I have to say that I absolutely adore this map!! This time period is one of my favourites in history, and it's presented here beautifully well. I have just one question, with regards to fortresses/towers, how are they constructed?
Is it meant to be played like NWO (ie. use the edit function to place them wherever you like?), or must they be built with encampments/generals?
Sorry if there is an obvious answer to this question that I've missed, but I've scoured the game notes and this thread and I can't seem to find it.
P.S. If they are to be handled in the same manner as NWO, is there a limit to how many can be purchased per turn/per territory?
Just tried running 3.9 again with a mix of Moore and Dynamix AI and got the following error (using SVN 2952)
Exception in thread "Triplea start local thread" java.lang.NullPointerException
There are problems with Dynamix AI. Wisconsin usually fixes them within a week, but also he might add new bugs as he adds new features. Any Dynamix AI bugs should go in the dynamix ai thread (currently called ai development).
right now, the fortresses and towers operate just like normal units (meaning only can be placed where you have a general or encampment or capital).
but... you do give me an interesting idea....
maybe I should change them to allow 1 in any territory?
i dunno, I kind of think that, if you want a fortress you should move your general there and then build it,
as that change would ruin the current balance of the map.
i think i will keep it as is for now, and then update the game notes to specify this.
Hey, thanks for the quick response. To be honest, I was kind of hoping you would say that, as that strikes me as being more true to life then the NWO model. That being said, it is basically impossible to reflect the logistics of such a consctruction project in a game like this with any kind of accuracy/fun (it's a game after all, who wants to worry about those kind of logistics).
some changes include:
ability to turn off the extra units (similar to NWO, except the extra units become available turn 2)
removed a spanish tower
removed a connection that should not have existed
add a UK fortress to majorca, and turned 1 tower and 1 fortress in candia into 2 chasseurs
cleaned up some art
cleaned up game notes
so... if you want to play it, go download the latest prerelease. it comes packaged with it, and is great fun. I put some effort into making MooreAI play this map better, and the results should be easy to notice.
to clarify, the "extra units" are: Mortars, Marshals, Towers, Fortresses.
to turn off these units, just make sure to un-check the "Use Triggers" option in the game menu.
turning off these units makes the game simpler for new people, and makes the AI's run a little faster during purchase phase.
if they are not turned off, these 4 units become available on turn 2 for purchase by every power.
Napoleonic Empires now comes with TripleA, so no need to download it.
Version 3.8 - 3.9 changes:
Removed connection between Bohus and sz21.
Added two fortresses to Majorca.
Changed a single tower and fortress on Candia into three Chasseurs.
Removed a Tower from Catalonia.
Updated to new engine:
Barques (the transports) no longer capture convoy zones, while all other boats still can.
Now uses Triggers to prevent purchases of Marshals, Mortars, Towers and Fortresses before the 2nd turn.
Can turn off the ability to purchase these four extra units, by turning triggers off in the game options menu (so you can turn off marshals, mortars, towers, and fortresses).
Added ability to have generals, encampments, and capitals destroyed with a game option.
Also, about 1000 updates to Moore AI to make it play Napoleonic Empires like a pro.
So actually playing this map for real and noticed the territory names don't display on the map. Its seems kind of weird and difficult to reference territories when all you have is the production number on the map. You can hover and see the name at the bottom or territory panel but its kind of a pain.
It appears all you need to do is switch map.showTerritoryNames=false to true in map.properties to have the names appear and most appear decently.
If you are playing it with AI, I don't see a reason why you want to see names, since the only reasons for be wanting to do so, I guess, is when you are playing with somebody and he tells you something about this or that territory.
Myself, I prefer not seeing territory names on maps, unless they are very nice pictures, like the ones made by good old Hepps for 270BC.
But I had several people (no clue if they are majority or minority) complaining about no names in Napoleonic Empires.
I definitively believe that users should be able to switch on/off the territory names display, in menu. It should be a single map related choice (you may want to see the names in some maps but not in others) and the default should be what the mapmaker chooses (here off, unless Veqryn or whoever is supposed to be in charge of this map changes his mind).
In this particular map, my personal preference is not seeing names, especially because they look bad and they are in several instances wrongly placed, inconsistent and misspelled. Also, I guess it would be very hard to fix, because you would need somebody owning a 1794 atlas (Flanders still Austria owned) (for example, "Eturia", which I guess it's a misspelling of the ancient region name "Etruria", instead of "Tuscany", sounds very strange, but I don't know if maybe in 1794 English were supposed to call it that way).
