Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse » May 17th, 2010, 11:25 am

ViK wrote:I liked conquest for being a very simple game. The updates are making it more and more complex.
well, its probably debateable if an entrench option (for example) or the ability to build castles (for example) makes the game extremely, trerribly complex.

i would think not too much. ;)

but in the end, its also my time that i spend on updating this mod and it seems there is no demand for that ;)
ViK wrote: I understand having defense units (pikeman) , and more unit types and peasants in the current context is more or less useless. 1 full turn of all users takes on average 15-18 mins. (Longer in Lich hosted games whr he likes 6 mins/turn :P ). Peasants can be useful in very long games that can last more than 20 turns maybe.
if you think peasants are useless then dont buy any, its really that simple.

as long you are in a fighting situation (like at start when you want to get regions asap, or if you are at war with somebody) you dont want to get peasants.

if you dont fight, you can spend some gold in peasants since they will produce more gold (and pay themsleves after 4 rounds). rather then "just another cavalry" that is lingering around the borders witout any use.
ViK wrote: Also, I do not like the option of workers building castles, ports and what not.
building castles was basically just an idea to enable peope to build defensive postiones where they want to have them. it doesnt make the game extremely complex, and if you like it or not is not really important - nobody would force you to build some.

there use would be limited anyway, and they woudl make most sense with an entrench option
ViK wrote: Also, Base Income in 'more' category is a bug, not a feature. People started playing with 'fog' for a reason. I think it should be left for the hosts to decide if each other can see the income, not the creator/updater of the game. With more category, there is nothing to hide, which will only increase the chances of teaming up on the stronger guy, and thus increasing the timeline of the game.
so if i follow your argumentation then everything that increases the timeline of the game is a bad thing. so all things that can possibly stop a player who managed to grab some regions quickly (and thus cannot be defeated unless weaker players ally against him) is bad.

i dont agree with that. imo, i think fog is ok, so you can prepare some sneak attacks with cavalry or boat units, also the better view of cavalry units will be of advantage in fog settings.

your peasants are hidden, also your SAVED money is hidden.

that players have access to see your base income despite of fog is very good in my opinion, so there is something like a raw overview of the game, these stats are very important to make meaningful strategical decisions.

if you want to host a RISK-like game you wil have to play without fog anyways, since risk is depending strongly on the fact that other players see what you have.
(i just mention RISK because you host games with "RISK" in the title (but not because i think that getting as close as possible to risk is desireable), but playing with fog on is completely "unrisk", btw)

i agree though that fog on is a more interesting setting, but that fact that yu have access to the base income is imo no problem. instead, it is a desired and welcome.




... as said, there wont be any updates for an overseeable amount of time (from my side) on this mod, so it will stay as it is right now i guess.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Hiebe
Posts: 25
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 12:48 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Hiebe » May 19th, 2010, 12:07 am

Mabuse did you happen to look at the lotr fileap that guy made. If so could we maybe add it on the add-on list?

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse » May 19th, 2010, 1:06 pm

yes i did take a look.
i'd say good job what miati did there :)
excellent research of the names and stuff

unfortuanately the map cannot be included in its current state.
just because of the names for example - they are all copyrighted.

luckily it did happen that i have some free time around so i may do some modifications to the map -
this may include some slight changes of the map, names of cities and locations -
and also the recruitment lists will be expanded/changed.

and probably add some of the stuff i mentioned earlier (light cav/infantry for everybody for example)
also i plan to make a ranking display of the players income at the start of each players sideturn.
so all people get regularly informed about the current game state (i may make this option selectable).

it may also happen that i may add some more option to fine-tune the game-depth more.
for example i may make the new units only accessible if the player click on "expanded unit set" or something like this.
if "old unit set" is chosen then the players can only recruit the very basic units of the game - (militia, infantry, lieutenent, general)

however - i can tpromise too much here, since time is short and things always tend to use up more time than planned.
bug tracking can cost a lot of hours for example

in any case work like this (what miati did) is very appreciated i will more then gladly try to adapt it so it can be used without causing troubles due to copyright violations
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Hiebe
Posts: 25
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 12:48 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Hiebe » May 20th, 2010, 12:02 am

Ok thank you mabuse for all your work younhave done for this mod. I likenthe choice to choose unit list for new or old so good work can't wait fir the new update

Molean
Posts: 157
Joined: July 25th, 2009, 7:11 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Molean » May 28th, 2010, 6:45 am

Ghosts are too nice, that is specters and ghost calvary. Yes specters are slightly slower then their knight counterparts, but they have 50 def in many locations where mounts have 40%. They can also travel over other areas that allow them 50% where mounts would have even less and over water too, yes it slows them down, but its still a big boon, no reduction in defense, no need to board a boat and they cost the same too. Perhaps they should be more expensive and/or slower? Less HP? (ghosts are thought to have less health, being spirits) Something needs to be balanced about them.

