[WTP] Quick questions
- Thread starter MujoHrnjica
- Start date
GS_Guderian
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 20
Regarding my most recent R&R 2.7.1 game I had a brilliant start which soon led to total surpremacy on the high seas.
I wonder if it might be possible to include some things like this:
1. pirates (like wild animals)
belonging to noone but other than animals being a real threat. Maybe stronger ships in mid game.
2. better coordination of AI ships.
Enemy pirates often sail alone and sometimes even ignore my capital ships just to attack a fishing boat.
Unless I run out of luck they rarely ever sink a ship before I catch them.
3. AI rarely defends it‘s ports/trade hubs.
Encounters with enemy pirate hunters or even the Royal Navy seem to happen by pure chance or bad luck from my point of view. Most common are attacks of single sloops failing most times.
Maybe ships lost to pirates could trigger an event like the one with your first frigate, only now such a frigate or maybe more ships belonging to the king of the attacked nation could temporarely appear to roam the coast?
4. Pirate ships stacked with regular ships or within ports should show their nationality to AI while spotted and could trigger diplomatic events.
I wonder if it might be possible to include some things like this:
1. pirates (like wild animals)
belonging to noone but other than animals being a real threat. Maybe stronger ships in mid game.
2. better coordination of AI ships.
Enemy pirates often sail alone and sometimes even ignore my capital ships just to attack a fishing boat.
Unless I run out of luck they rarely ever sink a ship before I catch them.
3. AI rarely defends it‘s ports/trade hubs.
Encounters with enemy pirate hunters or even the Royal Navy seem to happen by pure chance or bad luck from my point of view. Most common are attacks of single sloops failing most times.
Maybe ships lost to pirates could trigger an event like the one with your first frigate, only now such a frigate or maybe more ships belonging to the king of the attacked nation could temporarely appear to roam the coast?
4. Pirate ships stacked with regular ships or within ports should show their nationality to AI while spotted and could trigger diplomatic events.
Nightinggale
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,378
When I saw the title, I was like "somebody ran into a new serious problem". It turns out to be a different kind of arrr 
1. The wild animals player will start to spawn pirate ships instead of animals at some point, meaning there are already pirates not belonging to any player.
2. The AI is in need to tactical improvements. Also I suspect the issue is partly the pirates without any player, meaning they don't have other ships to rely on.
3. Again AI tactical improvements needed.
4. Interesting idea, though I'm not certain I like it for gameplay/balance reasons.
It's a bunch of nice inputs and we are open to proposals. There is one thing, which worries me here and that is how will this affect game balance? If barbarian pirates become more powerful, it wouldn't matter to the strong player, but the not so strong player will start to lose a lot of ships, meaning the strong player becomes stronger relative to the other players without doing anything, making it even harder to catch up if you aren't the strongest player. It also makes the game less interesting if you are the strongest because your enemies will not put up a fight.
If/once the AI protect the cargo ships with proper warships, pirates becomes useless.
Maybe we can let users control pirates frequency/tactics with game or map options and we may consider using difficulty level as well.
Game design can be tricky when the goal is good gameplay, which surprisingly is not always the same as realism. Think of it this way: the game would be ruined by a random event, which gives the player a heart attack, meaning it's just some game over random event. Sure it would be realistic, but it's horrible for gameplay and it would be really annoying to be hit by something like that. Likewise it might be realistic if pirates gang together to attack somewhere with the power of numbers, but it's no fun for the player attacked that way where they just lose access to Europe for 50 turns or something.Porto Bello was raided by more than 200 ships at some point, but no royal navy was behind it. It was just buccaneers working for personal wealth. Blackbeard made a blockade of Charles Towne (present day Charleston, South Carolina) and demanded tribune. There are plenty of examples of "game over random events" from real life history and while they are realistic, they aren't fun for gameplay. This is why I'm personally not quick to praise the idea of stronger pirates and AI. We have to be sure it's not making the game too difficult for inexperienced players.
We want the game design to be a community task, meaning we are open to input and public debate on how the game should work. Just keep the ideas coming.
