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
wtf_is_this
Posts: 56
Joined: March 24th, 2010, 7:01 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by wtf_is_this »

Hah mabuse i just remembered the oldest conquest with 3 units and only std mode:D.It was a way easier to play i would say.Btw this shock trooper realy dont makes sense(Mabuse and ST said why).Mb try with royal guard or make him stronger and mb 30 gold.Cos if u make same units and for dwarves(with 70 def) 2 shock trooper with some unluck will be kiled by this unit.I dont have time now to test the teleport think in Sudmark but i think its agood idea(tried the map in 1v1 and 2v2 and the 1v1 took manyh hours),Also in gagarna map some spawns can realy anoy someone and cut him.(A 3 tarsia cuts 85 percent of the spawns) and can give a great turn 2 bonus with some good ai and risky recruit.+ the Sudmark map takes many time to add the orange units.And he problem was and in my oponent.My PC isnt slow,but its not a big problem at all.

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

Shock Trooper

Post by Lich_Lord »

The idea behind the shock trooper is that it would be better at defence than a general, but almost useless at offense. I didn't really think to much about the strength of the shock trooper, I just posted a possible attack for it. This troop would primarily be stationed on a village, so it would probably have 40% def most of the time, vs a unit attacking it with 40% def, or possibly 50%. Seeing how both ST and Mabuse think that the shock trooper is not strong enough, its attack could always be enhanced. It could be 75-4 or 70-5 for example.

The reason why I think the shock trooper should be added is that right now battles rarely use generals, since they're so easy to kill with an assassin. By adding the shock trooper, it encourages the use of generals, since they will be the best unit to kill a shock trooper.

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

Re: WML code

Post by Lich_Lord »

SlowThinker wrote:
Lich Lord in utils.cfg wrote:{VILLAGES_DISTRIBUTIONS 900 6 8 10 12 14 16 7 9 11 13 15 9 12 15 18 12 16 20 18 26}
About "900": Do you really need such a high number?
There is a cycle from 1 to 900, it might cause a delay on slow computers.
Ahh, did realize that it'd cause increased lag, here is one that won't be so bad, and will fill all villages in my super map, which will come out after I add a couple stronger units, to make up for the higher incomes people will have.
Attachments
utils-ALLvills.cfg
(75.6 KiB) Downloaded 160 times

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Mabuse wrote:so its clear that you need to spend more gold from low gold units to beat a high gold unit
I don't think anybody disagrees with you.
btw the question is whether the ratio of effectivity of expensive/cheap units shouldn't be changed: now you gain gold advantage mostly by capturing villages, not by killing weaker units. So you concentrace on captures of villages and not on unit kills. By increasing the ratio we would force people to think also about gold losses from combats. But I tend to think it would complicate the game needlessly, and shift it from a rather strategical game to a tactical one.

By reconsidering the unit stats I meant:
  • There is a stone-scissors-paper situation between normal unit-general-assasin, but the result is in favor of knights: knights took the role of generals.
  • There are several types of units - infantry (militia, infantry, elite, lieut, general), cavalry (cav, lancer, knight), village defender (pike), and there is not too much of logic in the system:
    for example there are 3g, 8g, 15g infantries, and I would expect their killers (5g, 10g, 20g cavalry) would be at same fixed margin. But 5g is 166% of 3g, 10g is 125% of 8g and 20g is 133% of 15g.
  • The mounted units are usually better than infantry. One way how to balance them is to change stats, another way is to make another terrain impassable for cavalry (besides mountains), or to slow down cavalry on a non-flat terrain much more.
  • The militia / infantry ratio is only very slightly better for an infantry, and so the militia is usually better because of its blocking abilities.
Lich_Lord wrote:The reason why I think the shock trooper should be added is that right now battles rarely use generals, since they're so easy to kill with an assassin.
But it may be simply managed by changing the stats of an assasin.

Or, if you want a defense against a knight, you may abandon the idea of the assasin, and to add more and more expensive units.
But Mabuse is right that the recruit list should not be too large.

So, what about this idea: there is infantry only. No elite, no lieutenant, no general. You can recruit a 2-lev, 3-lev, 4-lev etc. (no limit) infantry by recruiting a 1-lev unit, then right-clicking again and choosing the level. The unit stats would be determined by a formula. The unit graphics would be the lev-1 picture + level number as an overlay (2-4 level units could have their own graphics); but I am not sure whether overlays are possible for units.
Seeing how both ST and Mabuse think that the shock trooper is not strong enough
I thought the shock tropper was too strong, but I forgot he has only 40% in a vilage and not 60%. So the stats might be ok, but...

