Conquest of the World!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
83 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
This post was updated on .
New map with risk like rules. Latest beta version can be downloaded at:

http://github.com/triplea-maps/Conquest_of_the_World/releases/latest
"Conquest_of_the_World.zip"


TODO:
- new map:
  - original territory connections
  - map graphics
- determine how to replace card concept
- non combat rules, determine what they should be for moving
- disallow moving units when they are the only unit in a territory
- streamline territory selection phase:
  - add "ctrl+d" as a hotkey for the done button
  - fix select/deselect territory bug of RandomPlaceDelegate
  - remove the select units button and select territory button from RandomPlaceDelegate
- go through background post and pull out more of the todo items
- create game notes with rule set
- scale the unit images

DONE:
- unit images
- initial game XML that gets very close to the target game
- territory selection update
- game XML and map, so you can play the game completely with tripleA combat and movement rules

Background post: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Risk-Resurgence-td7589417i40.html#a7589753
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

The Red Baron
Sounds good. Continuing on what I said in the last thread, the map is a bit zoomed in, IMO. I think players would like it better if we zoomed out the map quite a bit and redid Cernel's base tiles or used my base tiles. The territories are too large, so Cernel made the unit images bigger to compensate.

Now in most cases, I would be an advocate for large territories, but here, I don't see the need. Risk makes use of one type of "unit": an army. Therefore, I could see maybe making units 64x64 (though still unnecessary in my mind), but the territories should be small so players and see the whole map at once, like every other electronic Risk game.

The map and relief are very, very nice, and I commend your efforts. I just have some constructive criticism  The may look nice on 4k monitors, but I don't think most of us have those...On my laptop it is so zoomed, it should be giving me traffic information as well

Maybe someday TripleA will support making different graphics for different screen sizes.

Here is an earlier discussion on this concept: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Maximum-map-resolution-for-new-map-tp7581280.html
"The aggressive spirit, the offensive, is the chief thing everywhere in war, and the air is no exception." - Manfred von Richthofen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

crazy_german
This post was updated on .
I think we could actually get battles to simulate Risk probability with the current engine. We could get the average result of a single round of combat to match the average result of a round of Risk combat.

Attacker rolls a maximum of 3 dice
Defender rolls of a maximum of 2 dice (both doable already using support attachments)
Set dice sides = 11
Armies attack on 4, defend on 5

Attacker on average inflicts 1.08 casualties per round, defender on average does 0.92 to attacker. The same odds as a 3 vs 2 round of combat in Risk. It isn't perfect by any means, but it ought to be a decent temporary substitute and it is the same on average. I only considered 3 attacking 2, we might be able to tweak it to improve other situations. Here is the website I used to get some data on this http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/november22011/ 
The Red Baron wrote
Maybe someday TripleA will support making different graphics for different screen sizes.
I believe that TripleA is intentionally designed so that two players can have completely different visuals but play the same game anyways. In order to both play all two players need is the same XML, the relief tiles can be different (this is why we can play the same game with different map skins). I don't see why this wouldn't work for base tiles either. So the engine would already support making a smaller or larger version of any map.

With that said, are their any benefits to making the conquest map that large? I feel like it just burdens my computer (I usually play on a laptop). I remember one thing I didn't  like about TripleA when I came from playing board games was the inability to see the entire map at a glance, and a big part of this project would be attracting more players.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
We need a new map - even if we get permissions for the current image, the lawyer speak means we cannot use the same territory connections that other games use.

My first thought would be to take one of the current maps, big world perhaps, merge territories together and draw lines for continents.

Otherwise if we want to use the same map, we would need a pretty decent variation. Like flip Africa and S. America in terms of territory counts/connections, or similar for Australia and south america.

Why was the map so large? 4k monitors i think.

In general, the map being smaller is good, and it fitting easily on a screen of any size is good too.  The discussion of the engine supporting different skins for different map resolutions is good but off topic here (though I do support it, and other things like having zoom be per map rather than global).

So we need to remake the map anyways..


Dice and combat system
@crazy_german, would you mind posting a xml/game properties snippet that would allow for the 3 vs 2? There are some code updates that are required to the movement logic, so I wouldn't try too much harder to hack the map XML to accomplish the rule changes.

