Jump to content

Philip the Swaggerless

Balancing Advisors
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    238

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Philip the Swaggerless

    Trader bonuses: International vs Land/Sea Traders.

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Philip the Swaggerless

    6 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    Should trade be a last resort for your economy like it currently functions the map polar sea?

    I don't think so.  I think it should be a worthwhile investment that pays off well within the typical time frame of a multiplayer game on most maps.

     

    6 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    Should trade be something that is useful in small numbers? Or should trade be the superior way to build an economy, with the disadvantages of giving no military power, being difficult to protect and requiring p2?

    I like the last option but what do you mean by "useful in small numbers?" If it is useful in small numbers, won't it be even more useful in larger numbers? Are these 2 options different?

    Trader bonuses: International vs Land/Sea Traders.

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Stan` said:

    Do you have a suggestion on how we can improve it?

    For the narrow problem of the insignificant Han bonus, yes:  Change their bonus's modification line to say "add": 0.2 instead of "multiply": 1.2.

    The general issue of needing to buff trade still has some specifics to be discussed. 

    • I think we can confidently say it is desirable that general trade profitability be increased.
      • Currently it is not used in higher level multiplayer games.  This is because, as @LetswaveaBook pointed out, there is no shortage of resources, therefore it is always more efficient to create soldiers, which cost less, gather faster, and can fight.  Admittedly, this is because the higher level multiplayer games are almost all on mainland which has plentiful resources.  Especially if there is no intention to change that fact, traders in general must be buffed in order to have any relevance.
    • To @chrstgtr's point, would we want trader's distance-to-profit curve to keep the same shape as now?
      • If trade is buffed, trade over long distances will become super profitable, and the short distances would become a little more profitable.  Should the shape of the trader's profit curve be slightly straightened, so that, compared to now, more profit is gained towards the beginning?  It must still be the case that trading long distance remains more efficient since it involves more effort and vulnerability.

     

    • Like 1

    Trader bonuses: International vs Land/Sea Traders.

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted

    @Stan` Okay, upon further examination it appears the tiny bonus of the Han is a problem with the way their bonus was made.  The Han bonus multiplies the International bonus of markets, which is 0.2, by 1.2, equaling .24.  The Carth bonus adds .1, equaling .3.  So the Carth bonus ends up being comparable to the Persian 15% land bonus.  Here are the numbers if play as Carth with an Iberian Ally:

    Carth:        51 + 20 (me), 15 (ally). The trader carries 86;  I receive  66, my ally receives 20.

    • 5 extra resource for me, 10 extra resource for my ally compared to having no bonus.

    The Han bonus:

    {
        "type": "global",
        "affects": ["Trade"],
        "affectedPlayers": ["ExclusiveMutualAlly"],
        "modifications": [
            { "value": "Market/InternationalBonus", "multiply": 1.2 }
        ],
        "auraName": "Silk Road",
        "auraDescription": "Allies +20% international trade bonus."
    }

    The Carth bonus:

    {
        "type": "global",
        "affects": ["Trade"],
        "affectedPlayers": ["MutualAlly"],
        "modifications": [
            { "value": "Market/InternationalBonus", "add": 0.1 }
        ],
        "auraName": "Trademasters",
        "auraDescription": "+10% international trade bonus."
    }

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  7. Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    Some options as I understand them:

    Friendly Fire for all ranged units.  Units default to not fire if they may hit a friendly, but can be put on a behavior where they attack anyways.  Seems like the most "realistic" option and it would completely break the DPS/meatshield dichotomy, but it's not desirable as it sounds like it would cause performance issues.

    Attack Area/Group:  A good feature I think.  Melee units would no longer be a meatshield. @real_tabasco_sauce Was there ever an answer to the question of will it make melee even less relevant?  Like, once the ranged units are all dead, could you just kite the enemy melee units?

    Complete overhaul with hard counters:  Hard to comment on this without knowing what exactly it would look like.

    Limited Ammo.  Grapejuice mod had limited ammo, which I thought was quite interesting.  However, I never played any team games with it.  @Grapjas how do you feel about the way the limited ammo concept worked?  Another method which I've seen discussed before was having ranged units fire a number of shots and then have a "cooldown" period to wait before automatically having ammo refilled.  And perhaps there could be a button to force the units to cooldown in between battles so that they started will full ammo.

