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
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 »

thanks for the updates Mabuse I'll update my 'clone' with the new utils, i'm trying to get any extra features I add out into separate cfgs so I can just drop any updated main utils in.

I see my own pack as a test ground and a place for myself to play around with ideas and maps which can take some time to balance, the superbonus or wales map for example, so it could end up in the main pack if/when its felt good enough if you want it.

I just addded a builder unit which can make fortifications, a basic 'rampart' and a 'stone tower' and also a ship buidler to make sea defenses (clone of the dhow), also I added a "seigeman" infantry unit (ogre) and a "seige ship" to work like the assassin on fortifications.
I must say after 3 playtests the players were enthusiastic, only C4 mentioned he was against them the other day and maybe wtf on here before, personally I think it adds a whole defensive strategy, meaning you dont need to fan out all your troops to watch all borders. The fortifications can also be destroyed pretty easily, but have x2 HP of similar infantry units you could make for the same money, but obviously they cant move and are vulnerable to the siege units. I'm also thinking of adding a right click ability to demolish a fortification.

Also I think theres certain features most players are familiar with in games, eg anyone who played empire earth, warcraft orcs & humans etc. is familiar with using a builder/worker to make walls. So the concept is not wierd like many scenarios where you have to learn the basic concept. Also if you have an extra feature its not essential to use, so you could have a game where fortifications are seldom or not used, so its up to the players how they play.

this is just a test and I'm just playing around with ideas here, and if players think its plain bad I'll just remove it, but like I said my packs are more a test ground.

But I also think having a fork of conquest gives more varierty even if it does break the basic KISS idea slightly.

Also, Mabuse if you see something I made you think might be useful for the main conquest you have my support to take it, change it or add it however you like, so if you want to improve my wales or empires map sometime, remove anything you dont like go ahead, or if you want me to make it 'classic' I can. Though might want to rename this maps slightly in case a player downloads both addons, eg Desert Empires Classic or something to that effect.

Just thinking about the boats... cant a wildcard be used (no filter) then [not] filter stuff you dont want to board instead (like other boats).

EDIT I forgot to add I used jinnakar's concept of filtering allowable terrain based on builder location then create new unit on that location, a regular mobile recruit wasnt really possible without using fake units around the builder to filter allowable terrrain (messy), so thanks Jinnakara and Ive added you into the credits on the objectives screen. Unlike Jin's towers, mine use [unit] and overlays so the player doesnt need to download anything to use towers (Jin's map crashes if any player doesn't have the addon locally & a tower is built on the map). I'm sure theres a better way to build (I tried mobile recruit where builder doesnt disaspear up his own ass, but couldnt filter the surrouding terrain).
Last edited by Gwledig on November 26th, 2010, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

Jinnaraka
Posts: 55
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 9:51 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Jinnaraka »

Gwledig wrote:thanks for the updates Mabuse I'll update my 'clone' with the new utils, i'm trying to get any extra features I add out into separate cfgs so I can just drop any updated main utils in.

I see my own pack as a test ground and a place for myself to play around with ideas and maps which can take some time to balance, the superbonus or wales map for example, so it could end up in the main pack if/when its felt good enough if you want it.

I just addded a builder unit which can make fortifications, a basic 'rampart' and a 'stone tower' and also a ship buidler to make sea defenses (clone of the dhow), also I added a "seigeman" infantry unit (ogre) and a "seige ship" to work like the assassin on fortifications.
I must say after 3 playtests the players were enthusiastic, only C4 mentioned he was against them the other day and maybe wtf on here before, personally I think it adds a whole defensive strategy, meaning you dont need to fan out all your troops to watch all borders. The fortifications can also be destroyed pretty easily, but have x2 HP of similar infantry units you could make for the same money, but obviously they cant move and are vulnerable to the siege units. I'm also thinking of adding a right click ability to demolish a fortification.

this is just a test and I'm just playing around with ideas here, and if players think its plain bad I'll just remove it, but like I said my packs are more a test ground.

But I also think having a fork of conquest gives more varierty even if it does break the basic KISS idea slightly.

Also, Mabuse if you see something I made you think might be useful for the main conquest you have my support to take it, change it or add it however you like, so if you want to improve my wales or empires map sometime, remove anything you dont like go ahead, or if you want me to make it 'classic' I can. Though might want to rename this maps slightly in case a player downloads both addons, eg Desert Empires Classic or something to that effect.