I don't want the defense of choke points is too easy, and that the game is reduced to a race for the choke points (who gets a choke-point first has it assured forever).
I want this logic of a choke point defense: if the defender wants to keep the choke point for 100%, he must keep a military supremacy in the area and to be able kill/block any recruited attackers in time. If he doesn't, the attacker should have a good chance to break the defense if he is ready to invest (and lose) a (rather high) amount of gold.
This is why I prefer a halberdier (or better a unit with a 70%-def in a village) over the shock tropper - he should be effective only in the village - to kill him should be expensive but possible. (If the defender is effective also on flat then the village may be unkillable - the deffender simply surrounds by shock troppers)
Mabuse wrote:there are other things that could be added to the game to increase the strategic and tactical depth
I would be very cautious with any increase of the tactical depth. Conquest is interesting because it stresses strategy over tactics.
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 12th, 2010, 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Lich_Lord »

SlowThinker wrote:This is why I prefer a halberdier (or better a unit with a 70%-def in a village) over the shock tropper - he should be effective only in the village - to kill him should be expensive but possible. (If the defender is effective also on flat then the village may be unkillable - the deffender simply surrounds by shock troppers)
Surrounding with Shock troopers would be relatively useless, since they get 30% def on flat terrain, so it would probably be more economically viable to use knights for this. If this is a matter for concern, the shock trooper could be given say, 50% on villages, but have slightly weaker stats than what I have suggested before, to make sure that they are not good for defense except for on villages. This would be somewhat similar to the halberdier unit that you are then suggesting, just that it would have worse terrain defense overall.

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Lich_Lord wrote:Surrounding with Shock troopers would be relatively useless, since they get 30% def on flat terrain, so it would probably be more economically viable to use knights for this.
40% - 30% is a small margin, and also 30% (flat) - 50% (village) is not so big margin as 40% (flat) - 60% (village). Or even better 40% (flat) - 70% (village).

Teleports:
This is the new teleport code:
Spoiler:
It is with scrolling to a destination rune and without a beam (I cannot be hidden it in fog).

Edit: this new code is also in the attachment with the Surdmark map on the previous page.
Edit: I added [redraw] so that map scrolls also into a fogged destination.

On the map the teleports are placed this way (of course you must insert appropriate coordinates):
Spoiler:
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 17th, 2010, 6:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

I plan to polish the Conquest code. But it will take some amount of time.

Now it contains really fun parts. For example
Spoiler:
in place of

Code: Select all

{VARIABLE garrison $random}
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 14th, 2010, 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

Berserkjaguar
Posts: 9
Joined: October 13th, 2010, 11:20 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Berserkjaguar »

i played a game on jel'wan and my opponent build many ruffs with the repulse ability. i did 4 attacking fights vs them with my 15g unit and i lost 2 of them. so i think the repulse ability is too strong. the ruff has 24 dmg and 5 hits and he only cost 5 gold. so there was no chance for me to go into his regions with all the ruffs there.
maybe you should do the repulse ability to 50% of the dmg instead of 100% of dmg.

btw the ruffy are a 5gold celtic unit.

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

yes I been meaning to nerf them anyway, will so so in a bit...

their current dam is 12-5 so perhaps I'll change to 10-5... which makes them pretty moderate attackers but 100 cumulative damage when attacked... ) as compared to 75 for a pike...

I'm also about to add a Beastmaster faction and the beasts do more damage when accompanied by a master..
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Teleporting

Post by SlowThinker »

moved to previous page
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 16th, 2010, 6:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

update

Post by Gwledig »

I thought I'd post an update what I've been up to..

