increase the maximum number of villages

gandalf · Post by **gandalf** » June 26th, 2006, 5:06 am

The line number 196 in mapgen_dialog.cpp should be changed to

const int max_villages = 500;

from

const int max_villages = 50;

to make it possible to have more villages.

Post by **Kestenvarn** » June 26th, 2006, 9:33 am

Just curious - what would someone do with that many villages? Sorta like a rumble map or that big world map from before?

gandalf · Post by **gandalf** » June 27th, 2006, 6:24 am

Why would any one like not to have that?
I'm not sure if the limit should be set to 51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63, .... so why not set it to a sufficently large number?

Post by **Yogibear** » June 27th, 2006, 10:45 am

gandalf wrote:Why would any one like not to have that?
I'm not sure if the limit should be set to 51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63, .... so why not set it to a sufficently large number?

To prevent numerous users getting annoyed and bored by insane maps?

OK, i admit that was not very constructive criticism. And i can even think of situations, where a large number of villages might be useful (for example on very big maps). There still might be other reasons not to have more villages, though. I am not so familiar with this part of the code, so i can't tell you about that.

gandalf · Post by **gandalf** » June 27th, 2006, 3:52 pm

I really don't understand how you can use that as an argument. If the default is 25 villages per 1000 tiles for random maps. how can a user be upset with having a larger maximum value? If they only like having 25 villages then what should they do?

There is one digit to add to the code, what's the problem?
Why limiting the way the game can be played?

Post by **Yogibear** » June 27th, 2006, 6:28 pm

gandalf wrote:I really don't understand how you can use that as an argument. If the default is 25 villages per 1000 tiles for random maps. how can a user be upset with having a larger maximum value? If they only like having 25 villages then what should they do?

There is one digit to add to the code, what's the problem?
Why limiting the way the game can be played?

Calm it, man, i am on your side

.

Though my flappy comment was not meant to be taken all too serious, i think it has some truth in it. Wesnoth was developed with small to medium maps in mind and for those, 50 villages is normally enough. Having more villages does not make too much sense: Either you can't grab them all or you get so much income that you can't spend it. If you play multiplayer, accumulating all the gold makes no sense, if you play a campaign, it makes balancing even more difficult than it is already.

But i have to admit there are people that like big maps and i can't see a reason to unnecessary limit them.

On the other hand, there can be limitations in the application architecture, that i don't know of. I have heard of one example, where giving a 1000 movepoints to a uberunit completely screwed up the performance, because the path finding algorithm was not prepared for such numbers. Therefore i am careful about this constant. There may be good reasons why it is set to 50, i don't know.

scott · Post by **scott** » June 27th, 2006, 6:46 pm

Yogi Bear wrote:
gandalf wrote:I really don't understand how you can use that as an argument. If the default is 25 villages per 1000 tiles for random maps. how can a user be upset with having a larger maximum value? If they only like having 25 villages then what should they do?

There is one digit to add to the code, what's the problem?
Why limiting the way the game can be played?
Calm it, man, i am on your side .

Though my flappy comment was not meant to be taken all too serious, i think it has some truth in it. Wesnoth was developed with small to medium maps in mind and for those, 50 villages is normally enough. Having more villages does not make too much sense: Either you can't grab them all or you get so much income that you can't spend it. If you play multiplayer, accumulating all the gold makes no sense, if you play a campaign, it makes balancing even more difficult than it is already.

But i have to admit there are people that like big maps and i can't see a reason to unnecessary limit them.

On the other hand, there can be limitations in the application architecture, that i don't know of. I have heard of one example, where giving a 1000 movepoints to a uberunit completely screwed up the performance, because the path finding algorithm was not prepared for such numbers. Therefore i am careful about this constant. There may be good reasons why it is set to 50, i don't know.

If we're talking about the random map generator, there may be a scale issue in how it decides to randomly spread out villages. I guess one way to find out is to try it.