Hubert Cater
-
Posts
6,372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hubert Cater
-
-
Not really sure what you mean by this.A3R changed Leningrad from a fortification hex to swamp, which could be considered in SC.
Entrenchment values are terrain specific. Each type of terrain will allow for a maximum entrenchment value, which increases +1 point per turn every time you do not move the unit or engage in combat with that unit. Leave that hex and it drops to 0 as you've guessed.I assume fortifications are fixed and cannot be constructed during play, and that only entrenchments account for units improving their position. Are entrenchments unit specific or for the occupied hex? This is usually a unit specific attribute which increases over time if the unit doesn't move, but it may be useful to consider rear units being able to improve a hex attribute for other units to use when they withdraw - like the defensive rings around Moscow. Hex entrenchment values should be lost when vacated, so would have to be continuously occupied.
Max entrenchment values are as follows:
City = 4
Capital = 6
Fortification = 8
Mountain = 4
Open areas, Mines, Forests = 2
[ May 17, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]
-
Correct except Leningrad is excluded as you've guessed.
-
Thanks Otto-Keep up the good work Hubert
-
Each research level can also increase the overall strength of a unit that it applies to, i.e. each new level of 'Heavy Tanks' will increase the overall potential strength of a tank unit by +1 point. So if you have 'Heavy Tanks' Level-3 then the potential strength of a tank unit will now be 10 + 3.
So while research does automatically upgrade all units in the field you will still have to reinforce a unit to it's maximum value in order to take full advantage of the newly developed research. So in effect this is part of balancing ease of play with some unit management.
Hope that helps,
Hubert
-
That is a really good idea, i'll definitly think about this one.
-
Keep in mind that it's still Beta and that there are a few items outstanding on the full 'AI' as my recent focus has been on putting together everything needed for the demo. That being said, by and large the AI is mostly done and you will get a very entertaining game, but of course there are still a few tweaks here and there that have only been worked out on paper as I unfortunatly have to get a few other things done first.I have the following suggestions for making life harder for the human Allies vs. AI Axis
Happy to say that the AI does not tamper with success probabilities at any point during the game or at any of the difficulty settings. As I've said before the game was balanced for Pbem and Hotseat FIRST, making AI implementation very difficult in the traditional sense without typical AI cheating. So as Ted described, you will get an entertaining game at even the default settings, but adjusting these will definitly make things a little more interesting.I don´t like "cheating" on the MPPs that much, but it is still much much better than tampering with the success probabilities of battles. I downright hate *this* kind of AI boasting, and never use such settings in any games (I rather stop playing).Clarifying the additional MPP's that Ted described, it's nothing like extra MPP's per every turn or something like that, how it works is that every time anyone defeats a country you will get a victory/plundering bonus, so at the higher difficulty settings you the (human player) will get a little less for conquering a country, and the AI player will get a little more when it conquers a country.
In general victory/plundering bonuses are as follows:
- Conquering a minor: random value [250, 350]
- Conquering a major: random value [750, 1000]
So for each increasing difficulty level selected, you will collect -50 for each minor conquered and -100 for each major, while the AI would collect +50 and +100 respectively. It works the other way around if you select a decreased difficulty setting.
There are a few other adjustments on difficulty levels wrt % of naval units that become 'Free French', number of units that are transfered when 'War in Siberia' is not selected etc., but for the most part it seemed like this minor adjustment in victory/plundering MPP's helps to make the game a little more challenging for the human player while giving the AI (mostly Axis in this case since it is usually the one conquering countries) a little bit extra here and there to give it a fighting chance, but it still has to do it's job in taking out countries of course
In general the AI will play mostly the same for all difficulty setting since there are no adjustments for combat formulas or MPP cheating in the traditional sense, but it will undertake additional planning if things go well, (like the AI may invade Vichy France or Spain etc) and this usually happens when the AI is set with more experienced units or other adjustments have been made to either the difficulty settings or things like no 'Partisans' etc.
The goal was to make a challenging AI that really does not cheat, but allow the human player to adjust their setting where they are under full control and know exactly what to expect, so in this case primarily through increased/decreased difficulty settings or improved enemy units through experience bonuses as well as controlling some of the other game options.
Hubert
[ May 15, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]
-
I'm still here
-
- The only compelling reason is that the Baltic states were not annexed until July 23, 1940.