    Here's another question - if we achieved breaking the DPS/Meatshield dichotomy, and melee infantry became the main force of the game, how would you keep the gameplay compelling?  Personally I would love to see melee infantry having a role as the main units, but if mostly all you have to do is send more melee to the clump of soldiers fighting, does that stay interesting?  So I think we would have to adapt the gameplay to make it interesting. Formations bonuses would probably help, such as was mentioned before cavalry charges being strong against scattered infantry, and other things like that.

     

     

    • Like 2

  9. Shared LOS

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted

    I am looking into making shared line of sight a bonus in my mod, where a Maurya player automatically gets shared line of sight with allies.  Is there a special trick to making shared LOS work?

    First I tried just changing the team bonus to an aura by basically copying the shared_los tech, but that didn't work:

    Spoiler

    {
        "type": "player",
        "affectedPlayers": [ "Player" ],
        "modifications": [
            {
                "value": "Player/sharedLos",
                "replace": true
            }
        ],
        "auraName": "Arthashastra",
        "auraDescription": "See allies vision.  Mauryas used an extensive network of informants and spies."
    }

    Then I tried making it a tech that autoResearched, but that didn't work:

    Spoiler

    {
        "genericName": "Arthashastra",
        "description": "See allies vision.  Mauryas used an extensive network of informants and spies.",
        "autoResearch": true,
        "modifications": [
            {
                "value": "Player/sharedLos",
                "replace": true
            }
        ],
        "requirements": {"civ": "maur" }
    }

    I noticed that in template_player there is a specific line for Shared Los tech, so I added my new tech to it:

        <SharedLosTech>
            unlock_shared_los
            arthashastra
        </SharedLosTech>

    Still no results...  No errors messages, no line of sight.

  10. Teamwork Team Bonus Concept

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    It would also add a bit of intrigue if Spies worked the same against allies as well. Meaning, they don't see them as your Spy either, but as one of their own.

    Won't everybody research cartography anyways?  It would be great if it worked on neutral players in diplomacy games.

  11. Teamwork Team Bonus Concept

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

    On 26/03/2022 at 11:34 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I've entertained the idea of an "Emissary" or "Ambassador" unit that boosts production of allies-only and also gives his vision to allies (if Cartography is not researched). Basically the role of the Han Minister, but you use it to boost your allies instead of yourself.

    Then also a "Spy" [aka "Sikarios"] unit where to you it looks like a spy wearing a sketchy hood and cape, while to the enemy it looks like a random one of their soldiers. The only way for the enemy to know it's not one of theirs is for them to select your spy and try to order it around.

    While looking up research about the civs of 0AD I learned that the Mauryas were huge on spies and informants.  Chanakya outlined many uses of them Arthasastra.  Here is a quote that would support them having soldier spies.

    CHAPTER III. THE WORK OF SPIES IN A SIEGE. THE conqueror may dismiss a confidential chief of a corporation. The chief may go over to the enemy as a friend and offer to supply him with recruits and other help collected from the conqueror's territory or followed by a band of spies, the chief may please the enemy by destroying a disloyal village or a regiment or an ally of the conqueror and by sending as a present the elephants, horses, and disaffected persons of the conqueror's army or of the latter's ally; or a confidential chief officer of the conqueror may solicit help from a portion of the territory (of the enemy), or from a corporation of people (sreni) or from wild tribes; and when he has gained their confidence, he may send them down to the conqueror to be routed down on the occasion of a farcical attempt to capture elephants or wild tribes.

     

    • Like 1

    Trader bonuses: International vs Land/Sea Traders.

    in Balancing Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Philip the Swaggerless
    The tiny Han bonus is a mistake I believe

    I was doing some experimentation to understand trade benefits and bonuses and was surprised to see how negligible International trade bonuses are.

    I chose the Corinthian Isthmus skirmish map for a consistent distance between territories.  I used Iberians as my ally and destination market.  On this map at least the Iberians AI always build their market in the same location.

