice any others, let me know and I'll take care of them appropriately.

As for the Auto Warlord placement, that's a 'feature', not a bug.  If you assign a direct placement of a unit, it will appear in the territory regardless of ownership, unless you code the placement trigger to look for ownership in advance.  This allows you to simulate rebel forces rising up, by having units appear in enemy territory, which they have to be prepared for or otherwise deal with.

That being said, you should not see said Warlords being autoplaced in the 2.0.1.2 version.   For clarity, the previous version (with Phalanxes and such) should show up as 2.0.1.1 under scenario selection.  I'll start adding the version number to the helpfile as well to make this more clear in the future.

And yes, the lone barbarian in Emesia was deliberate, to give the Seleucids an easy target to go for on turn one.  I've seen the AI pass it up a few times on turn one, though, which seems a little silly as it looks like a no brainer to me.  There are a few similarly weak territories I've scattered across the map near starting locations and such, to encourage early growth.

Tarentum was of course adjusted to delay the opening of the Roman eastern front a bit.  Initially, I left it weak to help Rome boost it's early income a bit, but since have decided that it didn't need the easy win, or to feel the need to take on Greece and Macedonia as early, hence giving Carthage an advantage.

The Horselords of Sarai(tm) reside in a mountain pass, but as Mounted units do not qualify for the mountainpass terrain bonus, their defensive position hasn't really changed any, it just looks scarier than it is (had me fooled for a sec too).  However, this bonus does also apply to Missile and Siege units, so I've just now changed the helpfile to show this (in 2.0.1.3), as it only shows Foot and Command currently.

You may have noticed that in 2.0.1.2 I have two mountainpasses in territories where they appear.  I failed to change a number when I borrowed a tag.  This will have no noticable effect on gameplay, but I fixed it in the next release.

Thanks again!  I definitely appreciate the feedback guys!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
OK, new version time!

3rd Century BCE Wars Version 2.0.1.3

3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip

Changelog:


-Major change: Empires no longer lose money if all of their Victory Cities/Capitals are captured(!!!) 
They will continue to fight on to the bitter end, and will build new cities and units in other territories they own as funding allows!  
Of course, since victory is determined by the number of Victory Cities you control, victory goals remain unchanged.

- Note that placement of certain units is restricted to specific territories:
Chariots - Alexandria, Memphis
Hypaspist - Byzantium, Thessalonica
Immortals - Persepolis, Susa
Phalanx - Carthago, Athens, Thessalonica, Antioch
Spartan Hoplites - Sparta
War Elephants - Carthago, Corduba, Cirta, Leptis Magna

- A City that is placed in Salonae now produces up to 2 units (used to be capped at 4).

-A City that is placed in Jerusalem now produces up to 4 units (used to be capped at 2)

-Warlords are no longer autoplaced in Corduba if Corduba falls (2.0.1.2 change, but wasn't in the changelog).  Also note that Carthage now retains it's monies and income from other territories if Corduba falls (see above).

-New Warlords are only supposed to appear as scheduled if an empire owns at least one city on the map.  Currently, only Numidia displays this behavior due to me being in a hurry, rest of empires have been fixed in the next release (2.0.1.4)

-Immortals now provide Missile support to 2 units, as originally intended.

-Now only a single Mountainpass 'unit' is placed in mountain territories, 2 Mountainpasses were being placed before.

-Note that the total number of Citywalls and Cityforts built in a city location is not capped, while the combined number of Walls and Forts allowed in any territory is limited to 12.

-Some adjustments have been made to the order in which units appear, in the production window of each empire.

-Map version number now included in Game Notes/Helpfile.  Current changes are reflected in the Game Notes/Helpfile.



As always, feedback is appreciated.  Note that this might be the build that gets submitted to the map repository, as I'm now focused on other things, and a version needs to be submitted at some point...

