Conquest Minus

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Mabuse » March 31st, 2012, 1:44 pm

Alarantalara wrote: Define a new terrain type, give it the id "forest_only" or something similar and a terrain string of Yfff (or something else). Then alias all your forest terrains to -,_bas,Ft,+,Yfff.
Then, give units that can only move in forest a movement of 1 in forest_only, and you can leave all the other units alone.
If you're also redefining all the forests as in my last post, the non-hill forests should have a movement alias of Ft,Yfff.
this sounds good, but how would i alias all the existing forest terrains?
in the end they are core terrains which i cannot change simply or can i simply include them "again" in my addon with the mentioned aliases?
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

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

Conquest Minus 3.1.0 + 3.1.1 + 3.1.2

Post by SlowThinker » April 25th, 2012, 5:05 am

Conquest Minus 3.1.0

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • A passenger can board a ship that has no movement left (the passenger must still have at least 1 movement left in order to be able to board).
  • ZOCs affect also units that have just been teleported. In other words, if there is an enemy unit adjacent to a target hex of a teleporting unit then the unit loses all its moves.
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • All Conquest Minus maps can be played without Ageless Era installed. A player who wants to play a map with non-default units (kalifa ...) must have at least one of these two add-ons installed: Conquest Minus (3.0.20.4 or above) or Ageless Era
    An intro warns players about this change.
  • In the very beginning of turn 1, when units didn't spawn so far, players can save the Game Start. This functionality allowed mirror games (two simultaneous games where teams are inversed). This functionality also allowed to complete the system of Pre-made Game Starts. More info here: Pre-made Game Starts
  • If the hosting player opens a dialog during a turn of Neutrals then the game is not delayed for other players anymore.
  • In all-village mode starting gold of side 1 is increased from 0 to 5% of the average turn income.
  • The table with bonuses is visible in shroud (except Desert Empires).
Changes of maps:
  • Celestia: side 7 and 8 weren't playable - it has been repaired
  • Lotrando 1.25: very little changes around Kwazz, Lafunte, Broinia, a more serious change at Hestada (Eltanur)
*****************************************************************
Conquest Minus 3.1.1

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • all units (including workers) create Zones Of Control (unfortunately the ellipse of workers stays dashed)
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • in order not to confuse "Wesnoth healing" and "Conquest full healing", 'Heal' has been renamed to 'Restore/Restoration'
  • in order not to confuse "Wesnoth leader" and "Conquest leader ability", 'Leader' has been renamed to 'Hero'
  • the level of a unit is equal to its cost
  • help for newbies: a click on a leader invokes a text that explains leaders have no effect

*****************************************************************
Conquest Minus 3.1.2

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • none
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • in the game lobby slots don't have to be filled consecutively from the beginning, any slot may be empty; therefore sides may be shuffled
  • corrected mistakes in the algorithm that counted the starting gold for the all-villages mode (the effect is rather marginal)
  • the starting village distribution on maps with teleports is faster
Attachments
Conquest-.tar.bz2
version 3.1.0
(710.2 KiB) Downloaded 309 times
Last edited by SlowThinker on March 19th, 2013, 2:42 am, edited 6 times in total.

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » May 20th, 2012, 1:05 pm

My knowledge about possible ladder systems that can be used with Conquest:
news
Conquest Minus Ladder (preparatory works)
Last edited by SlowThinker on December 21st, 2013, 5:17 pm, edited 4 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

hector
Posts: 1
Joined: June 18th, 2010, 3:54 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by hector » October 28th, 2012, 9:33 pm

I played the latest version of conquest and I think couple of problems. Map was Sundmark (long teleports)


OOS. I think originally it was enough to either has Ageless Era and get Conquest- on this map. Now even with players having ageless, they got lot of OOS. In fact, I kept getting them in last two days when I started playing on Mac. Not sure if the update when I installed on mac was the problem.

No Random spawns: If we leave the minimum distance to 12 which is default and start with 4 players, all the 4 players start at fixed positions. I hosted a lot of games and everytime those 4 players are spawning at the exact location. Increasing to 20 helped but I suspect now they will be spawned at the same location again if I host again.

