AGRICOLA
Warlord
You can achieve the same thing by adding JUSTONCE to each CITYTAKEN event so there is no need to rename.
Aeterna Civitas III
- Thread starter McMonkey
- Start date
You can achieve the same thing by adding JUSTONCE to each CITYTAKEN event so there is no need to rename.
techumseh
Deity
Are you sure? If new obsolete units are created by events, Leonardo's Workshop should upgrade them the next turn, as long as the upgraded unit is buildable and the tech that made it buildable is also the tech that made the obsolete unit obsolete. Is this not the case?
Sure, but that would take up more valuable events space.The point is that the scenario is designed with the intention of the player renaming cities so that the player can see the historical growth of the Roman empire and the historical enemies it fought. For example the local tribe in my area of Wales were the Silures. They gave the Romans a really hard time. So much so that after they conquered the south east of Wales a Legion was permanently based there at the town of Isca, the ruins of which can still be seen today. I think it would be a poorer scenario if the Romans invaded Britain and fought the Celts who occupied cities with Latin names. If you are not concerned about this aspect of the game that's fine, just skip the renaming part, but for me it is key to charting the rise of the Roman empire!
@AGRICOLA
I hope that I am somehow wrong as it would free up a fair bit of events space, but I did test it several times and found that the units only upgraded when they received the technology that made the old units obsolete. I will double check this again though to be sure.
I tested the Leonardo's effect and I can confirm, at least in this scenario, that it only upgrades obsolete units once, and that is when the technology that makes them obsolete and the new unit buildable is gained. I guess if you built Leonardo's in a game it might trigger an upgrade of all existing obsolete units. I don't have the time or the will to test that right now as it does not help me in this scenario, but I guess it would be interesting to find out!
Whilst testing Leonardo's I found a more serious problem. For some reason the Hastati-Principes-Triarii didn't upgrade to Cohorts when the Romans discover Marian Reforms. Velites and Latin Warriors upgraded to Auxiliarys fine still. This worked when I tested it on many occasions before, so I'm not entirely sure what I changed in the rules that stopped the upgrade (IE they are the same role etc). I tried an old rules file and everything worked again, so I will add that back into the latest rules file bit by bit and test to see what causes the problem. I will post the fixed rules file when it is sorted. This should not effect anything if playtesters have already started a game as the Marioan Reforms are a fair way down the tree!
Whilst testing Leonardo's I found a more serious problem. For some reason the Hastati-Principes-Triarii didn't upgrade to Cohorts when the Romans discover Marian Reforms. Velites and Latin Warriors upgraded to Auxiliarys fine still. This worked when I tested it on many occasions before, so I'm not entirely sure what I changed in the rules that stopped the upgrade (IE they are the same role etc). I tried an old rules file and everything worked again, so I will add that back into the latest rules file bit by bit and test to see what causes the problem. I will post the fixed rules file when it is sorted. This should not effect anything if playtesters have already started a game as the Marioan Reforms are a fair way down the tree!
After extensive testing I found the problem in @UNITS_ADVANCED. Because the Cohort was set to 0 - can't in section A) 'tribe may build' mask: the upgrade was prevented. If I set to 1 -can build the upgrade works. My solution is to allow Cohorts to be built, but to make them expensive so that it is still preferable to build the New Legion. Not a perfect solution, but it will work until I can come up with something better!
Now I can actually get on with play-testing today!!!
Here is the attached fixed rules:
Now I can actually get on with play-testing today!!!
Here is the attached fixed rules:
AGRICOLA
Warlord
Definitely not. Adding JUSTONCE to an event does not take up additional event space. ALL information necessary to execute an event is contained in a sequence of 276 bytes in a saved file. Adding JUSTONCE to an event merely toggles an existing byte without taking up additional events space. I added JUSTONCE to each of the CITYTAKEN events in AC III and, as I expected, still had the same 109 bytes of remaining heap space.
The point is that the scenario is designed with the intention of the player renaming cities so that the player can see the historical growth of the Roman empire and the historical enemies it fought. For example the local tribe in my area of Wales were the Silures. They gave the Romans a really hard time. So much so that after they conquered the south east of Wales a Legion was permanently based there at the town of Isca, the ruins of which can still be seen today. I think it would be a poorer scenario if the Romans invaded Britain and fought the Celts who occupied cities with Latin names. If you are not concerned about this aspect of the game that's fine, just skip the renaming part, but for me it is key to charting the rise of the Roman empire!
Heck, you don't need to CHART it. You can SEE the Roman expansion by the city colors on the game map.
@techumseh
I believe that the following is actually intended for you. I knows nuthin bout it nohow.
techumseh
Deity
In case it's any use, here's something I found out about the functioning of Leo's while making 'Red October'. I had 5 types of Central Powers units which started the scenario as stationary units (movement 0). On turn 3, they began on offensive against the Reds, so I wanted to use Leo's to convert them to mobile units. The trouble was how to make sure that static German infantry converted to mobile German infantry and not Austro-Hungarian cavalry or something else. And I wanted to only use one new obsoleting technology for all 5.