So now I have 6 factions added to my conquest packs on addon

Celts : +movement, slightly weaker but a few skills like Salve (weak self healing)
Rift : Wide range of wierd creatures, some units slightly weaker but some special skills like Gorgon's drain, Tiamat's Fear
Tribal : Pretty much based on Orcs, with a healer unit
Feudal : Pretty much based on humans use mostly elite loyalist icons
Outlaw : Only a few units, used for a few outlaw outposts on a map
Beastmasters : Mostly monsters like bat, wolf, serpent, spider, tentacle, and 3 tiers of Beastmaster, +leadership for beasts

All factions, including core have a Magus unit for 7 gold with weak attack, +15 healing and teleport

I've uploaded to 2 separate packs, 6P and 8P

6P pack maps are:

Faerie Islands (featuring all factions, different one in each region I think)
Drake world (a flop but some guy asked for it to stay in pack)

and some maps I reused from core -

Europe 300AD based on normal Europe with tribes, feudals, celts, outlaws
Wesnoth Newage, JelWan Newage, Crusades Newage - identical map, nothing changed with new factions added, Crusades is just Feudal).
Arcadia - a hash up of LOTR, I'll make it further different on terrain soon so its less like the original for copyright reasons it has most core and new factions.
Poland - Zybll let me add this to the pack, I changed the region/vila names a little... it has most core and new factions.

8p pack maps are:

Wales, based on historical Wales in 1400s (Celts and Feudals representing Welsh and English)
Desert Empires - with an experimental superbonus if you take all regions in an 'empire' (just Feudals)

I need to make some more of my own maps now.. possibly some themed maps using certain factions like Wales.
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

icaro10010
Posts: 3
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 6:59 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by icaro10010 »

PUT RANGED ATTACKS IN CONQUEST

icaro10010
Posts: 3
Joined: August 25th, 2010, 6:59 pm

Re: New Units

Post by icaro10010 »

Lich_Lord wrote:Gwledig, I think its a great idea to add some new units, but it might be good for me to post my current plans in terms of new units for conquest, so that we don't end up using the same units.

Right now I'm planning on adding 5 new units to each race, although 3 of the units will only be used for large conquest maps, with 90+ villages in them.

So these are the units I plan to use for big maps only:
-30 gold Grand Knight for humans (65-6 with 350HP)
-35 gold Grand Marshal for humans (55-8 with 400 HP)
-35 gold Iron Mauler for humans (95-4 with 525HP and 3MP)

I'd also create equivilants for other factions, so for example, elves would get a 25 gold Lord maybe, a slyph, and a 35 gold ancient wose, and orcs would get orcish ruler, and trolls as their tank units.

For standard sized conquest maps, I plan to add:
-A infantry and a light calvary for all races whose militia cost 1 gold, except for mermen.
Infantry would have 12-4 and 65 HP while light calvary would have 12-4 and 60HP
By making infantry slightly stronger, it encourages the player to use them, or I think they'd hardly ever be used.
-25 gold Shock Trooper for humans (70-4 with 400HP and 3MP)

I think the shock trooper should be added to conquest for the following reason:
In conquest it is very hard to defend, especially with the creation of the assassin unit. If you are threatened by a large army of knights, you would be pretty much screwed. If you make a general, the enemy makes an assassin and kills your general the next turn at a cost less than what you payed for to defend. If you make a knight or two, the enemy kills your knights with their knights and takes the village. This creates a situation where its very hard to defend your village by spending the same amount of gold as your opponent did, if they get to attack first. The tank units (for lack of a better name) should fix this problem at least partially.
By making a Shock Trooper, the enemy will have to sustain a significant loss of power to conquer a village it is defending, since there won't be a unit that can assassinate it. However, since it is so slow and has bad terrain defense, its very hard to attack with this unit, so making the unit also has some disadvantages. It means that the enemy could focus their gold on another region, knowing that you have a shock trooper there, but that it can't launch an offensive on them.
The equivalents for this unit for other races would be wose, hoptite, troll, and probably whatever the Amir levels into for the Kalifa. I'm not sure whether it'd be good to add this unit to the other races though, since they have other advantages, such as fliers.


Note: Stats for new units might change, but will stay roughly the same.

spam 1g units and thats done

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

Hi icaro10010

I have no idea what you are trying to say, sorry.
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Lich_Lord »

icaro10010 wrote:PUT RANGED ATTACKS IN CONQUEST
Icaro: I suggest that you read over the forum before making statements such as these. There has been a long debate over whether ranged units should be added to conquest. You can find the discussion over ranged units either in this thread, or in the conquest 1.6 thread, I can't remember which.

The final decision at the time on what would be done about the possibility of adding ranged units was that it'd complicate the game a lot yet it wouldn't provide many benefits to conquest, so it would be a lot of work with next to no reward.

Post Reply