Conquest 1.0 - Now on the 1.6 Add-on Server

[CIB]

Well, my idea about "but the later players get wayy stronger units!" issue was giving a bonus back to the earlier players on turn two. This way, they won't be able to use their extra gold for village grabbing, but they will be able to hold the villages they already have on turn 2. This is also because noone with much gold gets to attack them before they make their move on turn 2. I'm thinking something along these lines:

Turn1:
p1 - 4 gold
p2 - 6 gold
p3 - 8 gold
p4 - 10 gold
p5 - 12 gold
p6 - 14 gold

Turn 2:
p1 - +5 gold
p2 - +4 gold
p3 - +3 gold
p4 - +2 gold
p5 - +1 gold

Note that p6 having over 3 times as much gold on turn 1 doesn't matter that much, consider:

Gold totals turn 2:
p1 - 4+10+5 = 19
p2 - 6+10+4 = 20
p3 - 8+10+3 = 21
p4 - 10+10+2 = 22
p5 - 12+10+1 = 23

As you see, on turn 2, where all the fighting happens, the total strength of each player will be quite equal. However, the earlier players will have much less gold to snatch villages on turn 1.

[CIB]

Also, mabuse, you should look for occurences of "movement" and replace them with "moves". Ships are supposed to lose movement on boarding as well.

[Mabuse]

Well, my idea about "but the later players get wayy stronger units!" issue was giving a bonus back to the earlier players on turn two. This way, they won't be able to use their extra gold for village grabbing,

in my opinion they SHOULD use the stronger units for village grabbing since the advantage of the earlier players is that they can take the free villages for cheap

so thats no problem imo. i somehow hope that the extra villages the p1 may get and the extra gold for the later players (wich they may use to grab occupied cites) will somehow equalize. but its true that this way the game-play is also influenced - since the later players can field way stronger units earlier into battle.

-------------------------

btw, after some quick calculations:
yes, elite inf is stronger than 3 normal inf, and also cavalry is stronger than 5 normal inf (it should be noted that normal inf may do better if they utilize terrain bonus against cavalry though, for example attcking from a mountain)

however, this is of course intended. else it simple woudlnt make sense to get cavalry or elite infantry (or other units, if you coudl kill them with the same amount of normal inf)

normal inf can also block or ebtter said, no matter how strong a unit is .. it will only be able to kill ONE other unit in a turn. so if 3 normal inf would be also able to kill an eliteInf or 5 normal inf be able to kill a cav, then spamming normal inf would be the best strategy.

luckily this isnt the case. elite inf though is quite tough and two of them can easily kill a cav, if they utilize terrain bonus for example, in open field they shoudl have a slight advantage - but cav is of also faster. cav will also kil ONE elite inf reliable.

------------------

ships lose movement for boarding/unboarding:

well, the 1.15 fix was a rather quick fix. initially i decided against ships to lose movment for unloading

and even after spending some thoughts about this, i dont see its nessessary that ship shall lose movement for boarding /unboarding, with the actual reglementation you will never be able to unload more than ONE unit into an unoccupied city, and if the ship has fought previously it wont be able to move anymore anyways.

of course with some smart logistics and movement (and if the cities are very close together) you may use ONE small boat to transport a unit into an unoccopied city, drive back load another unit and unload it into another city - in one turn.

i think this is of couse ok, and if the geographical circumstances allow that, it is anotehr strategical option to make smart use of boats. and it keeps the game more dynamically.

its not unfair, players who defend their coastal cities have good possibilities.
an invader must bring at least two galleons to kill a lieutenant (reliably - with some luck one boat is still enough), so the second one may transport a unit. -- which must be also strong then, since if it si a weak one it could be retken very easily - and of course still can.

so actually i think its ok if boats dont lose movement for boarding/unboarding

[Caulder]

I'll have to give more insight into CIB's suggestion it seems logical right now, but I just woke up, so I can barely make it out.

