Dune Wars 1.9 Final Release Feedback

[bradley364]

Hey guys, this mod looks awesome but I'm having a few problems...

Firstly, and most importantly, when I start a new game I have no UI to speak of. What is going on?!

Also, from the main menu, I can't access the Civopedia at all. Nothing happens when I click it, the screen just flashes a bit. I can't use it ingame obviously cause there is no UI!

Does anyone know whats going on?

Edit:

Alright, so I uninstalled the mod and just reinstalled the base download. Everything appears to be working. Orignally, I installed the base, then a patch called 1.9.0.1 and then installed 1.9.1.2. Then finally the optional music.

I'm now assuming I should go:

Base
1.9.1.2 patch
music

Am I right? Skipping 1.9.0.1 completely? If so, there really needs to be better instructions cause I believe I missed that concept completely.

EDIT FOR GREAT JUSTICE:

Alright, I just tried what I did above, it was even worse then before, as I got a ton of errors as the game was loading, and the Civopedia was down once again. Can someone give me the correct install order?

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

yes, it's confusing because the welcome page gives 1.9 as the main download when the newest one is actually 1.9.1... then gives the link for the latest patch for 1.9.1 which isn't compatible with 1.9. yeah, confusing, I know. In david's defense, the next link under the patch that says 'release notes' leads to the correct files, but I think he needs to replace the link going to 1.9 as the main download with the link to 1.9.1 to really avoid this mess. I did the same thing too and had to search several threads to find the answer.

Anyway, delete what you have installed, follow this link, and install the 1.9.1 full download, then the 1.9.1.2 patch for it. After that you should be able to install the music pack if you want as well.

Chris

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

I prefer to have spies return to the capital. if you return to a close city you will never need more then one spy and the spy war will loose alot of depth. Now you will need to consider a lot more when selecting target and you need to invest in more spies since they do not get where they are going so fast. Also shorter travel times would give your spies XP/promotions faster.

If espionage points are not a limiting factor you would do well just to build more spies.

Thanks for the feedback Folket, that's why I'm putting this out there, to see if people think it's a good idea and discuss it. My counter is that you still need more than one spy, firstly because spies get caught... no matter how good they are, they always get caught if you keep sending them I've found. As for needing fewer spies, yes, which I actually like myself, I don't find enjoyment in having to have six or seven spies just so there's always a couple in transit to far flung places. Feels to me, again, personally, like micromanagement, not strategy.

The fact is, espionage in CIV has always been something of a suboptimal use of production compared to just pumping out units and conquering an enemy(or defending your empire) or building buildings that make your existing cities better. I think the generally lower espionage points in DW improves this, but it remains something you do kind of consciously knowing that production is better spent somewhere else, but hey, it's espionage, it's fun. I'm sure there are arguments against what I just said and examples where it can be very powerful. But I also think the majority of players will agree you can win a game without building one espionage unit, you can't without building lots of military units... So something that boosts it's use a little is a good thing in my eyes.

The other thing I'll argue is that this system rewards the player for establishing devil: or conquering ), and defending, a base close to a target. Not always all that easy or wise of a thing to do close to powerful enemies. It also can maybe give a little more individuality to spies, as one working in a certain area kind of has an area he/she is operating in, as opposed to just being shoved back to capital with all the rest (this I realize is a likely unimportant to some folks and a minor point, but for those who role-play a bit more in the game, it can prove true nonetheless).

Finally, and linking to the previous point, travel times are only low if you have nearby cities, and if you're attacking the same area repeatedly. Since most factions only have a small handful of missions, and they last a while, after hitting one city, you usually will be wanting to go somewhere else that may or may not be anywhere close to the area you just hit.

Anyway, that's kinda my rational, but I'm happy to discuss it further. I never consider myself above being wrong .

Chris

 

[clearbeard]

Fractional XP

Just as a general note by the way, the new minimum xp from a fight (and xp from retreating) is 0.5.

I'm willing to give a test game a try, but at first glance I don't like this minimum at all. My play style tends to go for heavy threat reduction through bombardment, artillery, etc. followed by attacks that generally have 99%+ odds. I find any other combat method untenable in the face of an AI that only balances higher difficulties by having hugely superior numbers of units. It's frustrating enough to have to fight 20 battles to gain an experience level. Fighting multiple battles to gain even one XP feels like an exercise in frustration.