Otherwise I've begun the process of looking at code updates to add support for Conquest combat movement rules. There are certainly some required, we can't map hack our way around it ;)


New Item: Alternatives to Cards
We can't have cards. Period.

But, we can do something else!
For example, instead of getting a card we hand out territory tokens. Then you can trade in some number of territory tokens to spin slots, perhaps at increasing cost of tokens with greater chance for a higher payout. Or perhaps for every 3 tokens you get a dice rolls worth of additional armies.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

Cernel
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Conquest of the World 0.2 is out. Please, update it on Github.

Main changes from 0.1.1 to 0.2:

Changed the random place to be on as default.

Changed the combat system as follow:
- The defender fires before the attacker.
- Casualties are removed instantly, with no fireback.
- You can roll no more dice than the total number of enemy units, at any given time.


This combat system is meant to partially loosely emulate the Risk system (both as variability and as average results), also not allowing draws, based on advanced elements of the regular TripleA system, and partially also represent the realistic fact that you should not be able to attack with all your units, when you vastly outnumber your opponent, but part of your force has to act as tactical reserve (so, overhelmed defending forces have some more chances to make a stand, despite the fact that the attacker has still the advantage, even on a 1:1 basis).
This means that, as the attacker, you have to attack with a number of units from one to two times the number of defending units, if you want to maximize your attack power on the first battle round. Averagely, you would need one third more attacking unit than defending units, to maximize your first round attack power (rolling as many dice as you can).
Overall, this system gives result not too far away from the Risk battle system (but not that close either: it is not a serious approssimation), but with a consistently bigger advantage for the attacker, especially on small numbers. Actually, now only 1 attacking unit against only 1 defending unit would be exactly 50% win and 50% lose (in Risk, instead, the attacker would be disadvantaged, here). Similarly to the Risk combat system, attack gets better increasing the number of units; for example, 10 units against 10 units would be about 59% win for the attacker (using the Risk combat sistem, a 10 vs 10 battle would be only 57% win for the attacker, instead).

At red baron:

On my laptop it is so zoomed, it should be giving me traffic information as well

LOL
I believe all new maps should be primarily devised for UHD monitors. Anyway, I've been surprised noticing how good this map looks even at 25% zoom, actually. The only serious issue for me is the bad handling of 256 pixels wide units by the battle window.

At crazy german:

Nice find. That would indeed give average results very close to Risk (exactly the same when 3 vs 2, and very close also in the other cases), but there are 3 main issues:
1) The variability this way would be much lower, and one main element of Risk is the risk! In Risk, after all, you have a good 2% chance that your 8 attacking armies get trashed by 2 defending ones!
2) It would allow draws happening, with both sides eliminating each other, and not so uncommonly. In a 1 vs 1 battle, you would have a 26% probability of draw. Sure, you can make a set of triggers giving back the defender 1 unit in case of draw, but I would not use such sets of triggers in such a classic basic map. Also, in this case better giving a little more advantage to the attacker, to compensate this bonus; for example going for a 5/12 in attack and 6/12 in defence (would be also more intuitive using a d12, instead of a d11).
3) It would be doable indeed, but not in a clean way. You would need to have an unit in each territory (preferably an invisible one) giving support to 2 allied and 3 enemy units. Truly, such an invisible unit would be really almost invisible, on a map with only 1 unit, because you can make 3 placement total per territory, with the third one being in (0,0) for all territories. Normally, I would be totally favourable to such a solution (doing it with an invisible unit would be close to unnoticeable, as said), but, aside from the fact that you would need adding up the utility unit each time in the battlecalculator, since this is the main referring map of a new "Conquest" system, I'd rather not use any "utility" units in it at all.
I'd rather wait patiently for LaFayette to code the actual stuff, and not spamming the whole map with otherwise useless units in each territory in the meantime.
Also, since anyway you can't exactly replicate the Risk battle system with the current triplea, I would rather approssimate it with easyer to get fractions than 5 or 4/11, possibly only using 6 dicesides as base. I've never seen a 11 sided dice; so that would feel strange to most, I think. For example, I could have have had some better approssimation if using a little less than 3/6 for the attacker (but more than 2/6, of course, so going for an higher diceside), if the defender is 2/6, but preferred to keep it simple and based only on regular 6 diceside.

