Conquest Minus

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by wtf_is_this »

Yeah i know its quite anoying cos elves/khalifas are having extreme defense but this just makes the game more intresting.So i think u shud talk with some conquest players and think twice.I KNOW it ll balance things,but it makes conquest much more monotonic and less variative.Also i m still wiling to make a tournament but ONLY if people like to write 1-2 sentences to confirm they want to play.Also increasing trols defense is nice,i jsut saw a lancer(n 40) to reduce troll more than 80% of his HP.(basicly 15 or 20g in orcs is prety same at defense if u get a bi5t unlucky).

P.P. U still may reduce the power of the cavalry(3/5 mb and 9 gold one of the elves and khalifas so they have 50 on forests/hills and 40 on vilas,but i m not sure i would like it /personal opinion/).
P.P.I just hope mabuse returns to conquest or mb lich_lord cos they abandoned it without real reason( yyeah i know mabuse maintains a lot of add-ons,but can this be a good excuse?).

Oh and i must thank u to addin lotr in the main pack,its really awesome to play this map again.It learned me how to play with the best i can in conquest and it is still the most balanced 1v1 map for CAPITOL.And why noone is playing std ffa mode anymore?Is it too slow?I must admit it is more balanced and gives a plenty of more fun.
SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker »

wtf_is_this,
I agree it is good if some regions are better, and you must decide whether to go for a nearby region, or to send units to a distant, but strategic elvish region.
The problem is the game is somewhat unbalanced if one side starts in or besides an elvish region.
So I wanted the map creators could decide where to put 50% forests, and where 60% forests (or even 70% forests)
Anyway Willow vs Thysea would be advantageous even with a 50% defense in the forest: Human units are too slow in the forest.

I think the 40% def of all mounted units in villages is ok - otherwise the decision whether to buy a 9g elf or a 8g one is usually too clear.
Hm :hmm: ... maybe I could give 60% (55%) to infantry units only?

I think the standard (or all-villages) players simply went away. They stopped to believe they would get enough players, so they don't host games. BTW why you dont host std ffa? :)
(btw I speculated whether new players stopped to come after Conquest dropped down in the add-on list (after Mabuse deleted the original Conquest with 7000(?) downloads), but I think rather not.)

Lich_lord didn't abandon Conquest, his Pasarganta map is quite new.
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
wtf_is_this
Posts: 56
Joined: March 24th, 2010, 7:01 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by wtf_is_this »

Yeah the 9g to have 40 defense at vila is wise desicion.Map creators can chose if they want a 50 or 60 def forest and i know its very unbalnced sometimes,but thats the bigest fun for me at least,to have diferent units(would u start playin wesnoth if there were only orcs and humans faction???).I find khalifas prety good and b/c they are in corners of maps,only mb in 2-3 regions they are problematical at pasgranta,
I JUST hosted ffa game,before u came to watch my game vs Aman.First time there was a noob,who said he knows how toplay,then said he dont knows the mode and we rehosted.Then i got another leaver cos he was bored(by his words).And then i continued making 1v1s thinking ffa dont has a feature.I m still wiling to make a 3v3 std game vs xy,Amangon or whoever wants,but exactly they both are very beter then me at standart and more expirienced ;).
Flyers power should be stoped,i remember my game vs xy,wheni was able to get atleast 1:aethen,bw,wesnoth,glyns,orcs,elensfar,knalga,vrug,abez,wesmere,than(this was the bonus between aethen and eatsmark,right?i m half asleep already).And i got at least 1 vila of all this regions at turn 8 only cos gryphons pwned(ai was good to),So reducign flyers powerby making harder terains is nice.Especialy the disadvantage of ghosts vs gryphs :).
Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Next goal: to get rid of the Ageless Era

Post by Mabuse »

you want my opinion
for the changes you have in mind ?
SlowThinker wrote:
  • to change all units to lower level units (again this change will affect their pictures, animations and sounds only), so that more expensive units may be added in the future
no good idea. since you cannot really estimate the strengh of a unit by picture then
conquest+ by gweldig had the same problem .. the pictures of the low level units dont look good enough. so the game will appear less appealing
SlowThinker wrote: [*]to decrease the speed of the 15g, 20g and 25g infantry units from 8 to 7 (the reason: simplicity)
not needed
SlowThinker wrote: [*]to decrease defense of all mounted units in villages to 40%
hmm. in minus infantry and cav are anyways not very much different from each other.

