Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fred1248]

or you could mount the catapult on elven parents and fire elven children at carps 

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

Cool. In that case, I'll try putting it in. At least, I'll try figuring it out, since I have to confess I can't make *any* sense of it right now. A few questions, then, if you've got it working - how significant is the issue in the red box at the top of that page?

From a brief check of the linked issue page, it appears to affect OpenBSD/FreeBSD/related platforms. I guess the seriousness depends on how multi-platform-friendly you are determined to make your game.

And it says it only works for windows/unix; for a mac release, would I have to remove it all? And, lastly, how hard was it to implement the old version (and what stage did you start putting it in at)?

That I can't tell you, unfortunately. As for the difficulty of implementation, it can be a bit tricky to learn how to have two processes running in parallel that don't interfere with each other or do weird things to your output, but it's not too crazy to figure out. The actual code structure itself is relatively simple; you create a class that inherits from the multiprocessing class provided in the module, then set it up as instructed, and run it by creating an instance of the class and using, say, MyThreadingInstance.start().

I think I started using it... geez, I can't recall exactly, but originally it was just for some lightweight trickery with a couple of display classes that did fancy things like fading text and variable lighting and whatnot, so pretty early on. But you could always switch over something like your pathfinding algorithm just by restructuring the way it works. Even if you only switch pathing to multiprocessing, you'll likely still see a big boost in game speed.

Thanks a ton for the info . Probably going to give it a first shot this weekend.

Awesome!

Now that you mention it, I'm very curious about the skill table. I think skills and attributes are essential in RPGs and the power of the character you are role-playing is much more important than the skill of the player.

The skill table is... big. Very big. I think there's 90 skills at the moment, unless I'm greatly mistaken, each of which gives out something special (for you, and for creatures) at 30, 50

-snip-

so a copper war hammer would do more damage than an iron one, opposite for swords?
yay!

Hmm.. why that way around? There is a clear hierarchy of materials, but I've put iron above copper. I'm interested to know why you'd put damages that way around for different weapons, though.

Lastly, in reply to everyone on catapults:

There will be siege weapons (one is in the very early stages of testing, but it won't see the first alpha by any means), you will be able to hurl rocks, fireballs, corpses, etc. Also live captured enemies, if you're feeling particularly evil. But not carps, dwarves, people, dwarf-carps, carp-people, or anything else. Sorry guys

[Draxis]

This; even without implementing the physics models of DF, there should be different hierarchies for different roles.   Also, warhammers are generally piercing weapons.

[Mephansteras]

One thing to keep in mind is that weapons also deform if they're softer metals. Silver might be awesome density-wise, but a Steel War hammer is going to hold up much better over time. There is a reason it was used primarily once people got the technology down. Maces are a little different, depending on the type, but even some of those would need to be a decently strong metal to hold up well enough to be useful. Especially hollow or flanged maces.

If you have equipment wear/damage in place you could model things like that. A copper mace might be nice and powerful, but it'll hold up worse than a steel one.

Economic forces also come into play. Bronze is a better metal in many ways than a really mild steel (what most 'Iron' weapons and armor were). However, it requires both copper and tin, which are rarer than Iron. Especially tin. So once people got Ironworking to the point where it was basically as good as Bronze you stopped seeing bronze for anything other than expensive/ceremonial stuff. Once better steel was available, the only reason to make anything out of bronze was for show. Well...excluding cannons and the like, where bronze has less friction so it's actually better than steel. But I don't know if you're going to use those or not.

[Mephansteras]

Another thing to keep in mind with bashing weapons is that heavier isn't always better. A really heavy maul will hit hard, but you might have a hard time hitting at all with how slow it is. Also, you're going to tire out a lot faster using that heavy of a weapon.

That's why most period weapons only weighed a few pounds at most. If you're going to have to fight for an extended amount of time, like all afternoon, you need to be able to do so without exhausting yourself. It doesn't really matter if you incapacitate the first 10 guys you come across if you're so tired that the 11th cuts you down easily. Your side might win battles that way, but it's a bad way to stay alive as a soldier.

