Hi Irinam, thanks for the feedback!
I don't like the idea of having lots of impassable terrain. If Hannibal can march elephants over the Pyrenees and the Alps, then I should be able to go anywhere, even if it costs or slows me.
My original idea was to make mountains and swamps passable, but not conquerable. They would always be contested areas. But then the AI fixated on them, pouring more and more units in, trying to conquer them. So instead I made them conquerable, but added more neutral units, so that it was only worth doing in rare strategic circumstances (the AI still can't help itself, sometimes).
I also split some mountains into multiple territories, so that, once conquered and their terrain no longer slows you down, they didn't become highways. In any case, I'm glad the effect is more or less as intended.
Yeah, there are a lot of units to learn, and the higher movement rate takes some getting used to. This will probably lead to some lost battles in anyone's first game. To help this I keep the number of units available to any player pretty low. But there are still the enemy and neutral units you may not be familiar with. I tried to make the unit tables in the game notes very clear, because I expect they'll be needed frequently.
I may also need to lower the default AI income bonus percentage, so the Hard AI isn't as brutal when you're still learning the map.
Placement Limit Warning:
I've gone back and forth on this. Like you say, the mercenary territories can throw off the calculation of how many units you'll be able to place. I could change this, and your suggestion of splitting the PU and unit production is a good one. But I'm not sure I want to lower the unit production to zero. That would fix the placement calculation, but it would prevent you from placing fortifications or bowmen (the only two normal units you can place in those territories). There's no other way for a hero to fortify a mercenary territory. Maybe that's not a big deal, and for clarity I should just lower unit production to zero.
On the other hand, excess purchased units are "banked" not lost, so buying too many isn't a huge blunder. So I've actually thought about turning off the "can't place all purchased units" message totally.
Help Finding Territories:
That's a good point. Big map, unfamiliar places. Where is this "Rookroost" and how can I know whether it's worth bribing them to join my side?
It would be awesome if there was something like a "find territory" tool in TripleA, where you could type in a territory and the map would center on it. I'm not sure how else to help with this. Perhaps I could add a place index at the end of the game notes, like "Rookroost: C2" then you'd at least know to look in the general area of column C, row 2 (or whatever). It would be a long addition to the game notes, though.
Not sure which territories you mean re:gaining bonus PUs for conquering. If you conquer a capital, you get a bonus. But that's just for capitals. You also get bonuses tied to national objectives, and perhaps the one-time notification about these is what you're referring to. These are listed for reference in the Objectives panel.
Mercenaries as Casualties:
Casualty suggestions are based off unit att or def str, depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Mercenaries are often the first suggested casualties, but not always, because they tend to be weaker. But in many cases they are stronger.
For instance, if you're attacking, it will suggest you let a knight take a second hit and die rather than let a mercenary ogre die, because an ogre attacks at 4 and a knight at 3. But because a knight can charge, and because there's a slight change of the ogre deserting at some point (spoiler, sorry), you'll normally want to let the ogre die.
Note to Human Players:
That trigger actually pops off for every player, every round after the first, until and unless they have declared as human. I have no real way to detect whether someone is AI or human. It's just a playful reminder to push the "I am human" button. You only noticed it showing up for AI players when you looked through history, right? Didn't notice it during play? Cause that would ruin the joke.
Panguitch: Thanks for the quick reply. Part of the delay for me was that I was getting "Admundfort polygons not found (or something like that) message and, since the problem was irritating enough I decided that "I. Was. Going. To. Get. It. To. Work.". Spent a few days studying/attacking it. And came up with adding as the first line... "" (All symbols between the quotes. (I think that's XML for Comment.)) It now works great. Thank you.
To me it seemed that it wasn't wanting to read the first line properly so I gave it a null value first line. If you modify your file the same way you might want to add a date in it.
Zim Xero: Thank you for responding. But, the polygon file you're using is the original Greyhawk file which was the one giving me the problem. Greyhawk Cataclysm (just tested it) has the same problem too. You might want to get the Panguitch polygons.txt from the previous message, edit it to add the above first line and then add it to your game.
