The Settlers of Wesnoth; NEW: "NO DOWNLOAD NEEDED"

[Dixie]

Well, unless you allow for multiple different offers to different players be made in a single attempt (which would indeed complicate the system A LOT), I'm not sure what you suggest to do. Sure, spamming offers is a lame tactic, although I would have thought the user base more mature than to do this. Sometimes, even if you ask it 30 times, just nobody has bricks, and that's the end of it. My personnal opinion on the matter is: let's keep the system simple (a single offer at a time), but if we must absolutely put a limit, let's put it at three offers per turn. This gives a small margin for error etc., but still caps the thing if the players are gonna be asses about it. We can put a counter in the trade menu so players know they have a limit, and how many offers they have left. And I still stand by choosing if an offer is sent to everyone or just a specific player.

The donating of cards (= trade of 0 cards against 1 or more) is not permitted.

I really dislike this rule. Why disallow donations? If a player thinks it is to his advantage to donate cards, why not? The game is not unbalanced because this is forbidden, if players think donationsd unbalances rthings, they can just not do it. Nobody's forcing them. It's a part of the politics, IOMH.

[Anonymissimus]

I would have supposed that the user interaction is the longest part of the process.

Me too; in most cases each side is prompted with a query, causing all others to halt (engine design) until it's dealt with. Now think that often the players browse a bit while playing etc...

Well, unless you allow for multiple different offers to different players be made in a single attempt (which would indeed complicate the system A LOT)

What sense does it have ? The addressed player would pick the most profitable one.
No, one offer per player per trade attempt. Such as 2 wool and a brick vs 2 grain. (to build a city).

[pauxlo]

The donating of cards (= trade of 0 cards against 1 or more) is not permitted.

I really dislike this rule. Why disallow donations? If a player thinks it is to his advantage to donate cards, why not? The game is not unbalanced because this is forbidden, if players think donationsd unbalances rthings, they can just not do it. Nobody's forcing them. It's a part of the politics, IOMH.

Often you can circumvent this rule by multiple trading - like first trade two ore against one wool, then trade one wool against one ore back (in effect donating one ore).
One may want to donate cards to get below the 7-card-limit of the robber, or against a non-material benefit (like "I donate you one wood if you don't construct your village on this position now") - but such would be done by chat.

The user interface may get a bit more complicated, though.

I would have supposed that the user interaction is the longest part of the process.

Me too; in most cases each side is prompted with a query, causing all others to halt (engine design) until it's dealt with. Now think that often the players browse a bit while playing etc...

This new turn query comes even if the player can't act at all, since his turn ended in a side-turn event? Maybe it's time to lobby for an engine-change, here.

Otherwise, because of the trade which is going on on everyone's turn (and getting new resources), this game is one where you should not be too much web-surfing, I think.

[Anonymissimus]

This new turn query comes even if the player can't act at all, since his turn ended in a side-turn event

No. It must be checked whether it needs to be shown in a side turn event for that player. What takes a bit time is the wesnoth engine cycling through a full game turn. What takes more time is players responding on the trade query.
There are 2 possibilities that cause the query not to be shown and the player's turn to be ended directly (thus the other players don't have to wait for that player to react):
-The offering player specified that that side shouldn't be offered something.
-The offer has already been accepted by another player previously, in which case all remaining side turns are cycled through until the offering side is reached again to continue its SOW-game-turn, now in another BfW game turn. I check that condition at the start of the responsible function which would show the dialog query of course...

EDIT
-There's a third; the player being offered can't pay the demand.

[ElvenKing]

It was quite a time that I last played this game, but I think often you do multiple trades (not only offers) in each turn. Of course, this depends a bit on the number of players (more players => more resources => more need to trade) - but for two players the domestic trade is really less interesting than for three or more.

That is correct. Players can make multiple trades on each turn(the rule is that the active player is the only person that can be traded, that is the person who is currently having their turn, but you can trade with one player on one turn and then trade with another player on their turn). So It could be that I am the active player and I trade a wood for a brick with one player and then trade a grain for an ore with a different player on the same turn.

One may want to donate cards to get below the 7-card-limit of the robber, or against a non-material benefit (like "I donate you one wood if you don't construct your village on this position now") - but such would be done by chat.

A major reason that someone may want to donate cards is to allow another player to build something like a road or a development card to prevent a third player from winning the game via the largest army or longest road.

What sense does it have ? The addressed player would pick the most profitable one.

Not necessarily, as the "most profitable trade" does not always equal the one which gets you the most resources. For example, there may be a player who is well behind who you would prefer to trade with when compared to an opponent who is doing better, even if you get less resources by doing so.

[Anonymissimus]

Next version on the server, domestic trade is in so it's rather feature complete now. Time for some longer testgame.
Trading limit is 3 offers per turn (it's not harcoded but a variable so it can be adjusted). However you can't make several side-specific offers (that was way too complicated). So when you want to make one trade with side 2 only and another with side 4 only but nothing with side 3 you need to use 2 of your trade attempts.
I've reduced the number of dialogs that are shown so there won't be so much waiting for other players to react.

[Dixie]

Sorry for not replying earlier. This looks promising, good job! I haven't had the opportunity to download the add-on yet, I should likely be able to do so next weekend at the latest, but I don't know if I'll be able to give you feedback right away, as I'll be kinda busy with a new semester starting (and a big one,a t that). Is there anything left unfinished atm, or did you go through it all?

Either way, congrats for your work!

[Anonymissimus]

Feature-wise it's complete. Domestic trade is limited to three attempts per round.
I've gone through all of your codings and cleaned them up; some are rewrote completely such as the robber functions. (It needed to be accustomed to the out-of-turn query workaround.)

[Thrawn]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but for the original placement of settlements, the order it should go is:

P1,P2,P3,P4,P4,P3,P2,P1. Otherwise, player 1 has a huge advantage. From my testing the game, it simply went in normal turnover, meaning P1 got to place both his first and second settlement first.

Besides that, I like the GUI off to the side, and am a huge fan of SoC, and really like the add-on.

[Anonymissimus]

Thanks.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but for the original placement of settlements, the order it should go is:

P1,P2,P3,P4,P4,P3,P2,P1. Otherwise, player 1 has a huge advantage. From my testing the game, it simply went in normal turnover, meaning P1 got to place both his first and second settlement first.

It hasn't. This means reversing the BfW turnover which is difficult to implement. Agreed, it improves balance a lot.

[UK1]

I believe settlers of catan has been around for a very long time and it may be in public domain anyway. Not sure.

[Anonymissimus]

Can we continue the player chain a bit ? (simplified, only 3 players)

so:
P1,P2,P3,P3,P2,P1,P2,P3,P1,P2,P3,...
or so:
P1,P2,P3,P3,P2,P1,P1,P2,P3,P1,P2,P3,...

the latter I suppose

EDIT
Not only difficult but exceptionally hard...and all that in addition to the turn omitting thats already in there.

[Crendgrim]

The latter one is the one that fits with the official rules.
The first 6 side turns are only to build the start village and at the 7th turn the dices are rolling the first time (well, not if you play with them during the waiting phase ). Also, this is the first turn that "produces" resources.


Crend

[Anonymissimus]

Yes, I think it works now. Now the event structure in the scenario file is so complicated that I do no longer grasp it .

[pauxlo]

I believe settlers of catan has been around for a very long time and it may be in public domain anyway. Not sure.

Not so long, though - it appeared first on 1995. The author still lives, and the game will fall into public domain about 70 years after his death (time varies by country).