Ancient Empires: 222 BC

[Name]

@Cernel said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

I'd actually avoid having same units called with different names just for flavour (...).

Fair point, I'm leaning towards it anyway, because else it's extra work and the possibility of overwhelming new players with extra info, just for flavor.

@Name Well, but the triarii were hoplites, (...).

Ok let's first describe my plan so you can give better feedback. I'm thinking of having 7 or 8 land units per player (maybe one more if everyone gets - resources allowing - access to Elephants).

For (purchase) display consistency (see a few posts before) it should go:

• Main Foot
• Merc_Foot
• Skirmisher
• Merc_Skirmisher
• Cavalry
• Merc_Cavalry
• Special/Elite Unit
• Special 2 (and/or Elephant)

The Romans in this setup would have:

• Swordsmen (Hastatii/Principes)
• Merc Phalanx or Spearmen (representing the Soccii or other "Allies"?)
• Skirmishers (Velites)
• Merc_Skirmishers (Probably Cretans)
• Cavalry (Equites)
• Merc_Cavalry (Soccii or other "Allies"?)
• Foot Guard (Triarii)
• Extra unit/Elephants?

Maybe I could cut out the Merc_Foot from Rome to add Principes there, assuming an allied legion has similar unit types to a roman one . Or add Principes as a Special Unit along with Triarii, but that would kinda break my format.

But naming/role issues arise. Maybe I could rename infantry types:

• Medium Foot/Infantry: Spearmen + Hastatii (2/3?)
• Heavy: Phalanx + Principes (3/4?)
• Elite: Foot Guard + Triarii (4/5?)

By 222 BC (though we don't have detailed information), most greek states would field thureophoroi (and of few of them pikemen or hoplites). Boeotia and Megalopolis already had pikemen, Sparta changed it's hoplites to phalangites around 225, Achaia it's thureophoroi to phalangites a few decades later and I think that's what we know. Outside of "greece proper", successors would mostly field pikemen (Pergamon possibly not) and non greco-macedonian states would employ their own fighting styles (Carthage for example would be dependent on it's available mercenary types and shifting away from hoplites to some degree).

Thing is, phalangite equipment was usually cheaper than a hoplite's (due to a far cheaper shield) or swordsman's (no/lesser sword, cheaper shield) assuming equal armor, though it can be argued that successors started using heavier pikemen with more armor and longer sarissas (and paid for the reduced mobility against the Romans). Pikemen also required more training to be effective, so your pricing/balance suggestion makes some sense.

But overall then, what stats should I use, if I include hastatii + principes + phalanx + triarii? Do away with the foot guard type - which I'd rather not - and go like hastatii (2/3), principes (3/4), phalanx/triarii (4/5)? I'd like to keep 6 only for Elephants in defence.

I'm actually not even sure mountains should be a bad terrain for phalangites (...).

Deppents on where the battle took place and I agree about choke points. Pikemen, especially early, (lighter ones) and hoplites would operate well on smooth hills/slopes. But having to advace in rough terrain would be detrimental, especially for heavy pikemen. Then again, at least elite pikemen (in some cases all of them), could also operate as skirmishers with half of the sarissa, shield and javelins. But Cynoscephale and Pydna were fought on rough greek terrain and it was one of the reasons Macedon lost both battles. It's hard to simulate maneuvering in game. Maybe phalanx could have -1 attack on rough terrain but no defense penalties? So far I've used Mountains (and to a lesser degree hills) as a way that cheap skirmisher armies (say of a highland tribe or small state) can hold their ground against superior units.

No. TripleA currently doesn't support random selection (...).

Thanks, seems I won't consider such things, at least for now.

[Name]

@redrum I checked Civil War

Unrelated, I found a possible bug: I can't move troops in and out of Upperville (under "Manassas" rail line), Eastern Campaigns Scenario.