Just thinking about the boats... cant a wildcard be used (no filter) then [not] filter stuff you dont want to board instead (like other boats).

EDIT I forgot to add I used jinnakar's concept of filtering allowable terrain based on builder location then create new unit on that location, a regular mobile recruit wasnt really possible without using fake units around the builder to filter allowable terrrain (messy), so thanks Jinnakara and Ive added you into the credits on the objectives screen. Unlike Jin's towers, mine use [unit] and overlays so the player doesnt need to download anything to use towers (Jin's map crashes if any player doesn't have the addon locally & a tower is built on the map).
Thanks for the credit. yep, i guess it will crash because of the new tower units. Adding more new stuffs will make the game tooo complicated to learn and to play, so I have stopped continues making any change to my map. More new units, makes the game more boring in a way. rather, I think it is better to focus on the balanced of the map itself and make the map look better.
Legendary Thief (single player (Intermediated level, 20 scenarios) campaign; author)
Various Multiplayer scenarios modifier

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 »

after i end aturn or my oponent in surdmark map i see his income(Not bonus) and mine income and to all oponents.Should this be so,or he is trying to cheat somehow?

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

wtf_is_this wrote:after i end aturn or my oponent in surdmark map i see his income(Not bonus) and mine income and to all oponents. Should this be so,or he is trying to cheat somehow?
I think there are much easier and simultaneously much more effective ways how to cheat in Wesnoth games :D

Can you be more concrete?
Do you see it via alt-s?
Do all players see it?
What do you mean by "after i end a turn"? Do you see it only a short time after the turn ends? Later something makes the income invisible again?
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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

sounds like wtf is talking about the status update Mabuse mentioned above??
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

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 »

after i end turn i see it only for some time(not a lot),Its writen in red,and its something like:

1st:side2-16 income
2nd....
3rd....

SOmething like this,from this game i didnt played wesnoth and conquest,and i know that there are many types of cheating without your oonent or someone to see this(Althought i NEVER use it)

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Gwledig is right very likely...I think you use the pirate :P version sent by mabuse:
mabuse wrote:- a score table is shortly shown at start of each players turn
dispalys the income of players in winnning order
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

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

a balance and new feature update.
it is essential to use since it features new Units.
you cannot play it without having newest conquest installed.
(of course you can join games of lower levels still)

Essential Update (you cannot play Conquest without this Update)

2.8.1:
-------

- new unit.
Mounted General.
cavalry defense. all defs -5% (so it has 35% flat def for example)
30 Gold
325HP
45-10 damage
10 moves
(can be assassinated)


- Kalifa Units fully implemented
rebalanced Movetypes and Defenses
(basically they are like normal Humans but have move 1 on Sand and +10% Def on Sand
Infantry has also 1 move on Hills and -10% on Woods)

- all merman got 60% def in reef

- all dwarfs have now 60% def in mountains, but 40% def in flat terrain

- dwarfs have now an 8 gold flying unit.
the old 6 gold flying unit is now a normal griffin, while the new 8 gold is the griffin master
(both lvl2)

- undead have now an 8 gold flying unit.
the old 6 gold flying unit is a shadow, while the new 8 gold is the wraith
(both lvl2)

- drake flat def is raised to 35%

- undead, orc, elven 9 gold cav get +5 HP and +1 dam and their cost is raised to 10

- workers cost 5 gold (since def is more easy)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

2.9.1:

slight up:
-------------

- kalifa siegetrooper has now 1 sand, 1 hills movement
- the score table at start of each players turn is displayed 1 more second (3 seconds total)



i would like to add more "high class" units (around the 25 gold value) for the other races, like undead, orcs etc.) - but its probably difficult to balance

i can make them either some sort of general - then its easy, assassin will counter it.
or a weaker version of a 25 gold unit, for example a unit with only 30% def (like the inferno drake)

would be still stronger than a 20 gold unit (in open field), but weaker than a human general

its purpose would be to bring some better firepower in assault

suggestions are welcome.

(for example skeleton dargon for undead, fire dragon (modified) for orcs, or whatever ... )
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Zbyll's maps

Post by SlowThinker »

I tried Conquest Dative, 1 vs 1. It is interesting, but for example a 3 vs 9 start is quite unbalanced.
East is slow: 4-before6 and 2-after12 are more distant than 10 and so an expansion is slow here.
And west is faster: 10-before12 and 8-after6 are attackable by mounted units.