For the first rounds, i used them and the battle calculater quite often.
The gamenotes are good!
Then that would be my recommendation, too!
Perhaps with a small hint in the gamenotes about units being"banked", perhaps here:
Somehow i didn't notice this panel, that's what i wanted :-)
I think it is intended, that in some NO the player alone must hold the territories
and in others the player and its allies may hold it, right?
Note to myself: Never play with an HardAI as ally because he steals important territories...
No Spoiler for me here...Ket had this event two times in a row...
For the moment i'm not hiring mercenaries anymore.
Wanted to see, to which degree the HardAI got the NO and the "too many units" penalty, as the HARDAI doesn't take those into account jet. But to my delight, it did quite good!
Thats because the NOs are "natural" if you know what i mean.
So most of the HardAIs have reached 2 of the 4 possible NO and that's quite good.
In reply to this post by GaryG
I don't know why the information between the quotes disappeared so here it is in a more verbal form. The three parenthesized items should be replaced with the appropriate symbol.
(less than symbol)(exclamation symbol)-- Greyhawk polygons by Panguitch --(greater than symbol)
If anybody else can get it to appear in actual viewable form, feel free. Also feel free to explain why it didn't show the first time. Hmmm. First guess-- Because it's actual XML code?
This post was updated on .
Finished my first Greyhawk game with Victory.
I played Iuz and Ket with Suez beeing HardAI against all others beeing HardAI too.
I like Ket!
The cheap cavalry gives great flexibility and range.
I like having enough space to expand early on.
With Ket i got Dragons early on and that ruled the map.
Being able to attack a territory with a handful of scouts and lots of dragons is really gamebreaking!
Only the good use of mountains saved the HardAI for many rounds. (Kudos HardAI!!!!)
Starting position is not so nice, having Furyondy next door.
Perhaps i was too careful at the start...i had really problems with them.
they crushed my forces twice, but got distracted by Pomarij, which conquerd Keoland-mainland early on and got quite strong.
Flood two times in a row is really annoying, if your enemy took half your mainland in the last turn!
In round 12 i took Furyondy out.
At this point, the Center powers were reduced to breadcrumbs while the South was nearly as strong as myself.
PUs Prod Units TUV VC
Howling North 376 225 226 2095 24
Indomitable Center 4 35 72 593 6
Insidious South 292 185 258 1919 23
It could be that the Center is too weak, but this needs further testing.
First 30 VP for Honoable Victory looked a bit too low,
but after the end i think they are just right.
A few times i got the 30 VCs, but the enemy took them away the next time.
It took until round 16 to finally keep the VCs and win the game.
PUs Prod Units TUV VC
Howling North 209 269 303 2857 32
Indomitable Center 0 11 48 416 2
Insidious South 426 167 284 2140 19
I took over my ally Suel in round 15 as i noticed that he had only one hero left, (and 560 PUs :-)
as HardAI can not upgrade heros to leaders (not yet implemented)
Not reading the game notes thoroughly enough i wanted to take my leader back to the capital.
AND made this in Combatmove...
So at the and of Suez Combat my last hero was in a Galley on the Sea...
... and Suez got vanquished !?!
I think, when you count your heros to check if a player is vanquished heros (and Leaders!) on ships don't get counted!
This can easily be tested:
Start a new game and move your Leader on a ship in Combatmove.
End Combatmove and Voilá... "Leader ist dead"-message pops up
and you can purchase an "new" (second) Leader!
1. Map blends should be turned of, because terrain is not recognisable with blends
2. Trigger Chance Rolls should be turned off, too. There are quite many rolls on your map and you have special messages, each time somesthing really happens.
This post was updated on .
I think it's actually quite similar to using heavy bombers with infantry as cannon fodder. I do still wonder if I should change it so that the times AA can fire is limited by the number of dragons, not the number of AA. So one bowman could shoot once each at three dragons, rather than just one.
Re: Iuz and Furyondy: yeah that's probably where the action is hottest at the game's start. A bit like Germany and Russia. Which is one reason why if there are only two players and they want a fast game I recommend they disable all other players and just play these two.