On topic. In my (limited) tests, it seems that resource overstacking is even worse in CW. Depending on what you purchase or not (and how much you move), some or even most resources can potentially skyrocket fast, providing practicly inexhaustible stockpiles. Supplies/Fuel is very similarly implemented to mine, troop cap (manpower) better I think.

It also gave me some ideas. Feedback very welcome.

Maybe I should remove supplies, and use PUs in it's place (upkeep & fuel), in addition to it's previous applications. Since it's needed for other things, it won't just grow in most cases, just so a few odd ones are covered. Real supply harassment is not possible anyway (unless I replace the system with a supply train unit, needed to move troops, but I bet that would mess the AI). So I guess my Supplies resource is just flavor hintering gameplay. I'm fine with wealth representing supply potential and making agricultural regions richer to balance the map.

Then I could also steal CW's manpower system (each unit has 1 manpower upkeep), just a limit on how many (non-mercenary) units are possible, and have units also cost PUs instead of manpower. Example:

Phalanx
100 PUs 80 Iron
Produces Resources each Turn: -1xPUs -1xManpower -1xIron
Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xPUs

Merc_Phalanx
360 PUs
Produces Resources each Turn: -3xPUs
Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xPUs

This also adresses the issue mentioned by @Cernel (killing off your mercenaries first cause they had huge PU upkeep, now they are just much more expensive to recruit - numbers are just examples, will need tests)

Finally, in a possible extreme makeover, I'm thinking to add Population Classes. Probably just 2 of them, Nobles and Freemen, needed for different types of units instead of generic manpower. Slaves would just be represented by the Slave_Estates Government/Structure. No Citizens, so it's generic enough to fit tribal states, unless:

UI concerns.
The way the game is setup now, I can have up to 4 resource types per territory (with a total of 8), else there are display issues in the lower bar. This could be offset by moving some resources to pre-placed structures, which is not ideal (visual burden, more work) but has other upsides (flavor, "pillaging"/destruction of productivity, possible upgrades, though the AI would need triggers to get them). Without such changes, I can only potentially add 2 resources. That's if I remove supplies and replace territory manpower with Freemen, I could add Noble (and extra Freemen) generation to some government types.

There's the resources tab issue as well though. Already with 8 resources it needs to be dragged to show gains/losses once a few numbers go over 99. Adding more resources would make this worse, perhaps even hidding current numbers. So maybe I should sacrifice manpower diversity and supplies to somewhat improve the resources tab display, cutting it down to 7 resources?

[redrum]

@Name Yeah, I think there are a number of bugs in the Eastern Campaigns Scenario still as it was really just meant as a tutorial to the mechanics and isn't really balanced. Have you played around with a House Divided as well? I think that is much more balanced. You do get some fluctuations in supplies/fuel but generally it is something that a player constantly thinks about in terms of: should I spend the resources to move these units vs saving the supplies for other uses as well as the mechanic of winter that makes fuel costs higher during certain turns. There also is more economy than most games around different infrastructure that you can build in order to get more resource generation. If you are interested I can write up a high level strategy guide around it but here are at least some example games of decent level players:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/592/civil-war-3-2-4-redrum-confederate-vs-wirkey-union
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/879/civil-war-3-2-4-redrum-confederate-vs-wirkey-union-2
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/897/civil-war-3-2-4-wirkey-confederate-vs-redrum-union

Yeah, I'd generally ask is what does PUs and supplies each represent and does having both add strategic depth/realism to the game? If you can instead tie them both to just 1 resource its generally simpler and probably easier to balance though having multiple resources can add more options around converting resources from 1 type to another or certain territories being rich in one vs the other or even different buildings that generate each of them.

CW's manpower system generally works well and also helps to prevent the game from "running away" once a player has a small lead. The reason is if you are losing some then you probably have extra manpower and can churn out cheap units vs if you are winning some then you are more constrained since you already have lots of fielded units and have to carefully use your remaining manpower. Its good to make units cost a small amount of manpower as well so that you avoid people overspending their manpower.