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » November 3rd, 2012, 11:26 pm

Edit:
  • I reported the 'No Random spawns' bug here: RNG is not seeded randomly
  • We tested OOSes and it appears they are always caused by missing kalifa units. So if they happen in your game then follow in-game instructions please.
end of Edit


No Random spawns:

Very likely it is one concerete Wesnoth bug: (I know about it about 2 months, and I wanted to report it along with other bugs to Technical Support but I had no time for it.)

Bug details (please check if this happened to you):
Open your save (you must unpack it if it is packed) and search for

Code: Select all

random_seed=
If the value is

Code: Select all

random_seed=1
(or another very low number) then you got into the bug.
(The seed of RNG is expected to be random, and so some large numbers are expected there)


OOS:

This is the OOS behaviour I know about:
If you play a map with kalifa units, and player ABC has neither Conquest Minus 3.0+ nor Ageless era installed, then in the very beginning ABC gets a lua error about a missing unit type (a long error message, about 15 lines), and all players get OOS warnings until ABC leaves the game.

I remember several times players sweared they had the addon installed, but after they went to reinstal Conquest Minus and returned, OOSes dissapeared.
Still there might be another cause of the OOSes , but it would require testing ...
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 5th, 2012, 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Conquest Minus 3.1.3

Post by SlowThinker » November 4th, 2012, 9:51 pm

Conquest Minus 3.1.3

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • none
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • the Wesnoth bug that prevented random game starts on some systems (see RNG is not seeded randomly) has been patched probably (please report whether your problems are gone away): Wesnoth's random number generator has been replaced by RNG of Lua (and so random_seed= should have an effect to nothing).
  • some marginal changes of floating texts. (in next version it is possible the floating text "recruiting ..." won't be shown to the player who's turn is processed. But first I need some feedback)
Last edited by SlowThinker on November 26th, 2013, 5:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hiebe
Posts: 25
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 12:48 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Hiebe » January 7th, 2013, 5:09 am

Is this game still popular or has it gone inactive?

Thinking of coming back

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » January 7th, 2013, 1:43 pm

If you mean the standard (all-villages) mode, then it seems to be dead. (and you can try to resuscitate it :) )
The capitol mode lives.

Nauzhror
Posts: 23
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 4:01 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Nauzhror » February 8th, 2013, 3:48 pm

It's starting to get annoying, because the only players that play it are really good and usually own the newer players right away. And the newer players either quit, or quit after getting owned.

Perhaps if you are able to find the old version, fix it up a bit and release it the game would get it's second breath. But otherwise it's dead.

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » February 9th, 2013, 2:13 pm

Conquest dead? How did you come to it? Last summer there were days with no Conquest game on the Wesnoth server, but now there is many games everyday.

How could the old version popularize Conquest?

A newbie should play vs other newbies, or he should play team games and get advices from experienced players in his team.

edit:
(Conquest 1.0 is here: www.wesnoth.org/addons/1.6/)
Nauzhror, here I explain how to create a simple map:

1) first read Conquestopedia, How to install an additional Conquest map

2) I attached a file: originally it was wesnoth.cfg but i renamed it to newmap.cfg and edited. It may serve as a template for your new scenario:
the lines between

Code: Select all

## ============= input area - edit if needed =========
...
## ----------- end of input area -----------
show which parts may be edited

you need to edit the file names and the scenario name; so edit these parts:

Code: Select all

#define MAP_DATA
...
#define MAP_NAME
...
description= ...
OBJECTIVES_NOTE_MAP_BY ...
then you can change the "recruit type" for any village type (and so override the default settings that are in Conquest Minus core)
here you say that a village with a code "Uu^Vu" (this code is used in the map editor and in maps/*.map files) will recruit dwarves:

Code: Select all

	[village]
		terr_string=Uu^Vu
		rectypes=dwarves
	[/village] 
you can add more village types

then you can change the units that are determined by "recruit type" (and so override the default settings that are in Conquest Minus core)
Here you say that "dwarves" are Peasant, Spearman and Elvish_Scout:

Code: Select all

	[rectype]
		name=dwarves
		image="portraits/humans/transparent/knight.png"
		units=Peasant,Spearman,Elvish_Scout
	[/rectype]
you can add more recruit types

But you must delete the lines with "ifdef" and "endif" - these two lines disable anything that is between.

Code: Select all

#ifdef XXX
...
...
#endif
then read the code like

Code: Select all

[region]
	name=Elensefar
	bonus=9
	village_list=Elensefar,7,16,Halstead,8,20,Carcyn,14,19,Sishan,4,19,Galreth,3,15,Marik,6,11,Lingal,9,14
[/region]
it is self-explaining.

