270BC - Official Thread
-
@Hepps Great. I know you are busy so if you can post it here or send it to me that would be helpful. Whether I can figure out what to do with it is another matter entirely
-
@redrum "Legionnaire" is a French word (in a map where there is not a single another French word, by the way), bu "Legionaire" (with one "n") is not a French, nor an English, nor a Latin word.
But actually, the number 1 problem I have with units names is that there is not the quinquereme.
Slingers and peltasts are the same thing in 300BC, that is the early (and very unbalanced in favour of AntiRomans) version of 270BC, so I guess they have always been the same unit. Side note, they and "velites" are the only plural names, where everything else is singular. Also in 300BC there were other cases of differently named units being exactly the same.
Also for other reasons, my new names I used in the variants are much better than the ones of original, but of course this means breaking compatibility and likely trashing the bottom-left legend on the board. Also having the same names in all cases for both the original and the variants would be good in itself.
Talking about redundant units, I also think I'm going to remove barbarian in my variants, next time I update it, substituting them all with swordmen. Practically, the Neutrals could be reduced to 3 units only, from the current 6, but I guess it is good to keep some pseudo variety, for flavour, but rather only if not unique.
-
To be clear, renaming both "slingers" and "peltasts" to just "psilos", as in the Cernel variant, is more than just a rename, as it implies to refactor the xml to have only one of these two. Also totally removing the barbarian, as I intend to do at my next release (that I'll try to get done fairly soon, as I'm certainly happy to import those skin changes), would imply a similar work.
On top of that that that would require cutting two units out of the legend in bottom left, that would look a bit strange with the current format, as you would remain with only 1 unit entry in the fourth column of it.
Going back to changes, I'm not sure it is possible doing any gameplay changes at all to 270BC, as it looks to me that really nobody likes, or at least plays, this game, at least when I'm online. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone playing 270BC in lobby, and I'm pretty sure I've not seen any known experienced players playing it for many years, by now, since me and ice stopped.
EDIT: Also me and ice (and actually many good players (soulfein, ajmdemen, guerrilla_J...) played the version before Veqryn did any changes, that, if I recall correctly was the 1.3.1 (Elephants 4/4 no support, etc.). Then, after Veqryn (and me, but in a minor role) did the changes, I don't think the new (now old) versions, after 1.3.1 were ever seriously playtested by any experienced players at all. On the side of ice, he mostly stopped caring about 270BC because he got his Rome Total War map done. Then, eventually, I got my variants done; so from them on really 270BC was not played by anyone known at all (unless I'm missing something).
-
Also, I've seen you have decreased the units zoom to 75%. I believe it is better as it was at 87.5%, for the new units, as well. There is indeed some excessive overlapping in a few places (that maybe can be solved by redefining the placement coordinates), but the units look really way too small and indistinctive at anything less than 87.5%. Of course, this is just my personal preference.
-
@Cernel I had played around with the unit zoom but had decided the same thing that 87.5% was still the best and I think that is what I left it as: https://github.com/triplea-maps/270bc/blob/master/map/map.properties
-
Posting here the units folder of the planned future 270bc_variants map, once I'll eventually update it (not sure when that will happen):
Meaning, these are the players and units names changes that I'm suggesting here for the original 270BC too (so that both maps would have the same units folder), and, until I don't update the variants, people playing them can have the new 270BC units by unzipping the 270bc_variants folder and unzipping, renaming to "units" and adding this folder in substitution of the one currently in the map folder.
To know where your maps are, click on Game/Engine Settings/Folders.
EDIT: units folder updated 2019/07/07
-
@Hepps I think you have unintentionally inverted the colours of GreekCityStates and Egypt for the big ships, on the sails, at least.
-
After playing a couple games with the new stuff (with my 270BC 40% with the added stuff, actually) have to say that the new units are definitely a blast. Now this is definitely one of the best looking TripleA map, and really feels like a full fledged game on its own. Kinda sad all might be for nothing, if nobody plays it anyways, but could be that now it looks so good people will get hooked.
-
@Cernel I'm sure renaming a couple of units is well within the skill-set of you fine folk.
-
@Hepps For the small ships, maybe yes, except that one would also need to cut and swap the roundels they have between the two, but, for the big ones, the Egypt ship has the Egypt symbol on the sail of the main mast, but it has the colour of GreekCityStates, vice versa for GreekCityStates.
Here it is a screenshot of the "270BC 40%" game I'm playing; look at those ships in the Aegean sea.
-
@Cernel Don't hold your breath, this is so minor. I am hard pressed for time right now and that does not crack the top 50 of what I am wanting to work on ATM.
-
@Hepps You didn't give flag assets to the neutrals. This means that you see the (inconsistent) default neutral flag (that currently is the Swiss flag) in places like the territory tab, the battlecalculator and when enabling unit flags (there should really not be that option available for this map).
@redrum You haven't fixed all the skin elements related to the removed connection Larissa - SZ 70. I've already detailed the matter in that pull request (guess you didn't notice).
-
Just add that to the game file.
-
@Hepps Actually, you can also see the medium (Swiss) flag wit the unit flags setting enabled.
-
@Cernel Why would you enable the unit flags when the unit images already have flags in them?
-
@Hepps That's a good question for the developers.:grinning_face_with_sweat:
Anyways, I'd just provide all the 3 flags, even if currently useless.
-
@Cernel I don't really think its necessary since there is 0.00000000% chance anyone would ever turn on this feature in this map the way it is currently designed.
-
@redrum My 270BC Cernel Variant, if you look at the notes while you are in game selection, only the title has the custom coloured background and the stuff that follows is not centred, while it should.
Instead, if you load the game and look at the notes after loading the game all looks fine (all have the background and is centred).
Instead, the current 270BC looks the same before and after loading the game (as I'm sure it should).
Why is that?
I'm not figuring out what is the problem there. You have any ideas how to fix this? I don't recall if the old 270BC was like that too or only my variant.
If you think it is off topic here, I'll open a thread, but I wonder if maybe this was an old 270BC problem that you fixed, since I don't recall I changed layout stuff and such, but only what's written and the tables? -
@redrum said in 270BC - Official Thread:
@Cernel I had played around with the unit zoom but had decided the same thing that 87.5% was still the best and I think that is what I left it as: https://github.com/triplea-maps/270bc/blob/master/map/map.properties
Thinking again about it, I'm actually undecided between 87.5% and 83.33%. I think 83.33% fits definetely better, especially in the busiest parts (Greece and the Aegean), and there are those 64x64 pixels cities that overlap quite a bit also due to the fact that all units are drawn from top-left, so all the exceeding pixels go on the units that are next right and down (this can only be solved by making all units 64x64 pixels and reducing all placement coordinates by 8 multiplied by the zoom setting, to have the 48x48 pixels images on the same positions, but that would cause a lot of overlapping, much of it being invisible transparency, with consequential issues when you are selecting units), but, of course, the more you zoom the more the units get blurred.
I think I'm actually leaning towards preferring the 83.33%, all considered, since I like having some empty space between the units images, but either 100%, 87.5% and 83.33% are all reasonably preferable, depending how much you are bothered from one or the other inconvenience, and how much you value actually seeing good looking not blurred unit images (that is possible only at the super-packed 100%).
p.s.: Still haven't figured it out the gamenotes thing. Was it the same for 270BC too, before the latest update, or just something I caused is mostly what I'm wondering?
-
@Cernel I think the previous game notes had that problem. I'm pretty sure I changed the html/css to use different tags/styles to properly make them display in the map window and game panel.
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