However, to the making units lose all movement the minute they unboard, I like it, and I don't think we can go any further in the right direction. But there is one small problem and it happens about 30-50% of the time. When a person knows they're going to get hit by boats, they usually cover their coastal cities with boats right? Yeah, so the situation goes like this:

Two boats block a coastal city, the enemy player manages to kill one, then kill the unit defending the city, and unboard his own. Instead of recruiting a strong unit earlier, and boarding it on the ship that just took the city, the enemy simply unboarded a 1 gold infantry, then suicided against that second ship that was defending the city, the enemy can now recruit at that city as he sees fit. I mean I am not complaining really about this situation as you guys have worked hard on it and all, but there are still loop holes in our little plan. And chances are someone was going to point this out anyways. Tbh I don't think this can ever be overcome unless when a unit unboards he loses the ability to attack as well.

But like I said you guys are doing a great job, we've come a long way from 1.0 lol, keep it up.

[CIB]

Instead of recruiting a strong unit earlier, and boarding it on the ship that just took the city, the enemy simply unboarded a 1 gold infantry, then suicided against that second ship that was defending the city, the enemy can now recruit at that city as he sees fit.

You know, that already worked before ships were there - Take a village with a weak unit, suicide on a strong unit, recruit an even stronger unit. I'm not sure that's a bad thing though - if you couldn't attack after taking a village, it would become very hard to take villages guarded by many units. Right now, you don't need to kill all defenders, it's enough to sneak around them and then recruit.

[Mabuse]

as CIB pointed out, that was "part of the system" before ships came into play.

of course you have to think about things like that, and it is likely that you will lose strong units near a village if the enemy manages to take it, since he can suicide a weak unit on it and then prodice and attack with the new resources.

if the enemy allows you to pull something like this off then its his fault, utilizing things like this separates the boys from the men. i think its a good thing. bad enough if it happens to you, but what can you do


btw, i just made a testplay with the new first turn income and i say it turned out well.
it not really a problem that p6 may recruit a lieutenant because the other players will compensate that quickly, by higher income

players 1 can take most empty villages, followed by player 2 (to get most income in the next turn) .. and so on. the later players can then try conquer them on their turns with the additional money. there is really not more need for more income-handicaps. this this hopefully balances itself out.

btw, i think i have found a "bug" - board/unboard option is bound to "Gg^Vh" only actually, which means you cannot board/unboard units in MONACO (and other village types other than standard grassland village)

this will be fixed also


well, what can i say, with ships the tactical dimension was surely enhanced and europe map makes a lot of fun i admit.

[Caulder]

You know, that already worked before ships were there - Take a village with a weak unit, suicide on a strong unit, recruit an even stronger unit. I'm not sure that's a bad thing though - if you couldn't attack after taking a village, it would become very hard to take villages guarded by many units. Right now, you don't need to kill all defenders, it's enough to sneak around them and then recruit.

Oh yeah I know that has always been a good strategy, albeit sometimes it can backfire in your face if the units doesn't suicide, which happens a lot more on land as it's possible to kill elites that are half/near full life with an infantry on a village.

I wasn't saying that we should get rid of it anyways nor was I complaining about it, I was just bringing it up as someone who would tend to complain about minor unfairities may just make more posts on the forums.

[Mabuse]

just to note it:
the ship code is really brilliant. i love it how it handles to board and unboard

i made a slight update it improves the following things:

- cavalry can now be boarded as well
- cavalry wont show the "board item" anymore
- monaco works now as all other cities for boarding/unboarding
- wesnoth map fully supports ships now
(griffins cannot be boarded/unboarded though, as it makes no sense for them, they can fly already)


now that i understand how boarding/unboarding works i dont see that it will ruin the purpose of rivers as being natural borders in the map, and it adds more units and thus more tactical and strategical depth wesnoth map

[CIB]

I am currently working on a way to make alliances on the fly. I'm basically done, but now the horrible horrible bug tracking begins(it says missing closing tag somewhere, but there's no problem at the stated lines).

[Yoyobuae]

A bit late, but what about adding an AI controlled side that has all the free villages instead. Just put one AI infantry on each remaining village after the initial distribution among players. Probably also modify the AI behavior, or the stats of this AI infantry so that they stay put on their villages.

Like this there are no free villages for P1 to take, he'll have to fight for them like everyone else.