Looking at your example values, the upkeep seems very low compared to the purchase costs. Just something to keep in mind as that would generally mean you can only purchase a few units per turn but the max number of units would be pretty high.

I would generally advise having a combination of territory resources and building generated resources as it creates a more dynamic system and can better simulate pillaging, etc. I'm open to making adjustments to the UI to help better display resources. Generally, the size of the resource icons you are using influence a lot of things as well. I would focus more on your ideal system and then we can discuss if UI flexibility or customization can be improved to better support it. We just don't have many maps with more than a handful of resources so that's what the UI is built around.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention is I think making the fuel resource(s) so they are used for more than just movement is a better approach. The main reason is it makes it easier to balance and a more positive experience for the user. Having it so extra "supplies" in this case are then used to purchase units/buildings so that you kind of have a "should I spend more supplies on movement vs save to buy units" is a better mechanism than just "do I have enough supplies to move all my units that I want to move". It also makes it so there is a way to use extra supplies vs just stockpiling which generally leads to more stockpiling and a system that becomes meaningless.

[Name]

@redrum I assumed Eastern Campaigns is just the same game reduced to one front. I'll check HD and the links, no need to write a guide. What I should do more in general is test other maps, especially ones with similar mechanics to what I am for. Any other suggestions?

I found one more possible reason to keep supplies in (and use it for other costs as well per suggestion). The AI might not keep enough PUs to move (or the opposite if I set move before purchase). Could it handle it? Else it might be a good idea to remove fuel. My strategic resources limit strong units anyway (like fuel secondarily does, as a shoft cap though, in IW and CW).

Highly reducing the mercenary upkeep will also allow to tone down unit costs compared to upkeep, free a little UI space and bring the map closer to what people are used to. Not sure on the price/income range though yet.

I'm already using a combination of building generated (through "government" factories - many of which are destructible) and territory generated resources. But I wonder where to draw the line. I don't want to handicap the AI too much.

Good to now know on the UI. Btw i'm using about 20-24 pixel resource icons, I think smaller would be too small.

[redrum]

@Name Well the maps that probably are good quality and have some interesting mechanics that I'd recommend looking at besides Civil War are:
Total World War - probably the best overall quality map in TripleA that uses a number of advanced mechanics like research/technologies, trains, minor nations, terrain types, lend & lease, many different unit types with AA and support attachments
Greyhawk Wars - pretty unique map with lots of events, heroes, etc
Dragon War - pretty unique map with some randomized placements, several resource types, different barbarian nations
Domination 1914 NML - interesting trench/gas mechanics along with simple tech system
Power of Politics (in development): https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario

For complex maps (and for the AI), its generally better to probably put the purchase phase after all movement. This works well for TWW for example. The AI generally doesn't handle fuel very well and will probably do better if the map doesn't have it.

So the AI doesn't understand how to build resource generating buildings like in Civil War. So for AI compatibility, you'd want to lean towards keep it simple and having the resources being primarily generated by the territories.

There are different size resource icons for different areas so depends which one you are talking about but generally the sizes used in Total World War and Civil War are pretty good IMO.

[Hepps]

To add to that... thinking of 1 player games... I seem to remember a Pacific War Campaign that @Zim-Xero might have created that made great use of triggers and secondary resources to create some interesting dynamics. Just an idea... as often any source of creative approaches to problems gives birth to even more inspired creativity.

[Name]

@redrum @Hepps Thanks, I'll check those little by little.

The Ai values only PUs to consider territory worth, right?

I guess there's no way to have non-increasing resources. Like I have a total "income" of 9 Iron, that means I can have up to 9 Iron in use for upkeep, but my stockpile doesn't increase. Or is a workaround possible, by using units as resources and then having their number as limit for other units?

[redrum]

@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

The Ai values only PUs to consider territory worth, right?

Correct. Though I do hope to expand on this at some point.

