Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

[Gwledig]

Lich I'll do a mass search and replace and make a stand alone version called "Conquest-Classic" so you can run it alongside Conquest (main), I'll post it in a bit to you

[SlowThinker]

At this point there is no Conquest on the add-on server that would meet my gameplay preferences.
(I didn't play last Jinnaraka's versions)
Gwledig's Conquest was always an experimental field, adding a lot of new features.
Mabuse's Conquest follows a very similar path like Gwledig's one, and with some epecially unpleasant points.

My most serious reservations about the Mabuse's Conquest:
It is leaving the KISS principle, and there are some changes that do harm the game balance or shifts player's aims a wrong way.
The most serious problem for me is the stressed XP. So far I ignored XP, but now it is getting important. And it has two bad effects: a micromanagement, and uniqueness of units (a RPG with tens of units is not a good idea)
Units are getting unbalanced (e.g. flyers are getting overpowered.)
The defense is too easy with the 75% def on villages.
The fully revealed income.
And it is very likely that more features which I won't like will be added in the future.

(And I can't even try Mabuse's Conquest without rewriting my original Conquest)
So...

Also, the reason why I'd like to have my previous conquest is so that people without the new conquest add-on can play and so that I can play 1v1 games without the income table, which I haven't managed to find in the utils.cfg yet, and so I'm not able to take it out. Or to possibly create another conquest clone (though I'd rather not)

I think the original Conquest (2.7.2f) should be added to the add-on server.
Also I think there should be only one maintaner-boss of this add-on. (but I think the boss should not cooperate with other people in a Mabuse's style)

I can do it myself (and be the boss).
I want to simplify and repair the code until any serious change is applied (but I expect some less serious changes, like: to add 2? units stronger than a general, to be able to play without the ageless era...). The problem is I don't know how much I can engage in the code rewrite, and so when it will be finished, and so when any serious change may be worked on.

Lich, if you want to place 2.7.2f to the server yourself and to be the main maintainer, then do it. Then once I finish the code rewrite, we can talk about the future (who shall be the boss, or whether to split its development in case we diverge too much)

btw I don't think it is too bad to have several Conquests:

u know its pretty easy to have the old/pure maps (no new features) in my pack, eg. have 2 sets of recruit menu for say, Human and Human+ then macro these in the scenario file, same goes for any 'new' features. Conquest+ could actually contain both sets

In fact we can count 4 possible sets now? Original, Gwledig's, Jinnaraka's, Mabuse's? (I listed them in order as they appeared, I didn't intend to insult anybody ).

Your idea requires a lot of cooperation, especially now when the Conquest code needs to be simplified and to get rid of the errors.
Also imagine there are 3*10 maps in the lobby list in place of 10 maps.

I think the most comfortable solution for players is to create a map-pack, where the hosting player can choose the Conquest engine at game start. But at this moment I am not sure whether this is doable under condition the code of the individual engines is kept isolated (I mean each maintainer develops his own code, and their code needn't be to put together).

[Gwledig]

I just PMd Lich a version of conquest with IDs and names and paths set so he can run it on his PC alongside other conquest packs.

I called it "conquest classic" and all maps have "(Classic)" shown in the map list to distinguish from other variants on main and my packs.

I'm not gona get into this ideas above right now, I just tried to help Lich run the 2,7 on his PC. Maybe sound this out with Lich.

[Gwledig]

OK ST I emailed u this pack as well so u can run several versions alongside the "main" pack on your PC

I would actually suggest we keep the numeber of addons down a lot.

If we end up with 3 packs I will remove all core maps from my pack and Lich maps, so it is just my unique maps, otherwise players are gona get very overwhelmed

[Gwledig]

ST

Im only talking in concept here, and not making any descision on how far I support more packs or clones...
but you I think you should modularize the code so a particular map scenario has the macro for that code.cfg

You can take out a wide range of stuff from utils and split into separate cfgs, then include the appropriate cfg macro for an individual map.

So for example, you want a map with the fortify and one without? you take out fortify and modularize it into its own cfg.. then {fortify} in the scenario cfg.

Most of the special stuff and even stuff like the scenario objectives is outside utils in a separate cfg on my pack, you could do the same to apply bits of code to appropriate maps. The conquest code which does the sides, AI spawn etc. could probably be used for all maps.

However I suggest having some more debate about another clone, before making any action. This would I think have an impact on my pack principally I think mine will become a set of unique maps developed by myself, but shareable with other packs, but I might accelerate this if there are more conquest packs so players dont get swamped with multiple choices of the same maps.

[SlowThinker]

I would actually suggest we keep the numeber of addons down a lot.

A nice suggestion. Especially if we take into account at present there are 4 Conquest packs on the server, and a half of them are yours.

edit

However I suggest having some more debate about another clone, before making any action.

What do you want to talk about? About the new clone content? Or how to modularize and share the wml (btw this is not clear to me, I need to finish the debate in "WML Workshop" forum)?
I think to put 2.7.2 is a simple step that just allows people to play both 2.7.2 and Mabuse's Conquests (I agree in that case you should kick the classic maps from your addon.)

