|
Post by sparrowhawk on Sept 15, 2004 14:21:35 GMT
Getting OT here, but just to inform you that regarding the conversations above, combat effect has been restored to "gory" level. Valista ~2000 men + Garrison ~ 400 just splatted Lord North who had ~500.
And dragons/wise etc are all back to normal service, though I need to double check that (that was a side effect of the lord bug that I fixed today, so they are now fixed too).
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Sept 15, 2004 16:51:56 GMT
OK. Caravan gfx done. I'll post them as soon as I've finished touching them up.
Just one more suggestion: since caravans will provide mobile refreshments, how about preventing the "caravan" race from entering mountains, irrespective of game option?
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Sept 15, 2004 17:28:13 GMT
Good idea! And I'd be even bolder and forbid them forests, too.
|
|
SkulkrinBait
Morkin Admin
Haxx0rs == Suxx0rs! v4
Posts: 6,680
|
Post by SkulkrinBait on Sept 15, 2004 18:17:19 GMT
OK. Caravan gfx done. I'll post them as soon as I've finished touching them up. Just one more suggestion: since caravans will provide mobile refreshments, how about preventing the "caravan" race from entering mountains, irrespective of game option? I concur - caravans should also be fairly slow for a "cavalry" unit, make em move as slow as footmen or even worse.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Sept 15, 2004 19:08:24 GMT
Good idea! And I'd be even bolder and forbid them forests, too. Oh good grief please no! Hiding in forests is the only defensive move left for a caravan except for running away. But that's not all. Say you wanted to launch a big surprise attack from within a forest. If caravans can't enter the forest, the attacking armies will always be relatively tired. Not only that, but the presence of any caravans running around outside a forest could well give away the presence of an ambush inside it. Not to mention that places like Dreams or Lothoril cannot be reached without going through a forest. I would suggest a heavier movement penalty for caravans through forests meaning that forests would really bog them down and also slow down any escorting armies. Twice the movement penalty of infantry on plains would do it. (e.g. infantry can do 6 leagues on the plains, so make caravans do 3 leagues in forests) That's enough to discourage travel through forests without actually forbidding it.
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Sept 15, 2004 19:53:48 GMT
|
|
Freiegeister
Morkin Member
'Blasphemy is a victimless crime' - Dawkins
Posts: 1,126
|
Post by Freiegeister on Sept 15, 2004 20:41:51 GMT
A few suggestions:
- Don't allow caravans to block armies, i.e. they should be passable.
- Don't allow them to seek.
- Capturing a caravan shouldn't put you to night.
Can we also have a beer caravan? (gives a temporary morale boost) ;D
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Sept 15, 2004 21:51:56 GMT
A few suggestions: - Don't allow caravans to block armies, i.e. they should be passable. Hmmm, I see what you're saying, but if one lord can be a blocker why not a caravan? I only see this as a problem if empty caravans are used as blockers. However I would suggest instead that no empty caravans are allowed, just as no garrisons of less than 50 men are allowed. This would also introduce a method of destroying caravans. What goes up must come down, so if there's a way of creating caravans there should be a way of removing them too. This way, if caravans are used as blockers, they get captured as well as their stores. That depends on whether they get tired like everyone else. If they do, they should be allowed to seek. As above, if empty caravans aren't allowed, I don't see a problem. Agreed, though I'm not sure if there should or shouldn't be a time penalty for capturing a caravan. ...and a two hour penalty the next morning.
|
|
Ringthane
Public Area Guest
Ardet nec Consumitur
Posts: 5,446
|
Post by Ringthane on Sept 16, 2004 0:18:00 GMT
So mountains impassable, forests 4 hours, downs 3, plains 2... ?
|
|
|
Post by celebaglar on Sept 16, 2004 0:41:30 GMT
So mountains impassable, forests 4 hours, downs 3, plains 2... ? No... Mountains - impassable Forests - half the plains speed Downs - same as infantry Plains - same as infantry
|
|
Matija
Morkin Member
The Turtle Moves!
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by Matija on Sept 16, 2004 6:34:22 GMT
IMO caravans should be very voulnerable and easy to see. That's why I suggested they don't enter forests. That would also present more tactical possibilities, just for the reasons you mentioned. And, of course, they could be used as a bait. And this would offset fey advanteges in forests. Not that I couln't live with the slowing down you suggested.
As for seeking, if caravans got tired they could use the supplies they're carrying.
And, I suppose, once caravan is left with 0 supplies it would simply vanish?
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Sept 16, 2004 7:53:17 GMT
Bill, great graphics, great graphics! Some very good points. At the moment caravans of zero stores don't get deleted. This is because I can envisage routes being established between a safe citadel generating stores (eg Shimeril) and a front line position (eg Gap of Valethor, preparing to assault the Gorgrath area). This the caravan would go back and forth (like the trade ships in AOE, but obviously manually controlled). However, this means that they COULD be used as blockers. I'll have a look at the Move code to see how much effort it would take to get around this. Movement in forests: I concur that they should be allowed in, and I will up the movement penalty. OK for mountains, I'll make them impassable. Sounds reasonable. Thanks all.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Sept 16, 2004 16:17:00 GMT
FYI: Caravans are actually infantry units, despite the graphic, so they were moving at infantry pace already.
|
|
|
Post by sparrowhawk on Sept 16, 2004 16:48:24 GMT
Bill,
Cough, cough. I hate to ask this, but...
How much extra work would it be for you to enlarge the images in the m_ and s_ sets to be the same sizes as the ones in the large set? ie, the caravan pics stay the same size but the actual tiles for (eg) caravan0.png, m_caravan0.png and s_caravan0.png to all be the same. The pictures in the m_ and s_ sets would need to be horizontally centred and aligned to the bottom. Just like the army m_ and s_ sets.
If it's a hassle, I'll do it myself, so please do not feel obliged.
Reasoning:
Caravan and army "groups with banners" gfx are held as terrain types in the $terrainData array for the sake of processing. There is only one entry per terrain type. However, before displaying the image I calculate which size gfx should be displayed, and add a m_ or s_ prefix if necessary. Since all tile for the distance (0-7) are the same size in each set, I don't have to do anything more complex.
Thanks.
|
|
Perun
Public Area Guest
Issa (Vis) [1:76:24]
Posts: 2,506
|
Post by Perun on Sept 16, 2004 20:27:21 GMT
Well, well. I'm gone for just a month, and JY is already sold to another guy... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Great gfx, Bill. A bit smallish for a caravan, but look good. Not a bit like my armies! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Ahhhh, it's good to be back...
|
|