    I then did experiments playing as Athens + Iberians, Han Chinese + Iberians, Athens + Iberians + Persian, and Persians + Iberians.  These are the numbers that appear when telling the trader to go:

    Athens + Iberians (no bonus):

    • 51 + 10 (me), 10 (ally). The trader carries 71; I receive 61 and my ally receives 10.

    Han + Iberians (20% International bonus):

    • 51 + 10 (me), 12 (ally).  The trader carries 73; I receive 63 and my ally receives 10. (Is the labeling flipped?  I checked to confirm at the summary that the ally had a trade income of 10, but I had a trade income of 63 (51+12).
    • 2 extra res for me, no extra res for my ally compared to having no bonus.

    Athens + Iberians + Persians (15% Land bonus):

    • 59+12 (me), 12 (ally).  (The trader carries 83; I receive  71 and my ally receives 12.)
    • 10 extra resource for me, 2 extra for my ally compared to having no bonus.

    Persians + Iberians (15% + 25% Land bonuses):

    • 74 + 15 (me), 15 (ally).  (The trader carries 104; I receive 89 and my ally receives 15.)
    • 28 extra resource for me, 5 extra resource for my ally compared to having no bonus.

    Carth: + Iberians

    • 51 + 20 (me), 15 (ally). The trader carries 86;  I receive  66, my ally receives 20.
    • 5 extra resource for me, 10 extra resource for my ally compared to having no bonus.

    EDIT:  See my next post...

    So the Han 20% international bonus only gave an extra 2 of the resource per trip.  That's pretty weak isn't it?  The 10% Carth bonus would only give 1 extra!  It is reasonable for the international bonuses to be less potent than land/naval bonuses since they apply to both cases, but maybe bump them up to Han 50% and Carth 40%?

     

    • Like 2

  15. Can an aura be used to allow a building to become buildable?

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted

    Okay, I just tested it by starting some games with an AI teammate while I am Iberians.  By checking the replay I confirmed the following:

    • changing my status to enemy removes the building from their units' building panels
    • deleting all my units and cc (becoming defeated) removes the building from their units' building panels
    • changing my status to neutral removes it from their building panel, and if I ally them again it reappears in their building panels.  (That is, once I have sent them 1,000 stone and they accept my alliance offer. )
    • Like 1

  18. Can an aura be used to allow a building to become buildable?

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted

    I assumed I could make a building become buildable based on an aura because that is listed in the TechnologyModifications page:

    Builder/Entities/_string

    I was looking into adding an aura to give players allied to Iberians the ability to make an Iberian embassy to make mercenaries.  I copied the "iber_player_teambonus" file into my mod's data/auras/  teambonuses folder and altered it.  I've proofread this aura and rechecked my directories many times, but I can't get the embassy to show up in the in-game build panel when I click on a worker.  I don't see it even when I get to the town phase (the required tech of parent embassy template). I did not include this building in the building.xml file because I want it to only be buildable when the player has an Iberian ally.   

    {
    "type": "player",
    "affects": ["Citizen Worker"],
    "affectedPlayers": ["ExclusiveMutualAlly"],
    "modifications": [
        {
            "value": "Builder/Entities/_string",
            "tokens": "structures/embassy_iberian_allied"
        }
    ],
    "auraName": "Saripeko",
    "auraDescription": "Allies can build Iberian embassies to train mercenaries."
}


    Can auras be used to allow a building to become buildable?

  20. How hard would it be to add "PerAlly" to Entity Limit, Limit Changers?

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted

    I would like to have PerAlly added to Limit Changers, so that the number of restricted units/structures you can make is limited by the number of allies.

    I don't have any programming experience other than working on a team bonus mod for some weeks.  I've done a little reading about JavaScript.  It doesn't seem like it should be hard to get a count of Allies.  But I don't really know how to even start when it comes to the component files.

    <EntityLimits>
        <Limits>
          <ArmorerCart>1</ArmorerCart>
          <CivicCenter>1</CivicCenter>

          <Pillar>0</Pillar>
        </Limits>
        <LimitChangers>
          <ArmorerCart>
            <PerAlly>1<PerAlly>   //Meaning that the player can make 1 Armorer Cart per ally.
          </ArmorerCart>
        </LimitChangers>
        <LimitRemovers>
          <CivilCentre>
            <RequiredTechs datatype="tokens">phase_town</RequiredTechs>
          </CivilCentre>
        </LimitRemovers>
      </EntityLimits>

     

  21. Teamwork Team Bonus Concept

    in Gameplay Discussion

    Posted

     

    13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I've entertained the idea of an "Emissary" or "Ambassador" unit that boosts production of allies-only and also gives his vision to allies (if Cartography is not researched). Basically the role of the Han Minister, but you use it to boost your allies instead of yourself.

    I like the idea.  For the Emissary, would he give his entire civ's vision to his allies, or only the emissary's line of sight?  I had thought about making a civ's initial scout have shared vision, although I haven't looked into how to technically implement it.  I feel like a benefit like that should start early if it is to be helpful.

    13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Then also a "Spy" [aka "Sikarios"] unit where to you it looks like a spy wearing a sketchy hood and cape, while to the enemy it looks like a random one of their soldiers. The only way for the enemy to know it's not one of theirs is for them to select your spy and try to order it around.

    That is another really cool idea.  Beyond my knowledge to implement.  

    What civs do you think these ideas would be good for?

    On 04/03/2022 at 12:07 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

    In delenda est, there is a possibilty to let carts unpack into buidings. Maybe another idea would be that gauls can produce a cart and unpack it in allied territory and donate a "special" forge with lower upgrade costs to their allies. The cart and the special forge would be capturable by your opponents.

    @wowgetoffyourcellphone  I took a look at Delenda Est and if this refers to the Scythians it looks like you accomplish this by having the carts "upgrade", and "unpack."  But is there a way to donate a structure/unit to an allies?  I was actually considering giving Kushites the ability to make gift elephants at a cheaper price, which cannot fight, but then "upgrade" into an full fledged war elephant, immediately changing ownership to the ally in whose territory they upgrade at. 

     

  23. Making a new unit to be produced at the forge

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted

    5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    I am not an expert either but the <ProductionQueue/> element seems strange to me. Shouldn't there be an opening and a closing statement like  <VisualActor>  </VisualActor> ?

     

    4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    That means an empty production queue, i.e. the building doesn't produce anything. If you want to train units, then:

    <ProductionQueue>

    <Entities data='tokens'>

    unit_a

    </Entities>

    </ProductionQueue>

    In A26 it will be replaced with <Trainer> tag

    Thank you guys. I should've updated here, I was able to get it working.  The reason it wasn't working was because of the capitalization of Forge class

    • Like 1

  24. Questions about technologies and the buildings that allow them.

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted · Edited by Philip the Swaggerless

    Since the "affects" line of the Philosopher technologies is sometimes "structure," it won't work to include the replace feature in the actual technologies.  I've decided to give the Philosopher "Shell" technologies, where after you click it it replaces all technologies with the one you clicked on.  And then you just click on the icon again and researches the actual technology.

        "modifications": [
            {
                "value": "Researcher/Technologies/_string",
                "replace": "philosophy_skepticism"
            }
        ],

    Edit:

    Better yet, I can make the real technology have "autoResearch": true, and then once the user clicks the shell tech the real tech automatically researches. 

  25. Questions about technologies and the buildings that allow them.

    in Tutorials & Guides

    Posted

    Tokens worked.  Excellent!

    Now I am trying to make it so that the Philosopher can only research 1 of 5 available technologies.  Do you know if there is a good way to do it?  I believe it is possible with nested tech pairs, but it would be annoying for the player to have to sort through 5 different techs.  My other idea was to include a modification line in the tech to make it so that once one tech was researched the others would disappear.  I tried this:

     "value": "Researcher/Entities/_string", "replace": " ",

    This didn't work, and is undesirable anyways because it has to apply to all the units that the original technology "affects."  The other possibility I thought of was to have negative tech requirements, but I don't know if that is even a thing.  What I mean is that the tech cannot be researched of the listed techs are researched.  What I tried below didn't work:

        "requirements": {
            "all": [
                { "tech": " !philosophy_aristotelianism, !philosophy_platonism, !philosophy_stoicism, !philosophy_skepticism" }
            ]

    (From looking around it seems like "!" negates what comes after it?  Did I mention I am nub?)

    If you have any good ideas I'd appreciate it again.

    Thanks.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...