[varsovie]

The skill table is... big. Very big. I think there's 90 skills at the moment, unless I'm greatly mistaken, each of which gives out something special (for you, and for creatures) at 30, 50

Will it be possible to randomize a bit these bonus? Instead on fixed level 20, make it happen at level 18 + 1D4. So this way something with level 20 won't necessarily have the cutting edge on a level 19 one. And maybe shift the level up or down depending of the species. Like elven  recieve the bonus for the bow skill at 28 + 1D4 - 2 and Dwarfs get it at 28 + 1D4 + 4. This way it might be a little incentive to specialize accordingly to the species strengths.

And for the piercing hammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer.

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

Firstly, weapon discussion.

Thanks all for your thoughts/contributions. There are currently twenty classes of weapons (and this will almost certainly not be added to), which fall into categories of short weapons, slashing weapons, long weapons, & heavy weapons:

In order of approximate best-to-worst:

Short weapons are kunais, daggers, stilettos, knives, and sais.
Slashing weapons are scimitars, shortswords, sabres, katanas and longswords.
Long weapons are pikes, spears, halberds, ranseurs and naginata.
Heavy weapons are clubs, warhammers, flails, maces and axes.

HOWEVER, some have particular specialties - warhammers will be best at pulling foes off horses, etc.

increased mass with identical acceleration would result more force, so a hammer made out of copper (fairly dense) would be better than a hammer made out of iron (less dense) because a hammer would be attempting to put as much force into the other person's body.

a sword, on the other hand, would be better is made out of iron than copper because iron is harder and can hold an edge (and get a sharper one) than copper, so it's be better for slicing through someone.

This; even without implementing the physics models of DF, there should be different hierarchies for different roles.   Also, warhammers are generally piercing weapons.

That... is an interesting point. Currently materials make all weapons deadlier the better the material they are made out of. Different weapons and different classes are better at doing internal damage, external damage and various other factors, but the materials are a linear progression. On the one hand, changing the hierarchy for each weapon seems like the kind of detail I want, but on the flip side I don't want to make the process by which weapons are assessed too bizarre for the player to easily understand. Additionally it would make it far tougher for the AI to assess the quality of weaponry. However, I do see what you're saying; I'll have to think about it .

-snip-
If you have equipment wear/damage in place you could model things like that. A copper mace might be nice and powerful, but it'll hold up worse than a steel one.
-snip-

Both weapons and armor can be damaged, deform, etc, though it's in a fairly basic form at the moment. I actually intend to keep this aspect quite simple since I don't want constant repair/management etc to detract from the gameplay I'm actually interested in. Basically, they drop in condition as you use them, and once they're at the lowest condition, they then carry a risk of breaking. There is also a risk of breaking at the second-lowest level of condition if something particularly violent happens to the item, too.

yes, but if you had weapons degrade, depending on what it is made of, you could have an interesting choice. A steel mace that'll last ages, or a silver one that'll be demonic in combat, buit will deform after a few whacks, and after a while, will become completely unusable...

-snip-

also, will there be fantasy metals? if so, will they have any special effects, or just be super-strong etc.?

Materials do degrade at different speeds, you'll be pleased to hear!

No fantasy metals at the moment, and I'm 99% sure it'll be staying that way.

Another thing to keep in mind with bashing weapons is that heavier isn't always better. A really heavy maul will hit hard, but you might have a hard time hitting at all with how slow it is. Also, you're going to tire out a lot faster using that heavy of a weapon.

That's why most period weapons only weighed a few pounds at most. If you're going to have to fight for an extended amount of time, like all afternoon, you need to be able to do so without exhausting yourself. It doesn't really matter if you incapacitate the first 10 guys you come across if you're so tired that the 11th cuts you down easily. Your side might win battles that way, but it's a bad way to stay alive as a soldier.

Definitely - the weights of weapons is important for how rapidly you can swing them. Heavy and long weapons are tougher to swing than a sword, which is in turn tougher than a knife. Using weapons will affect stamina appropriately, too.

