Warcraft: War Heroes - Official Thread

redrum

@Frostion Not sure about the images, I'll have to take a closer look.

The AI does check distance from the enemy but it has a hard limit right not where it won't even consider any 1 production territories. The reason for that is that on pretty much all existing maps, you never want to build a factory on 1 production territories and rarely on 2 production territories (so this is essentially an assumption that is invalid for this map). The way the AI works around buying factories is essentially like this (ignoring sea purchases for now):

Buy defenders to hold factories
Buy land units in factories reasonably close the the enemy (has a bunch of calculations to determine distance and whether to buy low/high movement units)
Buy factory in 3 or more production territories reasonably close to the enemy
Try to spend remaining PUs on land units in factories further from the enemy not used in 1 & 2
Buy factory in 2 production territories as couldn't spend PUs on anything else

@Cernel Ideally, you are correct. The AI shouldn't hard code to fixed values but given that it works on almost all existing maps and is much simpler to code that is why it was done that way. There are very few existing maps where you would ever place a factory in a 1 production territory (given that placement is limited by territory production). But the AI should instead look at say average territory production values instead of having a hard limit (if all territories are 1 production and factories are cheap then be willing to build anywhere). Your example is a bit different and even more extreme but the AI would probably do ok (definitely better than it would on this map with all 1 prod territories). The reason is the AI only tries to build a factory if it thinks it needs one after using its existing factories that are reasonably close to the enemy so the only thing that would change is it would be willing to buy a factory in territories that might not be worth it since you could argue it shouldn't build in a 10 prod territory in your example (only in maybe 20 or more prod territories).

Frostion

@redrum My Warcraft map now has 1-3 PU territories, so the AI is building factories, but sadly not upgrading.

@everybody
First post here for a long time. And it is not even a progress report, even though there has been a lot of progress and changes to this map.

I need to know if this way of representing bridges (land+air unit connections) and air bridges (air units only connection) is intuitively understood? Is it obvious what a blue arrow, floating in the air, is saying? I myself have been working on this and might be blinded in terms of what I see. I have tried to make the arrow very discreet, as to not look like a physical presence, like the "real" bridge with black outline.

redrum

@Frostion The blue arrows and bridges make sense to me.

The AI won't buy any units that consume other units if that is what you mean?

Cernel

@Frostion said in World of War Heroes – Official Thread:

@redrum My Warcraft map now has 1-3 PU territories, so the AI is building factories, but sadly not upgrading.

@everybody
First post here for a long time. And it is not even a progress report, even though there has been a lot of progress and changes to this map.

I need to know if this way of representing bridges (land+air unit connections) and air bridges (air units only connection) is intuitively understood? Is it obvious what a blue arrow, floating in the air, is saying? I myself have been working on this and might be blinded in terms of what I see. I have tried to make the arrow very discreet, as to not look like a physical presence, like the "real" bridge with black outline.

As long as you can always move through rivers, with the same kind of units, then I would prefer no arrows or anything, as that would be superfluous signalling.

However, this is only in case the mapmaker takes good care in assuring all being unmistakably clear (!), and without any missing connections, as otherwise it might be hard arguing a connection is actually missing.

An example of an original bad drawing with universally fordable river is given by the Lord of the Rings map (in High Quality, though rarely played). In that map, all rivers were fordable, but without any signs, and with a drawing leaving a lot to be desired in terms of clarity, with also some cases in which arguably very similar cases were incoherently handled (for example, the fact that Anfalas and Belfalas connect while Anfalas and Lebennin don't).

Eventually, someone, probably veqryn, fixed that by adding dotted lines on the rivers, showing the connections.

Anyways, what I'm saying is that the most important thing is that all is clear. Secondarily, I suggest clarity being achieved with the least amount of effort. So, in your case, the best would be having no arrows nor dotted lines, but all river borders being very clearly drawn and all xml entries perfectly defined. Failing that (like in the case of the Lord of the Rings map), and aside from redrawing the map, then arrows or dotted lines are, of course, better than having no clue.

This makes me recall the same matter we went through when clarifying the WAW mess about little islands connections and canals (a few users were suggesting arrows, and such, and I think it has been proved nothing of that was actually necessary, as long as all was well drawn).