Lol, yeah, that's a problem. Glad you found it. It's pretty rare that it would come up, but I should have anticipated it, because I found a related problem earlier.
The problem is that any units on transports are essentially hidden. They cannot be counted for any conditions, and triggers don't reliably affect them. (Edit: Triggers can affect them, but they can't be counted for conditions.)
I can fix it so that you get un-vanquished once your hero gets off the boat. But I don't think there's any way to make it recognize that you have a hero or leader on a boat. I'm trying to think of a workaround, but I'm stumped.
I could prevent heroes from boarding transports, but that's lame. I could make it so that rather than being vanquished when all your heroes are dead, you are vanquished if you have no heroes in your original territories, but I don't really like how that would change the focus of the game. I could trash the whole system of vanquished, but I'm not ready to do that. I could justify it by modifying texts to suggest that if you leave your last hero at sea, rumors will spread that he's dead and there will be anarchy. I can make that reasonable, but I wish I could just fix the problem instead.
If anyone has ideas on this, I'm all ears.
Yeah, blends should not be on. I don't know if there's a way to make this automatic. I can set map.mapBlends=false in the map properties file, but that doesn't seem to have any effect.
Do you mean the messages that a trigger was rolled for? Sadly, there's no way to keep those from appearing. I wish I could make it so they didn't and keep the rolling behind the scenes, but that's not possible for TripleA.
Thanks for the great feedback!
But it is!
Game -> User notifications -> Tigger/Condition chance roll successfull
Game -> User notifications -> Tigger/Condition chance roll failure
(Not on my gaming-pc at the moment, so out of my memories..)
It hides most of the rolls:
- Your 4 Playerstart rolls
- Mercaneries and magic rolls
Is does NOT hide the chance rolls for the diplomatic actions, dunno why...
As this must be set by the User, you should add a hint to the Gamenotes.
This post was updated on .
Learning something new every day. Thanks!
Yeah, I suspect that the roll isn't hidden for diplomacy because it's a user action as opposed to an automatically generated trigger roll.
Yes, I'll add a bit about this and blends to the game notes. Thanks for the tip.
I think I'll also increase giants' AA strength from 1 to 2.
I like the thought of giants beeing more effektiv than bowman.
I'm seeing some strange AI behavior:
HardAI playing Iuz (First Player) letting his Leader totally unprotected in "The Horned Society".
As the leader doesn't have def for it's own, it's an easy catch for an amphibious assault over Whyestil Sea.
Did some testing...out of 6 tests, the Hard AI
let his Leader (50PU) unproteced in "The Horned Society" - 2x
let a hero (25PU) unproteced in "The Horned Society" - 3x
proteced his Leader in "The Horned Society" with one veteran (Def3) - 1x (enough, as Furyondy can attack with a max of one unit with attack 2.)
Writing this down, perhaps i stumbled over the reason:
All units have an malus for amphibious attack AND there is one fortification in the territorry.
So the Furyondy Veteran should have an effective Att of ZERO, right?
Then the HardAI would be doing the right thing while the bug would be somewhere in the engine.
Hm, Battle Calculater shows power 1 for Furyondy and 100% win for attacker.
As the AI uses the BC too, it should know it could loose his leaders.
Further testing with amphibious attack on neutrals:
Your malus for amphibious attack is not working :-(
Yes, I've noticed Iuz does that. Also, the Hard AI sometimes leaves capitals like Nyrond's Rel Mord unguarded, which other Hard AI controlled enemies quickly take advantage of.
In my testing, the amphibious assault penalty is working. Veteran's strength is reduced to zero by the -1 from isMarine and the -1 from the fortification. However, it still kills the hero, because the hero is infrastructure with destroyedWhenCapturedBy. But if there was any kind of defensive unit there, the veteran couldn't kill it.
The battle calculator seems to think that the minimum possible strength of any non-infrastructure unit is 1, not zero. Which is weird.
But Hard AI recognizes the hero can't defend. All it sees is a factory with zero defense strength. That's why it's willing to capture it with a weakened veteran.