Concerning the new Conquest Poland with teleport, I think in a 1 vs 1 game a corner start has still no chance vs a start in the center.

Edit:
Dative: also 5 vs 6 has no chance, as 6 travels by a boat north and takes 12 and has most of the map.
Last edited by SlowThinker on December 1st, 2010, 1:51 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 »

So I just read through roughly two pages of new replies in this thread, and I'm a little surprised at the presence of some hostility between Slow and Mabuse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, this thread is supposed to be a place where we exchange ideas about conquest and how to improve it. Adding in (slightly) rude comments directed at specific people will NOT help to achieve this goal. There have been a variety of arguments made by both of parties that I think have not been fully understood. I guess I'll go on to list some of them later on...

First off though, I'd like to stress that I have no problem with working with Mabuse to maintain conquest. Obviously, we should share ideas and refine them in a constructive manner so that the changes done to conquest improve its game-play (in the minds of most people). Mabuse is somewhat needed to maintain conquest if many new features are to be added too, since he knows much more about WML than anybody here. However, we should not try to become the "kings" of conquest, turning down other people's ideas because we simply don't understand them and thinking that they are opposing ideas simply because they feel change. (I don't mean that we are "kings", but that this ought to be avoided).


Now onto some of the stuff that has been discussed recently:

NOTE: I'm not going to bother including quotes for this since they span across many different posts and it would be a waste of time to go looking for all of them.

So about all of this fortification stuff. I think its a fairly good idea, and it should be tested out at the very least. Slow has some made some valid points in opposition to reinforcement, or at least to part of it. For example, letting LT's on villages kill knights the majority of the time, when reinforced, triggers some red flags in my mind. The most obvious problem with this, that I can think of, is that if you're in a battle, like a 1v1, and you want to attack an opponent's village, and so you build some units, enough to kill of any militia spam he makes, and then you also build a knight. This creates a scenario where if the defender wants to hold his villages, he has 3 options: build a LT, knight, or a general (This is not taking fortification into account). If the defender makes a LT, they probably have about a 80% chance to lose the village, with a knight, about a 47% chance, and with a general, they'll almost certainly hold it (though they'll have to worry about assassins next turn). With this new fortification, building a LT now has a very good chance of holding the village. In FFA games, this can be a good thing; it makes the attacker commit more gold if they want to make headway in an offensive. In team games though, I have a feeling that it would NOT be beneficial to conquest.
The main reason is because is that in team games, particularly in big maps such as Surdmark, players are constantly expanding and it is almost always more economically viable to spend money on expanding rather than launching an offensive. Making it easier for the defender to hold his land simply makes this difference more pronounced.

Therefore, I suggest to reduce the bonus of fortification in ONLY team and 1v1 games to 10% or 5%, mostly for the LT, but for other units as well, such as the pike and the elite. For FFA games, fortification seems like it is a good idea, and I'm not overly concerned with the balance issues of beefing up the originally weaker infantry units.

Slow's suggesting of changing around the units in conquest to create more balanced recruitment options is good. However, to remake the way that the units fight would take a lot of thought, and so to make any headway with this topic I suggest that some possible changes or new stats/costs be suggested. Just pointing out that it is a problem does not get rid of the problem, it just makes you aware of it. Rejecting an idea such as this though, because it is a slightly complicated observation, and because it does not have any possible solutions is not the right road to take either.

I could babble on about this hostility, but I don't really feel like moderating a fight, so lets just keep it cool. 8)


A couple things I'd just like to mention/some recent changes and what I plan to do:
-I still plan to make my 300 village map, I just need to find the time to finish it up. There will be more units added to it, at least a 30 and 35 gold units like the ones I suggested a while back, ofc, the stats are still in limbo (they'd be new races (sort of) so that it wouldn't affect normal sized maps).

-I will not reduce the amount of villages or bonus gold in the map because a) that is how its designed b)reducing bonus gold would just center the game more on villages, which in FFA games have already become much more important than control of an entire bonus, since you have workers too. I MIGHT do something like make the gold per village 1/2 (or increase bonuses and unit costs by a factor of 2) to reduce the sheer quantity of gold players will make.

