Imperial Era

It's not easy creating an entire faction or era. Post your work and collaborate in this forum.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
AxalaraFlame
Posts: 690
Joined: December 4th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Location: Pasadina, Caltech

Re: Imperial Era (now available for Wesnoth 1.11)

Post by AxalaraFlame » December 4th, 2012, 1:58 pm

Dibs for Maradurers. It is apparently easier. And it is nice to see it functioning and updating again. :) Congradulations!

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era (now available for Wesnoth 1.11)

Post by Temuchin Khan » December 9th, 2012, 10:54 pm

I have an idea. What if we do something rather different with the Orcei? Instead of making the Magni neutral and the Minuti chaotic, what if we make it so that half the Magni and half the Minuti are randomly neutral, and the other half randomly chaotic? I'm not sure how the WML would be done, but it would seem more intuitive to me than a simple split along Magni-Minuti lines, and more in line with the Orcei lore.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (now available for Wesnoth 1.11)

Post by UnwiseOwl » December 9th, 2012, 11:02 pm

I think that we would be able to do that without too much difficulty, I'll just have to work out whether [unit] tags can take random variables, but I think it ought to work somehow.
I just wonder if that doesn't decrease the tactical usefulness of the faction, if you can't even ensure the alignment of your new units. Possibly if could be TOD dependent, so that Orcei recruited during the night are chaotic, or something like that?
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era (now available for Wesnoth 1.11)

Post by Temuchin Khan » December 10th, 2012, 1:24 am

UnwiseOwl wrote:I think that we would be able to do that without too much difficulty, I'll just have to work out whether [unit] tags can take random variables, but I think it ought to work somehow.
I just wonder if that doesn't decrease the tactical usefulness of the faction, if you can't even ensure the alignment of your new units. Possibly if could be TOD dependent, so that Orcei recruited during the night are chaotic, or something like that?
That's interesting, too. But I'm just brainstorming possibilities here. If neutral Magni and chaotic Minuti turns out to work best, so be it. I've come up with a possible explanation that fits the lore (Magni adjusted better to Lavinian life than Minuti, if we go that route), so no problem.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era (now available for Wesnoth 1.11)

Post by UnwiseOwl » December 10th, 2012, 1:45 am

Yeah, I think trying that first is the best option, too. If we try this, for differentiation between the Samnis and Gallus lines, what do you think about making the Samnis minuti? That means that it'll be on the other end of TOD effect from the Gallus, resulting in more options and variations between the two.
In my current copy I have the Magni as neutral, and that's what I'll include in the next version. But I'd also like to try these guys both ways, with the magni chaotic and the minuti neutral, as I see the magni as the more offensive units while the minuti are defensive, so having the offensive units being TOD dependent seems to make sense for me (as it allows the application of overwhleming force and rush tactics), and we can use the same explanation in reverse.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era (now available for Wesnoth 1.11)

Post by Temuchin Khan » December 23rd, 2012, 8:08 pm

UnwiseOwl wrote:Yeah, I think trying that first is the best option, too. If we try this, for differentiation between the Samnis and Gallus lines, what do you think about making the Samnis minuti? That means that it'll be on the other end of TOD effect from the Gallus, resulting in more options and variations between the two.
Interesting idea. But I originally envisioned the Samnis and its upgrades as Magni. Heavily armed and armored infantry seem more Orcish than Goblinish.
In my current copy I have the Magni as neutral, and that's what I'll include in the next version. But I'd also like to try these guys both ways, with the magni chaotic and the minuti neutral, as I see the magni as the more offensive units while the minuti are defensive, so having the offensive units being TOD dependent seems to make sense for me (as it allows the application of overwhleming force and rush tactics), and we can use the same explanation in reverse.
Again, interesting idea. We'll see.

On a separate note, now that the grouping bonus is working, I've been having some ideas about how we could work with it. First, should it work only on flat terrain, and not in forests or hills or mountains? This would reflect the fact that Roman legions, and for that matter Greek phalanxes, generally fought better in flat terrain. Second, now that we have grouping bonuses, should we reduce the legionnaires to 40% defense in the flatlands? Or for that matter, should we give them 30% defense in both the forests and the flatlands, and allow the grouping bonuses to make up the difference when they are in the plains?