And that's why your last point is the key: "As the AI uses the BC too, it should know it could lose his leaders." So why does it leave them unguarded?
redrum, do you happen to be following this?
@panguitch/Irinam - Good find. I fixed some issues around checking if territories were safe to move mobile factories. The fix will be in the next pre-release.
I think I'm falling in love. My biggest problem is that I've been playing Greyhawk as a Free For All with movement cut in half. (I created this from the original 10 player version I found somewhere and got interested in the XML game files.) This left me not supporting my allies and getting hammered by the quick changes of attack directions. As Keoland I saved the Iron League from being vanquished too, and he is expanding nicely, Nyrond is still vanquished, Furyondy is no longer vanquished and it may be a few turns before he has enough (any) units/hero's to be any help.
Now the actual for the message:
In the Objectives.properties file Hestmark West should be changed to Hollow Highlands. I own too many of the others for the Iron League to get the bonus. I don't know if this is the only (other files?) place this happens.
Ships can be built next to Hepmonaland. I've already done it several times before I realized that since I couldn't build units in Hepmonaland I shouldn't be able to build ships.
Thanks for a great game.
Yes, i noticed this too.
It's not only Hepmonaland, but ALL mercanary territories!
After playing the map three times, one for every alliance,
i think the center powers are too weak, especially Furyondy.
(HardAI-Iuz wiped HardAI-Furyondy out in Round 4 - without pressure from Ket or Pomarij)
Good catch. I've fixed that for the next release.
I'm going back and forth in my mind over whether to change the national objectives that require direct ownership of territories to require allied ownership instead.
And yes, you can place ships using heroes in mercenary territories. Unfortunately, I can't see a way to prevent this. The problem lies in that TripleA goes off of the territory where a unit is being placed, regardless of the factory's location. For example: I could make it so that ships can't be placed in any sea zones surrounding Hepmonaland, but then a hero in Port Ekul wouldn't be able to place any ships either.
Since I don't see any way to prevent this, I might just add it to the game notes as a known exploit, as I have with the 3rd-party dragon scrambling.
I've worked hard on the balance with Iuz and Furyondy, but I think I'm going to have to rework it with redrum's next release of the Hard AI. Part of the problem is that Furyondy was too strong, and Iuz often left heroes unguarded. So I weakened Furyondy. With this fixed, I might have to give Furyondy a rebuff.
Currently, if I run Hard AI Furyondy vs. Hard AI Iuz, Furyondy actually comes out on top more than 50% of the time. Usually because Iuz attacks too many neutrals in the first round, weakening himself, then Furyondy pounces. Furyondy also has the benefit of a cheaper cannon fodder unit.
I like the idea of changing to allied ownership!
There is nothing more frustrating than not getting your objectives because your ally holds a territory...
For example, in my games HardAI-Suel often "steals" territorries from Iuz
and then Iuz can no longer achieve its conditions.
So it would help HardAI, too!
Good to know!
On the other side, Iuz has NO other enemies while Furyondy has typically to deal with Ket and Pomarij too.
So testing only Iuz vs Furyondy might be in favor of Furyondy!
Another point to take into account:
The unique advantages are not equally usable for the HardAI:
Those with cheaper units obviously work great, but HardAI-Iuz can not use its advantage at all!
Sadly no idea how to do it better...
This is true. The AI gets the full benefit of Keoland's, Ket's, and Pomarj's national advantages. The AI gets much of the benefit of Nyrond's, Iron League's, and Suel's advantages. The AI gets only a bit of the benefit of Furyondy's and Great Kingdom's advantage, and none of the benefit of Iuz's and Scarlet Brotherhood's advantages.
I've done a couple things to try and mitigate this.
You might notice, for example, that AI factions will occasionally receive magical treasure. I added these by trigger, since the AI can't earn magic treasure the normal way. AI-Iuz has a greater chance of receiving this than other AI factions, in an effort to simulate his national advantage.
Similarly, since the AI only recruits mercenaries accidentally, there's a trigger that occasionally gives AI-Great Kingdom some mercenaries in his purchase phase, to mimic his national advantage.