I mean, a lot of the few names I know are misspelled or misplaced (again, I don't know if in 1794 they said "Lombardi" instead of "Lombardy" or "Hanovre" instead of "Hanover", which is currently a French-only spelling; then why I see "Saxony", instead?). So I surmise a lot of this map's names are bad. So, I'd say, 1 more reason for not showing them up too much (I trust a lot of people are ignorant enough to not notice a single one of the misspellings, tho).
On the other hand, as I said, I had several people complaining of no names on the map.
So my definitive suggestion is having an option in menu for that.
@Veqryn - Thoughts on changing the default skin to the political skin and move what is now the default skin to a separate terrain-skin download?
I think the vast majority of players prefer the political one as it makes this much easier to play. While the terrain skin looks cool it really makes it difficult to quickly see ownership.
I think now that the mapskin won't be preinstalled anymore, so people have to go download it, this will imply that, for almost everyone, there will be the default skin only, as most people never download any mapskins.
So, I think a decision on what to have default, between the physical and the political is almost absolutely relevant.
As a reference, I've asked two very xp players in a host; copy-pasted and changed their names to the names of the Alliances they were playing, here:
Cernel: what mapskin do you prefer, the default one ore the political?
Player_Carolingians: wow default by 1000x times
Cernel: ah, you prefer the green one, ok
Cernel: I really don't like default, always use political
Player_Coalition: changed to political
Player_Coalition: think i am in another universe
Cernel: so you prefer default too?
Player_Coalition: i prefer political as it looks easier
Player_Coalition: i think
Player_Coalition: all looks easier
Cernel: ok, I think most people prefer political; but I see Player_Carolingians prefer default
Cernel: asked because I suggested making political as default in forum
Player_Coalition: i always played default too
Player_Carolingians: well i played a lot of default game
Player_Carolingians: so political hurts my eyes
Player_Coalition: bc i never checked püolitical
Cernel: yah, 99% people never use mapskins
It is common that people play a map for years, and never realise that there are mapskins for it, not even if it is preinstalled and they only have to click on View/Map Skins. So, if not preinstalled, a mapskin is almost like it doesn't exist. Wold be also nice you get told there are mapskins for a map, when you download it (and maybe an option for downloading both the map and all the mapskins at once).
Related talking 2016/05/08
Cernel: so still using the political skin Player_Coalition? :)
Player_Coalition: its clearly the better one
Player_Coalition: thx cernel
Cernel: eh maybe we'll convert Player_Carolingians too... :)
Cernel: btw, in the new 1.9 it won't be preinstalled anymore
Cernel: so if you still want to use it, you will have to download it
Player_Coalition: i have to dl a single map skin?
Cernel: y, separately; a mapskin is like a map
soulfein has joined
Cernel: like those NWO mapskin that there are in depot, guess you never tried any mapskins
Cernel: hi soul
Player_Coalition: so anyone decided not to involve the great map skin in 1.9?
Cernel: no maps will be preloaded in the new 1.9
Cernel: triplea will come with no maps
Cernel: only the "Tutorial" will be preloaded, it's a map to teach noobs how to play
Player_Coalition: so i dl the maps?
Cernel: y, all maps will be to be downloaded, like you now download world at war
Have to say that the thing upsetting me the most (more than all names absurdities summed up) is that the image for the Dragoons unit is clearly that of a lancer (of a Polish Legion or of the army of the Duchy of Warsaw, apparently).
I mean, I agree with having Dragoons and not having Lancers, or at least it is surely much more important having Dragoons than having Lancers; I'd just wish not to have to look at what it is clearly a Polish lancer when you are supposed to play around with a dragoon. Comon, beside the very evident traditional square-topped lancer cap, it is even grabbing a lance!
Just a thought, in case anyone wants to make a good actual "Dragoons" unit, then the current "Dragoons" could be renamed "Lancers", and kept unused in the folders. I think that would be the most needed correction for this map, skin wise.
Actually, since also the Hussars is not a hussar, probably would be better to rename the Hussars to Dragoons (the current Hussars might be a dragoon, albeit I'm not sure what it is, but it can surely be used as dragoon), rename the Dragoons to Lancers (keeping them unused in the folder) and making a new image for the Hussars (preferably representing either a Hussar or a Chasseur a Cheval); tho, in this case, also the Horse_Artillery would need a new picture, because seeing a Dragoons training an artillery would be silly, but scaling down the new Hussars and using it for the new Horse_Artillery would do (the horse artillerymen looked like hussars or chasseurs a cheval, at least in the French army).
As said, even tho I'm not sure what it is, the current Hussars unit looks fairly similar to a dragoon: