Revisiting an old project
-
@hepps gigglez yes I know that
all good a minor unit placement tweak -
@hepps Ok right, I remember that.
But I recall that just happened by mistake (didn't it?), because you took the TAW map, assuming it was just double sized from 270BC, not realizing that it had changes.
So, I umderstood you were in the process of reverting back to 270BC, making an enlarged map with the actual same game drawing.
Is there also a connection between Byzantium and Nicaea and a canal there, like it looks?
Regarding the Byzantium - Nicea canal, I would be against it because, at those time, you could not block ships, and anyways I would be against having different rules for Dardanelles and Bosphorus.
For the different Aegean sea zones, that was made I believe mostly to allow placement in enemy sea zones, without turning the game silly.
I agree that being unable to place in hostile sea zones makes no sense, but 270BC is not really sensible anyways.
But those changes, even without any canal additions, are really making it another game out of it, so that really would imply restarting the balance almost from scratch.
I think whoever would take on itself the responsibility of the change would get a lot of flack from people saying that old was better and you ruined the map, as many people tend to be conservative.
I definitely would not feel qualified as confirming the balance on this matter, also since I've not played 270BC much lately anyways (I tend to play my 40% mod).
Since I fear that this will just end in you remaining stuck waiting forever (as those changes would need several good players to playtest the map a lot, and I doubt that is happening) my suggestion is to go back to your (initial?) intent to just update the map visually, without gameplay changes.
I'm not saying that is a bad initiative, and I agree that the Aegean situation is not that good, and those changes would make for a better game, if balanced. I'm just not seeing the needed playtest, with very good players, happening, as I'm currently seeing 0 very good 270BC players active for feedback in the forum (since we also lost ice).
I'm sad I fear this will just end up in the graphic upgrades getting wasted, and that you will just wait forever.I just doubt that the current state of the community would allow such a rebalancing effort to be pulled off. Also, if the new map is not available by official channels, how that is going to happen, unless you keep sponsoring it privately?
If you want to upload just the unit images, I'm still disposable at GitHub updating those only (wasn't this the original intent of this thread?), both in 270BC and the variants (or only the variants), while waiting for the rest, if ever.
-
-
@general_zod Beside the fact that @Hepps here meant to update 270BC, not my mods (thus why I intended to just wait for the final update, and then see what I could import over to the variants), there is also the problem that I don't want to have that canal or whatever in Byzantium - Nicaea, that I would keep my other changes from the original 270BC, and that I guess Hepps remade that unit display on the board, that the variants cannot have (you see I've removed it in the current one), as the units have different stats from the original, and anyways I'm against having on board things that would need graphic update for making any stats changes, if this is the case, especially for a variants skin (that may have different stats across the various games, anyways).
Aside from this, I think I would be fine at changing the Aegean sea zones to @Hepp proposal here, for my variants (and, being my variants, nobody can complain I ruined them), but, doing that, I would also allow placement in hostile sea zones and allow loading in hostile sea zones.
So, if @Hepps wants to redirect at updating the (my) variants, instead and before the original 270BC, and make all the above changes I said, sure, cool for me, but I don't think so.
-
@cernel Long way to say I guess we just wait for the 270BC update (I just doubt it will happen), then I will think about what to move over to the variants (maybe only the new units graphics).
-
I was under impression @hepps was watching our 270bc 40% multi games when there was a lot of interest in those/that version (your version). None of the other versions have been played much, if at all to my knowledge.
Yeah canal stuff is just xml, so no issue there.
Anyways I rather see the artwork get used in the most popular 270 bc version than none at all. An then those others will remain as they are since there's no gamers for those atm.
-
@general_zod So, as I said, I would be cool at skipping 270BC and directly updating the variants with @Hepps work or even making my "Cernel Variant", plus the sea zones changes, into the new official 270BC, but there are the few problems I underlined (I really don't like the addition of canals in any straits) and it depends on @Hepps.
I want also to point out that I had people that said that my version ruined 270BC and the original is much better, but they were referring to "270BC 40%", not to "270BC Cernel Variant" ("270 BC Cernel Variant" is the variant of "270BC"; "270BC 40%" is the mod of that variant).
-
@general_zod said in Revisiting an old project:
Yeah canal stuff is just xml, so no issue there.
There is the issue that the version @Hepps posted is clearly displaying a canal in the Bosphorous, and I'm against both that or having the visual inconsistent with game data.
-
Hmm, didn't notice the canal in his pic.
The version I have looks like so.
I think your version was the best version from a multi player standpoint. It even had some 1v1 action when peeps wanted to prove themselves.