I guess there's no way to have non-increasing resources. Like I have a total "income" of 9 Iron, that means I can have up to 9 Iron in use for upkeep, but my stockpile doesn't increase. Or is a workaround possible, by using units as resources and then having their number as limit for other units?

I believe you could just use triggers remove any extra resources at the end of each player's turn. I think Iron War played around with doing this but decided to go in a different direction and allow stockpiling in the end.

[Name]

Experimenting with moving some resources to structures. I'm calling those Agriculture (Supplies), Husbandry (Horses), Metallurgy (Iron/Metal?) and Forestry (Wood). Each structure represents one development level at the respective field and adds 1 per turn to the apropriate resource stockpile. They will be capturable, probably not destructible. I'm also considering giving additional ones to players for free, to place at will each turn, per X of the same type they control (probably a small number).

Are they better to the left or right of governments?

I think I like them more to the right, but would rather have them after garrisons. That would need a gameplay change though, making garrisons isConstruction, thus allowing them to be placed anywhere.

I'm also considering a new unit pricing. In the current, WIP plan, supplies are fuel but not upkeep. They are also payed for advanced governments (urbanization) and the most basic combat unit, skirmishers (simulating a mobilization level that harms food production and allowing wood to be fleet-only, since the AI spammed skirms before it could get fleets)

Here's some basic types:

Phalanx
8 Iron 1 Manpower
Produces Resources each Turn: -1xPUs -1xManpower
Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies

Merc_Phalanx
16 PUs
Produces Resources each Turn: -2xPUs
Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies

Skirmishers
5 Supplies 1 Manpower
Produces Resources each Turn: -1xPUs -1xManpower
Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies

[redrum]

@Name I like the idea of resource structures for more flexible gameplay mechanics though will warn you that the AI wouldn't understand that.

Not sure the ordering matters that much since aren't you eventually going to have multiple placements in each territory anyways?

I think those unit costs probably make a lot more sense and are easier to think about.

Also, my one visual feedback is that it would be great to see less pixelated territory borders not sure if that is something you are planning to address?

[Name]

@redrum If they stay just capturable, wouldn't the AI handling of them be the same, since it only values PUs when chosing for invasions?

I'm not sure yet on muptiple placements, I kind of like the organized look of the lines (though not when they get too long). Whatever the case, single placements will stay at least for quite a while.

On the border issue, I dislike them as well. But since I still can't do much in Gimp (though such a change should be easy) and most of the map is at an earlier state than what you see here, it's something for later I think.

Btw, if anyone is interested in ancient primary sources, I've found two nice collections:
http://www.attalus.org/index.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index.html

[redrum]

@Name Yeah, I meant the AI wouldn't really understand the value of say building additional ones if that were an option. I think it would still try to place ones you gave it for free but probably would just be randomly placed.

The challenge with single placements and using the line is once you start having multiple different allies in the same territory the number of different units can become 2-3x as many and cause lots of overflow then.

[Zaroph]

@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

On the border issue, I dislike them as well. But since I still can't do much in Gimp (though such a change should be easy) and most of the map is at an earlier state than what you see here, it's something for later I think.

Is this something fixible by just making the borders a few pixels wider so they would look "smoother"?

[Name]

@redrum I'll think about the free ones later. For now the issue is, keep those resource structures or not? It's kind of tied to the placements and map look issue as well. But it looks like I'll have to go with muptiple placements anyway at some point. You made me imagine unit lines reaching from Greece to Asia Minor.

@Zaroph But wouldn't redrawing them to be more curved look even better than that?

EDIT: I also thought of an alternative method to keep things AI compatible. What if each development level allows the placement of 1 unit? Then the AI would treat those as factories (and I guess place them at rather safe spots).

[redrum]

@Name If the number of resource structures is going to be pretty static then its probably better to just make them territory resources and draw them onto the map. If you plan to have them grow through granting free structures or building them or destroying them then resource structures are better. All depends what your vision is. I personally prefer deeper game play with structures so players can influence resource production beyond just conquering new territories but the AI has limitations there in how much it currently understands.

