Jump to content

Mythos_Ruler

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    14.941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Everything posted by Mythos_Ruler

  1. You won't be able to build Civic Centres until the last age. By that time, players should be well-established.
  2. 100 Spartans vs. 100 Imperial Legionaries. No micro. Match 1: Spartans win. 60 men remaining. I approached the Romans in a wide front (Closed Line formation), which overlapped their flanks. Crushed their flanks and wheeled inward like @ Marathon. Match 2: Spartans win. 47 men remaining. I approached the Romans in a more compact front ("Phalanx" formation). Still won in a slugfest. Match 3: Romans win. 33 men remaining. I approached the Romans from multiple directions. They picked me apart and pulled off a fair victory.
  3. You're pretty much wrong. Colonies, for one, ruin your argument. I also thought it would be a plus to implement both options. However, I think we shouldn't get too greedy. One or the other adds nothing to the schedule, while doing both would add to development time.
  4. I think it would be interesting, from a strategic standpoint, to build a 2nd Civ Centre all the way across the map in neutral territory and then attempt to link up the two territories. Also, trade between the unlinked territories could get interesting due to the added danger. Agreed. No need for gaia border if we stick with dynamic borders.
  5. I just tested this. Guess who won... handily, with only 8 losses, to a complete 100% loss on the other side. (HINT: The victors had a stomach full of black broth.)
  6. As long as we don't give all buildings decay so you have to "maintain" them or other some such tediousness.
  7. Water and Hills/Cliffs affecting the weight is a must. Good thinking. Yeah, my initial thought was that only Civic Centres and Fortresses would expand your borders, but Kieran insisted all buildings do it, and it didn't really matter to me. Wouldn't it be easy to give some buildings a weight of 0 (zero) so that they don't affect borders at all, if we wanted to do that? I'm thinking Houses, Mills, Farmsteads, and Farm Fields should not affect borders at all, while Civ Centres, Fortresses, and Barracks definitely should. I think that's something we can work out later? RON was an interesting game with a lot of interesting ideas. One thing I didn't like was "slots" at resource depots and you couldn't add anymore gatherers once you filled the slots. Let's not do anything like that. -------------------------------------- Our thinking here is that the red house I circled here would fall into enemy territory and gradually start to lose Loyalty and convert to green's side. Green could send some soldiers to speed up the capturing process. We don't have capturing or Loyalty yet, so in the meantime we could maybe just drain the building's health instead. What do you think?
  8. I got an error attempting to run rootbot AI. Something in line 5 of attackCoordination.js.
  9. You wouldn't be able to do that because Civ Centres can't have overlapping radii.
  10. I started an Aussie map way back in the Age of Mythology days... then abandoned it...
  11. It makes sense to this mathematically-challenged schlub.
  12. DOUBLE POST, sorry. So, Kieran and I had a little chat at the behest of Philip. We've pretty much hashed out a territory design that replaces the current "settlement" based design. We recognize that the settlement-based paradigm is very well thought out, since we've been mulling over its implementation for years now, and anything that replaces it must be very well thought out itself. Why replace something that works with something half-assed? In the case of resource shuttling, not only did it make cities look busier and bring about some Age of Empires nostalgia, but it also solved quite a few problems with the old "gathering auras" design, while reintroducing military and economic strategy elements missing from the old design. Our new territory idea solves no issues with the settlement-based design. It's basically a lateral move, as far as the game design goes. However, I think fans will be more happy with it, which makes it a worthwhile direction. It is a mixture of ideas from Rise of Nations and Battle for Middle Earth II (sorry Brian, no Battle for Middle Earth I). To wit... Dynamic Territory Territories are dynamic and change throughout the game based upon the structures built by the players. Each structure has a "weight" given to them and a radius within which this weight has an effect based on importance that building. These values affect borders proportionally. So, a Fortress expands a nearby border more than a House would. Understand? Civic Centres expand borders the most, while Mills expands them the least, and Docks not at all. This is pretty much standard Rise of Nations fare. All buildings, except Civic Centres and Docks (and Roman special siege buildings), must be built within territory owned by the player. If one of a player's buildings falls into enemy territory due to shifting borders, then that building slowly loses Loyalty until finally converting over to the enemy's side. This can be stopped and reversed (slowly gains Loyalty) if the border shifts and the building comes back to the player's side. Of course, the enemy could speed up the capturing process by using his infantry troops to capture it. Civic Centres cannot be built within range of each other. This is where ideas from Battle for Middle Earth II come into play: Each Civic Centre has a radius that cannot overlap the radius of another Civic Centre. This radius can be used for other things too. The initial idea was to make this radius the "Curtain Wall" idea I proposed. You click a button in the Civic Centre UI that lays down a curtain of city wall foundations at this radius that you can then task your units to build. The curtain wall system is the most unique idea, but another idea would be to use click-drag walls that can only be built within this radius. The click-drag-radius idea gives the player more freedom