I think this last 0.2 system I just uploaded is about as good as it can get, with the current engine, keeping it 6 dicesides based, and without using utility units, nor battle-related triggers.

The benefit of the current dimension is that likely noone will find it too small an a UHD monitor. I'm not sure if anyone will ever want to play it at more than 50% on a HD, but you never know. I do know of some crazy people that play Feudal Japan without zooming it, believe it or not.

At both:

I agree that most people (not on 4k) would want to play it zoomed from 30 to 50%, but don't you think that the map looks actually good still when zoomed even at 25%? The units are not terrible, either, and you don't need to distinguish anything but the colours. I think the map looks good and it is very well playable at 25% zoom. I would imagine the only actual issue would be the battle window (but I hope in lafayette), not the map view at all. At any rate, making a zoomed mapskin of this is easy enough. The relief are actually 200% of the original and 128x128 pixels alternative units are already inside the units folder; so all the things for anyone making a 50% mapskin are all already there (I don't really feel the need to do it, because I think the zoom covers the need very well here, but I may do it if Lafayette is unable to get a decent battle window with 256x256 units or doesn't want to get distracted by this issue).

At Lafayette:

First of all, I believe Veqryn should supervise this project. Both to give you directions about how to make changes to the engine (properties, steps or whatever else, and the preferred level of atomization) and to give some insight about how to deal in advance with possible copyright issues (for example, should the map or the rules be different, and to what extent? should we make the map not exactly like the original? would be adding only a connection between Eastern United States and Venezuela good enough?). He did think about adding Risk to TripleA, in the past, after all.

Of course, I mean only relatively to the big picture things engine related. I would not involve him in any discussions about map details, like unit dimension and such.

By the way, the version in Github is still 0.1, while I released 0.1.1 more than a day ago. No matter, anyway, since now 0.2 is out.

Regarding having a secondary mixed regular TripleA and Conquest system, to play with:
First of all, I'm a bit surprised of your willingness at having the option of playing with regular TripleA rules but, ok, that may be actually interesting.
Anyway, the very basic unit stats and rules I kicked in were nothing serious, nor meant to be really playable (the attack would be too much crazy strong, which is expecially much unbalancing against the players going last, in the turn order (with the 0.1 system, I can easily see some last players being reduced to 1 territory only before starting moving)). So, assuming we will keep the ability to play with regular TripleA rules, I've added some AA attacks and some supportattachments to configure a better battle system, at least not too unbalanced, owing to the much limited map structure, and with a Risk feeling. I've kept attack power 3 and defence power 2, to give the traditional Risk advantage to the attack (there represented by 3 dice against 2, in big battles), but limited this advantage by making the defender fire first, removing all casualties with no fireback (another defender's advantage, since it goes first), and limiting attacking with a max number of units equal to the attacked units (normally, another advantage for the defender, since you usually attack with more attacking than defending units).
One of the main reasons for this change is, analogously to Risk, to make sure that no battles can end in draw (mutual destruction) and assure that battles will be bloody ballsy bleeding, with a rather high Risk of seeing many of your attacking troops getting killed, one after the other, even when massively outnumbering your enemy, if dice are bad (here, as the attacker, you averagely always lose more than 66% of the units you kill in attack (like when in regular TripleA an unit has defence 4/6, but with much more variability), while in Risk it would be 50% with 1 defending unit against infinite attackers and more than 80% with both infinite attackers and defenders; so, I think 66% is a good average approssimation).
Of course, this advanced alternative optional TripleA system should at least still be subjected to the "garrison" rule (once it is coded) of always leaving at least 1 unit in each territory, to garrison it, just like the regular one (that should be a separate property, true in the xml and not editable as an option).
This should be particularly something to discuss with Veqryn, if he would be fine with it, as a matter of having a single option turnig a lot of stuff into the new Conquest system at once. Since I assume you will atomize the various features in different properties etc., I guess an option for playing by Conquest or no Conquest rules will require a "isCombatConquest" property (something like the "WW2V2" that override many other atomized things, with their own specific properties) summing up a serie of other atomized properties (because I guess you should switch back to regular TA both the combat and the movement system (except only keeping the limit of always leaving 1 garrison unit, as I said)). It might be better just having two different xml for this, instead of a property, and make sure to atomize everything as much as possible, instead.
In particular, I believe that the garrison rule (obliging you to always leaving 1 unit per territory), should be coded first and be a stand-alone property, also usable in not-Conquest maps and also with multiple units.

