Game of Thrones & A Song of Ice and Fire - Official Thread
-
@Cernel said in Game of Thrones - Official Thread:
@RogerCooper I recall ASoIaF was just the old way Game of Thrones was called, so just an old version of it, unless it is something else with the same name, or I don't remember correctly.
I confirm this, the "ASoIaF" game of the "ASoIaF" map is merely the way the game at this thread (Game of Thrones) used to be called. You can see here that it used also to be in the repository, under this name, for a while:
Now you can download it here:
https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/ASoIaFIt can be loaded (successfully) with 1.8.0.9.
@RogerCooper Are you sure you want to keep "ASoIaF" in your Wiki, since it is nothing else but the previous name of "Game of Thrones"? I suppose it is one of the games you plan to update to 1.9.
-
@redrum said in Game of Thrones - Official Thread:
@RogerCooper @wc_sumpton It appears there are other versions of this map (2.0, ASoIaF). I'd prefer to just focus our efforts on improving 1 version. Which do you think is the best one? And what are the major differences?
If you ask me, the best "Game of Thrones" themed map ever made is "A Song of Ice and Fire" by kor438 (but I cannot say it for sure, since I've never played it).
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/The-Game-of-Thrones-map-bug-tp7587435p7587606.html -
@Cernel But I think both well deserve to stay in the repository, and in good quality. Also, they are really on two different levels (different maps of the same scenario, not variants).
-
Wow. I'm not even sure I understand how many different versions of this map exist... And I'm now more confused than I was before.
Though seems all of them are pretty much broken in one way or another. That is the problem when lots of different people come by and create a new version of it but never really complete it.
@Cernel It would be more useful to just have a single post that links to all the different GoT maps that you know exist and a brief description of your understanding of them. The last one you linked to "A Song of Ice and Fire" by kor438 seems to have made some significant improvements/changes but isn't listed in TripleA and doesn't appear to have ever been upgraded to 1.9.
Again my preference would be to take what is good across the various implementations and combine it together into a high quality and fun map.
-
@redrum Allright. I was thinking about that myself, and, yeah, probably one should make a summing up of all that came out about this scenario over the years. Actually, what is left is only a part of it, as I know there are several "Game of Thrones" maps/variants/mods whose download links are not anymore functional (so, all those are lost, unless @RogerCooper or someone saved them somewhere?).
Well "Game of Thrones" and "A Song of Ice and Fire", as I said, are on two different levels. The first is a straight all war FFA (thus very good for AI gameplay), the second is a considerably more complex game with politics etc.. There is really no reasons to prefer one over the other, as it really comes down to personal preference (is it better Anniversary or Total World War?), especially considering that you know the AI is really not good at dealing with politics, while I can tell you it plays "Game of Thrones" quite well.
-
@Cernel With this said, considering that I don't intend to take ownership or develop any Game of Thrones game myself, and it doesn't seem anyone else is really volunteering for it, if it comes down to saving one only, my vote would go to "A Song of Ice and Fire" by kor438, but with some reserves, only due to the fact that I never actually played it (how can I find people to play a FFA that it is not downloadable?).
Also, the units of "A Song of Ice and Fire" are nice looking and well fitting to the theme, while Game of Thrones has mostly rip-offs from Lord of the Rings (sometimes ill fitted, like in the case of the horse archers represented by chariots...).
-
@Cernel Tho, in case, I would see no problem leaving Game of Thrones in the repository at its current state, anyways (maybe just with the productions cut in half rounded up
). It has stayed there abandoned and largely broken for years so are we going to delete it now that it is at least playable...
-
@Cernel I have the file, so I might as well fix it and leave it in. I put a note referencing the new file.
-
@Cernel Ok. Yeah, I would potentially leave both the fixed version of GoT that is there now and add in A Song of Ice and Fire if we fix that since they both seem to be reasonable quality maps then. And probably make this thread cover both since they come from the same base map.
-
@redrum Ok, well, that was unexpected. I believe the only thing they have in common is using the same original map artwork at this link:
https://www.deviantart.com/astrogator87/art/Map-of-Westeros-Essos-Sothoros-v2-0-310029783
But, aside from that, it would like putting together two otherwise unrelated WW2 maps just because use the same projection and are both about WW2.
So, to avoid confusion, I would rather keep this thread for Game of Thrones only (and maybe any mods using the same original skin), and make another one for any other Game of Thrones map like A Song of Ice and Fire. If you want I can open that myself with a presentation and some screenshots and such. Let me know.Another thing that I always thought is that it would be cool if all maps in the repository have the same starting title for the same scenario and none can exclusively and simply have it.
I mean, having maps called like:
Game of Thrones - Something1
Game of Thrones - Something2
Game of Thrones - Something3
(and none just "Game of Thrones")
or
Middle Earth - Lord of the Rings
Middle Earth - Battle for Arda
(and none just "Middle Earth")
etc.