-@Mabuse: I see that you're adding a 30 gold unit. This is probably not a good idea to add to the main maps such as europe, wesnoth, jel'wan, ect. because those maps only have 60ish villages, which means that the unit will be very expensive. This therefore creates an advantage for the very rich player(s) in conquest because they can afford to buy a super strong unit that a weaker, cash strapped, defender can not hope to stop.
Having a calvary as the strongest unit in conquest also gives a major advantage to the attacker, since the defender will not get any advantageous terrain if its just 40% def for both sides (or 35%).
-About the Kalifa: Great if you're able to make them not dependent on Ageless to play. I'm thinking of changing their terrain def to 40% sand and 50% hills, which will probably be more balanced. They shouldn't be getting 60% on hills though, its OP.

-I see that 8 gold fliers are being added, and I have a big problem with this. We all agree that fliers have a huge advantage, easy terrain movement and they can move over impassibles, but having a 8 gold flier is a little too powerful. To illustrate this, take the example of Wesnoth in the Wesnoth map. If a person amasses a huge pile of ghosts (6g) to break Wesnoth, the Wesnoth player can just buy 8 gold elites on all of his cites and fortify them. This makes it fairly difficult for the Eastmark, or wherever they are, player to break Wesnoth, and they would have to suffer bad losses to break the bonus. If the player had 8 gold ghosts too though, then defending Wesnoth with only elites would not be enough to stop/inflict huge losses on the enemy. If they look higher up the unit tree, they can get a 10 calv, which would probably be just as strong due to reinforce, or they can get 15 gold LTs. The LTs would certainly hold the bonus, but at a high cost of roughly 60 gold or more, not to mention income lost from lack of workers on the villages.
Therefore, we can conclude that 8g fliers make defending across impassibles much harder. The eventual solution to this problem, at least in my opinion, is to get rid of all fliers except for the 6 gold ones (you too spectre).
-The last thing I'd like to mention is the terrain defence of elves. Pretty much all races have 40 and 50% terrain def, especially the humans. The elves, however, have 60%. I suggest reducing defence on forest terrain to 50%, and here's why: Now with reinforcement, elves can defend places with 75% terrain defence. While most races can only manage 65% with reinforcement except for on villages & mts., the elves can get 75% on forest, and there tends to be a lot of forest next to elf villages. Imagine how hard it would be to attack aethenwood from blackwater if the enemy has reinforced a enchantress or two in the fortress.
Also, battles in forests are very difficult for the defender right now since the attacker can almost always manage the same terrain defence (except if the defender reinforces). This makes it hard to defend, because at best you can achieve only 15% better terrain, wheras in other places the defender would usually get a 25% or higher terrain defence advantage when reinforced.

So that is what I have to say.

BTW Gwledig I think its a good thing that you're testing some new ideas and seeing how they work into conquest.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Lich_Lord »

Ohh, forgot to mention my thoughts on the idea of a table of incomes being displayed after each players turn.

Some people might like this, but others (especially in team games and the person in FFA who is the strongest but can't take everybody on at once) certainly don't. I think this option should either be optional, to be turned off or on at the start of the game or to simply reject this idea, since it takes some of the mystery out of the game, especially in 1v1's.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

Lich_Lord wrote:Ohh, forgot to mention my thoughts on the idea of a table of incomes being displayed after each players turn.

Some people might like this, but others (especially in team games and the person in FFA who is the strongest but can't take everybody on at once) certainly don't. I think this option should either be optional, to be turned off or on at the start of the game or to simply reject this idea, since it takes some of the mystery out of the game, especially in 1v1's.
umm, you are aware of the fact that the information about the income is already freely available by using "alt-s"
(game overview option).

i dislike the fact that some people (who know that already) have access to these information, while others simply dont know about it (it seems you dont know about that, too (which seems very strange to me))

so i just put the info at start of each players turn.
in order that even newbies can access the iformations, and decide which actions they take
if the time is too short then you can still take a closer look via alt-s.
(the exact procedure: alt-s, next page --> "base income" dispays the income (form cities as well the income bonus from regions)

the tabe at start displays exactly the same.
so there was never a mystery, infact some people knew it and used this (also to decieve poeple who dont know about this) while other simply werent aware about this.

in order to equalize chances i put this option in. it wil not be optional, since you can access ANYWAY at ANYTIME this information as it is build into the game engine.