Also, if we no longer gave the Lavinians 50% flatland defense, we would also have to reduce the Issaelfr from 50% flatland defense.

EDIT: Changed "to" to "from" in the last four words of the last sentence.
Last edited by Temuchin Khan on December 23rd, 2012, 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era

Post by UnwiseOwl » December 23rd, 2012, 10:46 pm

Interesting idea. But I originally envisioned the Samnis and its upgrades as Magni. Heavily armed and armored infantry seem more Orcish than Goblinish.
Certainly true, I just imagine them as goblins as compared to their Gallus and Pugnator cousins, I suppose. You know, the big orcs don't need armour but the littler specimens have to compensate or something? I'm sure we could work something if it turned out that there were gameplay reasons for it.
On a separate note, now that the grouping bonus is working, I've been having some ideas about how we could work with it. First, should it work only on flat terrain, and not in forests or hills or mountains? This would reflect the fact that Roman legions, and for that matter Greek phalanxes, generally fought better in flat terrain. Second, now that we have grouping bonuses, should we reduce the legionnaires to 40% defense in the flatlands? Or for that matter, should we give them 30% defense in both the forests and the flatlands, and allow the grouping bonuses to make up the difference when they are in the plains?
I don't know if my coding ability can deal with that, but it's an option. Those fellows over in the WML workshop are pretty good at some of this stuff. Basically, though, I decreased the Lavinian resistances so that they are quite a bit worse than they were before unless they're in formation (there's no defence bonus, just resistances), so I don't know if further compensation is required. Furthermore, with their forest difficulties and low mobility I'm reluctant to give them issues with other terrains too, but playtesting may find them to still be too strong, and something along the lines of reducing their defences in the mountains etc would be the logical first step if it does.
Also, if we no longer gave the Lavinians 50% flatland defense, we would also have to reduce the Issaelfr to 50% flatland defense.
They have 50% on the flat? Well, I haven't looked at the Issaelfr very much yet (I'm more of a campaigns guy and Varwulf Saga doesn't exist), but I'm sure we'll look at that as well as plenty of other things. If you have advice, go for it, and I'll see what I can do. :)
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era

Post by Temuchin Khan » December 23rd, 2012, 11:12 pm

UnwiseOwl wrote:
Interesting idea. But I originally envisioned the Samnis and its upgrades as Magni. Heavily armed and armored infantry seem more Orcish than Goblinish.
Certainly true, I just imagine them as goblins as compared to their Gallus and Pugnator cousins, I suppose. You know, the big orcs don't need armour but the littler specimens have to compensate or something? I'm sure we could work something if it turned out that there were gameplay reasons for it.
I have it: Magni (Gallus, Pugnator), Medii (Samnis), and Minuti (Piscator, Venator, River Lizard).
On a separate note, now that the grouping bonus is working, I've been having some ideas about how we could work with it. First, should it work only on flat terrain, and not in forests or hills or mountains? This would reflect the fact that Roman legions, and for that matter Greek phalanxes, generally fought better in flat terrain. Second, now that we have grouping bonuses, should we reduce the legionnaires to 40% defense in the flatlands? Or for that matter, should we give them 30% defense in both the forests and the flatlands, and allow the grouping bonuses to make up the difference when they are in the plains?
I don't know if my coding ability can deal with that, but it's an option. Those fellows over in the WML workshop are pretty good at some of this stuff. Basically, though, I decreased the Lavinian resistances so that they are quite a bit worse than they were before unless they're in formation (there's no defence bonus, just resistances), so I don't know if further compensation is required. Furthermore, with their forest difficulties and low mobility I'm reluctant to give them issues with other terrains too, but playtesting may find them to still be too strong, and something along the lines of reducing their defences in the mountains etc would be the logical first step if it does.[/quote]
No problem. It's just an idea. If there's no need for it, no matter.
Also, if we no longer gave the Lavinians 50% flatland defense, we would also have to reduce the Issaelfr to 50% flatland defense.
They have 50% on the flat? Well, I haven't looked at the Issaelfr very much yet (I'm more of a campaigns guy and Varwulf Saga doesn't exist), but I'm sure we'll look at that as well as plenty of other things. If you have advice, go for it, and I'll see what I can do. :)[/quote]
Yes, I double-checked. At least some of the Issaelfr have 50% flatland defense. Probably when we made them we were thinking that, being so used to the ice and snow, they'd be more sure-footed than the other races, but now I'm thinking it really isn't that important, and can be changed if it would make the era more balanced.