in main conquest inf is good in defense due to fortify ability. the higher vil def of some mounted units is a welcome add to flavor in main conquest. humans also have the pikeman.

in minus this lack of difference might be compensated by a loss a flavor.
SlowThinker wrote: [*]to improve the movement of the Cuttle Fish
already done in main conquest

so: yes, good idea

SlowThinker wrote: [*]to raise the defense of the troll in the village to 60% (and maybe on a flat terrain to 40%)
trolls def values already increased in main conquest

so: yes, good idea

SlowThinker wrote: [*]to reduce the power of kalifa and elven units: I will reduce the defense of elves/forest to 50%, kalifa/hills to 50% and kalifa/sand to 40%
already done in main conquest.

so: yes, good idea
SlowThinker wrote: elves will have a 50% defense on all forests on all curent maps)
so elves fight as good as human in forest
hm. nah.
SlowThinker wrote: [*]to limit the power of fliers: I have got some suggestions from players, like to make all fliers slower in water, but that would change the way of playing on existing maps too much. So I want to add/edit this terrain:
impassable for fliers:
[*]a volcano, movecost 1 for land units
[*]a deep water with a volcano
[*]a shallow water with a volcano
[*]a ford with a volcano
lol. a volcano can be crossed by land units for 1 movecost.
SlowThinker wrote: movecost 2 or 3 for fliers:
[*]a mushroom, movecost 1 for land units (fliers dislike the vapours of mushrooms .. or do you have any better idea?)
[*]a deep water with a geyser
[*]a shallow water with a geyser
[*]a ford with a geyser
This solution won't affect existing maps, but will allow map makers to edit their existing/new maps and limit the fliers
seriously, the power of fliers can only be effectively reduced by total reduction of movement or smart placing of flierspawns on the map.
maybe you reduce their total moves by 1 or 2 overall.

your idea to place ugly terrrain all over the map seems not good to me.
you would need to build barrriers of geysers and volcanos to block fliers effectively. this cant look good. imo.


btw, impassable mountains already exist.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.
SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Next goal: to get rid of the Ageless Era

Post by SlowThinker »

Mabuse wrote:so elves fight as good as human in forest
hm. nah.
No, elves are still faster, and an elven cavalry also much stronger than a human cavalry.
lol. a volcano can be crossed by land units for 1 movecost.
The game is about strategy, not simulation. Anyway a better idea for such a terrain will be welcome.
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 Minus

Post by Mabuse »

in the end the elves forest def to 50% is debateable.

after all i found kalifa hill def of 60% OP, so elven forest def of 60% might be OP too.
alternatively you give elves a -10% on flat. (30% like dwarves)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.
SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker »

Mabuse wrote:alternatively you give elves a -10% on flat. (30% like dwarves)
I think that would weaken them too much. I want they are still stronger than humans in general, and so forested villages are preferred targets during an expansion.
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: Next goal: to get rid of the Ageless Era

Post by SlowThinker »

SlowThinker wrote:
  • to reduce the power of kalifa and elven units: I will reduce the defense of elves/forest to 50%, kalifa/hills to 50% and kalifa/sand to 40%
my present idea of the changes is:
elven/kalifa infantry on forest/hill: 60%
elven/kalifa mounted units on forest/hill: 50%
maybe also
kalifa infantry on sand: 50%
kalifa mounted units on sand: 40%
(then we get a principle "mounted units get -10% on any terrain 50% and up". But still this principle isn't applied for elves on hills and mountains and for orcs on any terrain, and I don't feel I would like to apply it here, because the changes would be too serious)
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
Nauzhror
Posts: 23
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Nauzhror »

If anyone is interested I've launched a conquest tournament. Everyone is free to register for it.

http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=35011
Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Next goal: to get rid of the Ageless Era

Post by Mabuse »

SlowThinker wrote:my present idea of the changes is:
elven/kalifa infantry on forest/hill: 60%
elven/kalifa mounted units on forest/hill: 50%
maybe also
kalifa infantry on sand: 50%
kalifa mounted units on sand: 40%
(then we get a principle "mounted units get -10% on any terrain 50% and up". But still this principle isn't applied for elves on hills and mountains and for orcs on any terrain, and I don't feel I would like to apply it here, because the changes would be too serious)

conquest 3.4.0 version currently uses 50% def for elves in wood, since they dont get penalized on other terrain.

