I haven't forgotten about the experienced issue, I just haven't had the time to play test
Posts made by Frostion
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
@Black_Elk I will have to study these savegames in detail at some point
I really wish that the AI could learn to value of and then purchase resource generating units like these barrels. There is no doubt that the AI would do better on maps that include special purchable units that do not function as combat units. Like units that are used for settings/triggers, resources etc.
@redrum is it possible for the AI purchase programming to, at some point in the future, also take a purchasable unit’s resource generation ability/stats (also non-PU) into consideration when purchasing? I guess many other AI “other resource” improvements are on the to-do list before something like this.
Until the time when the AI learns to handle non-PU resources better, would it be possible for the AI to have a “randomness” factor build into itself, a feature that would automatically come into play when the purchase options included one or more non-combat and at first glance (from AI point of view) worthless units?
If the AI players purchase options included special units, the AI could maybe allocate a % of available PUs (like 5%-10%) to use on these special units. And if these PUs are inadequate for a purchase, then the AI could be set to save up the PUs for later purchase.
Alternatively, the AI could be programmed to Purchase special units by just adding a “randomness” factor to the AIs purchases. Like if 20% of the available PUs was spendt randomly on ALL available units every time the purchase screen included special units. At some random point, special non-combat units would be purchased and this would probably benefit the AI player since the mapmaker has made the special units available.
@redrum, have you given something like this any thought?
RE: Age of Tribes - Official Thread
@Cernel and @John-Cena
I will look into these suggestions and issues when I have the time. Unfortunately it can at the earliest be some time next week. In regards to the possible bug, I don't think that I have ever encountered that error message.
How did the error occurre? How exactly can the error/game freeze be replicated? I guess that you have no save game?
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
I agree that there is a problem in regards to the lack of fuel that starts some rounds into the game. Fuel thirst has always been the intention, but it is nevertheless potentially fun spoiling for the gameplay. After some consideration, I like the solution redrum gave as it gives options/further motivates the players to make some choices/follow strategies if they don’t want to run out of fuel: Avoid fuel units, focus on capturing fuel, conserve fuel … or now … purchase fuel.
I have implemented a “Synthetic-Fuel” (unit). It is essentially a buildable version of the fuel producing barrel. It must be built and placed at a factory. Everyone can purchase it, but only Germany has a unit of this type on the map from round 1 (just for the looks and to make players aware of its existence).
It costs 5 PUs (half price of an Infantry) and produces 1 Fuel per round, just like normal fuel production. Unlike the normal capturable fuel barrels, Synthetic-Fuel production is destroyed during capture, just like factories. So I guess players would want to build them at the safest territories.
I see this solution to the fuel problem as not ruining, but just easing a bit, on the original idea about players always having to be thirsty for fuel. Even though players should probably buy/plan their fuel policy many rounds in advance, players can now choose to pay their way out of the fuel needs.
I hope to upload this to GitHub soon, but what do you think about it at first glance?
... it would be a cool idea if you could unlock increasingly better technology with multiple tiers (e.g. better aircraft, ships, nukes etc) so that having a technological advantage would have more effect on the gameplay. It could also be interesting if you added more esoteric special units for different countries, e.g. occult weapons, UFOs for Germany, sea monsters for Japan
As much as I like the idea about increasing technologies and advancements, I can’t see this being implemented into Iron War this late into the game-development. There would just be too many things to consider, balance, adjust and so on. I would rather implement this into another map of mine that is still in early development. This is the sort of features that needs to be thought into a map from start, as I see it. I also like the idea about uberweapons, wonderweapons etc. But one of the concepts of Iron War is standardized unit types, so it would be kind of strange to start implementing nation specific special units. Sorry to disappoint
RE: Allied Air Independent Property
@redrum I am not in a position where I can test the map. But as I remember, on the Star Wars maps, a player may land on allied player's carriers, who may then fly/sail away with the planes. And I remember it as ALL players defend if attacked. I am unsure about what happens if the allied player sails into an attack with another players fighters.
