New and Modified Scenarios

[Martin the Dane]

Ok I'll fix the version of Dawn that uses the old units (and that will the last you'll ever se of that), and then do a full remake using the new unit-types, for the future releases. Fixing the last few things in my latest version of Dawn will not take long, so I hope to have it out very soon.

The remake has a lot of added elements so, apart from the name and map, it'll be a totaly new sceareo. My plan is to introduce all important aspects of the game, one at a time, while making it an enjoyable experience.

[Richard Bruns]

Sounds good.

Martin (or anyone else), feel free to add elements or units to the defaults, or alter them as you see fit. Changes in the AI and other things may mean that the values I playtested are out of date.

In any case, I was more concerned with getting a good, unified system. Hopefully you can build on that foundation easily, if you want to. The progression of units should be fairly clear.

I have gotten permission to use the unit images of the following artists:

The ANZAC
techumseh
Prometeus
fairline
Stefan Härtel
Hobbes

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Martin:

Originally posted by Martin the Dane
Ok I'll fix the version of Dawn that uses the old units (and that will the last you'll ever se of that), and then do a full remake using the new unit-types, for the future releases. Fixing the last few things in my latest version of Dawn will not take long, so I hope to have it out very soon.

I hope I'm misunderstaning. If so, just ignore the following paragraph. But it looks to me like you want to move over to Richard's mono-element units, which has not been agreed to by anyone but possibly you and Richard. AFAIK the old combined arms units are Still the standard. We haven't heard from Laurent yet on these important points. Anyone that wants to do New scenarios can do whatever they want. But if you want yours to replace the standard ones we need Laurent's agreement first. That goes for replacing the default military.xml too. As I said above, if I've misunderstood, please ignore the rant

The remake has a lot of added elements so, apart from the name and map, it'll be a totaly new sceareo. My plan is to introduce all important aspects of the game, one at a time, while making it an enjoyable experience.

Sounds great! Looking forward to it

I have gotten permission to use the unit images of the following artists:

The ANZAC
techumseh
Prometeus
fairline
Stefan Härtel
Hobbes

Richard, that's great! Thanks for your efforts in getting us more art BTW can you post that, and possibly where to find their art in the two main art threads? Thanks!

Great work on the new scenarios guys!

[Martin the Dane]

Hi Mark

Well I was not aware that the mono-element units was the main disagreement between the two aproaches. IMO the default should be combined-arms units, but the mono-element units should be available to scenario-designers.

I have not descided for or against any of the models, with regard to Dawn, but I want Dawn to use the default units, wether those are combined or mono-element, as defined in military.txt.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Martin, sounds good to me.

[LDiCesare]

We need Laurent's agreement on the army power specs. Since you agreed to use the older combined-arms approach as a defalt I think that's the only to be yet finalized. After that, I think its a good idea.

The only things that I think are important are the following:
Have some combined arms units including elements which can skirmish (and even scout if you want to, though there were none in the old file).
Make sure every capability present in the old military file is still in the new one, or, of not, explain why. This is very important because it ensures that the corresponding code is tested and, if the code is not tested, then maybe it is useless and so should be scrapped. It's okay to forgo that point if the point in question is tested in a scenario file, but since we're talking about unifying files...
The things I think of are mostly: image dependant string for siege weapons (Mark wanted to avoid having lots of units for siege with unfamiliar names - pierriere, ballista, catapult, trebuchet, mangonel, ram, assault tower, ladder, scorpion etc.), civilization - specific elements (for SiegeWars mostly), engineer 'build' order allowing in-field fortifications (I am not sure this has a big effect on the game by the way - it has one, but if the player can't see it, is it worth keeping it hte way it is?).
As for the rest, it's okay to change the files.

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks Laurent, sounds like a plan! Good to have this getting settled.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
The things I think of are mostly: image dependant string for siege weapons (Mark wanted to avoid having lots of units for siege with unfamiliar names - pierriere, ballista, catapult, trebuchet, mangonel, ram, assault tower, ladder, scorpion etc.),

Yeah, most of the time I think the player just wants a mix of the latest and greatest, that's why I suggested a generic siege weapons unit. Of course when we get to the unit-workshop they will be able to mix and match the various components by themselves.

engineer 'build' order allowing in-field fortifications (I am not sure this has a big effect on the game by the way - it has one, but if the player can't see it, is it worth keeping it hte way it is?).

Can we (by we I mean you ) put a line on effect of field fortification strength in the combat output? That way the scenario designers can tune the size of this effect so it is crudely balanced. Perhaps we also need a fortify order per civ also. Guess that's a topic for the mil thread. . .

[LDiCesare]

Can we (by we I mean you ) put a line on effect of field fortification strength in the combat output?

Yes, I'll try. Note I don't know when I'll be able to send it, as I have big problems to reach the web (Ia m using an old ISP on an old computer right now because I can't get it to work with the new ones... I also have two places to try... )

[LDiCesare]

I made a new scenario which is only a test case, but I thought it worth mentioning it here.

A few remarks about other points raised in this thread:
Field fortification effectivity modifier is now in (militaryconstants engineerdivider).

The current unit strengths in Delenda are not right at all from a historical standpoint. Chariots are the most powerful unit. The only ranged unit that Romans can build is catapults. They should be able to build skirmishers or archers from the start.

[Richard Bruns]

I finally got Java working on my computer, so now I can get back into things...

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I made a new scenario which is only a test case, but I thought it worth mentioning it here.

Could you send me that scenario?

The current unit strengths in Delenda are not right at all from a historical standpoint. Chariots are the most powerful unit. The only ranged unit that Romans can build is catapults. They should be able to build skirmishers or archers from the start.

Which version are you playing? In my files, Chargers are faster and cheaper than chariots, and just as good in melee. They lost their dustance attack, but they still should be a better unit. And Legionaries should also be better and cheaper than chariots.

Of course, I may have the battle equations confused. But by the numbers, that is how I set up the military.xml that comes with my scenarios.

[LDiCesare]

Richard, you need the corresponding code to get the scenario to work, because it mostly requires the player to do nothing. It shows quite well what the ai does when I change the code or the xml files. It needs polishing, because there are a few things I have added recently that are still only in the code but I must make them editable through the xml files.

The equation I use is: attack / cost. The best unit for this criterion is the chariot. Criterion can be changed in the scenario file, in the ai section.
Gary raised the point that the military model is very complex and a bit hard to understand (what will it do for you if you enhance mobility of a unit for example).
Mostly, attack *defense * health is the most important value.

[Mark_Everson]

Testbed V7.8 is out

Hi All:

I've just sent Testbed 7.8 to Richard. It has Laurent's code as of 9/13 in it.

Richard, just let us know what else you need!

[Richard Bruns]

The legionary element I set up has an attack of 0.02 and my chariot has an attack of 0.008. The legionary costs about 2.8 times as much as the mobster in production and services, and has the same food cost. The chariot has double the food and services cost, and triple the production cost.

I suppose I should test them against each other as I write the files, though. Do you have any kind of program for quickly simulating battles?

So can we just switch to my system for good? It seems that the xml files are basically the same, so my old ones should work fine woth the new code.

[LDiCesare]

I have a battle simulator, but it's been broken by diplomacy changes and I haven't fixed it. I should.
There is a possibility that chariots are chosen instead of phalanxes because the unit-chosing algorithm is bad. It uses Math.pow (exponents), so it's a bit fragile if any figure gets too big. Myabe the costs. I will check that, and the contetn of the files to make sure there hasn't been some wrong value that slipped in somewhere.

[LDiCesare]

Richard, it looks like I simply overwrote your version with the old one (a pity since I had saved it under a different name just in case).