Revisiting an old project
-
@Hepps
There probably exists a better program, but I don't know what it would be -
@CrazyG
If you created the place file from the tool, it should be fine and the problem something else -
@CrazyG If only "something else" were definable. Rather than being any number of things in thousands of lines of script.
-
@Hepps Wow. One space in the wrong spot. I have no idea how I managed to find it. Call it providence or divine intervention.
"Meat's back on the menu boys!"
-
@Hepps Seems odd that the map maker program does not glitch out when you load the file.... yet as soon as you try to launch the game it has an aneurysm.
-
And nearly perfect first try.
Couple of name placements off.
Other than that it's pretty much 100%. The border colouration can wait till a few people have put eye's on it and we have a consensus.
Oh... and I added the Gladious as the cursor icon.
-
Is artwork available on some map, can't seem to find it.
-
-
@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.
-
It maybe a good idea to post a link for anyone that wants to try it. Then you'll be more likely to get feedback. Unless the link is buried somewhere within this lengthy topic.
-
@hepps said in Revisiting an old project:
I liked the idea of a quality Ancient Era map for Triple A.
All the main things that I believe make the current game not so serious, plus the main things I'm personally not confortable with, plus a bunch of rename changes (historicity) are the reasons I made 270 BC Cernel Variant. That was made as a variant just because I didn't feel I could just update 270BC itself.
If a major change is going to be made for 270BC, I suggest to apply all the units and players names changes I made for 270BC Cernel Variant (I can make a full list of them here, if there is interest).
-
I should precise that 270BC Cernel Variant is made starting from 270BC version 1.5 (I don't believe it is available anywhere), while the current version of 270BC is 1.6.
I'm not sure, but I believe the only difference of 1.6 over 1.5 are some bug corrections (wrong connections) and the addition of 1 Numidia spearman in Theveste.
I never understood why that spearman in Theveste was added, and my guess is that Veqryn just made that change unintentionally.
You can see that the current 270BC (1.6) has 953 TUV for AntiRoman and 950 TUV for Roman, while in the 1.5, as well as in the previous 1.3.1, both had 950 TUV.
Both alliances having exactly the same PUs, Production and TUV was a peculiarity of 270BC, since almost ever, so I noticed immediately when AntiRoman got that +3 TUV of the spearman for no apparent (to me) reasons.
Obviously, game wise, that change is closely marginal (I guess even most experts didn't even notice it).Long way to say that if you look at 270BC Cernel Variant from 270BC v1.6, you should also add the removal of 1 Numidia spearman in Theveste to the setup changes made, all listed in Game Notes.
-
@hepps I was oriented to just wait the definitive original before updating the variants, but since this sounds like development hell, if you upload here your latest "units" folder, I'll use it to update the variants, meanwhile (and credit in game notes). Not sure what are the map changes, as I recall you didn't intend to make any, but updating maps like 270BC is a minefield, because people tend to be nostalgic. Anyways, if you don't mind the units variant getting updated meanwhile (by me), that would be nice. If I would make any changes to the units (I guess not), I would reupload here, just in case.
-
@cernel I wouldn't call it 'development hell'. Simply that I do not feel qualified to re-balance the map due to the differences between the original 270 map and Total Ancient War in the Northern Aegean and Sea of Marmara.
If I played the map perhaps I would undertake this endeavour. However since I do not, it makes little sense for me to customize the map to suit my own tastes.
I will release the map when an avid player wants to help to re-balance the starting situation.
-
@cernel nice I would love to see 40% with the new drawings hepps has made
-
@prastle That does not solve the issue with the map differences.
-
So here is the differences between the maps....
-
@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.
-