BTW, I'm thinking about a 'raid the treasury' trigger, to offset the fact that you no longer get the opponent's treasury when you sack his last capital, for a future build.  The current change became necessary because of the need to keep the Carthage AI on track, and besides, I like the idea of establishing a new base of operations and fighting on on if you lose your capital...

Edit: Spoiler for 2.0.1.4
   

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 Eschelon
Quick update:

In the next build, I have changed the way Warlords and Overlords are allocated.  The first 3 are still received on turns 3, 5, and 7.  Starting on turn 10, players may purchase warlords if they have less than 3 on the map, but are still limited to 3 total.  In addition, I've added Overlords to the purchase cue as well, so you can buy a new overlord if you lose your original.

Current costs:
20 Warlord/Roman Warlord
25 Overlord.

Roman Warlords currently have the same stats as regular warlords, but I'm thinking of lowering them slightly to differentiate them.  Rome may have up to 6 Roman Warlords in addition to 3 regular Warlords and 1 Overlord, BTW.

This solution seems to work well enough on the map, although I did see Scythia end up with 6 warlords on the map at one point (all other players only had 3 or less).  Certainly player builds are now limited to 3 (regardless of whether they are stacked or not), so I'm guessing that was a glitch.

The Germanic Tribes have proven to be quite competitive in the latest builds.  Carthage takes a bit to get it's act together for some reason, despite me lowering some neutral unit counts around Corduba slightly, and I've seen the Germanic Tribes capture Corduba a few times now, especially if Rome chooses to go after Greece and Macedonia.

In other news, I actually saw the Germanic Tribes and Scythia purchase a wall under Moore 'n Able under 1.5.0.1(!).  This was a regular wall, not a citywall, btw, so apparently Moore will build isInfrastructure walls.

Unfortunately, Dynamix under 1.5.0.1 is still eventually locking up on the build phase of a random player on my machine, despite being rock stable under 1.3.2.2, so I can't recommend this map for the new build if you want to use the Dynamix AI.  It seems to work fine with Moore and EZfodder with the new build, though,although those AI's my not provide the same challenge that Dynamix does.

I'd appreciate feedback from others that choose to try this map with Dynamix and/or other AI's under the new build.

Edit: Here's my latest alpha build of 2.0.1.4, without any changes to the Roman Warlords as of yet:

3rdCentury_BCE_Wars.zip

I have one more changed planned (new stats for the 'lesser' Roman Warlords), but this may be where I leave things for now.  Just for fun, I may allow the lesser Warlords to qualify for support from the Full Warlords/Overlord.  

It's warmer outside now and R.L. becons... I'll probably submit the 'final' version to the repository later this week, and of course welcome any feedback in the meantime!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Eschelon
This post was updated on .
I'll be submitting the next build of this to the map repository, after the weekend.  I'll also start a new thread that will detail the various units and such when I submit the build, so that I can include a link to the thread in the game notes.

The only change that is in the next build are the Roman Warlord stats (Attack 5, Defense 5, Move 2, 2 hits, Support 3 units, may receive support from Warlords and Overlords), and Warlords now support up to 6 units (used to be 4).

Verqyn did some work on Dynamix so that it wouldn't get stuck in infinite loops, but said work has bypassed some features of this map; specifically, the max units per player thing, Dynamix won't build these units under 1.5.0.1, from what he posted.  So, I still recommend 1.3.2.2 with Dynamix so that the AI plays as originally intended, although it should now work with Dynamix (with limitations/some units unavailable to Dynamix) under the next TripleA build.  

Hopefully we have a new AI guy that comes along soon whom is chomping at the bit to pick up where Wisconsin left off.  It'd be nice if Dynamix eventually had a naval component as well.

I've now played all empires multiple times, and I can say that under the latest build it is possible to win with all of them, although some may be more challenging than others.  The map is more or less balanced, and I've seen each AI do well at one time or another.  Typical games last 30-40 turns, which can take a few hours to play.

Any last minute feedback before I submit this map is of course welcome!
12