1. The wild animals player will start to spawn pirate ships instead of animals at some point, meaning there are already pirates not belonging to any player.
2. The AI is in need to tactical improvements. Also I suspect the issue is partly the pirates without any player, meaning they don't have other ships to rely on.
3. Again AI tactical improvements needed.
4. Interesting idea, though I'm not certain I like it for gameplay/balance reasons.
It's a bunch of nice inputs and we are open to proposals. There is one thing, which worries me here and that is how will this affect game balance? If barbarian pirates become more powerful, it wouldn't matter to the strong player, but the not so strong player will start to lose a lot of ships, meaning the strong player becomes stronger relative to the other players without doing anything, making it even harder to catch up if you aren't the strongest player. It also makes the game less interesting if you are the strongest because your enemies will not put up a fight.
If/once the AI protect the cargo ships with proper warships, pirates becomes useless.
Maybe we can let users control pirates frequency/tactics with game or map options and we may consider using difficulty level as well.
Game design can be tricky when the goal is good gameplay, which surprisingly is not always the same as realism. Think of it this way: the game would be ruined by a random event, which gives the player a heart attack, meaning it's just some game over random event. Sure it would be realistic, but it's horrible for gameplay and it would be really annoying to be hit by something like that. Likewise it might be realistic if pirates gang together to attack somewhere with the power of numbers, but it's no fun for the player attacked that way where they just lose access to Europe for 50 turns or something.Porto Bello was raided by more than 200 ships at some point, but no royal navy was behind it. It was just buccaneers working for personal wealth. Blackbeard made a blockade of Charles Towne (present day Charleston, South Carolina) and demanded tribune. There are plenty of examples of "game over random events" from real life history and while they are realistic, they aren't fun for gameplay. This is why I'm personally not quick to praise the idea of stronger pirates and AI. We have to be sure it's not making the game too difficult for inexperienced players.
We want the game design to be a community task, meaning we are open to input and public debate on how the game should work. Just keep the ideas coming.
CptBadger
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Messages
- 113
Personally I see the pirates get out of hand on a huge or gigantic map often, so I don't think I agree with stronger pirate ships. Better AI, yes.
I do like the diplomatic repercussions idea, even original Col had that. But it'd have to actually see stacking as opposed to just knowing. May be more AI work than worth.
I also think the Corvette should benefit from a larger anticorsairs bonus. They were specialized to hunt and kill exactly that sort of vessel and tactics. Overall strength seems right, just a bigger bonus against pirates, maybe 25 percent instead of 10?
I do like the diplomatic repercussions idea, even original Col had that. But it'd have to actually see stacking as opposed to just knowing. May be more AI work than worth.
I also think the Corvette should benefit from a larger anticorsairs bonus. They were specialized to hunt and kill exactly that sort of vessel and tactics. Overall strength seems right, just a bigger bonus against pirates, maybe 25 percent instead of 10?
GS_Guderian
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 20
Trying a perfect start for a never save / reload game (kind of „ironman modus“),
I propably started r&r hundreds of times before really playing more than 1-2 turns.
Now regularly on a gigantic „new worlds) map it‘s easy to find a decent settlling spot for 1-3 towns without angering natives to much.
The only thing constantly hard to find for vast areas of the continents are mountains.
I have hills and plains, sometimes even larger than 2-tile cities, making them pure flat or rough terrain settlements, but I rarely have mountains in between.
Mountains appear as vast „only mountain“
areas, no valleys in between, often to far away to be reached from starting colonies.
Now in order to upgrade my realm I need stones. Tons of them...
Is it possible to let the map maker generate some sprinkled mountains over hilly areas?
Or could we get some stone bonus resources on other terrain, too?
Or could stone be generated as in bricks?
The Hanse in northern Germany is known for brick buildings as a workaround for missing stones.
I propably started r&r hundreds of times before really playing more than 1-2 turns.
Now regularly on a gigantic „new worlds) map it‘s easy to find a decent settlling spot for 1-3 towns without angering natives to much.