[ViK]

just to clarify this:
ViK plays conquest 1.0 and not 1.14

I always download whatever is the latest version on forums. I have another username here, don't ask me what, but I always host whatever is the latest version here. Currently I am hosting 1.16

on 1.14 p1 wouldnt be able to take villages on turn 1 and also other players could take them more easily back
1.14 is more balanced than 1.0 on this matter, and of course as the previous poster stated right, FOG ON will imbalance the game more, as it makes it a lot more difficult to team up effectivley

Thats what I have been trying to say to Sketchy all through, that 1.14 has a balance. I lost some games there and won some. But maybe more when he is observing or watching. He just wont listen and accuse me. And its not once, but every minute. I wish I had a chance to mute him and let him play. I did not want to have a whiner in my game. I can put up with that whining for once but not in every message. Thats the reason he was kicked out of the game.

[Lmao]

A bit late, but what about adding an AI controlled side that has all the free villages instead. Just put one AI infantry on each remaining village after the initial distribution among players. Probably also modify the AI behavior, or the stats of this AI infantry so that they stay put on their villages.

Like this there are no free villages for P1 to take, he'll have to fight for them like everyone else.

Well if u do this then later players probably would have the advantage, since the first player would have to take out the AI and probably sacrafice a few units while the later players can just take out the village u may have spent like 3 gold on. So first player spends 3 and still loses it in the end while the later player may spend 3 and gain one. This would make first players have to attk the later players first and many may just stand in a deadlock not wanting to attk the AI and lose their units and the village they just captured.

[Yoyobuae]

Dunno. I'm no Conquest expert, but it seems any deadlock won't last. The players can simply cooperate to take the AI owned villages instead.

If there still isn't enought incentive to take the villages then make AI units weaker (peasants instead of inf ), so that even a regular inf can take one out. That way, taking an AI village is a 2g investment instead of 3g.

[CIB]

Alright, the alliance mod basically works now. There still seem to be some bugs, but you can make alliances and dissolve them now. It works like this:

- A player can create an alliance with custom name at any time
- Other players can apply for this alliance on their turn
- The leader of an alliance can accept applications on his turn
- Any player can leave an alliance, but it will only apply on their next turn

[Sketchy]

just to clarify this:
ViK plays conquest 1.0 and not 1.14

I always download whatever is the latest version on forums. I have another username here, don't ask me what, but I always host whatever is the latest version here. Currently I am hosting 1.16

I believed I've mainly seen you with either 1.0 or 1.1

on 1.14 p1 wouldnt be able to take villages on turn 1 and also other players could take them more easily back
1.14 is more balanced than 1.0 on this matter, and of course as the previous poster stated right, FOG ON will imbalance the game more, as it makes it a lot more difficult to team up effectivley

Thats what I have been trying to say to Sketchy all through, that 1.14 has a balance. I lost some games there and won some. But maybe more when he is observing or watching. He just wont listen and accuse me. And its not once, but every minute. I wish I had a chance to mute him and let him play. I did not want to have a whiner in my game. I can put up with that whining for once but not in every message. Thats the reason he was kicked out of the game.

Nice of you to cherry-pick out of context ViK. You'll note that this doesn't change the fact that you can take a village with 1 troop and someone else has to take with 2 or 3 troops. That you've lost some games is simply because other players were able to effectively team up on you. It doesn't change your crappy sportsmanship and the inherent unbalanced positions of the early game. Now, you COULD yield your player 1 position to make it a different game for you. You never do. You're more interested in winning and wasting everyone else's time. And when I bring this fact up to you REPEATEDLY, you either ignore me or make some baldfaced lie to shut me up. That you're clearly incapable of a rational argument doesn't need to even be stated.

I won't listen to you because you frankly haven't said anything worth listening to. And it's not an accusation when it's probably quite true. It's furthermore, not whining. You should perhaps look up that word in the dictionary, seeing as you clearly have no idea what it means or how to properly use it. And really you kicked me because you didn't like being reminded just what a crappy sport you are. You didn't like being told that you were effectively constantly hosting rigged games.