Particularly I've always thought 1 XP for a successful retreat to be unconscionably low. Halving it further halved seems like a mistake. I'm more familiar with vanilla scenarios, so for example, consider the last in a line of heroic cavalry charging a stack of 50 units, who successfully makes his raid and kills 8 enemy artillery units before they can rain fiery death down on his friends and family in the city he defends. For all his efforts against impossible odds he gets... 0.5 XP. Or the cannon who risks a mere 10% chance of withdrawal to soften up the invading horde to allow his compatriots to avenge his death, yet manages to survive against all odds, to be rewarded for his miracle with... 0.5 XP.

Just a thought...

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

It's a legitimate concern, but in my playtesting, 0.5 is a very rare outcome. The truth is most of those 1xp situations you normally see fall in the 0.8 to 1.9 range, which leads to the situation of actually getting more xp on average as I said before.

I'm used to attacking around at least 90-95% odds though, so bombardment heavy strategies could potentially result in a lot of less than 1.0xp situations. I see a lot of attacks yielding higher than 2.0 and 3.0 xp myself though.

Spoiler :

as you can see in this image, even very high combat odds can result in decent xp (99.68% of victory/ 1.6xp). The main area you'll see them get very low is where the enemy has almost no hp left.

However, changing it back to a 1xp minimum in as simple as changing one value in GlobalDefines.xml too . I'm thinking the beta patch I'll release will use the 0.5 min, and if testing shows it should be higher, I can put it at 1.0xp min for the 1.9.2 release. But even if I do release it at 0.5xp, it's very easy to change it to 1.0 yourself afterwards (very easy), so don't worry .

Also, I've changing the annoying "You've won against all odds, but... the defender retreated so... yeah.., you get nothing" scenario. I'm testing it where the attacker gets half the xp he would have gotten for the victory still (another thing the fractional xp makes possible). So in the above example, if the roller manages to retreat, my attacker still gets 0.8xp.

Or the cannon who risks a mere 10% chance of withdrawal to soften up the invading horde to allow his compatriots to avenge his death, yet manages to survive against all odds, to be rewarded for his miracle with... 0.5 XP

This is another area to look at I think... siege units withdrawing (not retreating) by reaching their combat limit should receive xp based on the risk of the attack just like any other attack I would think. This is different from the cavalry example in that the cav(in DW terms, ornithopter) essentially lost the fight, but managed to survive(I prefer to call this a retreat as opposed to a siege unit's withdrawal, but the game currently reports both as a withdrawal). The min xp from combat and the xp from retreat are separate GlobalDefine values, I think you're right in 0.5xp for a retreat being too low. Should this also maybe be based on actual risk or just left at 1.0xp?

 

[Folket]

But i think returning to a close city will b e to strong for some nations like ben gesserit. Then they once they have an economy just continuously buy cities.

I do not think espionage is suboptimal in dune wars for nations like Ben Gesserit, Harkonnen and Ix.

 

[Deliverator]

Hey all. It's been a while. I had an extended stay in hospital but I'm ok now.

I'm happy that ChrisAdams3997 seems to be picking up where I left of. I'll post more tomorrow since I think I have some unreleased Dune Wars art lying around. I'll still probably pitch in with art and ideas, but I'm happy if Chris wants to handle coding and releases.

Catch you later.

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

Hey, wow, I don't know what to say other than welcome back! Which feels a little wierd to me given that I was only really lurking back when you where around, but hey .

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

But i think returning to a close city will b e to strong for some nations like ben gesserit. Then they once they have an economy just continuously buy cities.

I do not think espionage is suboptimal in dune wars for nations like Ben Gesserit, Harkonnen and Ix.

If someone actually finds that a fun way to play the game, then more power to them. Such exploitative gameplay is usually not much fun to most players I think, which means, as long as the game doesn't railroad them into a situation where it's the only optimal way to win, allowing the exploit is not catastrophic. This same exploit can be done now by just spitting out 5 reverend mothers (not that hard to do) and sending them all out and WHAM!!, bought half an enemy civ (assuming they are all successful). I'd personally never do that because it's boring. I use it very sparingly in situations where it's useful or fun.