You cannot disable boats within the scenario file. If you want to do it, tell me once your scenario is completed, I will disable boats myself.

3) map files (like wesnoth.map, newmap.map) may be edited in Wesnoth map editor
Attachments
newmap.cfg
(13.89 KiB) Downloaded 261 times

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

Teleports - possible changes

Post by SlowThinker » March 5th, 2013, 3:36 pm

Teleports - possible changes
This post has been edited several times. Last minor edit on March 06, 2012 2:38 pm, last serious edit on March 05, 2012 11:30 pm

The current system of teleports in Conquest Minus works this way:
A unit that enters a source teleport hex is teleported to the target hex, and this costs 0 movepoint.
If the target hex is occupied then adjacent hexes are used. This feature causes teleports cannot be blocked easily, but it is somewhat tricky and so I dislike it.
The tunnel system of Wesnoth 1.11 works this way:
The source and target hex are treated like adjacent hexes in terms of movement, so the teleporting costs movepoints according to the movecost of the target hex.
Unfortunately source-target are not adjacent in terms of combat and vision, and it makes tunnels somewhat unusable, especially because tunnels may be easily blocked (by one enemy unit that stands on the target hex). This behaviour won't be changed soon: this feature request has been postponed.
Here are three ideas how to implement a new teleport system for Conquest Minus:
option A
make current Conquest Minus system more similar to the tunnel system: treat source-target like adjacent hexes in terms of movement (i.e. teleports consume movepoints).
In order to prevent blocking teleports, units must be teleported to adjacent hexes if target is occupied (like it is done now).
If the Wesnoth's tunnel system is completed in future then Conquest can switch to that sytem and maps needn't be changed (but they must be changed now).
option B
(originally brought up by neila a couple years ago)
treat source-target like identical hexes: if a unit enters the starting hex, its copy will appear on the ending hex, if such an unit is killed then the copy is removed too.
There are no problems with blocking teleports by a unit that stands on it - units can fight "through teleports" easily.

but there is a problem that any teleport would be a "narrow passageway" that may be blocked by 2 units only. So these teleports would have to be at least in pairs, i.e. two adjacent hexes, so that the passage is wider.
and there must be a system how to "go through your own unit" that stands on the teleport and cannot move - see "option B) in details"
option C
(neila's idea)
similar like B), but not only the teleport hex (or few hexes) is copied in both parts of the map. This would solve the "go through your own unit" problem of B)
How large the copied area shall be? Once all the area is filled by player's units, there is no way how the player can pass through. So the area must be at least 10 hexes (=movement of the fastest unit in Conquest) large in all directions.
This requires a lot of space on the map, and also maps should be reworked if faster units are introduced to future Conquest versions...
(a note: It looks in Wesnoth 1.11. a vision through teleports might be implemented for all three options)
Do you prefer A) or B) or C) ...? Or shall teleports stay unchanged?


Now I tend to think B) is best:
option B) in details
  • this section mostly explains a system how to "go through your own unit"

    Firstly let us perceive that Wesnoth has no functionality that would
  • allow players to force units to go through specific hexes that are occupied by allied units:
    • The problem is not related to teleports. Look at the 1st attached image go_over_allied_unit.jpg. Let us say a player wants to move his gryphon from "A" to "C", but through "B", in order to reveal the marked area. Wesnoth provides no way how to achieve this task.
  • In order to run B) we need a similar functionality. We should have a system that will
  • allow players to move units through teleports even if the teleport and hexes around are occupied by allied units:
    • Look at the second attached image teleport_system_B.jpg.
      The three teleports south (they are labeled by "-->north") are identical hexes to the three runes north (they are labeled by "-->south"), and so are the units that stand on the runes (so for example there is only one wounded Elvish Captain, but he is shown twice). Once a unit moves to a rune, it is copied, and once a unit leaves a rune, its copy is removed.

