UniMapGen v2.65

[sparrowhawk]

Note to scenario builders - giants are now supported, although they have no special movement or combat bonus yet.

[sparrowhawk]

One thing that I forgot to mention when creating lord records - LRD_ShortName must be one word (eg "JoePublic" is ok, but "Joe Public" is not)

[sparrowhawk]

Jean-Yves said:

Note to scenario builders - giants are now supported, although they have no special movement or combat bonus yet.

Giants now fight strongly (not as strongly as Wise or dragons, but better than all other races. This may have to be reviewed when DDR/MU comes online!)

[Matija]

Stands to reason. But I seem to remember they also had some movement bonuses, over mountains, perhaps?

[Perun]

First off, I must say that most of bugs mentioned here are dealt with or are in a state of extermination. Please send any new bug report ASAP, so I can incorporate it in this release.

Also I've added "Generate default descriptions" command, which will, if you defined any domain, create any standard description, like "plains of Fear", "forest of Thrall".

Now, a few questions:

1. is it "forest of Thrall" or "Forest of Thrall"?
2. which terrain types have "x in the domain of y" description? I suppose all, except real terrain (plains, forests, downs, mountains, frozen wastes), right?

[sparrowhawk]

you can definitely have "A forest in the domain of y"

just checking the others..

"Down in domain of y" exists in the original LOM, but I have removed that in MU as it does not read well, IMO (for a list, do a search on "Downs of Despair")

I think that the others don't have this format.

[Perun]

Hmmm. I'll leave default descriptions in "x of y" format, then. Who wants to change something can do that manually...

Btw, lords and strongholds will be introduced in the next release, thus the delay.

[sparrowhawk]

iggy, UMG is all well and good, but I still see no option to "get date with Kylie Minogue". sort it out will you? ;D

[Perun]

Jean-Yves said:

iggy, UMG is all well and good, but I still see no option to "get date with Kylie Minogue". sort it out will you? ;D

What, that ugly old hag? Ask 'Nando for something younger. He's a little nearer than me, and got handful of chick always at hand! ;D ;D ;D

[Perun]

Jean-Yves said:

For garrisons (the key field is not included as you don't need to worry about it):

insert into GAR_Garrisons
(GAR_SCN_ID, GAR_LRD_ID, GAR_Row, GAR_Column, GAR_Type)
values
(GAR_SCN_ID, GAR_LRD_ID, GAR_Row, GAR_Column, GAR_Type)


Fields:

• GAR_SCN_ID - scenario ID - must be the same as above
  
• GAR_LRD_ID - the ID of the lord that this garrison belongs to - use LRD_ID in LRD_Lords above for match
  
• GAR_Row - the Y coordinate
  
• GAR_Column - the X coordinate
  
• GAR_Type - C for citadel, K for keep
  

Is this error, some fields missing? Shouldn't strongholds also have armies?

Is it possible for a stronghold to be neutral?

[sparrowhawk]

have replied in full in response to your private mail. for the benefits of others - code is OK, garrisons can be non-aliged, but they take their cue form their owner, and so if he is recruited the live record (as opposed to the garrison template record) will switch it's allegiance

[Perun]

Jean-Yves said:

have replied in full in response to your private mail. for the benefits of others - code is OK, garrisons can be non-aliged, but they take their cue form their owner, and so if he is recruited the live record (as opposed to the garrison template record) will switch it's allegiance

What OwnedBy field value is there for non-aligned garrisons? -1, 0 or value not equal to any existing LordID in a scenario?

[sparrowhawk]

The GAR_LRD_ID points to the owning lord. So if you started with a LRD_ID of 100, and your garrison belonged to the second lord in your lord list, the GAR_LRD_ID would = 101