so orcs and elves are both pretty mobile (orcs have 1 hill mov/elves have 1 wood move) but keep "normal defenses", except for their cavalry, which also have good defenses

note here: orcish, elven and undead LANCERS have -5 HP and -1 dam, human LANCERS also have FIRSTSTRIKE

kalifa units in 3.4.0 have 40% sand, 50% Hill, 40% wood.
and also high mobility on sand and hills. (kalifa cav pays 2 move for hill)

the mobility in their home-terrains make orcs, elves and kalifa powerful.
since also SIGHT is extremely important to be able to launch successful attacks

dwarves are the only race that have 60% on hills (a pretty common terrain), but they also suffer from 30% def in woods. (in 3.4.0 dwarves have 40% on flat and 60% on mountains). also dwarves have (only) 50% def on cities. their overall good movement-type is compensated a bit by the fact that they move usually a bit slower (-1 speed).

so all in all, in 3.4.0 im happy with elves being at 50% def in wood - they still are the units you want to have when it comes to fight in woods. it an amazing difference wether you move with 1 or 2 movement cost through woods. a very important element is SIGHT
The best bet is your own, good Taste.
Lich_Lord
Posts: 104
Joined: December 23rd, 2009, 5:22 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Lich_Lord »

My thoughts: I like the idea of adding impassible spots for fliers, especially geysers so flier's can't move over water quickly. For example, making the river in wesnoth have some geysers would make wesnoth must more defensible from air cavalry coming from bitter.
Even if the new terrain won't be used for current maps, it gives me more options as a map maker to reduce the power of fliers. After all, it really doesn't look good to put an impassible mountain in the middle of a river :D
Mabuse wrote:seriously, the power of fliers can only be effectively reduced by total reduction of movement or smart placing of flierspawns on the map.
maybe you reduce their total moves by 1 or 2 overall.

your idea to place ugly terrrain all over the map seems not good to me.
you would need to build barrriers of geysers and volcanos to block fliers effectively. this cant look good. imo.


btw, impassable mountains already exist.
Though reducing flier movement would help a little bit, their main advantage is moving through difficult terrain. Are you suggesting giving them like 5 MP, because then they'd be pretty useless at anything but flying through impassibles.
Also, on big maps like Pasarganta, especially in FFA games, it is near impossible to avoid widespread use of fliers, even though fliers can only be recruited on the edges and middle of the map. People NAP and save money and make lots of fliers, so I'd say smart flier village placement doesn't solve the problem.

On a related note, I find it strange that gryphs have horrible movement on caves, where they are normally recruited, while ghosts have 1 MP on it. It adds an interesting twist to a Siznak/Herull battle on the long teleports surdmark map.
SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Conquest Minus 3.0.13

Post by SlowThinker »

Conquest Minus 3.0.13

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • none
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • The distribution of units of players in the capitol mode has been changed and improved:
    the minimal distance between foreign villages is assured and is under control of the hosting player
    the maximal distance between villages of one side is 7 (it was 8 in earlier versions)
    (teleports are not taken into account for distance counting)
  • The motive of the next functionality is to allow creation of balanced/interesting pre-made games in the capitol mode:
    The Neutral spawn is fixed in the game beginning and becames a part of the savefile. Therefore any game may be repeated with an exact Neutral spawn, and possibly the Neutral spawn may be changed by editing the savefile (if you want to edit it then search for "Neutral spawn definition" ).
  • The workers have been moved further in the recruit lists
  • All-villages and Capitol modes were swapped in the list of the available modes (the Capitol mode is the default mode now)
New map
  • Celestia by Mabuse
Changes of maps:
  • Lotrando - version 1.23:
    • a new canal around Cerulean Mt.
    • now Morbak is open in both east and west directions
    • Murter is less compact, and the expansion north is slightly slower
    • an expansion Estapur<->Anduithel is sligthly harder
  • Surdmark (teleports, long distances) - version 1.4:
    • a sand terrain south from Sicca near a teleport has been changed to caves
Attachments
Conquest-.tar.bz2
(208.38 KiB) Downloaded 308 times
Last edited by SlowThinker on December 28th, 2011, 5:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Mabuse »