Furyondy and Scarlet Brotherhood are more tricky. Since I can't think of a good way to simulate the assassinations for AI, I've just given AI-Scarlet Brotherhood higher chances at magic, like AI-Iuz. And AI-Furyondy too, though to a lesser extent since the AI does sometimes benefit from Furyondy's healing ability.
These approaches lose some of the flavor, but hopefully help maintain balance. And all of this only applies to AI-controlled factions.
Are there triggers, giving heros to AI if the AI has only two heros left?
I'm assassinating a Keoland hero every turn, but they get a new one in their turn, every time i succeed...
I propose a "event does not happen" for flood (no combat move) and civil unrest (no buy phase and losing all PU)
if the same event has happend in the last ?two? rounds.
I know, with 16 events the chance that the same event happens again in the following round is only 6%, but in my games this happens quite often and it is REALLY annoying!
In comparison to the other events those two have really great (negative) impact.
no combat move
With movement of all units doubled AND taxes if you have too many units in one territory,
defending is really hard. So in my games defending happens mostly in "cold war style" with a "demilitarized zone" with only one lowcost unit in each territory.
If one of these territories can not be recaptured in my turn, the enemy can attack any of my adjacent territories (movement 2!) so in many cases i have to retreat and the enemy can take possession of multiple territories.
If this happens one time, it's really bad, but if it happens twice in a row, it's fatal!
no buy phase
Most events are "worth" about 10 to 15 PU, but with this one, you lose ALL PU of this turn.
Is this really intended?
This means about 30 PU in the first rounds and up to 90 PU in later rounds and this really hurts if it happens once, but if it happens twice...you're just totally screwed up...
There's a trigger that occasionally gives AI players another hero. This is because the AI doesn't buy them.
There's also one that will give AI players a new leader unit if theirs is killed. But only once, and it still must be placed by a hero in a VC. This is because AI will never buy a leader replacement. And it doesn't protect them any more than heroes.
As to the bigger question:
I'm convinced the "chance" generator for triggers is far from random.
It is common for a player to see repeat outcomes, to a degree that's incredibly unlikely given the chances for some of these things.
I just need to take the time to document some of this, then pose the question to the devs and/or ppl smarter than me.
I have been playing your map and got some comments/questions:
When looking at the map:
• Suel and Nyrond territory colors look near identical on my screen. Maybe Nyrond could be changed to a darker grey? (If they are board game colors) Or one of them could be a totally different color?
• What does all the green-greyish shields symbolize? Some of them are place on top of borders.
• I would think it is best, in the notes game phase description, to use phase names that are exactly the same as when looking at the game history. You use “New unit purchase” in the notes, but in-game it says “recruitment”.
Questions after only reading the notes (maybe I missed it in the notes, but..)
• Can 2 hit point units repair/heal?
• What happens to unplaced units? (Oops! Forgot this info I my own Dragon War notes )
• Are mercenaries free?
• Why do cavalry defending at a fortification get to keep their bonus charge? Is it a decision based on engine limits? Is it a rule from the boardgame version?
The attackers lose their charge, and this makes sense. It would make a little sense if the defending cavalry kept their bonus because they, after the attacker attacked the walls, counterattacked out through the gates with a charge. But still, should not both sides loose the charge? This would motivate players to use infantry to defend fortifications.
Giants and bowmen:
• Why do 2 giants not have a total of 2 attacks against 1 dragon?
I played a couple of games. Only got to round 3 or 4 each time and gave up. I think I got to know my own units, but did not really know my enemies’ units before they were all over me. It is a good challenge. And yes, the game notes look great. Nice and noob-friendly.
The story elements, random events and magic items really make this map special. I got mercinaries and pirates during my playtime Maybe I will steal some of your ideas
I actually thought about having random events and magic items / relics in my Dragon War map, but never got around implementing them. I did make a few test though, but scraped the idea as I didn’t know that chance rolls could be hidden. I did not want the players to be forced to look at them. Are you hiding rolls for these random events from the player? Is this what is going on?
I second that ;-)
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|