I have some ideas about boats.

Small boats can travel over swamp (yes RL boats can travel over swamp too) but they would travel slower in swamp water. Medium boats can not travel in swamp, but can travel over shallow water. The largest two boats would not be able to travel in shallow water. (or just perhaps warship) and shallow water could be placed along more land in strategic places.

Pirate-ships, instead of being the counter to warships, could have a chance of capturing ships they "destroy". Captured ships are left with a tiny fraction of their health but now you control them instead of the other person.(experience reset to 0)

It would be nice if there was a way to check what units are aboard a ship, if any. Maybe it could be made so when you right click the ship, one of the options would just tell you what was aboard (with nothing happening if you selected that "option")

Sea-Serpents and some other water units would need to be balanced too though. 70% defense along any shallow water and more shallow water on the map would be a big problem with balance.

Perhaps small boats would have 60% defense on swamp, 50% on shallow water, and 40% on deep. Medium boats would have 60% on shallow water, and 50% on deep. And war ships would have 60% on deep. Well, just a possible thought anyway.

User avatar
e7th04sh
Posts: 38
Joined: December 11th, 2008, 1:07 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by e7th04sh » May 30th, 2010, 8:13 pm

Hi guys, i have several things to tell you. The first one is that i love your scenario. And the rest is all what i don't like - but mind i only tell you that because i like most of it and want to take part in improving it. And i don't have the skill and time to do it myself, so i will try to maybe inspire you by giving a perspective, or maybe even convince you. I do not expect that you will gladly go and code everything i imagined, but maybe you will find my idea interesting.

So the problem is Wesnoth - i always thought that in the realm of Wesnoth in most games at least one player should unite Wesnoth early on. It's positioned in center, so it can be easily flanked what should be balanced with better defensive positions and income. As a sidenote, how about splitting wesnoth into two regions that naturally will be united, but give bonuses independently? This will also encourage people to start there, as it makes it both easier to start and harder to break whole bonus. A small increase in bonus could be good for game balance too i think.

But to the point. The main weakenss of Wesnoth is it's vulnerability to ghosting. As i like game to be based in some storyline, i thought to myself - how typical undead army works? And i came to this idea:

Essential unit in undead army would be the necromancer. He and only he could be recruited in all four swamp villages. Once recruited, by standing nearby a swamp village he would allow player to recruit other undead units: adepts, zombies, skeletons, ghosts and nightmares. Typical undead unit is rendered immobile or destroyed when it begins turn not in the vincinity of friendly adept or necromancer. Thus adepts and necromancers play essential role here. They are both of the same, low speed.

Of the minions, they can control zombies, that cost more than other units of their strength and is as slow as adept and has bad movement in hills and mountains, but come with plague, or skeletons that cost less than their alive counterpart and also move slightly faster than adepts. Both walking undead units can cross deep water, but cannot wander far from leaders who are only able to cross shallow water, This creates interesting tactical situation near rivers and crossings.

Another two units are ghosts who are both very fast, but disapear when not bound by magical power of necromancy. Both ghost units move fast and have skirmisher, but they cannot cross any water. (a typical trait of ghost in many mythologies and cultures) They can be handy for an undead army thanks to their tactical usability or else can be fired off like missiles onto enemy territory, where they die without their master nearby. However their great speed is of no strategical importance because they are slowed down by adept.

As a side note, if the ghosts are needed in the west of Wesnoth map, a player could set up a line of adepts that would allow ghosts to go at full speed through entire map.

I can already think of several other variants. First of all necromancers could have plague with skeletons (perhaps even adepts, with a special weaker - militia like - version of skeletons). A lich unit could be expensive, powerful and faster version of necromancer, good for handling ghosts. If it's possible, some or all minions could not claim villages. Maybe number of adepts + necromancers + liches alive at one time, controlled by one player, should be limited.