Lich_Lord wrote:After all, it really doesn't look good to put an impassible mountain in the middle of a river :D
but perhaps next to a river ;)
Lich_Lord wrote: Though reducing flier movement would help a little bit, their main advantage is moving through difficult terrain. Are you suggesting giving them like 5 MP, because then they'd be pretty useless at anything but flying through impassibles.
i never suggested to give fliers 5 MP.

also, to slow down ghosts you can make the rivers broader
OR to deal with all kinds of fliers you can always place some impassable moutains next to a river, no big deal

if you like rivers consisting of geysers more though, then this is your good right
the effect is the same, i'd bet that some nice looking moutains next to a river look better though.

i think its a matter of personal preference, i just cannot imagine that "a wall of geysers" may look good in any way.
if it does - then go ahead, in the meanwhile it may be ok to put some mountain ranges next to rivers that should not be crossed by any units
Lich_Lord wrote: On a related note, I find it strange that gryphs have horrible movement on caves, where they are normally recruited
since when gryphs are "normally" recruited in caves ?
(since wesnoth map ? it was not supposed to set up any standard with it)



EDIT:
btw, it is appreciated if CELESTIA is implement in conquest minus
hf with it.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.
SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

scenario format 2.1

Post by SlowThinker »

(This format is used more than 6 moths (from Conquest Minus 3.0.6), but I was lazy to create a documentation, and also this format is still messy, because of the backward compatibility with the original Conquest.
Here it is:
)

the scenario format version 2.1
The format works with both Conquest Minus and original Conquest (and so also with other Conquest variants, unless they changed from the original)

***************************
Changes in comparison to version 2.0:
  • A new structure called 'region_list' is introduced. It becomes useful for example if you want to join two Conquest maps together, and you don't want to recalculate coordinates of each village. (details below)
  • Labels on the map show more information.
  • The village distribution and income calculation are slightly faster than with 2.0
  • Next changes have no effect now, but serve as a preparation for a future format:
    • shift_x, shift_y have been replaced by upper_left
    • group has been replaced by region_table
  • The definition of a table of regions may use 'rows=' in place of 'columns='
**************************************
About region_list:
Region_list can contain regions, any amount of children region_lists, and a value 'shift' that determines how all villages in this region_list and descendant region_lists will be shifted.
The definition is fully recursive, and so region_list may contain not only childrens, but also grandchildrens and so on. So for example maps 1 and 2 may be joined into a map (1+2), 3 and 4 into (3+4), and then these composite maps may be joined into ((1+2)+(3+4)).
If a region exists in more region_lists, all villages and income bonuses are added together. (If you want to further change the income bonus, you can add a region that contains only a bonus but no village (todo: I should add an example here).

***************************************
.rgs files allow to use equal village definitions in more maps (see the Pasarganta map as an example, it uses four .rgs files)

***************************************

The attached template is for Conquest Minus 3.0 and above
As usual, for Conquest versions compatible with the original Conquest you need to remove the definition of the AI:
{CONQUEST_AI_DEFINITION 7 white}
and in maps with more than 6 players you need to remove the definition of the 7th and 8th player:
{CONQUEST_SIDE_DEFINITION 7 black}
{CONQUEST_SIDE_DEFINITION 8 brown}
Attachments
conquest_surdmark_comments.zip
(4.79 KiB) Downloaded 339 times
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

Conquest Minus 3.0.14

Post by SlowThinker »

Conquest Minus 3.0.14
warning: a bug corrupts savefiles of maps with teleports (they can be easily repaired though, read details in the post about 3.0.15)

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • none
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • capitol mode:
    • the minimal distance between foreign villages takes teleports into account
    • players are informed about individual attempts to distribute villages
  • all-villages mode:
    • the starting gold has been decreased: for example side 1 gets 0 gold
    • the handicaps apply also for the all-villages mode
  • Scenario Objectives shows also game settings
  • the system that allows pre-made games (by editing of savefiles in turn 1) has been completed (3.0.13 allowed to edit the Neutral spawn in the capitol mode only, 3.0.14 allows to edit any unit spawn)
Changes of maps:
  • Celestia: a bug that prevented Dragon Lair to recruit has been corrected
Last edited by SlowThinker on January 15th, 2012, 2:13 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Post Reply