Some serious rules change suggestions, other than the Victory 28 territories start turn already adopted, from my part is only (as I've already said) limiting the default number of units you surely receive to 2 (for holding from 1 to 8 territories), instead of 3 (for holding from 1 to 11 territories).

Plus I'd say that Cards should be optional, allowing people to play the game with no Cards, if they want to (for example, I don't like the card system of Risk, and would prefer playing it with no cards).

Cheers!
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
OK. But meanwhile I much suggest substituting the current 0.1 with the new 0.2 in Github anyway. It has inside better units from Frostion, better cursor, etc..

Btw, if same map connection is illegal, then all WW2 maps would be illegal, and if same rules are illegal, then Big World and a lot of maps just using the Revised (or other) rules on a different map would be illegal as well.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
Cernel, I'll throw away all changes I've made to the game XML and apply the latest ones you posted and upload it to github. If you are the only one working on a map, then sending me a copy of the updates is fine. As soon as you are not the only one working on a map, then that process breaks down completely.

Learning some basic git does not require any command line and is not hard. To boot some effort was spent to make it particularly easy:  https://github.com/triplea-maps/_Project/wiki/Git-Map-Tutorial

Alternatively, if you're going to continue making updates to the game XML and *really* don't want to do the git stuff, then make it clear and we can coordinate on updates (albeit in a slightly less automated fashion).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
@all, Cernel response about playing the map at 25% zoom I think is reasonable. Ideally the game engine would be able to dynamically swap out for the best map skin, but until then we do what we can. Chances are good the larger map is not going to have much impact on performance. The MP3 project is likely to help way more than a smaller map ever would. That project would shave about 40MB from the main memory requirement, compared to shaving a meg or two from a smaller map, the smaller map is peanuts.

So I think we probably should continue with maps that look good in UHD and also look good when zoomed out on lower resolution screens.

Ultimately though, whoever does the actual map artwork, the final say is up to them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cernel
PS: I like the blends. TBH that probably should be a game option that can be changed anytime and not a map option. As is, IMO let's go with the blends as a default map option for now.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

Cernel
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Thanks. I believe this should be the last update (meaning that I'm done with this) on my part, so there should be no need for me to be in Gith and you should be able to focus on your work. Maybe you missed the previous 0.1.1. The xml change from 0.1.1 to 0.2 was almost only changing the unitattachment and adding supportattachment to have a sound TripleA combat system, since you expressed interest in having that as an alternative option (the previous basic attack 3 and defence 2 was silly, imo).

So, I believe this 0.2 should be a definitive old style hopefully optimized version from which you can proceed to the source code update changes.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Not sure what you mean here.

You know that you can enable blends with:

"View/Show Map Blends" right?

Or you mean them being enabled as default?

Anyway, personally I would leave them off default, as Risk traditionally requires no display ownership. Other than this the Blends are something with several issues, namely:

- Sometimes they bug off when zooming (appartly, here they do not, luckyly, but you can see it in other maps)
- They are kept in memory even when you switch map (so, if you close Conquest with blends on and open another map you will have the blending with the Conquest setting)

I agree that maybe for people the map with blending on will be easyer to play, but actually they don't look anywhere as much good as a properly made purposedly blended skin; so they are kind of an amateurish blending, degrading the visual value of the map.
Anyway, no big deal, if you prefer them being on as default, for people opening the map for the first time, go for it (they make the map artistic value worse looking but still good).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cernel
At Lafayette:  "First of all, I believe Veqryn should supervise this project. "

Veqryn is reading the posts, and would review any code changes that need to happen. So who is to so that he is not already supervising the project. He is also free to jump in at any time to help out or take over.

Until then, given he has a life and other priorites, and that clearly since there over 40 code improvements or bug fixes just waiting for him to review, I would guess he did not volunteer a larger role in this project for a reason.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Anyway, if UHD would not exist and not became the standard in some years, I would still make the map not much smaller than now. Probably either 3000 or 4000 pixels wide; surely not smaller than 3000. If UHD would have been already the standard, I would go for 6000. My only real concern has always been the units, since they are increasingly not very well supported over 52 pixels. I especially like a lot the current units, much better than the 128x128 alternative "_small" in the folder.