The skill table is... big. Very big. I think there's 90 skills at the moment, unless I'm greatly mistaken, each of which gives out something special (for you, and for creatures) at 30, 50

Will it be possible to randomize a bit these bonus? Instead on fixed level 20, make it happen at level 18 + 1D4. So this way something with level 20 won't necessarily have the cutting edge on a level 19 one. And maybe shift the level up or down depending of the species. Like elven  recieve the bonus for the bow skill at 28 + 1D4 - 2 and Dwarfs get it at 28 + 1D4 + 4. This way it might be a little incentive to specialize accordingly to the species strengths.

And for the piercing hammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer.

Oops - I actually didn't finish typing that sentence, and what's there is hugely inaccurate since I changed it in the process of writing the reply. Disregard it! Each skill goes from 0->100, and special upgrades are currently going to come at 40, 70 and 100. However, I like the idea about changing it a little for each person, and each species. I might alter it so that certain species reach certain landmarks a little sooner, but I'm less sure about introducing a little randomness for each creature. With that said, I'm not yet entirely certain that the idea of offering special upgrades at certain levels is actually entirely in keeping with the theme of the rest of the game. For now, these upgrades exist, but it's actually very possible they won't make the final cut and there will simply be a linear progression of skill as your skill raises. Or, more likely, for command skills each 10 levels allows you to control an extra squad, or something of that sort, so each 'landmark' and the kind of landmark will be unique to each skill.

[mendonca]

I think a linear progression makes some sense in gameplay terms, and there are plenty of arguments for this in design terms, as opposed to just the consideration of pure material properties.

e.g. say copper is ~20% more dense than iron, that just means you use 20% more iron to make the same weight ...

There would also be strong arguments to say the superior rigidity and hardness of iron would far outweigh the density benefits of copper in creating a weapon design useful for fighting.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

[monk12]

Indeed- it works well in Dwarf Fortress because the gameplay emphasis is on crafting and preparation, not tactics. Thus, it behooves the player to learn about the different material properties to create a variety of interesting and effective weapon/material combinations, instead of just spamming Ubermetal Weapons.

In a game where you're more worried about the actual fighting than the making of the weapon, a linear progression is an acceptable break from reality. It would be neat if it was more detailed/realistic, but it would also require a good enough AI Quartermaster to make sure everyone is using the best available, and we all remember how the Arsenal Dwarf went down in DF.

Although as an aside, I always imagined that Silver Warhammers weren't pure silver- they were silver plugs inside a metal hammerhead, thus imparting the weight without being as malleable as pure silver. I don't know as there's historical precedent for that, but I don't know as there's historical precedent for pure Silver weaponry outside of werewolf-hunting nutjobs.

[Man of Paper]

A few slightly more serious questions than my last one:

I've tried reading through as much of this thread as possible, but it's hard to keep up, so I apologize if this was asked before. Have you had any thoughts on traps like pitfall traps, spike pits, swinging log ram things, and so on?

Also, since this is a strategic game, terrain is going to do a good bit of tactic dictating. But would these have any numerical value? (For example, an enemy charging up a hill would get fatigued faster and hit the defenses with less force, or a force wading through a stream being much easier to hit than a similar force moving through a field)

My questions might be worded poorly, but it's just that once I get started thinking about this game, my mind wanders off and I lose my train of thought.

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

I think a linear progression makes some sense in gameplay terms, and there are plenty of arguments for this in design terms, as opposed to just the consideration of pure material properties.

e.g. say copper is ~20% more dense than iron, that just means you use 20% more iron to make the same weight ...

There would also be strong arguments to say the superior rigidity and hardness of iron would far outweigh the density benefits of copper in creating a weapon design useful for fighting.

Just some thoughts, anyway.

Indeed- it works well in Dwarf Fortress because the gameplay emphasis is on crafting and preparation, not tactics. Thus, it behooves the player to learn about the different material properties to create a variety of interesting and effective weapon/material combinations, instead of just spamming Ubermetal Weapons.

In a game where you're more worried about the actual fighting than the making of the weapon, a linear progression is an acceptable break from reality.

