New game map options request...

[kaburke61]

Hey Brit,

If possible, two (or 3 ) adds to the new game map options would make the game perfect for me.

1) Land mass percentage, have a "random" selection.

2) "Random" for number of opponents. Like selection of "3" would mean up to 3 AI opponents. You seem to have a "recommended" amount of AIs based on map sizes, so you could still "coach" as to the max you would recommend. This would be great, as you never know what to expect when exploring. AI Skill could be just one level (user picks), or you could even throw in a "no better" than selector (i.e. no AI smarter than "Veteran").

3) Random settings for cities/gold/etc. would be icing on the cake!

Thanks for listening,

Kevin

[Brit]

Hey Brit,

If possible, two (or 3 ) adds to the new game map options would make the game perfect for me.

1) Land mass percentage, have a "random" selection.

2) "Random" for number of opponents. Like selection of "3" would mean up to 3 AI opponents. You seem to have a "recommended" amount of AIs based on map sizes, so you could still "coach" as to the max you would recommend. This would be great, as you never know what to expect when exploring. AI Skill could be just one level (user picks), or you could even throw in a "no better" than selector (i.e. no AI smarter than "Veteran").

3) Random settings for cities/gold/etc. would be icing on the cake!

Thanks for listening,

Kevin

I went ahead and added "1) Land mass percentage, have a "random" selection." to the game. That will be in the next update. Don't know when I'll add the other two.

[kaburke61]

Hi Again,

Thanks for the quick add..every little bit of randomess just adds to the long term replayability for me!

I understand the random opponents mod is probably not a quickie add. If you get a chance later that would be fantastic. It is always better to not know who/where they are probably starting, as it influences your exploration patterns.

As an aside from that. Do all the combatants basically start in similar quadrants each new map? A more quickie fix would be to randomly sprinkle the combatants at the start to really shake the start (nothing like having all 3possibly start in the same quartile, and have to fight it out for survival). That could be a starting option possibly.

Thanks again for listening!

KevinB

[Brit]

As an aside from that. Do all the combatants basically start in similar quadrants each new map? A more quickie fix would be to randomly sprinkle the combatants at the start to really shake the start (nothing like having all 3possibly start in the same quartile, and have to fight it out for survival). That could be a starting option possibly.

The way the random-map generator currently works is that the game will check a couple locations for each player and use the location that is farthest from the other players. This is to prevent bunching-up players. I wanted to avoid a few situations:

- Having two players start right next to each other, start a war, and have the third person expand without resistance while the first two players fight it out.

- Have a player stuck between two other players, which would put him at a disadvantage because there's not much territory to expand into.

That was my thinking anyway. I suppose bunching could be used to make the game more varied and difficult. Example: if the human player started near an AI player, then he'd be put at a disadvantage because other AI's in the game could expand more freely.

[rich12545]

The first game I played on the demo last week I played against two ai veteran players. When I got down to the end it looked like those two were fairly close to each other. This may or may not be the reason for the lack of early expansion. Your plan for no bunching is an excellent idea. Maybe it doesn't work in the demo. Btw, still so far so good.

Might not be a bad idea, though, to run some tests to see how the veteran ai players expand. What I'm doing is strictly ad hoc. I think iirc elite has some cheats and would rather play against ai players that don't.

[Brit]

The first game I played on the demo last week I played against two ai veteran players. When I got down to the end it looked like those two were fairly close to each other. This may or may not be the reason for the lack of early expansion. Your plan for no bunching is an excellent idea. Maybe it doesn't work in the demo. Btw, still so far so good.

Come to think of it - the demo map is using a custom-map. It has 8 predefined locations, and the system that distributes players among those eight locations isn't doing the same thing to avoid bunching. So, yeah, I guess you're right. The custom-maps with predefined start locations can tend to bunch players together more than the random-map generator.

[kaburke61]

The way the random-map generator currently works is that the game will check a couple locations for each player and use the location that is farthest from the other players. This is to prevent bunching-up players. I wanted to avoid a few situations:

- Having two players start right next to each other, start a war, and have the third person expand without resistance while the first two players fight it out.

- Have a player stuck between two other players, which would put him at a disadvantage because there's not much territory to expand into.

That was my thinking anyway. I suppose bunching could be used to make the game more varied and difficult. Example: if the human player started near an AI player, then he'd be put at a disadvantage because other AI's in the game could expand more freely.

Yes, making a switch to turn on/off random placement, vs. the more "spaced" placement could be another alternative to unknown number of opponents. If you know basically where they are starting (like somewhat evenly spaced apart from each other), it makes exploring easier, as you probably know where the are or are not currently in relation to the map and your starting positions. That's why I love the "unknown" number of opponents, as you have no idea what you may be up against, and where they are basically starting.

[Brit]

3) Random settings for cities/gold/etc. would be icing on the cake!

I went ahead and added random setting for cities and resources yesterday. It was easy to do, and too early in the morning for doing AI work (AI takes more brain-power than I can muster in the morning).

[kaburke61]

I went ahead and added random setting for cities and resources yesterday. It was easy to do, and too early in the morning for doing AI work (AI takes more brain-power than I can muster in the morning).

Cool! Thanks for the changes. In a "DUH" moment just now as I was starting a new game, I forgot about the "land density" setting. That would be a great one to have a "random" setting.

I agree about the morning feeling. I'm a retired Intel software engineer. I couldn't even begin to think about meaningful coding until at least 10:00

[kaburke61]

Hey Brit,

Just a little "nudge" to see if you are still thinking about adding the random number of AI opponents mod in at some time.

That would just be the icing on the cake of a great game.

Thanks for listening,

KevinB

[Brit]

Hey Brit,

Just a little "nudge" to see if you are still thinking about adding the random number of AI opponents mod in at some time.

That would just be the icing on the cake of a great game.

Thanks for listening,

KevinB

I was thinking about that the other day. I was thinking of adding a 'random number of players' option to the bottom of the players-list. Something with options like "0-2 Additional players". One of the issues is making sure that those players don't end up with a flag that's very similar to other players. For example, some of the flags that are very similar are Croatia (Axis)/Netherlands, "Team Red"/China, Vichy France/France, Italy/Italy(Axis)/Mexico, Poland/Indonesia.

Edit: Come to think of it, I suppose I could just restrict the random players to flags that aren't similar to any other flags.

[kaburke61]

I was thinking about that the other day. I was thinking of adding a 'random number of players' option to the bottom of the players-list. Something with options like "0-2 Additional players". One of the issues is making sure that those players don't end up with a flag that's very similar to other players. For example, some of the flags that are very similar are Croatia (Axis)/Netherlands, "Team Red"/China, Vichy France/France, Italy/Italy(Axis)/Mexico, Poland/Indonesia.

Edit: Come to think of it, I suppose I could just restrict the random players to flags that aren't similar to any other flags.

It sounds perfect if the lower and upper numbers (in your 0-2 example) are user selectable. As far as the flags, whatever is easier to code is fine. I really haven't even worried about the flags (leave defaults that come up when selecting opponents). If by small chance two came up similar, You could just regenerate, or use them at your own risk! The solution you mentioned in the edit seems like a great idea. If it requires too much though, no sanity checking of the flags is fine by me...

On a side note. I saw along time ago, a request to save the options used to create your last game. Is that easy to implement? I tend to play the same/similar type games, and it would be great not having to re-enter all the options each time I generate a new game.

Thanks for the help,

KevinB