Anyway, good work to anyone who will draw the new and definitive map.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

crazy_german
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
aaalafayette wrote
We need a new map - even if we get permissions for the current image, the lawyer speak means we cannot use the same territory connections that other games use.

My first thought would be to take one of the current maps, big world perhaps, merge territories together and draw lines for continents.
aaalafayette wrote
New Item: Alternatives to Cards
We can't have cards. Period.

But, we can do something else!
For example, instead of getting a card we hand out territory tokens. Then you can trade in some number of territory tokens to spin slots, perhaps at increasing cost of tokens with greater chance for a higher payout. Or perhaps for every 3 tokens you get a dice rolls worth of additional armies.
To clarify, these need to be done for lawyer purposes, not coding purposes, correct? Does this need to be approached differently than legal issues for A&A? (we use the exact same connections as those games don't we?)
How large of a change is needed? Would something like this be enough https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/758972/simple-variant-fix-australia-and-balance-continent

I think that potential Conquest fans would probably like the game to be as close to a child favorite as possible. Our community's map makers would likely churn out a balanced higher replayability version quite quickly once the map making options are in place.

Don't let my little combat fun fact distract you guys. I meant it more as an interesting fact than a practical solution (sorry if I got y'all too off topic). It does require an invisible unit (Cernel knows how to do it), though you could also make that a flagpole to indicate ownership or something like that.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
I agree about sticking close to the childhood favorite. The sad reality, and what was hard for me to accept, is that the childhood favorite is owned and copyrighted. So we can't obviously get too close to it.

The challenge for us then is to capture that same game feel and to come up with our own original expression of the Conquest game. If anyone has any lawyer friends, or @Veqryn if you researched this, if we actually could use the exact same map topology, that would be really nice. As is, we need to come up with at least a couple of differences.

I don't think also it's necessarily any one change that will save us, but all in all it needs to be clear that this is a different game (though perhaps quite reminiscent of the childhood favorite).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
@crazy_german: "To clarify, these need to be done for lawyer purposes, not coding purposes, correct? "
To answer the question directly, both. But to the extent for lawyer purposes we have to do this, I'm not sure. The password suggestion is feasible, but would not be terribly easy to code. I think we can think of something that has similar gameplay mechanics as cards but is still different.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

Cernel
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Just to be totally sure: you are not taking only the 0.2 xml right? The changes from 0.1 and 0.2 are also much better images and about all images refined, and the cursor refined (the 0.1 looked not much like a XVIII sabre, but unbalanced in a medievalish way) and optimized placement and probably few other things inside the map folder, not just xml.

As I've already said, this should be the last update on my part.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
This I think is pretty interesting, and would be a pretty substantial change to the map:

"A less disruptive change to overall game strategy would be to link E. Australia to Japan. Whilst it is something I would never do, it creates the second entrance to Australia that you crave without having a knock on effect to the other continents."

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/758972/simple-variant-fix-australia-and-balance-continent (same link posted by @crazy_german earlier)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

aaalafayette
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cernel
The XML is the only thing I've changed that will need to be reconciled, the rest will be easy to accept wholesale.

I'd really appreciate further help. An easy alternative to git is communication, a heads up on what will be modified and I can be sure to pass you the latest and greatest that I have. Git automates this down to simple commands to get a repo, update and push to it. Git for windows is complete with some nice GUI support to make this all easy and click of buttons. Either alternative works though.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conquest of the World!

crazy_german
In reply to this post by aaalafayette
Wouldn't it make more sense to link Japan and New Guinea? There are various mods around with a variety of ways to balance the game. Adding the Phillipines as a new territory which connects to Japan and New Guinea is another that I have played with before. Japan is generally a useless territory so its good to give it another connection as well.

I don't know what you mean by the password idea, but the idea of cards and concealed information really appeals to me for its map making potential. I'm guessing that this is the hardest issue from a coding perspective? Would this be a large enough change that TripleA 2.0 is launched and some features lose compatibility?
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
12345