Long story short, it's a question of design philosophies between trying to curb the possible exploits of a few gamers, or making it more fun for the rest. Like I said before, if the exploit isn't so strong that it becomes the only way to optimally play, I'm putting my money on a more fun system. And I think a system that arbitrarily (this is definitely an arbitrary game rule based in no form of reality) sends you back to the capital is certainly less fun. It's the kind of mechanistic game rule that removes a certain amount of emersion from the game and makes it more, ...gamey.

The last thing I want to say is I'm not attacking you for disagreeing, like I said, I think discussion is good. My play testing here, and using similar implementation before in a more vanilla civ setting, has never shown me any evidence of this change causing any imbalances, at least given my playstyle. I'm planning to release a beta 1.9.2 (if that's what we call the upcoming release) on tuesday afternoon so more people can give feedback than just me , so I'll be interested to see then how others find the feel of it. If it turns out your fears are well founded, it's easily removed before the real release.

 

[clearbeard]

If siege withdrawal could be folded into increased risk/increased reward, that would be great. Usually I assume siege units are more or less cruise missiles, at least for the first 1-2 hits on a city, and plan on replacing them with each battle. Real benefits for those rare 20% withdrawals would be cool. I also wholeheartedly like getting xp when the enemy flees before your might. Another vanilla annoyance fixed!

As for the general 0.5 minimum, I'm happy to give it a try, as I said. My suspicions could end up totally off base in an actual game. Another thought I just had is in regards to defensive victories. If the XP they give is globally half of what you get offensively, would defenders end up getting too little XP with a 0.5 minimum? Half XP on defense has always rankled me on principle, don't know how this would come out. Again, I'm happy to test at the lower value and see how it goes.

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

Usually I assume siege units are more or less cruise missiles, at least for the first 1-2 hits on a city, and plan on replacing them with each battle.

I actually designed a wholly different approach to siege units in my personal RevDCM mod that addressed the whole 'suiciding catapults' issue, though it was much worse in vanilla civ than DW in my experience so far so I hadn't felt the need to propose any changes there.

In a nutshell, I limited the rounds of combat to a finite number (instead of swapping blows until the attacker dies or defender is brought to the combat limit), where a number of factors related to the defender's mobility (is the defender held down in a city, or in the open field, difference in movement points, terrain bonuses, etc.) determined by probability the number of first strikes the siege would get. So a siege unit attacking infantry in a city might expect to have 4 first strikes out of 6 combat rounds (on average, could be higher or lower), meaning only two chances (on average) to damage the attacking siege unit.

By contrast, attacking a highly mobile unit in the field, that same siege unit might only expect 2 first strikes out of 6 combat rounds, so much greater risk of being killed or at least taking more damage.

At the same time, the damage caused by the siege unit fell with the defender's hit points, so if you'd do 20 damage to a full health enemy, you're only doing maybe 12 damage when he's at half his health. This meant that attacking units already damaged would be less effective. This same principle applied to collateral damage as well, and is based on the idea that siege units work best when there is a lot to shoot at , but in a practical sense meant you could never really count on knocking your enemy down to 10% of his strength. Usually a determined and overwhelming siege assault might leave most enemies at around 30-50% health.

The total result is a system where siege units where much better balanced with the rest of the combat system. By this I mean you could expect them to actually survive a few battles without having to be two eras ahead of your enemies, but they also weren't uber weapons, there was a limit to how much they could do by themselves.

Anyway, back to what we're actually putting in for now...

As for the general 0.5 minimum, I'm happy to give it a try, as I said. My suspicions could end up totally off base in an actual game. Another thought I just had is in regards to defensive victories. If the XP they give is globally half of what you get offensively, would defenders end up getting too little XP with a 0.5 minimum? Half XP on defense has always rankled me on principle, don't know how this would come out. Again, I'm happy to test at the lower value and see how it goes.