The only thing constantly hard to find for vast areas of the continents are mountains.
I have hills and plains, sometimes even larger than 2-tile cities, making them pure flat or rough terrain settlements, but I rarely have mountains in between.
Mountains appear as vast „only mountain“
areas, no valleys in between, often to far away to be reached from starting colonies.
Now in order to upgrade my realm I need stones. Tons of them...
Is it possible to let the map maker generate some sprinkled mountains over hilly areas?
Or could we get some stone bonus resources on other terrain, too?
Or could stone be generated as in bricks?
The Hanse in northern Germany is known for brick buildings as a workaround for missing stones.
Nightinggale
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,378
Nightinggale
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,378
GS_Guderian
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 20
Hello again,
I promise to stop spamming topics soon
For now I have one more question in mind:
Whenever I attack settlements/cities it seems that my cavalry is the best choice to lead the attack from my stack.
Of course in midgame my mobile forces often had much more chances to gain XP, thus being the most veteran units. But I feel that attacking well defended places workes like this:
Bombard, send cavalry which in most times retreats before being lost, round up dmg units with infantry.
I feel that the heavy duty in close combat fighting should lay on infantry. Making easy wins (without losing any units) harder and steamrolling city after city with the same stack close to impossible.
Summa summarum:
Cavalry seems to be to strong in city fighting, maybe even in woods/jungles.
Maybe make heavy cavalry best choice in open plains but worst in close combat.
Infantry best choice for close combat and light cavalry somewhere in between.
I promise to stop spamming topics soon
For now I have one more question in mind:
Whenever I attack settlements/cities it seems that my cavalry is the best choice to lead the attack from my stack.
Of course in midgame my mobile forces often had much more chances to gain XP, thus being the most veteran units. But I feel that attacking well defended places workes like this:
Bombard, send cavalry which in most times retreats before being lost, round up dmg units with infantry.
I feel that the heavy duty in close combat fighting should lay on infantry. Making easy wins (without losing any units) harder and steamrolling city after city with the same stack close to impossible.
Summa summarum:
Cavalry seems to be to strong in city fighting, maybe even in woods/jungles.
Maybe make heavy cavalry best choice in open plains but worst in close combat.
Infantry best choice for close combat and light cavalry somewhere in between.
GS_Guderian
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 20
Another issue I like to mention:
Right now every unit can heal itself everywhere, simply by standing still.
This leads to endless scouting missions or exploring ships never seeing a friendly settlement from basically round 1 to the last black hole being explored.
Even after receiving damage from wild animals, angry natives or wheather conditions no unit has to return to be overhauled.
Could it be possible that ships can only be repaired to e.g. 2/3 of their HP in high seas and maybe to ~ 80% in coastal provinces (maybe only close to wood tiles) to represent the limitations of improvised repairs. Only appropriate docks where the individual ships are build can repair to 100%.
For units I feel it should not be possible to gain fresh recruits hundreds and hundreds of miles away from own cities. Maybe refilling to more than 50% could only work within a minimum range to own cultural borders depending on map size.
(Of course people could simply found towns with their dmg scouts. This could be adressed by denying them founding cities while beging assigned as scout?)
Right now every unit can heal itself everywhere, simply by standing still.
This leads to endless scouting missions or exploring ships never seeing a friendly settlement from basically round 1 to the last black hole being explored.
Even after receiving damage from wild animals, angry natives or wheather conditions no unit has to return to be overhauled.
Could it be possible that ships can only be repaired to e.g. 2/3 of their HP in high seas and maybe to ~ 80% in coastal provinces (maybe only close to wood tiles) to represent the limitations of improvised repairs. Only appropriate docks where the individual ships are build can repair to 100%.
For units I feel it should not be possible to gain fresh recruits hundreds and hundreds of miles away from own cities. Maybe refilling to more than 50% could only work within a minimum range to own cultural borders depending on map size.
(Of course people could simply found towns with their dmg scouts. This could be adressed by denying them founding cities while beging assigned as scout?)