I am wary of avoiding any 'simplification', but I do think as monk12 says that the gameplay emphasis isn't on crafting/construction, and therefore I don't want to make learning about material properties unnecessarily complex. However, I might add in requirements for different volumes of different metals to create the same weapons, and different crafting requirements, but in terms of damage/combat, I think the progression will remain linear.

A few slightly more serious questions than my last one:

I've tried reading through as much of this thread as possible, but it's hard to keep up, so I apologize if this was asked before. Have you had any thoughts on traps like pitfall traps, spike pits, swinging log ram things, and so on?

Also, since this is a strategic game, terrain is going to do a good bit of tactic dictating. But would these have any numerical value? (For example, an enemy charging up a hill would get fatigued faster and hit the defenses with less force, or a force wading through a stream being much easier to hit than a similar force moving through a field)

My questions might be worded poorly, but it's just that once I get started thinking about this game, my mind wanders off and I lose my train of thought.

No problem . I have considered traps, and they're certainly a possibility, but a long-term one. I think I'd be most inclined to put them in for cities than camps, but I think it would be nice if you could quickly throw up some basic traps.

Yep, moving up a hill will slow you if you enter combat immediately after, and going up a z level will take more stamina to do so. Wading through a stream has a chance of your movement being unsuccessful each turn. I'm hoping to also add effects based on snow, sand, weather conditions, etc. Similarly, you can see any z level below you but not the ones above, so that's a huge incentive to reach the high ground by default (both for you, and for the AI).

also, would having archers attack from a hill give them a range bonus, and archers attacking up a hill have the opposite?

Yes for attacking from a hill heading down (since I'm actually going to the effort to model projectiles in an 'arc', so aiming at something lower will get it 'further' than aiming at the same level), not sure about fighting upwards, since targets will likely be out of sight. I'll probably just leave it to whatever projectile function I dream up!

[Dariush]

Short weapons are kunais, daggers, stilettos, knives, and sais.
Slashing weapons are scimitars, shortswords, sabres, katanas and longswords.
Long weapons are pikes, spears, halberds, ranseurs and naginata.
Heavy weapons are clubs, warhammers, flails, maces and axes.

Why are you going with such exotic varieties (many of which are subtypes of other types, e.g. katana is a Japanese variety of longsword), but don't use more common types like a basic two-handed sword?

warhammers will be best at pulling foes off horses

I'm pretty sure warhammers weren't intended for that, but rather for piercing armor.

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

Short weapons are kunais, daggers, stilettos, knives, and sais.
Slashing weapons are scimitars, shortswords, sabres, katanas and longswords.
Long weapons are pikes, spears, halberds, ranseurs and naginata.
Heavy weapons are clubs, warhammers, flails, maces and axes.

Why are you going with such exotic varieties (many of which are subtypes of other types, e.g. katana is a Japanese variety of longsword), but don't use more common types like a basic two-handed sword?

No particular reason (and I'd argue a katana and a longsword are reasonably different things!) - I just think the variety is interesting, and allows for different groups and civilizations to have different martial preferences.

warhammers will be best at pulling foes off horses

I'm pretty sure warhammers weren't intended for that, but rather for piercing armor.

That also, but pulling off horses/attacking horses is also a major function of the warhammer, I believe. But yes, they do have a bonus to armor penetration.

[Lord Dullard]

Halberds/bills were also used for pulling cavalry off their horses a lot, methinks.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Those big, nasty billhooks are for pulling and knocking off balance, after all.

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

and a thought: will pikes, being so long as they are, be able to attack units several tiles in front? I can remember that they actually used their length for something like this:

Halberds/bills were also used for pulling cavalry off their horses a lot, methinks.

A very interesting idea. I am currently intending to have them extend by one square, and just in front of the direction you/AI last moved (but this may be changed). They should definitely have horse effects too... but I'm still working on the specifics for each weapon class.

In the mean time, a significant screenshot update. It's been a while since I uploaded any, and a *lot* has changed this week, so:

http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2012/03/06/the-benefits-of-invincibility/

Not to engage in self-trumpet-blowing, but I think things are actually beginning to look like a real game, at long last!