If you're in such a superior defensive position that the enemy has no business attacking you, then yes, you'll get very little xp out of it. And for justifiable reasons I think. However, by using fractional xp, we can make smaller upward adjustments on how much xp you get from defending as opposed to attacking. Before, attack xp (as set in the units xml) was defined as 4 and defense xp as 2 for all but hornets (where both were 4). Now it's 40 and 20, where those represent 4.0 and 2.0 respectively. We can therefore for instance change the normal defense xp number to 2.5 so it's slightly more than half of the xp for a similar attack, if it proves necessary.

f siege withdrawal could be folded into increased risk/increased reward, that would be great

I'm definitely looking at this, the main problem with siege in my opinion is the whole combat limit idea. As techs advance, this number generally goes up, meaning the siege units can do more damage, but.... it also means they'll die more often at the same combat ratios as a unit with a lower combat limit because they have to do more damage before they pull out. Since the normal way of figuring xp from a battle is the essentially the combat ratio of the two units, it means higher combat limits increase the risk of each attack at the same combat ratios, but the xp would be the same despite the increased risk. I'll have to come up with a balanced numerical approach that gives appropriate rewards for the risk taken, and that will take some thought.

Chris

 

[davidlallen]

But i think returning to a close city will b e to strong for some nations like ben gesserit. Then they once they have an economy just continuously buy cities. I do not think espionage is suboptimal in dune wars for nations like Ben Gesserit, Harkonnen and Ix.

This same exploit can be done now by just spitting out 5 reverend mothers (not that hard to do) and sending them all out and WHAM!!, bought half an enemy civ (assuming they are all successful). I'd personally never do that because it's boring. I use it very sparingly in situations where it's useful or fun.

If people feel that the "annex city" ability is overpowered, we should increase the cost or reduce the chance of success. It is probably true that returning spies to the nearest city will make this ability stronger. Although some people may have "self control" to avoid using overpowered features, we should improve this for game balance. The cost and chance of success for this mission can easily be adjusted in the xml files.

 

[davidlallen]

Hey all. It's been a while. I had an extended stay in hospital but I'm ok now.

Welcome back. I am pretty sure we have lost Ahriman to Civ 5. He posts there but has not visited here in a few months.

 

[Folket]

The same exploit would not work with five reverend mothers. You probably want to be lvl 4 before you try this so with more travel time getting xp is slower and it is unlikely that you will survive with all of them.

Perhaps make the AI more likely to have spies protecting cities? That could help against annex city. Does the AI use defensive spies?

We should probably end the discussion here as we just have different opinions.

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

Well, the issue of balance is speculative, which means play testing will confirm or deny any suspicions there. I also don't think the right way to balance such things is by hamstringing the player with artificial rules, thus I'd agree with david's suggestion for any rebalancing (if even needed) unless the rule change really threw multiple things out of whack (which again, I have no reason from my play testing to suggest it will).

Another thought I've had follows a separate line of logic. In the real world, given that nation A were to use something like an 'annex city' mission on another country (nation B), Nation B's alert level for attacks from Nation A would go through the roof for a time making further espionage attempts much more difficult. A less severe espionage mission would have a correspondingly lower effect on such alert levels.

In game terms, we could give espionage missions a value representing an average increase in alert level (to Nation A's espionage efforts only) given a successful mission, or to a smaller extent from failed missions as well. This increased alert level would translate into progressively higher rates of spy detection and defense (again, only to Nation A's espionage), which would wear off over time as things remain quiet.

This seems to me at first glance a system that mirrors reality relatively well, is intuitive to the player, translates well to the ai(no recoding needed there), and would curb the ability to repeatedly use 'super' espionage abilities, while having a minor effect on more mundane espionage efforts, particularly if used repeatedly against a target. I think it may be something to consider.

And remember, I'm not considering changing things for the sake of change here, I'm sincerely looking for areas where the game can be improved. This is a process that is rarely accomplished without at least minor rebalancing needed. If you approach change with too much fear of its balance or other implications, before even trying it, you'll never undertake the experimentation that can really lead to an improved game. DuneWars and many other great mods would never even have come into existence if someone wasn't willing to shake up game rules and organization a bit.

I'm not planning on doing anything however that severely throws off the existing balance the mod has worked so hard for, so give me a little trust here . I'm aware of how fine a line it is.

 

[Natasha]

Finally, and linking to the previous point, travel times are only low if you have nearby cities, and if you're attacking the same area repeatedly. Since most factions only have a small handful of missions, and they last a while, after hitting one city, you usually will be wanting to go somewhere else that may or may not be anywhere close to the area you just hit.