CptBadger
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Messages
- 113
My experience is bombardment followed by line infantry for cities. Militia for woods and hills, cavalry chases down units in open field. I have little use for dragoons except for armed scouts and stragglersHello again,
I promise to stop spamming topics soon
For now I have one more question in mind:
Whenever I attack settlements/cities it seems that my cavalry is the best choice to lead the attack from my stack.
Of course in midgame my mobile forces often had much more chances to gain XP, thus being the most veteran units. But I feel that attacking well defended places workes like this:
Bombard, send cavalry which in most times retreats before being lost, round up dmg units with infantry.
I feel that the heavy duty in close combat fighting should lay on infantry. Making easy wins (without losing any units) harder and steamrolling city after city with the same stack close to impossible.
Summa summarum:
Cavalry seems to be to strong in city fighting, maybe even in woods/jungles.
Maybe make heavy cavalry best choice in open plains but worst in close combat.
Infantry best choice for close combat and light cavalry somewhere in between.
CptBadger
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Messages
- 113
I agree with the healing range idea if it's feasible. I disagree with blocking scouts from making towns. I've used scouts to quickly locate and build a town at specific resources. Even a damaged scout unit could start a town, how many settlements were started by groups that took losses and could go no further? Unnecessarily restrictive.
GS_Guderian
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 20
I just see the problem of „cheating“ your way out of a potential healing restriction.
Maybe a „only 100% units can found cities“, is a better solution.
Aside:
Conquistadors could get freed from this restriction to make them more worthwhile in early game and to resemble the merging with native allies in conquests of Middle and South America.
Maybe a „only 100% units can found cities“, is a better solution.
Aside:
Conquistadors could get freed from this restriction to make them more worthwhile in early game and to resemble the merging with native allies in conquests of Middle and South America.
Nightinggale
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,378
It "will be" released a few minutes ago
CptBadger
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Messages
- 113
I see it as not really cheating. And if conquistadors can meld with native allies, why the heck can't scouts (who didn't conquer natives as a primary function)?
Scouts, wounded or damaged units, often set up settlements, even for just months or years, till they recovered/rebuipt
GS_Guderian
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
- Messages
- 20
I meant the healing possibility for Conquistadors,
not the founding of cities.
not the founding of cities.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I've been thinking about this as well. There are really 2 schools here between those who like it this way and those who don't feel it atmospheric. What should matter the most is how changing this would be handled in terms of gameplay, both from a Human and an AI point of view.
Personally, I've always found unrealistic the fact a unit can go through huge areas of jungle, desert or snow without any problem. It would make sense, for a more realistic feel, to make it harder to explore those areas. The Amazon forest has long been accessible only from rivers and it was just impossible to walk through deeper into it because of the thickness of bushes.
An idea for this could be to inflict damages to units getting into jungle, desert and snow tiles, but that would make sense only if there wouldn't be such damage on river or road tiles. Pioneers should be immune from damage though otherwise it would be impossible to build roads making those tiles accessible to other units. Furthermore, it would require adapting pathfinding so that the games would know it's supposed to avoid harmful tiles. There are probably many other side effects that would need to be thought about to make such a change really playable. It could be an interesting approach for more realism, but I don't know if that would make the game funnier.
I'd be curious to hear about the opinions of others on this.
Nightinggale
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,378
I'm leaning toward keeping the current system because teaching the AI to handle anything mentioned in this thread could quickly become time consuming, not to mention tricky to get bug free. We do not have unlimited man hours and have to make a priority instead of jumping on anything, which sounds like a nice addition.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Yes, that's what I've been thinking as well in digging up the implications of the idea. Without denying the unrealistic nature of endless scouting missions, I'm not even convinced trying to restrict this would really serve the gameplay.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Just a thought, ROM AND2 uses terrain damage for units unless the appropriate promo for is had for the unit. As for scouts being able to set up a town, maybe at a future date, scouts could be used to set up a trading post. Scouts/Mountain Men did this frequently during the seasons in order to trade surplus goods with natives and other Colonial powers.
Similar threads