Frostion

@redrum I know AI don't buy upgrades and it's a shame

@Cernel "I would prefer no arrows or anything, as that would be superfluous signalling. However, this is only in case the mapmaker takes good care in assuring all being unmistakably clear"
In Dragon War there will be no arrows or indicators, as there is actually no cases of uncertainty regarding the presence of a border-river, and all border rivers can be flown over. This is not the case on the Warcraft map. There are many places where borders and connections are not as clear as in the picture I posted. Also there are som slim mountain ridges that I plan to allow airunits to fly over. So the arrows will mark all air connections. No arrows, no air connection over the river or mountain ridge.

Hepps

@Frostion I like the arrows if they are intrinsically key for clarity.

I might suggest deepening the shadow ever so slightly as it may further underscore the unique nature of the the connection.

Hepps

Also maybe adding a slight arch to the arrows...

Frostion

@Hepps I recolored the arrows a bit, added more shadow and a discreet outline. I don’t think I will add a curve, as it could maybe lead to think that the arrows are referring to something thrown or maybe artillery related.

In relation to this; I think I will allow all artillery shots (1 movement suicide air units) to use all air connections just as other air units. (And no ... artillery cant load up and catapult pigs .... the pig is a "Food" generating resource )

beelee

@Frostion

Too bad about the pigs. Otherwise you could have umbrellas as defensive units

Cernel

Actually, in ancient times pigs were sometimes used as suicide war units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig

Historical accounts of incendiary pigs or flaming pigs were recorded by the military writer Polyaenus and by Aelian. Both writers reported that Antigonus II Gonatas' siege of Megara in 266 BC was broken when the Megarians doused some pigs with combustible pitch, crude oil or resin, set them alight, and drove them towards the enemy's massed war elephants. The elephants bolted in terror from the flaming, squealing pigs, often killing great numbers of their own soldiers by trampling them to death.

Hepps

@Frostion I would probably agree about the curvature as your points make perfect sense... and the revisions to the arrows look great.

And don't be so stingy... let the pork fly freely!

Frostion

So the “Air Bridges” and their final look is now done and implemented (note the bit smaller air bridge pictures):

@Cernel I could now use your help to make some nice working air-unit canals again
Here is the data, connections and units:
WarcraftWarHeroes-Connections-and-units.txt

Do you think that a variable name will work with canals and their unit restrictions? ( @redrum ???)

Cernel

@Frostion How about instead having these rules:

Air and raft can always pass.
Land can pass if there is a bridge and the territories on both sides are owned or allied.

Then, the raft would be a movement 1 land unit (or maybe a movement 1 kamikaze air unit) that you use to move land units in attack always or for moving without bridges.

?

It doesn't really make sense to me that the bridges are the way for land units to attack. Then why the defender doesn't just destroy the bridges? Indestructible bridges would make more sense if they allow movement only between friendly territories.

Frostion

@Cernel Realism is not really a goal of this map. No bridges can be destroyed in Warcraft, unless it is a bridge meant to be destroyed as part of some story line, cutscene or mission. And even then, the same bridge would magically be restored by the time a new player arrived to the scene Jokes aside, my Warcraft map also seeks simplicity:

Land bridge = Land, air and ammo units may cross into the other territory.
Air bridge = Only air and ammo units may cross into the other territory.

(and yes, for artillery shots to be able to travel into another territory to hit enemies, these enemies should realistically be standing and waiting just past the border line. And this will definitely not be the imagined scenario of every border crossing.)

The map will have a lot of impassable mountain ridges, air only passable mountains, impassable as well as passable rivers and so on. Some regions of the map are dominated by unhindered travels through territories while other areas will have maze like characteristics

I think that I want to just follow my original plans for the bridges.

Cernel

@Frostion said in World of War Heroes – Official Thread:

@Cernel I could now use your help to make some nice working air-unit canals again
Here is the data, connections and units:
WarcraftWarHeroes-Connections-and-units.txt

This data is not enough. I also need the attached territories. Practically, in your case, to keep it simplest, you need to attach them to a territory that is and will always be owned by the Neutral player.