Tho, I've no knowledge of the setting, so not really an idea about how the current "Game of Thrones" and "A Song of Ice and Fire" should be renamed. Also, I guess the decision of renaming "ASoIaF" to "Games of Thrones" was made by Rolf (the main repository maintainer at the time), and he could have just decided to rename it "A Song of Ice and Fire", instead, which would have been more logical with the original name (in this case, we would have had two maps named exactly the same; except that, then, kor438 would have probably picked some other name, to avoid that). -
Generally speaking (and pointing out that I know almost nothing about it), due to the characteristic of the scenario, I tend to think that a sensible Game of Thrones game can only be played with the aid of the Artificial Intelligence. I think there are two main reasons for this. The first one is that with 9 or more players (the two games we are looking at have 12 and 14 players, actually), it is very unlikely you can get (and finish!) games with all human opponents. A second, and maybe more important, reason is that there are some players that seriously lack strategic options, so I cannot believe anyone would be interested in playing them. For example, what is a human FreeFolk player going to do the whole game against a human Stark player, beside probably endlessy stacking units at the frontline? As per Maquis idea, the only way to solve this second issue without the AI would be assigning multiple powers to each player (akin to Domination 1901), but (akin to Domination 1901) I suppose doing this in a balanced fashion would imply just butchering the setting and the lore beyond recognition.
Needing the AI, in turn, opens the issue that either you make the game a pure all-war FFA, highly damaging the setting, for ruling out the possibilities of any alliances and common defence (that I understand did happen several times in the setting), or you add some politic system, that the AI, at least at its current state, will manage very badly, making the game to a large extent a matter of exploiting the AI politics and hope its randomness will be to your advantage. -
@Cernel I think the best approach would be the heavy use of scripted events like in Greyhawk Wars. Alliances could shift in semi-random ways. You could also have multiple scenarios dealing with the different wars.
It is also worth noting the upkeep costs should be part of a good Game of Thrones type game. The expense of large armies was a factor in the story.
-
@RogerCooper said in Game of Thrones & A Song of Ice and Fire - Official Thread:
@Cernel I think the best approach would be the heavy use of scripted events like in Greyhawk Wars. Alliances could shift in semi-random ways. You could also have multiple scenarios dealing with the different wars.
That would not solve the issue that I cannot believe anyone would want to play as FreeFolk or NightsWatch, and probably piling up units the whole game. So you would still need some AI for taking over the boring or excessively limited players. Also I doubt a 3 human players thing in Essos can be of interest, as that is really playing on a line that wraps around (a ring), mostly.
It is also worth noting the upkeep costs should be part of a good Game of Thrones type game. The expense of large armies was a factor in the story.
Thanks for the information. Since I know almost nothing about Games of Thrones (I've never read the book or seen the show), I tried hard to abstaing from making a remark there, but, now that you say it, I want to point out that especially the "A Song of Ice and Fire" game really needs some upkeep dynamics to deal with the FreeFolk - NightsWatch - Stark situation north of Westeros, or I guess that is going to become an ever-increasing stack fest. And, as said, I cannot believe you would find 3 human players willingly to play those powers, especially NightWatch; so, assuming 1 power per player, I guess the only solution there is that at least two of those players are AI controlled (and you would play either as Stark or FreeFolk, probably Stark).
TripleA started as a 2 sides game, and moving to more than that, or even to FFA with many players, it is always a challenge as a matter of playability.
-
My general thought is that:
- GoT should just stay as an all war FFA. Players can either take multiple nations or just leave many to the AI. Its kind of a simple FFA.
- ASoIaF should either be more like Greyhawk Wars or just be changed to have 2 alliances. This should be a more complex and interesting map.
-
@redrum Wouldn't the 2 sides option be just devastating for the setting?
For what I understand, Game of Thrones is not at all something like of a Good against Evil World War kind of fantasy, like Lord of the Rings. As I said, if the AI is not wanted or it is preferred to much limit its application, the other option would be the Maquis approach of making 4, 5 or 6 alliances, giving each player 2 or more powers (that would be fixed allied between each other only). However, this too would require a good knowledge of the setting, in order to be done in a consistent way, if that is even possible (no idea, but Maquis asserted it is not, or at least that the alliances he was making were absurd by the books; so I guess this is not a good option either, tho probably not as bad as just 2 alliances, I guess). -
@Cernel I think any static alliance system is probably butchering the setting but I think you kind of have to take the Napoleonic Empires approach of lay out the various wars at a point and time then decide how to string together 2 alliances based on that.
-
@redrum said in Game of Thrones & A Song of Ice and Fire - Official Thread:
- ASoIaF should either be more like Greyhawk Wars or just be changed to have 2 alliances. This should be a more complex and interesting map.
Minor note, with the name there is also the issue that (also since @RogerCooper is keeping ASoIaF available in the Wiki) if you say ASoIaF as short for "A Song of Ice and Fire" somebody might understand you are talking about the game called ASoIaF, instead, that was the original name of Game of Thrones.
-
@redrum I actually believe that the 2 fixed alliances for Napoleonic Empires surely make that game historically absurd with its own setting (and, of course, also the fact that Denmark and Sweden are the same power). Though if you would start in 1812 or later, instead, and make some complex delayed entry politics similar to how politics work in WWII Global, a Napoleonic Empires game might be acceptable as 2 sided. I don't want to start talking about Napoleon in here, but just letting you know I absolutely despise the 2 sides setting for that map, and believe it is absolutely not acceptable from a historicity standpoint.
-
@Cernel I know you do but lots of people like the map and its had a decent following in the past. I think in some cases, making the sacrifice from a history/lore standpoint to have a fun/playable game is worth it.
-
First post updated with latest info.
I have ASoIaF updated to work with v1.9. I'm making a few small updates to the notes and player colors. I'll look to create a repo and add it to in-game downloads over the next few days.
