Topic: new tribe: amazons
king_of_nowhere Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2019-08-22, 17:24
I think that's everything that's needed as far as numbers and descriptions? if you need more input, let me know. otherwise, i think i'll be needed next at the playtesting level. actually, we forgot the scout hut. easy to fix that one. EDIT: by a quick glance, I'd surmise amazonians in their current shape are somewhat weaker than the other tribes, because they have an expensive basic economy - especially setting up the rare trees, needed for most advanced buildings, and getting enough ropes, as they are made slowly. on the other hand, it's hard to gauge how much of an advantage it is to not have to mine iron, with all the related costs, and how actually expensive or cheap the rare woods used in its place are. so, I'm curious to see how it goes. Edited: 2019-08-22, 17:43
Top Quote |
WorldSavior |
Posted at: 2019-08-22, 21:06
haha, yes
And the treetrop sentry requires a small building space under the mountain? It could be otherwise too overpowered, for example if it makes expanding over mountains possible.
Yes it could, but could be still build at the edge of the mountain where it is useful. Maybe it's too much of an advantage?
Maybe also both trainingssites should cost cold....
Nice pun, kapunttnik
Me too. Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote |
king_of_nowhere Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2019-08-22, 23:46
Yes, of course. there should be a building space under the tree. the idea is that amazonians can expand faster through foorest because they don't need to chop trees, not that they can expand where others cannot at all.
would be strongly map-dependent. most maps don't have forested mountains. the only map that has lots of it that i can think of is fjords, where saving space is a strong advantage. but then, amazonians could only save space to build foresters on the mountains. they'd still need the woodcutters on normal ground. and they need more woodcutters than most, because they work slower. probably it would still be an advantage overall on fjords, because amazonians need lots of trees and the only abundant thing in that map is space for planting trees. but then, that would be true nonetheless, regardless of whether they could make foresters on mountains or not. and having a modest advantage on a very specific map because of a very peculiar characteristic of that map is not, imo, a strong advantage, merely a specific interaction with the map. just like atlanteans are strong on fjords because they need less large buildings. or like empire is strong on archipelago sea because they have unlimited fish and they suffer less for the scarce wood. EDIT: oh, you meant they can make foresters on mountains to save space for trees on the plain? I see that. Again I don't think it's a big deal, it's just a single node taken, but I don't much like the visual look of the forester sitting on the barren mountain and planting trees far away. So, it's one more argument for making it buildable only on forested mountains, or not buildable on mountains at all. If we need to balance it, we can do it with slight changes to the lenght of the sleep time anyway. /EDIT
Agreed, they should need to make a gold mine before they can train a hero soldier, same as with everyone else. I am uncertain if I should edit the list I made a page ago or copy it new Edited: 2019-08-22, 23:49
Top Quote |
hessenfarmer |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 09:47
Best for me in implementation would be a complete Summary of the actual discussion in the first post. Top Quote |
Nordfriese |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 11:06
Coding changes are up for merging. Top Quote |
Tibor |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 12:27
How are buildacps handled? A field can have one of 4 builcaps (small, medium, big, and port). So you say it will be possible to build a building on a filed where nothing can be built - because there is an immovable? Did you consider another buildcaps like "TREETOP"? That way the filed would be 'buildable', AI would include it in its buildable fields.... though It would need to keep track of so many new but basically useless quasi-buildable fields, this is disadvantage of this solution... But would be fully compatible with current AI code, where we have list of buildable fields and set of buildable building, with restriction of what can be build on which type buildable field. Top Quote |
Nordfriese |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 12:39
The normal buildcaps systen isn´t sufficient here. I don´t want to hardcode that only trees can be allowed as base immovables but any attribute. So the field has BUILDCAPS_NONE (because there´s an immovable on it) and any suitability checks work like:
If the AI should be able to build treetop sentries, it´ll have to carry out those checks as well… Top Quote |
Tibor |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 13:04
So there will be some code to "fake" buildap, or we will create "virtual" treetop buildap just to be used for AI. Disadvantages:
Top Quote |
hessenfarmer |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 14:47
Hi Tibor,
Good to see you on board. However we should only begin to make AI compatible with Amazons after they are somewhat stable, as we did with frisians. As Amazons are very different in comparison to other tribes Iwe need to think about proper setting of the Ai hints for the buildings anyway. But this is still very far away. Top Quote |
Tibor |
Posted at: 2019-08-23, 15:30
Thnks. The preparatory branch is just reviewed, so if we want to introduce the new buildcap this is the right time. If not - OK then..
OK, let just be aware that there are some challenges on AI's side with this idea...
OK, this I like. AI would use regular (empty) buildable field and add a tree with building... Top Quote |