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era

Post by UnwiseOwl » December 24th, 2012, 1:21 am

Yes, I double-checked. At least some of the Issaelfr have 50% flatland defense. Probably when we made them we were thinking that, being so used to the ice and snow, they'd be more sure-footed than the other races, but now I'm thinking it really isn't that important, and can be changed if it would make the era more balanced.
Well, I'm thinking that we kill that off right away. I return, I think we'll give them regular stats on snow (where everyone else is slowed or has poor defence) and the cryomancers the ability to make the terrain around them turn into snow or something like that. I think that might be doable (although the way that the terrain masks work now make it more complicated, I'm sure it'll take a bit of work to get right.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1715
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Imperial Era

Post by Temuchin Khan » December 24th, 2012, 1:27 am

UnwiseOwl wrote:
Yes, I double-checked. At least some of the Issaelfr have 50% flatland defense. Probably when we made them we were thinking that, being so used to the ice and snow, they'd be more sure-footed than the other races, but now I'm thinking it really isn't that important, and can be changed if it would make the era more balanced.
Well, I'm thinking that we kill that off right away. I return, I think we'll give them regular stats on snow (where everyone else is slowed or has poor defence) and the cryomancers the ability to make the terrain around them turn into snow or something like that. I think that might be doable (although the way that the terrain masks work now make it more complicated, I'm sure it'll take a bit of work to get right.
That sounds good. Go ahead and try it.

User avatar
adr3n
Posts: 44
Joined: October 18th, 2008, 7:04 am
Location: Malacca, Malaysia

Re: Imperial Era

Post by adr3n » January 4th, 2013, 6:51 am

is there any progress on this era? some units doesnt have attack sounds etc... i guess you guys know it anyways.... great era!

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era

Post by UnwiseOwl » January 4th, 2013, 11:57 am

I have a big list of them to fix, it's true, although I have no idea if I have them all. When I do the next release, probably towards the end of January, I hope to rectify this. Thanks for dropping by, we always love to know when people are playing the IE.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

Mars
Posts: 16
Joined: October 4th, 2008, 11:06 pm

Re: Imperial Era

Post by Mars » January 4th, 2013, 10:14 pm

Ooh, ooh, new IE updates! Thanks, guys.

Two cents: Having Orcei be chaotic or neutral randomly looks like fun. Somewhat less dependable, true, but I would like to try it. In-world we can explain it as adaptation to Imperial society, which would be entirely consistent with individual variation.

User avatar
tr0ll
Posts: 517
Joined: June 11th, 2006, 8:13 pm
Location: canada

Re: Imperial Era

Post by tr0ll » January 5th, 2013, 4:58 am

especially since they would have to become adapted to daytime service for their masters

i would love to see more development of this era too. are you taking (small) donations?

User avatar
UnwiseOwl
Posts: 472
Joined: April 9th, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Imperial Era

Post by UnwiseOwl » January 5th, 2013, 5:55 am

We're working on developing the era. Slowly, but it's coming along. I don't know what we'd do with a donation of money, but if you'd be able to donate your time to play through campaigns or multiplayer games and make suggestions, or do some artwork, that'd be excellent and would really help us to keep improving the world of Orbivm.
Maintainer of the Imperial Era and the campaigns Dreams of Urduk, Epic of Vaniyera, Up from Slavery, Fall of Silvium, Alfhelm the Wise and Gali's Contract.
But perhaps 'maintainer' is too strong a word.

Post Reply