Cernel

@Cernel said in World of War Heroes – Official Thread:

@Frostion said in World of War Heroes – Official Thread:

@Cernel I could now use your help to make some nice working air-unit canals again
Here is the data, connections and units:
WarcraftWarHeroes-Connections-and-units.txt

This data is not enough. I also need the attached territories. Practically, in your case, to keep it simplest, you need to attach them to a territory that is and will always be owned by the Neutral player.

Here it is the set of canals that should allow you enforcing what you want, provided that you substitute all occurrences of "..." with the needed territory:
connections_canals.txt

Cernel

@Frostion said in World of War Heroes – Official Thread:

@Cernel Realism is not really a goal of this map. No bridges can be destroyed in Warcraft, unless it is a bridge meant to be destroyed as part of some story line, cutscene or mission. And even then, the same bridge would magically be restored by the time a new player arrived to the scene Jokes aside, my Warcraft map also seeks simplicity:

Land bridge = Land, air and ammo units may cross into the other territory.
Air bridge = Only air and ammo units may cross into the other territory.

(and yes, for artillery shots to be able to travel into another territory to hit enemies, these enemies should realistically be standing and waiting just past the border line. And this will definitely not be the imagined scenario of every border crossing.)

The map will have a lot of impassable mountain ridges, air only passable mountains, impassable as well as passable rivers and so on. Some regions of the map are dominated by unhindered travels through territories while other areas will have maze like characteristics

I think that I want to just follow my original plans for the bridges.

I suppose you would need here a feature request by which you can move ammunition into a territory only if other units are attacking that territory through the same connection as the ammunitions are moving. Basically something on the lines of the naval bombardment requiring offloading from the same sea zone.

Otherwise, don't you think it would make no sense that you can fire ammunition into a territory from a border whence no other units are invading? This would be substantially like a battleship bombarding a territory not from the coast where the sea borne assault is actually happening! For example, if France is only one territory, I could make D-Day on the north of France and have my battleships in the Mediterranean supporting D-Day firing across the entire France to the shores in Normandy!

Cernel

@Frostion said in World of War Heroes – Official Thread:

So the “Air Bridges” and their final look is now done and implemented (note the bit smaller air bridge pictures):

I'd avoid pointless bridges. Unless I'm missing something, for example, the rightmost bridge is between two normally adjacent territories, so why the bridge?

I understand that the drawing of the map has a road there, but, then, I would rather redraw the borders as to assure that bridge is actually useful (for example, splitting the territory to the bottom-right into two..

Cernel

Since a bridge should be at least much easier to defend than an open border, it would be great if you could modify the attack power of units that just moved through a canal. This would be a feature request, but just letting you know that I'd be available for giving the canal codes, in such a case, if provided with the list of bridges connections.

Frostion

@Cernel The plan is to let ammunition be able to fly/be thrown over borders, bridges and air bridges. And yes, it is only realistic to hit an enemy with medieval artillery weapons if the enemy was right on the other side of a river. Probably always impossible to throw rocks over a small mountain range / air bridge. But this will be a game mechanic. It is inspired by the 1 move mortar shots of Age of Tribes and the 2 move Rockets. I found it pretty fun to acquire those weapons and bombarded from a distance, a helpless enemy So I think that it is great fun and that it adds a special dimension to the map. But there are some other things to take in mind on this map. We are not talking about huge territories like France, Ireland or whatever. Some of the Warcraft map territories are not bigger than it is possible to visually, with your ingame eyes, see to the other side of the territory, even though it is still a considerable distance. The artillery units are also expensive. Also, the ammunition units are mostly on the weak side with low hit/kill chance, ranging from 10%-50% (1-5 on d10) right now. Primarily the units are for ruining/bombarding factories/fortifications, that are so strong that they matter greatly in battle, killing many attacking units.

I agree that the bridge picture + a normal border is not optimal. I can say that this case is the only occurrence on the map. I hope players can just ignore it, and think "Ahhh, I have two ways to cross, here AND here ... yay!" I think it will create just as much confusion to see a "missing" bridge than a bridge to much.

I don't think I want to complicate the mechanics of being able to cross a bridge. There will be a lot of stuff going on on this map as it is, and I think the very simple way of handling bridge crossings is most fitting to the setting. But I appreciate you being there to help out