I think currently the AI only builds 1 factory per territory regardless of the type or how much that factory can build so I don't think it would make a difference.

[Name]

@redrum I was already brainstorming on a system like this:

"Structure" ------ "Cost"------- "Resource Production"
Agriculture-----PUs, Supplies---1 Supplies, 1 Freeman (Basic unit Manpower)
Slave Estates-------PUs---- -----1 PU, 1 Noble (Advanced unit Manpower)
Husbandry-----PUs, Horses-----1 Horse , 1 Noble
Metallurgy------PUs, Iron-------1 Iron, 1 Freeman
Forestry-------PUs, Wood--- ---1 Wood, 1 Freeman
etc..

Would be rather interesting to represent population, professions, recruitment capacity and development this way. Also giving a choice of buying units of a type now or gaining more income towards that type some turns later, by buying development instead. Anyway, back to working on the more compatible system.

EDIT: Thinking of it more, I could base my system on that, without the purchase part. Then if at some point it's AI compatible (or with a "rule" choice), those could be buildable. Also, territory PU income could be the sum (or a multiple) of all starting development structures, giving the AI some guidance on places worth to capture.

[redrum]

@Name I like the concept. One thing to consider is whether you want to cost to align to what it produces like you kind of have laid out vs the cost to be a different resource than it produces. It mostly comes down to if you want buildings to sort of be a way to invest one type of resource to generate a different one slowly over time (this helps if players have certain resource surpluses vs lacking others) or the way you have it which unless balanced well can lead to just having lots of a single resource (ie. I have lots of horses so I keep building more husbandry to generate even more horses).

And yes the good part about going with some sort of resource structure approach is you could start simple and evolve it over time based on how the game plays and how the AI does.

[Name]

I'm working on the overhault of resources and structures.

RESOURCES

PUs: Unit upkeep, Mercenary/Government purchase.

Nobles: Loyal aristocrats/officials or something. A mix of the previous Authority resource and Special Manpower. Elite unit purchase and upkeep. Garrison/Government purchase.

Freemen: Basic Manpower. Basic unit purchase and upkeep.

Food: Purchase of Skirmishers/Governments and movement (Fuel).

Horses, Metal, Wood, Elephants: Used for the purchase of of Cavalry, (melee type) Infantry, Fleets and War Elephants respectively.

RESOURCE STRUCTURES:
The following are preset on territories and capturable. A few more will be added later. They provide the following income bonuses

Agriculture: +1 Food, +1 Freemen.

Husbandry: +1 Horses, +1 Nobles.

Metallurgy: +1 Metal, + Freemen.

Forestry: +1 Wood, +1 Freemen.

Slave Labor (Slavery?): +2 PUs.

Next step is a change of the Government Structures. Some, like Holy Site and Pirate Haven will be converted to special resource structures, so that they can co-exist with real governments (Pirate Haven destroyed on capture). Governments like Client State and Local Autonomy will stay as they are (destroyed on capture), but Government Centers will be overhaulted. Each player will have their version of "native" government center, representing their core regions. Those will be converted to a far lesser version when captured by other players and converted back if recaptured by the original owner.

Not sure yet on what to do with other "governments" like military settlement (+4 freemen), horses pastures (+4 horses) and slave estates (+4 PUs).

Question
Any clue why minimap colors mix with sea regions?

[Hepps]

@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

Question
Any clue why minimap colors mix with sea regions?

I think mostly it has to do with the shrinking process. When you have a giant map (as you do) the mini map gets a little distorted because the rendering has to choose what to colour when it is reduced to (in some areas) 1 pixel. So the mini map has to either render it as part of one territory... or another. Thus there is some distortion depending on the scale difference between the map and the mini.

[Name]

@Hepps Thing is, when I tried a larger minimap (like 400p wide instead of 300), the issue was worse. Or maybe it looked worse because of the extra size? Not sure.