Anyways, ask him if you can tweak the map skin to no canals look.
-
@general_zod Not a fan of surging. That would need the sea zone pattern being fully redone, without that canal display.
Not a fan of asking, either. I would use it, totally or partially, if it is made officially freely usable, like by uploading it to GitHub, or by other ways of declaring it publicly free to use. -
@cernel Hepps already told us we could use it. Yes it was your 40% that got played. The things left to fix were the support abilities for some of the units. Like chariots and axemen etc.
-
What I'm saying is that it I would use it if everyone can use it (with no need of asking), and I don't believe @Hepps publicly released it, if I'm not overlooking.
If you mean that in "Cernel Variant" Chariots cannot support and axeman cannot receive support, that is intended (original 270BC they can, and I removed it on purpose).
-
-
@cernel oki doki yes he did ask for his to finished. (Balance if needed) he doesn't play it.
-
@prastle bump and uploaded to drop box
https://www.dropbox.com/s/voul1m4gqler776/CCLXXbc-master.zip?dl=0
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future! Sir Winston Churchill
-
@hepps said in Revisiting an old project:
@mahks Hi. The game was completed... but due to some map changes between the 2 different versions of the game used to make the finished product... the game required some re-balancing. I was under the impression that a few of the avid players of the map were going to examine what is needed to restore balance... but alas it has seemingly fallen by the way-side. I never heard back. So this game is in limbo... or purgatory... I'm not sure which.
I am not currently, nor have ever been a player of this game... I took on the project to beautify it simply because it had a following on the Lobby and I liked the idea of a quality Ancient Era map for Triple A. If the experienced players who have a copy get back to me... I will be more than happy to make the necessary changes and up-load it to Git Hub. But I will not be party to releasing yet another broken map.
-
@hepps said in Revisiting an old project:
So here is the differences between the maps....
I don't have downloaded it (don't have a google account), but these are the relevant tiles:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/voul1m4gqler776/CCLXXbc-master.zip?dl=0&file_subpath=%2FCCLXXbc-master%2Fmap%2FbaseTiles%2F18_3.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/voul1m4gqler776/CCLXXbc-master.zip?dl=0&file_subpath=%2FCCLXXbc-master%2Fmap%2FbaseTiles%2F18_4.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/voul1m4gqler776/CCLXXbc-master.zip?dl=0&file_subpath=%2FCCLXXbc-master%2Fmap%2FreliefTiles%2F18_3.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/voul1m4gqler776/CCLXXbc-master.zip?dl=0&file_subpath=%2FCCLXXbc-master%2Fmap%2FreliefTiles%2F18_4.pngTaking screenshots from the first two links above and merging them:
Assuming your list of changes is exhaustive, I think that the graphic in the Bosporus needs to be redone. What I believe most will think, by looking at it, is that is a canal, meaning:
- it appears telling that Byzantium and Nicaea are connected, since they share a border (I assume they are not)
- it appears telling that you need to own Byzantium and Nicaea to go to and from 70 and 71 (I assume you do not) (the only alternative interpretation of the graphic would be that 70 and 71 are not connected, but I think people will exclude that, for basic realism and since the relief hints at something special)
Side note, I would not go the other way (of making the game consistent with the graphic, by adding a canal there), for geographical consistency between the Bosporus and the Dardanelles (I know this game is not realistic, but...).
-
An alternative solution I would be favourable with (so would import in the variants too), that would allow not surging or remaking the current new graphic, is to have:
- Nicaea and Byzantium land connected
- Pergamum and Byzantium land connected
- no canals
(I also believe this would be realistic)
That way, the current graphic could be re-elaborated as meaning there is a connection between Byzantium and Nicaea, but no canal.
The only thing that would need to be added, in this case, is something like a simple double headed arrow land connecting Pergamum and Byzantium (that would be better added as a decoration, so that it displays also when you take details off, and doesn't impact on the relief, in case of any future rework).
Plus simply a few lines in notes to explain the above (so that players don't need to test it and wonder if how it works is correct).Just throwing ideas on how to address the matter, if anybody else but me actually see it as an issue (I know that is rather marginal, but...).
-
@cernel how about ya just stick with the current redraw
and we get that played a bit before we change more
Dany likes it as well -
@prastle So maybe I have not been clear. My above post, with suggestions of actual gameplay changes, are not really changes that I want to get made for the game itself, but, as I said, just alternative ideas, if it is preferred keeping the current graphic, relatively to what I said at my other post before.
Feel free to ignore my previous post, and refer only to the one before (that is why I made them as two different posts).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login