(we can debate wether its is good to have all the money added to the base income, but imo, i think its great that it is as it is. one of the great things of the "warlords-series" was for example that you could access some statistic informations and see which players are strongest and stuff, it makes the game more interesting)


in short words:
it wont get changed
, there are good reasons for that.
people who dont like it, have either no idea about this alt-s thingy and really think there is something like "a mystery", or they know about it and dont want to lose this advantage.


im not sure if you really mean this seriously that you dont know about the "alt-s"-option ?
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

Lich_Lord wrote: -@Mabuse: I see that you're adding a 30 gold unit. This is probably not a good idea to add to the main maps such as europe, wesnoth, jel'wan, ect. because those maps only have 60ish villages, which means that the unit will be very expensive. This therefore creates an advantage for the very rich player(s) in conquest because they can afford to buy a super strong unit that a weaker, cash strapped, defender can not hope to stop.
Having a calvary as the strongest unit in conquest also gives a major advantage to the attacker, since the defender will not get any advantageous terrain if its just 40% def for both sides (or 35%).
well, what about yu test the unit first ?
the 30 gold "mounted general" can be kil ed easier by an assassin then a normal general.
it just creates slightly more attack power of offense versus fortified units (ah well and non fortified units)

you can get rid of it just as well as the general.

and of course it is beneficial if the strongest unit is a calv, since then it wont get huge terrain def in cities for example, infact the mounted calv can be killed quite easily by an assasin on ANY terrain.

also i dont know what you mean with this sentence anyway

Code: Select all

Having a calvary as the strongest unit in conquest also gives a major advantage to the attacker, since the defender will not get any advantageous terrain if its just 40% def for both sides (or 35%)
maybe yu mean if strongest unit fights versus strongest unit
therefore you must know that it is obsolete anyway. generals can be coutered by assassins. and as said a mounted general can be more easily killed (due to his 35% def) then a normal general.

the 30 gold is just there to generate a bit more power in offense.
for example to destroy a heavily fortified unit you need 2 generals.
maybe with this unit you cna damage the fortified unit more so that you
dont nessessarily need another generals anymore.

there is also a higher chance that you can kill a heavily fortified unit
instantly
Lich_Lord wrote: -About the Kalifa: Great if you're able to make them not dependent on Ageless to play. I'm thinking of changing their terrain def to 40% sand and 50% hills, which will probably be more balanced. They shouldn't be getting 60% on hills though, its OP.
already done
Lich_Lord wrote: -I see that 8 gold fliers are being added, and I have a big problem with this. We all agree that fliers have a huge advantage, easy terrain movement and they can move over impassibles, but having a 8 gold flier is a little too powerful. To illustrate this, take the example of Wesnoth in the Wesnoth map. If a person amasses a huge pile of ghosts (6g) to break Wesnoth, the Wesnoth player can just buy 8 gold elites on all of his cites and fortify them. This makes it fairly difficult for the Eastmark, or wherever they are, player to break Wesnoth, and they would have to suffer bad losses to break the bonus. If the player had 8 gold ghosts too though, then defending Wesnoth with only elites would not be enough to stop/inflict huge losses on the enemy. If they look higher up the unit tree, they can get a 10 calv, which would probably be just as strong due to reinforce, or they can get 15 gold LTs. The LTs would certainly hold the bonus, but at a high cost of roughly 60 gold or more, not to mention income lost from lack of workers on the villages.
Therefore, we can conclude that 8g fliers make defending across impassibles much harder. The eventual solution to this problem, at least in my opinion, is to get rid of all fliers except for the 6 gold ones (you too spectre).
nah, 8 gold fliers are good, since fortified pikes just massacre 6 gold flyers. so they are pretty useless.

there is need for a 8 flier, which wouldnt kill a fortified pike anyways.
so you basically need 3 fliers to kill a fortified pike and at least one 8 gold flier
(the 8 gold flier suicides on the pike and hopes he does good damage, then the next (preferable also an 8gold) flier kills the pike, the last flier may be a 6 gold one, then take the village)

the 6 gold flier are more like scouts who can kill a fortified infantry, but fortified pike is something else. wesnoth can defend itself very good.

i really suggest you play a bit the new version and then talk on ;)


if this sounds harsh, then it is still ok, since it seems you havent done a single test so far.
so it seems pointless to reply more at this point for me.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

