Topic: Expedition and colonization

Destroying ships would be a nice feature. It would also be great if I could tell the shipyard to build only e.g. five more ships ("Ships left to be built" between 0 (i.e. stopped) and 9 and infinite).

Named ships are only important if you have several expedition at the same time. When they merely transport wares between ports, they player has no control over them and therefore they are not "individual" any more. So what about a temporar name that can only be given to expedition ships (they already have a different UI anyway) and that would automatically be cleared after having colonized?

"Only few people know how much one has to know in order to know how little one knows." - Werner Heisenberg

Top

Quote

Astuur wrote:

I am missing some way to destroy (burn?) ships if ...

What? Finally Ships are movin and you want to burn them? Strange! Humor-reduced: Sinking a Ships resp a Ship that is thinking is a imaginable Event for a Ship. That Reason for burning Ships is quite odd mapped on RL ("have to crash some of my thousands Ferraris due to I got so many"). I think there is a Problem with the Way how Production of Ships can controlled. I would prefer to order Lots of Ships (eg one Ship per Order-Click etc etc more, better, and more alternatives) but the present Way Ships are ordered is to choke the Production to throttle the Consume of Materials for Production. So I miss generally a "Choke-all-Materials" resp a Button to let the Production of a specific Site or specific Product rest or specific Consume left out. Wait, left out of specific Ware of a specific Site is already possible by choking ...

However, there are many different usefull Approaches useful resp worth to consider but for large expensive (->many Resources) Products like Ships I advise to add new/alternative/complemental Controls. A Button to start/stop continous Production is rather plain while a Production-on-Order-Mode would be complementary. Consider a Castle-Auto-Build-Site which plant expensives Castles around as long as Materials roll in and forget that Site. Well, that's same Matter with the Ships aside of Ships are mobile.

About Matter of "Naval WarFare" NWF I think there is a Lot Space to do this and that - a large Diffference is that the Player have better Control over single Units while for Soldiers you can just select Targets and determine how many Soldiers you throw at no Idea where they finally come from and how they look like. I don't argue against NWF nor its Impact about Control over Units buit want to point at that Difference.

If Ships as is are something like swimming/movable WareHouses I would prefer to add a Kind of swimming/movable Castle IF the same Approach of Realization is considered to be successfully.

I think better is to mate MilitarySite (resp representative "Castle") Castle with Ship to give TradeShips the Ability to have a small own Defense (eg just two Soldiers) for fast Adaption of mlitary Feartures ... but a Problem is I consider the present Approach of Military to be a crippled Tree now Gardener would try with a huge Effort to carry Fruits it was never suited for --- better take another Tree! In that Sense I would take the Eco-Tree as better Root and make MLTR "more economical" -> CONF with Prog for Attack and Defense etc. and use them as special Kind of Workers.

What that all about? Well, Cheer for NWL but from what root it? So I don't argue for that many "nice" Options (fight this Way or that Way .. some Oil, some Arrows) but to focus on the better Ground of Economy before spreading into NWF. Please remind that if I argue less euphoric for all that NVL-Things I see here Players starting to argue for. I like that Features/Ideas but not the present MLTR-CodeBase.

Another Point I want to ask here is to enforce the Players testing the Features of new working SeaFaring and gather their FeedBack in this Thread. My simple Interest is to see better what Value and Joy that new GameDimension brings to the Player and how it change the past Way the Players play WL. Plain: before there was just one Way to get from A to B - via Expansion cross Country - and if there was another Player in the Pave the Options to work around were tight (attack? talk? coordinate? eat resources!!! hungry!). Now it's easier to expand and easier to cross their Expansion. What Impact does that means to the Way the Players play WL resp how do Players change their Strategy in the Game? Eg. explore Map firstly to discover all rich Occurences of Gold early to determine where to colonize at first. These Questions are somewhat early and somewhat right in Time as now you can better observer how you change the Way you play it and know later better what did change with.