When I adjusted the carrier rules for Star Wars maps, I wanted to make them support the most rational and intuitive behaviour. And I saw this as being able to use, support and protect other players' carrier.
RE: Property "Abandoned Territories May Be Taken Over Immediately"
I am not sure what the feature is intended for originally. But I know that I have been using it and setting either true or false to get stuff on my maps to work. I think in AoT the nukes, and how they work, are pretty dependent on the feature. The nukes are captured when thrown at enemies (turns into a mushroomcloud), then replaced by trigger by a radiation combat unit owned by player "nature", and nature has combat rounds after every players endTurn, so that nature's radiation tries to kill present units and can even capture the territory. Mind you that the radiation was just placed there by trigger, and had no combat move, which is needed for capturing territories under normal circumstances (as I remember). So I think "Abandoned territories may be taken over immediately" needs to be true in AoT.
I have no access to my computer or TripleA for a few days, so cant look at XML. But this is how I remember it all to work. I can't remember if I use it in other maps
RE: A new option for factories
In my new WoW map I use buildings that change type depending on who owns/captures them. One of them is an “Alliance-Stronghold”. Basically it is a city with Alliance supporters that only the Alliance players that can make good use of by getting free units every turn.
If enemy players capture the building called “Alliance-Stronghold” it turns into a “Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold”, another unit type with different properties. If the building is again liberated, it turns back into the useful Alliance building again.
The unit(s) can look like this:
<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Alliance-Stronghold" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/> <option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Alliance-Footmen"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Orcs:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Tauren:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Trolls:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Undead:false:Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> </attachment> <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Suppressed-Alliance-Stronghold" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType"> <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/> <option name="createsResourcesList" value="3:PUs"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Dwarves:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Gnomes:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Humans:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> <option name="whenCapturedChangesInto" value="any:Night-Elves:false:Alliance-Stronghold:1"/> </attachment>
RE: Land units with strategic bombing?
@Cernel I see what you mean and that it is kind of strange that the ammo can shoot from one territory to another, plus that fact that the ammo can go one way and the siege engine another way. I can see the possibilities in having just an ammo-free unit, like a stand alone siege engine with its own strategic bombardment capability, that can join in an attack along side infantry. If the attacking force's first attack round (including strategic bombing) goes badly, forces could withdraw, leaving behind the siege engines to the enemy.
But when it comes down to it, it is also fun hurling ammo towards enemy units from a safe distance not engaging them in battle. And also having the freedom of using the artillery shells as either normal suicide battle units or suicide strategic bomber units is nice.
I guess it is a matter of gameplay, realism, fun and also a of how the intire unit set works as a whole, that will determine how the bombing and siege engines will ultimately work.
(But either way, it is in this map a MUST that the advantages of the fortifications get disabled when the fortification is kaput. Otherwise I have to rethink my concept. @redrum I will send you a playable map and recreation instructions in a few days from now.)
RE: Land units with strategic bombing?
I hope to get a nice system up that really motivates players to use bombardment as the factories/bases should be really defensive and it would be a bloodbath to attack them without bombing the fortifications first. But at the moment I just want to prioritize map construction before I go into details, and the map is still a work in progress. There is a lot still to do.
Right now I have tested two basic dydtems for fortifications/bases. When they are fully operational they have either been giving defensive support to a number of troops (which is kind of boring, and I have used this in other maps), or in my current version the fortifications/bases have its own defensive AA firing …. Right now it is called “wall archers” and shoots AA attacks at every attacking unit. I like this version the best.
The problem is just, that only the bases that are totally killed can actually be deactivated by bombardment. Units that are not killed but should go non-operational just keep supporting, even though they have all the HP damaged. So it would be great if units that are disabled also loose their AA and support capabilities.
@redrum said "EDIT: Actually I think the issue is that the disabled units aren't removed until after combat AA rolls. Is that what you are seeing as well?" My units have had unlimited rounds of AA so I don’t know. But my experience is that even though the unit has reached max damaged, it just keeps supporting/firing AA as long as the battle lasts.