[Gwledig]

LOL

[blobsy2]

3) The 'Fortify' ability is the stupidest thing ever. Firstly, it greatly complicates the game of what units can kill each other and secondly, instead of being able to look at the map and easily see what the situation is I now need to check each unit that can fortify itself.

well, its not that complicated. once you know.

the following table assumes the attack attacks from 40% def terrain)
(and no luck)

a raw and most basic overview, luck can always chage tis to a certain degree.


a fortified inf (3) can defend versus (5) or lower
(is surely broken by elite inf+ (8))

fortified pikes (5) can defend versus (9) or lower
(is surely broken by lieutenant+(15))

fortified elite inf (8) can defend versus (10) or lower
(is surely broken by knight+ (or even lieutenant) (20))

fortified lieutenant can def versus (20) or lower
(is surely broken by general (25))

fortified 20 gold unit can defend versus everything
(cannot be broken without taking losses)

So what you're saying is that you're completely throwing out the principle that a more expensive units pretty much always beats a cheaper unit?

There's effectively 2 units for each graphic now. It's a ridiculous addition to the game. Lastly, are the units gaining this ability going to receive some other disadvantage to balance them out? or are you just making all such units stronger than they were before?

no, its cool.
it has realy great advantages that players who get +5 fgold more income for a hsort while cannot break their opponents immediatly.
you also agree that this a helpful thing

...

any yes, the infantry units that can fortify get just this advantage wihtout any disadvantages (actually, this makes them useeable)

1) The infantry units are already good. They follow the general guidelines that a more expensive unit kills a weaker unit with the infantry guys being a little stronger on defence. You're instead changing it so that defence beats offence unless you're spending an exorbitant amount of gold to break them.

2) I can handle you ignoring my opinions, it is after all technically your add-on now that you've seized control from Lich_Lord, but please don't declare that I agree with your opinions when I haven't stated as such. It's rather demeaning.

[Mabuse]

btw, SlowThinker aka "Blobsy2", maybe you should create a new account for every new post you make, this could make it seem that there a lot more people backing up exactly your standpoints

one answer i have to you:

So what you're saying is that you're completely throwing out the principle that a more expensive units pretty much always beats a cheaper unit?

of course not. what im saying is that (some) infantry units get a bonus on defense (if they fortify).

The infantry units are already good. They follow the general guidelines that a more expensive unit kills a weaker unit with the infantry guys being a little stronger on defence.

btw,
there are no "general guidelines" that say that a more expensive unit kills a less expensive unit under every condition

its just in your head slowthinker.

maybe you should get a bit out of the box and accept the fact that fortify is a cool addition to the game

imagine infantry units that defend a castle. of course they may beat the cavalry units which are attacking the castle under these circumstances. on open field they may simply lose out.

[Mabuse]

Each MP scenario should have an unique id. But Id of any Conquest scenario is set to id=Conquest.

this was fixed some versiosn ago already. you would know that if yu actually tried it.

just as a side note:
btw i find it clever that you joined the debate also with your real nick, to leave the impression that "blobsy2" could be actually real, however, this wont be successful on me.


the most funny thing is, that i actually try to explain "a blind man" what colors are.
of course that is nonsesne, as long you dont know what you are talking about (and blobsy2 also dont know it *surprise*), it makes no sense to me to explain things

-maybe you should actually try the new version and play it, then we can debate about certain points

[Mabuse]

Mabuse, you are speaking as if the drake villages are generally on the front lines of battle. This is rarely the case, and when it is, they are usually next to lots of good terrain for them, like sand. My main problem is not that, but that players can selectively recruit some drakes, such as the drake general, and then move them up to the front lines and do a couple of things:

-Pressure many villages at once, forcing the defender to spend tons of gold to secure their villages.

-Create invisible invasions from a place nowhere near a drake village, by recruit drake generals and lower level drakes and moving them close to a deep water river, so that even if the defender sees the army, they have next to no way to hold their bonus because militia spam won't help, and the drake generals will kill generals if they have 2 or 3.

This almost happened to me once in a game on Surdmark, where 13arrage brought a army of a drake general or two, and some lower gold drakes (2 and 6, and a 8 I think). He put them right next to my bonuses of Vindoth and New Calron, and I basically had no way of holding my bonuses from him, as even a general wouldn't stop his flying, drake generals.

how to counter drakes:
-------------------------

1)
25g general on a village will win versus a 25g drake (on any other terrain)
(well a 25g general will win on almost any terrain versus a drake, sice drake is generally weaker in terrain def)
2)
also a 20g fortified unit will be able to beat down a 25g drake.
ok, the second could then take it out (left with very few HP)

further:
-----------
i see that 13arrage is a pretty creative guy hwo can put the drakes to a good use.
and of course .. they have their use

what you basically gripe about is that a player used drakes on a map created by you (so you also added the drakes to that map) in a clever way against you.