Agreeing with the above.

In game terms, we could give espionage missions a value representing an average increase in alert level (to Nation A's espionage efforts only) given a successful mission, or to a smaller extent from failed missions as well. This increased alert level would translate into progressively higher rates of spy detection and defense (again, only to Nation A's espionage), which would wear off over time as things remain quiet.

That sounds like a great way of balancing espionage missions. Although, if you've invested enough in EP to pull of an Annex, chances are that the opponent/ai needs to at least forgo espionage against all other factions to provide defense against you (if they can mange at all).

Also on the subject of spies: The Ordos spy unit currently appears unable to gain any promotions other than Stealth I-III (and Sabotage which they start with).
Checking the 'pedia I noticed that indeed all other spy promotions are linked to different factions.
IMO they should have access to at least the Counterespionage mission (Security promotions iirc). In fact, Counterespionage seems like something all factions should be able to get to.

In addition, to hopefully help with the Inquisitor issue mentioned above, I've attached a save. The Inquisitor is present in my city of Tartrus Chasm which has both SH (my state religion) and CHOAM. Selecting the unit shows a button which presumably is the one we're looking for, but it has no tooltip and clicking it does nothing.


View attachment Fremen-Inquisitor- Tartrus Chasm.CivBeyondSwordSave

 

[davidlallen]

Another thought I've had follows a separate line of logic. In the real world, given that nation A were to use something like an 'annex city' mission on another country (nation B), Nation B's alert level for attacks from Nation A would go through the roof for a time making further espionage attempts much more difficult. A less severe espionage mission would have a correspondingly lower effect on such alert levels.

This effect is already present. I have forgotten some of the details and I don't have the mod source code handy anymore. When an "annex city" mission succeeds against an AI, there is a significant chance that the AI will immediately declare war. The chance increases at each success. Also, I believe that either succeeding or failing at the annex will give a -1 penalty to diplomatic relationship against the attacker.

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

In addition, to hopefully help with the Inquisitor issue mentioned above, I've attached a save. The Inquisitor is present in my city of Tartrus Chasm which has both SH (my state religion) and CHOAM. Selecting the unit shows a button which presumably is the one we're looking for, but it has no tooltip and clicking it does nothing.

Thanks! that'll help a lot

Also on the subject of spies: The Ordos spy unit currently appears unable to gain any promotions other than Stealth I-III (and Sabotage which they start with).
Checking the 'pedia I noticed that indeed all other spy promotions are linked to different factions.

I haven't played Ordos yet, so I don't know how this plays out or if it's intentional or not. I know the guys put a lot of work into making each faction different on the espionage front, so I don't want to jump too quickly to a conclusion there. Perhaps Deliverator can comment more on if it's intended or not.

IMO they should have access to at least the Counterespionage mission (Security promotions iirc). In fact, Counterespionage seems like something all factions should be able to get to.

Anyone else have any opinions on this idea?

This effect is already present. I have forgotten some of the details and I don't have the mod source code handy anymore. When an "annex city" mission succeeds against an AI, there is a significant chance that the AI will immediately declare war. The chance increases at each success. Also, I believe that either succeeding or failing at the annex will give a -1 penalty to diplomatic relationship against the attacker.

I'm glad to hear that this is there, I noticed a similar thing with the 'cause incident' mission as Corinno were after using it, they had a 'you manipulated us!' -1 modifier against me. It's no deterrence if you have no interest in maintaining good relations with a faction though, and could exist side by side with what I proposed. I'll have to actually try an annex heavy strategy (I've got a save game I can try it from already I think) to see if any new systems are even necessary though, right now it's just a proposal for if it's too imbalanced at present.

Chris

p.s. I've got a lot of RL stuff today, but I'm still going to try to have a 1.9.2 beta for this evening or tomorrow.

 

[BvBPL]

Anyone else have any opinions on this idea?

I agree. All factions should probably have access to counterespionage if only as a balance to how powerful espionage can get. That said, it is probably fair for some factions to be better at counterespionage than others.

 

[ChrisAdams3997]

That said, it is probably fair for some factions to be better at counterespionage than others.

An interesting idea to think about.