      The goal:
      Let us say a player wants to move the gryphon from "A" to "D", but through "B" and "C":
      from B he wants to reveal the marked area in the corridor
      then he wants to reach the teleport "C"
      then he wants to move to "D"
  • How the system could work:

    Interface:
    how a player would achieve the goal in the previous paragraph:
    - the player would right-click on "A" and choose "move special"
    - then the player would right-click on "B" and choose "next step"
    - then the player would right-click on "C" and choose "next step"
    - then the player would right-click on "D" and choose "final step"

    Implementation:
    The system would remove the fighter from "B" temporarily and move (more precise: teleport) the gryphon there. The fog around B (and so in the corridor) would be revealed.
    Then a similar process would happen on both hexes "C" etc.
(to do: explain 3-way teleports)

click an image to enlarge it:
Attachments
go_over_allied_unit.jpg
teleport_system_B.jpg

User avatar
Blop
Posts: 76
Joined: May 22nd, 2011, 6:49 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Blop » March 18th, 2013, 12:28 am

Hello, folks.

I have been working on a more balanced Parsaganta the last couple of days. Here is the finished version.
Feel free to comment and post balance issues.

My main goal was to add teleports which are not overpowered (I do consider flyers next to teleports overpowered, at least on this map) and solve issues of weak spawns.

This is not supposed to be a final version. I also did not want to make the map bigger for now. However, that is a possible future goal.
Ideally, almost all edge regions should have teleports to the other side of the map. That is not possible with this map size.

For now, I hope this map is fairly balanced and fun to play :)

Greetings, Blop
Last edited by Blop on May 17th, 2013, 3:04 pm, edited 13 times in total.

User avatar
Blop
Posts: 76
Joined: May 22nd, 2011, 6:49 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Blop » March 23rd, 2013, 2:11 pm

How to install the map in Windows:

Search for the Wesnoth1.10/data/add-ons/Conquest- folder in "My Documents". The zip file contains 2 files: one .map and one .cfg
The .map has to be copied into the "maps" folder, the .cfg into the "scenarios" folder.

I'm not exactly sure how this works for Linux versions, but there the folders should be easier to find.

For more information read here: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... 98#p479398

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

Conquest Minus 3.1.4

Post by SlowThinker » March 24th, 2013, 7:27 pm

Conquest Minus 3.1.4

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • ZOCs of a teleported unit is counted from the destination hex, even if the hex is occupied and the teleported unit appears elsewhere.
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • starting gold for the all-village mode has been adjusted. (In previous versions a rounding could cause a disavantage of last players in the list)
  • some little changes of texts
New maps:
  • New Age Pasarganta: the original Pasarganta has been reworked and 4 teleports have been added. (The changes were done by Lich_Lord and mostly by Blop.)
  • Test your strength! (beta). A special single player scenario, similar to the capitol mode. The goal is to conquer whole map as fast as possible. (created by SlowThinker)
For maps creators:
  • Scenarios (can) use the code of the Conquest Minus core. Now any scenario can control the core code quite easily: parts of the core may be removed, added or rewritten.
    This feature was used in 'Test your strength!'
  • the scenario format version 2.5 was introduced. It is not compatible with previous formats, and so scenarios cannot be interchanged between Conquest- 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. (the difference between ver. 2.1 and ver. 2.5 is small though - the only difference is all [side] tags are moved to the scenario file)
    Also the compatibility with the original Conquest file format is somewhat lost, and in future it will be lost completely and files will be much simpler. But so far 2.5 is still a chaos.
Last edited by SlowThinker on April 21st, 2013, 9:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

New Age Pasarganta

Post by SlowThinker » March 25th, 2013, 11:40 pm

Some notes related to 'New Age Pasarganta'
(Blop suggested that his new map should be commented in public and became a common community project, so here are my 2 cents )

360-degree expansion
Me and neila agree in this point:
The changes done by Blop have this common point: players can expand in more directions than before. Now almost any village has whole 360 degrees for an effective expansion.
It has this effect: now there are always good ways how to spend all player's gold effectively.

In the original Pasarganta map some regions (unfortunately only some - e.g. Fargundy, Gagarlon, Vickmark ...) had limited directions for expansion. It caused that sometimes a player had to plan more carefully and several turn in advance, otherwise he could end rich but with no villages where he could spend his gold effectively. So players had to consider between the immediate profit and expansion.
(Also it caused that sometimes a player who started well and was 10%-20% ahead could still lose. It is not good if the game is over when a side gets in a 10% lead)

Summary; the '360 degree expansion' could remove one dimension of player's thinking (which existed in some situations anyway)

many contact points between regions
It helps the side that has the 10% lead, so it is not welcome

Post Reply