More points:
-------------
- the drakes were there since conquest was actaully added to the 1.8 server
so its no new invention or something

- i actualy didnt add the drakes to conquest

- nor i added them to surdmark map
(or any other map)


so balancing the drakes out, is part of the map maker. he can either leave them away completely, or put hem at far away regions, so it takes 2-3 turns until they actually can threaten something with their fyling ability (by crossing a river or something)

if you put a ton of drakes on the map, and near rivers for example .. and then cry: "the flyers ruined my map" is pretty much senseless. becasue its just your fault. the best consequence you can draw from that is to delete the drakes from your map.


example how to balance flyers
------------------------------
on wesnoth map (map made by null and modified for conquest purposes by me), so a map added by ME, the undead flyers in the bitter swamps ARE INTENDED to threaten wesnoth.
and wesnoth can very well defend versus them of course.
now with the fortify ability for sure.

the wesnothian player can put on 2-3 cities fortified siegetroopers, which will kill about 1-2 20g specters before they are taken out.
so the undead player needs at least 46 gold to invade wesnoth with flyers, the wesnoth player can defend with 2x 20g siegetroopers and maybe some militia to block (which wil cause the unead player to invest more units also).
most important: it takes 2 rounds until they can reach wesnoth, so the wesnoth player has a better troop supply, and is ahead one turn in income that can be used on battlefield.

btw, i dont say that wesnoth map is terribly balanced or soemthing, just that i added the undea with full intention to it



CONCLUSION:
----------------
in any case, its up to the map makers if he even adds flyers to his maps
for me: i didnt put the drakes in, and onnoe of the maps added by me uses them.

if you use them, and they cause problems, i guess its simply your fault.
drakes ARE flying

and if you add them, you have to accept the fact that creative players will try to use them and make use out of their flying abilities.


all in all: problems with drake-flyers are not my fault anyway, and for respect of ALDA (who added them) i wont take them out as they are part of the jel'wan map.

[Mabuse]

What I was saying here is mainly a critique of the income table for TEAM and 1v1 games. Your response to this is an example of a ffa game where a noob gets taken advantage of. But, I am not saying that the table isn't good for this situation, but rather that it can remove the excitement from a 1v1 or team game. I do not see any solid reasoning behind having a income table for a team or 1v1 game, as it does take away some of the mystery of the game.
For example, say that you are playing Surdmark in 1v1, with cap mode. On turn two without the table, you'd have only a rough idea of your opponents income, they probably took 1-3 villages and possibly a bonus, but you can't be sure about the extent of their expansion. With the table, you will know their income exactly, however, you can't assume that they have 175 villages just because you only have 6. In games such as these, the game tends to be over before orange has even been completely killed, so even on turn 15, if you have 60 villages, your opponent could have any number between 40 and 80 and you wouldn't be able to know.

well, actually i try to understand in which way the income table wil damage the gameplay on a 1v1 (or team) game -
so far i didnt suceed.

is it actually a bad thing if you know how much income/how much cities the enemy has ?
so far i hear only about "feelings" and "excitement".

but for me it is simply an impotant startegic information how much income the enemy has. you can evaluate the chances of success, also it give new players a glimpse how they actually can improve their game ("its the economy"). if there is need to raise income for yourself and all that stuff.

BUT:
i can ackknowledge the fact that you may dont want to know the income, because you find it more interesting not to know it.

in this case i may CHANGE the income table to become a permanent right click option.
any player can look whenever he want at the income table

also: the CURRENT income table may be still choseable by gamne host.
but the permanent right click option wil be always accessible. its not choice of the host to deny players core informations


but thats just something for a future version, need to think more about.

so far the strategic benefits outweigh "feelings" or "excitement".
hands down: if that income table would have been part of conquest since the beginning we would have nothing to debate. i think you should get used to it.

the income table raises the excitement for me.
other strategy games have this "status bar" as well, which give a raw overwiev about the progress of each player.

[Lich_Lord]

btw, SlowThinker aka "Blobsy2", maybe you should create a new account for every new post you make, this could make it seem that there a lot more people backing up exactly your standpoints

Errm, I don't think that Blobsy2 is slowthinker, for a couple of reasons:

-Blobsy has obs games that were 1v1 of me and slow, and didn't say same IP.
-Blobsy has the new version of conquest, but slow doesn't, or did not.
-Blobsy did not have slow's surdmark teleport map, which slow has.
-Blobsy did not have Wesnoth 1.9 downloaded until recently, much later than when slow downloaded it.
-In games I've played with Blobsy, he has asked certain questions that slow would know the answer too.
-Blobsy is able to move 5 times faster than slow in a game of conquest, which means that slow can't be him, since slow takes so long to move.

Also Mabuse, where is any evidence that Blobsy is slow, besides the fact that he is making arguments similar to that of slow's arguments?

[Gwledig]

Yes I seen Blobsy about in-game I am sure, plus if you look at his forum account he joined in Septembr, which suggested it has not been created on some impulse.

[SlowThinker]

-Blobsy did not have Wesnoth 1.9 downloaded until recently, much later than when slow downloaded it.

This only proves you are a part of all the conspiracy, that intends to defame Mabuse's genius.
Blobsy didn't dow... ah sorry I mean SlowThinker didn't download Wesnoth 1.9 yet.


(Gwledig, Lich), any comment to the 2.7.2 upload?