to place the walls, but the curtain walls are easier for the player and let's them focus on more important things. Other radius ideas include requiring farms to be built outside the radius (making raiding more effective), among others. Now, the radius restrictions aren't important to the overall idea, so don't get hung up on the wall details and other ideas I presented. The only thing important about the Civ Centre radius is its prevention of overlapping radii, forcing the player to expand, which was one of the benefits of the old "settlement" design. F.A.Q. Q. Will the game start out with the map completely divided amongst the players? A. No. There is a maximum range by which buildings affect the player's territorial border. If the player starts with only a Civic Centre, then the player's initial territory only encompasses the above mentioned radius. The rest of the map is "neutral" territory. Q. Neutral territory? A. Yeah, no one can construct buildings in neutral territory except Docks and Civic Centres. Docks, because frequently water courses are not equally accessible to all players and to encourage water battles, and Civic Centres to encourage expansion. Q. So, all buildings have a "weight"? A. Yeah, and an aura around them within which the border must lie for the building to have an effect upon it. The "weight" is how MUCH the building can expand the border, while the "aura" is the max DISTANCE of this effect. Q. "Aura"? A. The weight of a building gradually diminishes the farther away you get. Say a Barracks has a "weight" of 100, and an "aura" of 10 tiles, then every tile distant from the Barracks the affect it has on the border is reduced by roughly 10% (in this example). The closer the Barracks lies to the border, the greater effect it has on expanding the border. Q. Are these border effects also affected by the presence of nearby enemy buildings? A. Absolutely. If both buildings have the same weight and are equidistant from the border, then the net effect will be nil. If your building's effect (weight/distance from the border) is, say, 12 and the enemy building's effect is 6, then your building splits the difference. You'll have 66%, and they get 33%. This can be tweaked, but it is a simple concept. Q. So if two opposing buildings always split the difference, then how can a building ever fall into enemy territory? A. If any building, besides a Civic Centre or Special Building, is ever cut off completely from adjacent territory (imagine a solitary Blue Barracks with a Blue ring around it, totally surrounded by Red's territory), then that building (and its surrounding territory) falls into enemy territory. Now, this does not mean the building automatically falls into enemy hands, but its Loyalty does start to drain immediately, albeit slowly. It still functions under the original player's control, but will convert to the enemy player once all its Loyalty is gone (similar to infantry capturing a building, but slower). Q. Can I upgrade my buildings to have greater Weight? A. We can tie it directly to the city phase. Researching Town Phase* could increase the Weight of all buildings +X%, while researching City Phase* could increase the Weight further. We can also have technologies that increase Weight. Q. What happens if the whole map gets covered in player territory and there is no more room in my territory for me to build a Civic Centre (with its radius). A. You may be out of luck (the map is tapped out). The only options would be to destroy some enemy buildings to open up some neutral territory for you to build on or to capture more enemy territory for you to build on. Or perhaps an allied player will be gracious enough to deconstruct some of their buildings along your mutual border in order to gift some territory to you. END NOTES: The entire concept doesn't need to be implemented in one go. Conversion/Loyalty and Walls come to mind. A placeholder effect of a building being trapped in enemy territory can be that its Health drains. *If we go by this new territory paradigm we could (should?) rename the phases to correlate to "expansion" of a province rather than that of a city. Perhaps I - Colony Phase, II - Hegemony Phase, III - Imperial Phase. This is a small detail, however, and should not reflect upon the worthiness of the entire concept.
  13. You would have to install Tortoise SVN (or comparable SVN software) to get the updates. How did you get the files, if not through the Alpha release or through an SVN checkout?
  14. The SVN version gets constant updates, while Alpha versions are snapshots. AFAIK, the Alpha installer should install shortcuts to your desktop.
  15. Personally I believe a large gradient would be distracting and hurts immersion. I think Gaia (unclaimed territory) would have a white border. BTW: Philip's initial implementation works as advertised! I like how the borders try to follow rivers. One thing I would try to do is have the border either disappear under the waves (not sure how to do this) or float on the top of the water. Either all visible or not visible at all. Seeing it through the water like it is now would look ugly I think. Also, the player colors aren't correct, but it's only an initial implementation.
  16. I am making a MUCH better mockup as we speak.
  17. My original idea was to give the lines a highlight and inner gradient, like the health bars have, but then I thought they looked too slick.
  18. I'd say like this: The gradient could be more subtle too. I gave the gradient a pretty high spread.
  19. It's just a mockup over a 1024 terrain texture. How about...
  20. I was thinking of putting the Advanced rank's shield slung at his hip. I made new slightly-different ones for the Greeks too.
  21. PS: If anyone here has animation experience, please apply. The archer animations are 7 years old and could use some updating. Plus we need attack animations where they take the arrow from their hip quiver instead of their backs.
  22. Maybe something like this: http://i.imgur.com/ObdCf.jpg or http://i.imgur.com/fvQI0.jpg
×
×
  • Create New...