Topic: Terrain control oddities

11 — 18 of 18 Posts ‹‹ previous 1 2

ixprefect Joined: 2009-02-27, 14:28 Posts: 367 Tribe Member	Posted at: 2010-05-28, 12:49 Astuur wrote: This could probably also help with the problem of flags at the north side of buildings, that sometimes arise. What problem are you talking about here? I agree that the buildcaps rules need to be changed. The reason why it hasn't been changed (at least by me) is that it's a rather subtle task that will cause problems with existing maps; e.g. the Sun Fire map (which is particularly nasty in exhibiting the problem) would most likely have to be redesigned in some parts. So it's not a small fix and has far reaching consequences, unlike the very useful passability of farm fields. Top Quote

kraileth Joined: 2010-03-14, 16:34 Posts: 59 Likes to be here	Posted at: 2010-05-28, 14:08 While I see the point of not allowing buildings too near to each other, I disagree with disallowing it in general. I think, that it's ok, if there are places that could rightly be called industrial areas. And actually I don't think (apart from the fact of it being unfair that it can only be used in north-eastern direction) that "blocking formations" of buildings are a problem - except if they are in narrow places! Now what about generally disallowing all but small buildings directly along coastlines (that is along blocking terrain like lava or water)? Here are two example pics showing the problem: pic1 pic2 Building a small building like a fisher's hut has no blocking effect - reads can be build next to it and even go around it. But the arena is not just blocking, it's more like just too big anyway as it reaches into the water. And while that just looks ugly, think about the same case with lava. Now that would be a hot arena! Perhaps in some places even small buildings would have to be disallowed, but would there be new problems with not allowing large/medium buildings directly at a coastline? Top Quote

ixprefect Joined: 2009-02-27, 14:28 Posts: 367 Tribe Member	Posted at: 2010-05-28, 15:31 The only real problem I can see with disallowing big buildings at coast lines is that, at some point, we want to have harbors at coast lines. It would be rather unfortunate if we couldn't have those. (Would be less of a problem if buildings could be rotated to have flags not necessarily in the south east of the building, but changing that would be a mammoth undertaking.) Top Quote

Astuur Topic Opener Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2010-05-28, 15:37 Sorry should have been clearer. The problem with the north-side flags I was referring to is simply that you don't see them with some buildings in front, and sometimes have trouble connecting other roads to it. I remember that in Settlers harbors were special places that needed to be designed into the maps; only there could harbors be built. That doesn't mean, of course that WL could not do it differently. Edited: 2010-05-28, 15:43 Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

Astuur Topic Opener Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-03-16, 12:30 I am picking up this old thread, because the title is right, but mainly because the rules of land conquering in WL have been so clearly explained here. I think I have stumbled across a situation (in an autogenerated map) where WL behaved differently than expected, and not in accordance with the rules that have been explained here by Timowi. What happened? I am playing the Empire in red and slowly advancing to the east -southeast. The last military site that I can build is a barrack, before I reach the border to my blue opponent (AI, Barbarians). Within the control zone of the barrack I build a scout's hut and lumberjack's hut.The AI finishes and mannes his sentry opposed to my barack.I start building a bakery (to 94%). I then try to upgrade that barrack to an empirial sentry and my scout and lumberjack burn down. The border is moving backward. We have not specifically discussed the upgrading of military buildings before in this thread, but I think this behavior contradicts the geeneral idea of "no defeat - no land loss". Here is the replay. This should IMO also be true when upgrading a building, and the game should not behave as if I had burnt down my barack. Edited: 2011-03-16, 12:34 Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

SirVer Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18 Posts: 1440 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich	Posted at: 2011-03-16, 12:45 it is intended behavior: you no longer have military control over the area where you upgrade your building. It is essentially like removing and replanting a military building. no defeat - no loss is not precise: if you rip your military buildings, you will also loose land. Top Quote

Astuur Topic Opener Joined: 2009-02-28, 10:08 Posts: 733 One Elder of Players Location: Frankfurt / Germany	Posted at: 2011-03-17, 20:10 I have many times burnt down military buildings in order to erect new ones at different coordinates, and never did it change the border.. although there was intermediately virtually no military infrastructure guarding it. But that was well within my own territory and no enemy was near. And I think that is the point. So... correction: __The forces that you concentrate at a border have no immediate influence on the land owenership. (unlike Settlers 2) ___ Instead it is: What you have claimed by building a miltary site, stayes with you until you are defeated in all sites garding the spot in question, or else give up all those sites. You loose land when it is no more under your control, and additionally is under the influence of some other player's military sites. Correct? I hope so. So ... upgrading a military building isn't a no-brainer... Nice feature! Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino). Top Quote

SirVer Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18 Posts: 1440 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich	Posted at: 2011-03-17, 23:26 yes, I think your summary is a correct description of the current implementation. I think of it with the following rules: A manned military building (or HQ) has influence over all fields in his working area. The first player to have influence over a field owns it until he has no more influence and another player has influence on the field. This implies that burning down or upgrading military buildings can indeen loose you land. It might even be that the upgraded building gives you less land than you owned before starting to upgrade it. Cheers, !SirVer Top Quote

‹‹ previous 1 2