Ancient Empires: 222 BC
-
@Name I believe everything discussed thus far is already achievable.
-
@Hepps I was talking about the penalty when attacking over rivers thing. I'd rather not use canals for rivers, or buildable bridges.
-
@Name Gotcha! I missed one sentence.
-
@Hepps I think I wasn't too clear anyway. But the coastline calls for short replies:p
-
@Name Coastal design is a cruel mistress!
-
@Name But despite her demands... fulfilling her needs feels somehow just right!
-
@Hepps Yeah like 4 or 5 hours of work already and I might be at half of it done? Still feels kind of good to give it attention, and being pushed to improve the map in general:)
Here's a sample (ignore the dots on the wrong side, I'll mass fix them later).
-
I took a break from the coastline to try some things. What do you think about this style of borders and rivers?
-
@Name So if you have put the river into the base map are you intending to make the connection between the 2 territories impassable?
-
@Hepps No, it would be just a normal border. Then if at some point attack penalties over rivers are possible, I'll add those.
I wander if I should further extend rivers into terriotiries, or only use those (or their parts) that are useful as borders. In the example above the real river should probably extend a bit into the Sparta region.
-
@Name The image looks great BTW... a dramatic improvement.
It is really hard to say if or how that feature would be implemented. I would lean towards removing the rivers from the base map image and simply add them to your relief layer.
-
Talking about rivers, are the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits going to be treated as rivers, that now would mean simply being a connection?
-
@Hepps Thanks, I had good advice:)
Any good reason they shouldn't be on the core map? I think it won't be hard to understand that rivers are just decorative/normal borders. And then if at some point I can improve their function, they will be ready in place.
@Cernel I'm thinking to just treat the Propontis (Marmara) Sea as every other sea territory. So you would need ships to cross.
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Hepps Thanks, I had good advice:)
Not often I hear that.
Thankfully it is in writing... so I have evidence for my wife! 
Any good reason they shouldn't be on the core map? I think it won't be hard to understand that rivers are just decorative/normal borders. And then if at some point I can improve their function, they will be ready in place.
I guess it really doesn't matter as you can just ignore these "Territories" while doing the map making process. In fact it is likely better that you leave them... because if you need a territory for the river if/when this were implemented... they are already there. If you do not they can be left ignored.
-
@Hepps said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
I guess it really doesn't matter as you can just ignore these "Territories" while doing the map making process. In fact it is likely better that you leave them... because if you need a territory for the river if/when this were implemented... they are already there. If you do not they can be left ignored.
I did not completely understand this.
Btw I thought of a rather complicated system related to territory effects and combat, that might be possible add. Credits to @Cernel for inspiration through an older post.
Say we have regions with a "mixed" terrain and various leader units.
Then depending on some attribute of a defending (?) leader unit there would be a chance to choose among various terrain types, some favoring defending units. Then change the territority effect to that, until battle is over, then revert it. Or if we could compare attributes between attacking, defending (and no) leaders to determine chances, it might be even more interesting.I probably won't add something like that, at least not for a long while (and not sure it's even possible), mostly throwing the idea for general brainstorming.
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Hepps said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
I guess it really doesn't matter as you can just ignore these "Territories" while doing the map making process. In fact it is likely better that you leave them... because if you need a territory for the river if/when this were implemented... they are already there. If you do not they can be left ignored.
I did not completely understand this.
So with it drawn as is... you would be able to click on this in the map making process and actually make it a territory. If you simply ignore it then it will become nothing when you are playing. Hovering over it while playing will yield nothing. But you may have to manually add the connections between the adjoining territories as the auto connection finder will likely not recognize all three of the territories are meant to connect.
Btw I thought of a rather complicated system related to territory effects and combat, that might be possible add. Credits to @Cernel for inspiration through an older post.
Say we have regions with a "mixed" terrain and various leader units.
Then depending on some attribute of a defending (?) leader unit there would be a chance to choose among various terrain types, some favoring defending units. Then change the territority effect to that, until battle is over, then revert it. Or if we could compare attributes between attacking, defending (and no) leaders to determine chances, it might be even more interesting.I probably won't add something like that, at least not for a long while (and not sure it's even possible), mostly throwing the idea for general brainstorming.
Interesting, I will have to ponder this.
-
@Name Here is a visual of what I am trying to explain...
-
@Hepps Auto connection finder? I've been adding those manually in the XML. Does it work for land to sea and sea to sea as well?
More ideas:
- What if the river is assigned a territory, only to consume movement? (I probably won't use that due to visual and other concerns but it might evolve to something interesting). Fast units could cross it at once, slower ones would lose a turn.
- The river could be assigned a territory, only as flavor, displaying the river name on mouse-over.
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Hepps Auto connection finder? I've been adding those manually in the XML. Does it work for land to sea and sea to sea as well?
Yes the map making program will do all connections automatically. There are just some situations where it misses things... one being what I just detailed.
More ideas:
- What if the river is assigned a territory, only to consume movement? (I probably won't use that due to visual and other concerns but it might evolve to something interesting). Fast units could cross it at once, slower ones would lose a turn.
Yes this is possible. The only issue you face is that visually if units move into a river territory that is only 3 pixels wide... graphically it will become an issue as the units will be visually in a territory they do not fit into. Can be very confusing to a player(s) if units end their turn in a territory that makes them look like they could be in any one of 3 territories.
- The river could be assigned a territory, only as flavor, displaying the river name on mouse-over.
You could make it an actual territory and have it with no connections. Then have the needed connections added manually as described above. Yes.
-
@Hepps / Everyone. What do you think of adding rivers/river parts as marked in green? Should I go for it for extra flavor or just ignore those?
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