I found that if you vary the role of each unit, the game keeps them straight, so I used a different role for each unit. (0 = Attack 1 = Defend 2 = Naval Superiority 3 = Air Superiority 4 = Sea Transport). This does affect how the game uses each unit, but it's manageable, especially as I used the MoveUnit event to simulate the Central Powers offensive.
I found that if you vary the role of each unit, the game keeps them straight, so I used a different role for each unit. (0 = Attack 1 = Defend 2 = Naval Superiority 3 = Air Superiority 4 = Sea Transport). This does affect how the game uses each unit, but it's manageable, especially as I used the MoveUnit event to simulate the Central Powers offensive.
Sure, but that would take up more valuable events space.The point is that the scenario is designed with the intention of the player renaming cities so that the player can see the historical growth of the Roman empire and the historical enemies it fought. For example the local tribe in my area of Wales were the Silures. They gave the Romans a really hard time. So much so that after they conquered the south east of Wales a Legion was permanently based there at the town of Isca, the ruins of which can still be seen today. I think it would be a poorer scenario if the Romans invaded Britain and fought the Celts who occupied cities with Latin names. If you are not concerned about this aspect of the game that's fine, just skip the renaming part, but for me it is key to charting the rise of the Roman empire!
I agree; it's a nice touch and satisfies the history geek in me. Are there any consequences to mis-spelling the Latin names (mis-firing events maybe)?
There should be no ill effects from renaming cities incorrectly (or not at all) as the original city names are the only ones that trigger events.
@AGRICOLA
I will add the JUSTONCE flag liberally in the final version if it doesn't take up space!
@Techumseh
Thanks for the info. I thought I had Leonardo's sussed until I changed the Units Advanced setting. Its amazing how one small change can throw everything into chaos. All back on track now though. I'm trying to take Magna Graecia right now, damn Asian Elephants!!!
AGRICOLA
Warlord
Drew, please take it easy. You are rushing to finish playtesting and seemingly losing track of which file versions you are posting for downloading. Do a thorough job rather than worry about updating impatient playtesters.
Here's an example of conflicting data taken from a sequence of posted RULES files:
Modified MAY 20
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,3d, 3h,4f, 6,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 4h,3f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Hoplite*
Modified MAY 21
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,3d, 3h,4f, 6,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 4h,3f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Hoplite*
Modified MAY 22
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,5f, 6,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,5d, 4h,4f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Hoplite
Modified MAY 23
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,3d, 3h,4f, 6,0, 1, no, 000000000000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6f, 8,0, 1, no, 000000000000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 4h,3f, 8,0, 1, no, 000000000000000 ;Hoplite*
The May 22(date the file modified) version was posted with the following comment:
"I think I have found the balance now where a good player can beat Pyrrhus if he plays it right, but it won't be an easy ride!". Obviously, the D, H and F numbers had been increased for two important Roman units. In the subsequent download, they have reverted to their earlier values. I'm assuming that the May 22 numbers are the correct values?
Here's an example of conflicting data taken from a sequence of posted RULES files:
Modified MAY 20
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,3d, 3h,4f, 6,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 4h,3f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Hoplite*
Modified MAY 21
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,3d, 3h,4f, 6,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 4h,3f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Hoplite*
Modified MAY 22
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,5f, 6,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,5d, 4h,4f, 8,0, 1, X1, 000000001000000 ;Hoplite
Modified MAY 23
Hastati, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,3d, 3h,4f, 6,0, 1, no, 000000000000000 ;Auxilia*
Principes, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 3h,6f, 8,0, 1, no, 000000000000000 ;Blades*
Triarii, Roc, 0, 4.,0, 12a,4d, 4h,3f, 8,0, 1, no, 000000000000000 ;Hoplite*
The May 22(date the file modified) version was posted with the following comment:
"I think I have found the balance now where a good player can beat Pyrrhus if he plays it right, but it won't be an easy ride!". Obviously, the D, H and F numbers had been increased for two important Roman units. In the subsequent download, they have reverted to their earlier values. I'm assuming that the May 22 numbers are the correct values?
I think those stats must have got mixed up when I was trying to find out the 'Leonardo's non-upgrade' bug. The May22 stats for Hastati and Triarii are the correct ones. Soz Feel free to change those stats in your rules file guys!
Feel free to change those stats in your rules file guys!
AGRICOLA
Warlord
No consequences, regardless of whether the relevant events remain as at present or if JUSTONCE is added.
No consequences if they stay as they are, as far as I know. Adding JUSTONCE is just a bonus for those who don't want the hastle of renaming cities. There are no events that rely on a city being renamed to trigger. All events are set to trigger using the city names in the game from the start.
Chaps,
I'm still tweaking the rules and finding issues to solve. Do you want to hang fire with the proper play-testing for a bit so I don't keep chopping and changing files? Feel free to play if you want, any feedback would be most welcome, but I think I need to go through it more thoroughly myself before it is ready for a serious test. I had not anticipated how many giggly issues there would be. Its been a while since I last made a scenario!