Edit: Baltic States are considered as part of the Soviet sphere of influence (politically) in this game and if the Germans decide to declare war then it may automatically draw the USSR in prior to the official annexation in 1940
- As a game design decision there are no border changes involving Finland during the "Winter War", but Finland may declare war automatically on the USSR under the right conditions after the Axis and the USSR decide to tangle with each other
[ May 13, 2002, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]
-
Just to clarify the difficulty settings chosen by SuperTed in this game and perhaps some of the concerns. He stated that he was playing the third of five settings, which means he was actually playing the default setting. The two new settings that were added were two sub settings, i.e.
Green - 100%
Novice - 50%
Beginner - 0% (default)
Intermediate +50%
Expert + 100%
Edit: Adding a computer experience bonus to AI units will also make a big difference, and would be the equivalent somewhat for the COS 'Improve Allied Units', but in this case can be done to increase the experience bonus for either the Axis or the Allied controlled AI side, depending upon which side you choose to play of course. Other options that can be used to affect game play and balancing are the 'Partisan' options for Yugoslavia and the USSR, 'Free French Forces', 'Scorched Earth', and the 'War in Siberia' option.
Hope that helps,
Hubert
[ May 12, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]
-
Yeah don't mind me, I get a little over the top on details sometimesThanks. I assumed there was a formula in there somewhere, but I had some rough figures in my head.
-
Not right now unfortunatly
-
I took Eiffel in university, dabbled in C++ and Java there as well, but for my money Eiffel was the most elegantly designed OOP language at the time.
Feel free to contact my hotmail account and when I get a chance I can answer some of your more specific questions, but it'll probably be a while before I can
Hubert
-
The campaign editor will only allow you to generate campaigns, i.e. set up countries at war, place units, define start incomes, initial research settings etc. As a matter of fact it is actually the same one that I am using for generating campaigns except that yours will flag campaigns as 'custom' campaigns
You won't be able to modify things like AP, MPP costs and map features unfortunately
Hubert
-
Guys, I think all the feedback has been great! So no worries on any offences given, in fact none taken
Hubert
-
I'd be very curious to know what the success will be of using the Windows emulator for Mac's with Strategic Command once the demo is released. I am very hopefull as I've only used generic windows libraries to develop the game and avoided any specialty code. There are obvious benefits to doing this within the Windows environment so I don't have to worry about what video card you are using etc., and I am also hoping that this will be a translatable advantage to the Mac Windows emulator world as well.
If and when anyone has any luck please feel free to post that info here.
Thanks,
Hubert
-
Not a big deal here but a minor correction, each reinforcement point will cost 5% of the total current production cost of a unit. So yes there is definitly an advantage for trying to hold on to your units and this formula also takes into account any changes to the price of units due to research. So there will be some variety and an advantage to develop 'Industrial Production' technology.
-
Design by contract, multiple inheritance, garbage collection, very fast, and take a look at "Object-Oriented Software Construction Second Edition" by Bertrand Meyer, it's a very convincing bookP.S. Hubert, why Eiffel, as opposed to Java or C++? I am a developer, and I was just wondering.
If any of that peaks your interest take a look at the latest IDE available at www.eiffel.com, it's a really nice design.Hubert
-
Don't forget that the HQ also acts as a supply/repair base as well.
Let me think about the AP concerns a bit, most likely no change for the demo, but I'll see if I can come up with something for after that.
I agree that the mechanized capability is already implied with the existing units, but things like decreasing mobility to Minor Corps or increasing German tank range just might work.
I'll let you guys know
Hubert
-
As runyan99 said, these files will all be in the demo as soon as its released
-
Correct on the city graphics, but I would be interested as well to see what someone else will come up with in terms of MOD's
-
Short answer is no... one of the problems is the scale and supply rules that limit action points. Changing AP by even 1 point is a huge difference at this scale considering the current general setup:
If units are in full supply:
HQ AP = 2
Corps AP = 4
Army AP = 3
Tank Group AP = 5
Although this response is surely to open me up to a flurry of debatable responses
this might also answer the question of why there are no mechanized infantry etc. It was something that I considered early on, but again just didn't seem to fit the scale very well once I started thinking about the implementation.Hope that helps,
Hubert
-
OK on that note I think I will lock this thread up as many similar points have been made for both positions
-
Okay guys, I think everyone has had their fun with this topic, maybe we can agree to disagree before it really does get out of hand
-
It does flip over
Guess what I get up to at nights...
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Hubert