Lich_Lord wrote: -The last thing I'd like to mention is the terrain defence of elves. Pretty much all races have 40 and 50% terrain def, especially the humans. The elves, however, have 60%. I suggest reducing defence on forest terrain to 50%, and here's why: Now with reinforcement, elves can defend places with 75% terrain defence. While most races can only manage 65% with reinforcement except for on villages & mts., the elves can get 75% on forest, and there tends to be a lot of forest next to elf villages. Imagine how hard it would be to attack aethenwood from blackwater if the enemy has reinforced a enchantress or two in the fortress.
Also, battles in forests are very difficult for the defender right now since the attacker can almost always manage the same terrain defence (except if the defender reinforces). This makes it hard to defend, because at best you can achieve only 15% better terrain, wheras in other places the defender would usually get a 25% or higher terrain defence advantage when reinforced.
the dwarves have also 60% def on hills
and there tend to be a lot of hills i (and mountains) in dwarfen territory
dwarfes got 40% on flat and 60% in mountains though.

sure its hard to conquer the elves, however, the elves also lack offensive power
60% is a hard terrain def, but i think for eleves and dwarves it is ok to have.

the weakest race so far is orcs and kalifa
(and maybe undead)

i thought to strenghen these races by giving them a weak (but not counterable) 25 gold unit.

1)
the life gurad of the kalifa (its already a huge and impressive sprite) could be turned into a 25 gold assault cavalry with 35% terrain def (cannot be killed by assasins)

2)
orcs can get a fire-dragon, which has same stats as an inferno drake (25 godl unit, 30% def on flat (cannot be killed by assasins))

3)
undead get a skeletal dragon which has same def as a fire dragon (cannot be killed by assasins)



btw, lich lord i really like your creativity on the maps and stuff, but as said, adding more units to the game like 30 gold and 35 gold is difficult, the 30 gold cav (as a general wich is counterable by assasin) is definately the edge i can think about. everything more than this wont make sense - if all the other units should keep their useage


EDIT:
as i spok eabout the civs i completely forgot to mention mermen and drakes:


drakes:
--------
well, definately the weakest race, kinda. i rasied their flat def to 35%
anf their 25 gold unit can fortify (to 55%)
however, i think they need something like an assassin to be able to compete
so drakes will get an assassin unit.


mermans are like elves and dwarves and have good def in water.
so they are fine as they are (since the only enemies are fliers and ships)

Lich_Lord wrote:In FFA games, this can be a good thing; it makes the attacker commit more gold if they want to make headway in an offensive. In team games though, I have a feeling that it would NOT be beneficial to conquest.
The main reason is because is that in team games, particularly in big maps such as Surdmark, players are constantly expanding and it is almost always more economically viable to spend money on expanding rather than launching an offensive. Making it easier for the defender to hold his land simply makes this difference more pronounced.

Therefore, I suggest to reduce the bonus of fortification in ONLY team and 1v1 games to 10% or 5%, mostly for the LT, but for other units as well, such as the pike and the elite. For FFA games, fortification seems like it is a good idea, and I'm not overly concerned with the balance issues of beefing up the originally weaker infantry units.
btw, one last word about this:
of course this also wont happen.
"fortify" is as it is part of conquest for now and the future.

especially on maps like sudmark and stuff you can get a good monetary advanage by good expanding and stuff. you are able to launch stronger offense at certain points because you are able to hold other regions with less money either.

the wont be different rules for team or ffa games.
an ffa game is also a team game partially, only hte team members may change from time to time ;)


also:
fortifying will leave your units very immobile, so a mobile attack force and move deeply into enemy territory, and defnder cannot even react on this if he fortifies all his units

i guess you have to adapt to the new balance (fortify makes weaker units actualy be able to hold good def terrain versus stronger units, which wasn the case in conquest before, a fact that made conquest a bit dull (you hold the village with a 3 gold unit ? wait, then i kill it with my 5 gold unit .. hoorayyy !) - so it was changed for a good reason.)

as said the fact that you are able to hold areas with less money enables you to launch stronger attack on other areas.
and even if there is an extremely fortified strongpoint, you may just pass it.
you could even place your "stronger" unit directly beside a fortified unit and the fortified unit could not do anything, since to attack it has to unfortify.
Last edited by Mabuse on November 30th, 2010, 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Post Reply