One issue I need to address is the Forts. The AI transports them by sea and it seems to pick one city as its primary stronghold and then swap it the next turn, taking all the forts with it! Perhaps just limiting transport ships carrying capacity would limit this annoying habit?
Chaps,
I'm still tweaking the rules and finding issues to solve. Do you want to hang fire with the proper play-testing for a bit so I don't keep chopping and changing files? Feel free to play if you want, any feedback would be most welcome, but I think I need to go through it more thoroughly myself before it is ready for a serious test. I had not anticipated how many giggly issues there would be. Its been a while since I last made a scenario!
One issue I need to address is the Forts. The AI transports them by sea and it seems to pick one city as its primary stronghold and then swap it the next turn, taking all the forts with it! Perhaps just limiting transport ships carrying capacity would limit this annoying habit?
I'm eleven turns into the scenario now (259BC) and despite a few teething problems I can say it is working pretty well. I have managed to take Magna Graecia (southern Italy) from the Greeks and most of the Barbarian cities in the north (not including the Celts), and I have begun my invasion of Sicily roughly on historical schedule.
Without this play-test I have been guessing at things to a large extent, but with some tweaks to the events and unit stats I think I can find a decent balance. At the moment I think the Roman's are getting too many new units to make it a tough enough challenge, but I will see how I cope with the First Punic War before I make any snap decisions. I think I need to reduce the shield disbanding value of Slaves a little, make Merchants appear less frequently and lower the number of Equites and Velites from the Legion Event. I also think I could scale down some of the early reaction events and, depending on how testing goes, increase the number of counter-attacking units later in the scenario when Rome should have many units.
I'm very pleased with the way the game flows. Without the need to micromanage every cities unit production there is much more of a focus on the military conquest side of the game. In the past I have found myself getting frustrated when play-testing my own scenarios as I'm constantly seeing things that need improving. I'm still seeing those potential improvements with ACIII, but I'm having enough fun that they are not bothering me too much. There is a new batch of things on my TO DO list, but I have yet to encounter anything insurmountable, touch wood!
EDIT:
Oof! Just been hit by the Carthaginians at Messene. Just managed to hold the city (one Triarii in the red left) but I lost all my Transport Ships! Luckily I researched the tech to build new ones a turn or two back and I can rush build a few to keep the army in Sicily supplied!
Without this play-test I have been guessing at things to a large extent, but with some tweaks to the events and unit stats I think I can find a decent balance. At the moment I think the Roman's are getting too many new units to make it a tough enough challenge, but I will see how I cope with the First Punic War before I make any snap decisions. I think I need to reduce the shield disbanding value of Slaves a little, make Merchants appear less frequently and lower the number of Equites and Velites from the Legion Event. I also think I could scale down some of the early reaction events and, depending on how testing goes, increase the number of counter-attacking units later in the scenario when Rome should have many units.
I'm very pleased with the way the game flows. Without the need to micromanage every cities unit production there is much more of a focus on the military conquest side of the game. In the past I have found myself getting frustrated when play-testing my own scenarios as I'm constantly seeing things that need improving. I'm still seeing those potential improvements with ACIII, but I'm having enough fun that they are not bothering me too much. There is a new batch of things on my TO DO list, but I have yet to encounter anything insurmountable, touch wood!
EDIT:
Oof! Just been hit by the Carthaginians at Messene. Just managed to hold the city (one Triarii in the red left) but I lost all my Transport Ships! Luckily I researched the tech to build new ones a turn or two back and I can rush build a few to keep the army in Sicily supplied!
Attachments
AGRICOLA
Warlord
After a couple of days of trying various things, have finally figured out what might work best in the scen, especially at the beginning.
I did find some ambiguity in a critical [to me at least
] phrase in the README.
"No pillaging of stackable terrain"
I'm not sure whether you intend that one must not pillage the actual stackability of a square or that players cannot pillage road, irrigation,or mining improvements on stackable squares. I suspect that it is the former.
I did find some ambiguity in a critical [to me at least
] phrase in the README."No pillaging of stackable terrain"
I'm not sure whether you intend that one must not pillage the actual stackability of a square or that players cannot pillage road, irrigation,or mining improvements on stackable squares. I suspect that it is the former.
I should have added the line "...or roads", though as pillaging of both is disabled in game the note is just a courtesy. Pillaging Irrigation and Mines is possible, though I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be. I didn't want to allow pillaging of roads and stackable terrain as it is too effective at halting the AI attacks. I'm now up to 239 BC and doing pretty well without the need to pillage!
AGRICOLA
Warlord
Thanks for the clarification.
techumseh
Deity
I think you have been playing too much Red Front. Those desperate measures wont wash with the Roman Senate
Didn't Stalin and Zukhov use 'Fabian' tactics in 1941?
Guderian or Hannibal, there's only one effective response.True, but I still think the AI needs all the help it can when attacking. For instance, there have been several occasions where the Greeks have practically emptied a city of defenders, only to start a new attack on a nearby city! I will see how the rest of my play-test works out and then adjust if necessary. I have just got my ass kicked by the Illyrians, which is gutting on a personal level, but bodes well for the gameplay.
Similar threads