Now, once this change would be made, i think the river encircling Wesnoth in Wesnoth map should have 2-5 crossings added, with ocassional forest, hill or swamp positioned for the benefit of Wesnoth player. The undead armies could still be created and threaten Wesnoth, and dramatically cross through the river but this would be requiring more time, and the "Battle for Wesnoth" wouldn;t be an obvious win for the intruder.

Hope that i inspire you somehwat. :)

Hiebe
Posts: 25
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 12:48 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Hiebe » May 31st, 2010, 2:57 am

great feed back

problem is that way more WML work needed for something people may not even use. the reason why wesnoth is worth so much is that it can be invaded by all sides. Dont take it if you cant hold it.... period.

Just play Conquest the way it is and new things will come and go but the more modding we do the harder it is for new players to come (even though i never had this problem but some people say this) :P

Anywho I have no skill in WMLL but Mabuse has done a great deal of work on Conquest but he has little time to work on it now so its all up to someone to pick it up or mabuse to come back.

Hey Mabuse if you want any help with a 1944 Conquest mod or something like that I can work on maps for you :)

User avatar
e7th04sh
Posts: 38
Joined: December 11th, 2008, 1:07 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by e7th04sh » May 31st, 2010, 11:01 am

Well, then i still insist on a some change about the Wesnoth / flying units relationship. I don't like how Wesnoth is encompassed with impassable terrain but otherwise poorly defensible. It causes flying attack a too obvious choice. Predictable.

Lich_Lord
Posts: 104
Joined: December 23rd, 2009, 5:22 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Lich_Lord » June 1st, 2010, 2:58 am

Well, one way that you could probably greatly reduce the undead threat on Wesnoth is making the 20 gold unit a necromancer instead of a spectre, that way it would be hard for the undead to hit Wesnoth with really strong units, so Wesnoth can put somewhat strong units to guard vs ghosts, and it will be hard to do a strong attack with undead. The person who controls bitter could bring up some draugs (undead Lts) to attack, but they don't have super fast terrain movement, so they'd take a long time to get to Wesnoth. Also, if the undead player spent lots of gold creating many draugs, then they'd have trouble fighting the Wesnoth player in other parts of the map, like Than for example.

Hiebe
Posts: 25
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 12:48 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Hiebe » June 2nd, 2010, 6:10 am

As I said wesnoth is soppose to be hard to hold but I like lich lords idea. Either way attacks come from all side

Null
Posts: 75
Joined: February 25th, 2007, 9:06 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Null » June 23rd, 2010, 2:41 am

Hello everyone! I just stopped by to thank the Conquest team for using my Wesnoth map. When I posted it ages ago, it didn't even receive a single comment and I was disheartened to make any more of my own content for the game. I'm happy to see that it has found a home in the excellent Conquest add-on. :)

Now that I'm back, maybe I'll try making some more maps this summer...

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse » June 24th, 2010, 2:41 pm

the map is really great.
good job. i really felt it would be an excellent map for Conquest.

i will make a final change and give the undead a Necro instead of a spectre.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Lich_Lord
Posts: 104
Joined: December 23rd, 2009, 5:22 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Lich_Lord » June 26th, 2010, 2:08 am

Well, I must thank you for making the Wesnoth map, it is very good and I've played it many many times.

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse » June 28th, 2010, 12:44 pm

btw, i also give up maintenance of CONQUEST-MOD (at least for now)

as far as i know ALDA has the *.pbl files, but i can hand (a copy of) my *.pbl file to whoever wants to act as a maintainer (to add new stuff, change tings etc.).

so just PM me and i can hand over the *.pbl file.


the new maintainer can also change the spectre to a lich for example
so hopefully someone is interested to act as amaintrainer to put in new maps and stuff ;)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

miati
Posts: 3
Joined: May 12th, 2010, 10:53 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by miati » July 21st, 2010, 12:38 pm

latest version of lotr conquest (updated to 1.03)

unpack .cfg to \userdata\data\add-ons\Conquest\scenarios
and map to \userdata\data\add-ons\Conquest\maps
Attachments
lotrfinal.rar
(4.23 KiB) Downloaded 237 times

Post Reply