Astuur wrote:

For the normal ships on their route, names are indeed not needed, but it doesn't hurt if they have names.
If I remember rightly, S2 took the ships names from an editable list of shipnames. Maybe that is the way to go?
I feel that giving names to all your ships is a nice feature, but it can get tiresome if you have to.
Naming just the expedition ships is an option, too, of course.

I think there is a well known Alhorithm who combone "Sibles" in a Way that synthetic diced Words sounds like to origin from same (fictive, even inexistent) Language. I think we can do it better with another simple Algorithm adapting Nature of (from us) known Ship-Names. "Bird of <Location>" (Flower/Star/Wind of <Location>) or "<Female Name>" etc. My Idea is that most Names match really few Construction-Rules. Thus we can use smaller Lists instead combine these Terms manually or even not and thus resign for many same fine Combinations.

Approach of Name-List is reasonable as well for really special Names we can't construct via assumed Construction-Rules - so we may consider to implement multiple Approaches and dice for Approach first before dice for final Ship-Name. Thus we can mix special ShipNames under the Set of effectively usable Names with polluting their Base-Term-Lists. However, the most plain Approach is to name them systematically "Ship-1" etc and give Player the Option to rename them more poetical or UseCase-oriented (eg "Explorer-South") etc. The Option to edit the Ship's Name doesn't require that Ships have to have a Default- or Random-Name but Ships could left unnamed by Default omiting stupid or boring Names.

I agree with Astuur with Need for Names as long as Ships don't have special Attributes which require a special Treatment like repair a Ship (if it inherits HP from Soldiers and can get "wounded" by Wind and Wave resp ages by Time). The driving Point is specia lssues recommend special Names for Ships. Btw: I searched one Time for a MasterMiner and found just Miners with different XP and tried to figure out which Miner would get fastest a MasterMiner and then tried to recruit him for a new Mine ... well, there were a Lot of Mines and Miners and it was pure Luck to get him into the new Mine and it wasn't possible to distinguish resp refind a Mine other than by there XP which are invisible as long as they are not inside a Mine applied. Point is Name for Ships is related to Names for Units and I would put that Matter on Unit insterad just Ship. For NWF Things Matter of HP (from Soldier) are relevant as well and I see no Trouble if Worker, even if they can't get attacked or defend something carry this small Attribute also without any Need (but Work-Accidents get possible and injured Workers could need Rest/Substitution and Healing - we can but don't have to with HP). Again: I don't like present MLTR as is but I'm still not sure if that concerns also to Soldier what means may be Fusion of Soldier with Worker for HP and Ability to Attack/Defend/Retreat/Fugitive could get managed by Behavior-Flags (a Lumberer may flee if attacked while a Soldier should not in all Cases). If MLTR-Ships are used to protect or block a Port it's strange if ECO-Ships can pass due to they are not MLTR and I don't see a Reason why a ECO-Ship shall not be able to have a small Defense by few Soldiers (while MLTR-Ships may have much more Soldiers). With or without NWF I vote for Names and HP (and adapt other Stats from Soldier) for all Kind of Units and perhaps also for Sites (especially for Inns we can imagine that these have individual Names which change somewhat the Atmosphere of the Game but also other ProductionSites can have individual Names as eg for Mines I know that these have. For a Forge we could take the Smith's his Family-Name to name the Smith Foo's Forge eg.)

Simpified summarized Question: Is WL+SeaFaring still WL or even a Kind of WL 2.0?

Btw: is it possible to mail all registered WL-Forum-Users to inform about new Version with working SeaFaring (when it's ready)?

Ivan the Terrible is dead .. Genghis Khan is dead .. and I do not feel well, too.

Top

Quote

Nomusic means the the installer does contain no audio files to reduce its size If you want to play with sound, just copy the nomusic bundle over a complete installation with all the files

Top

Quote

Hi,

Widekands 6592 nightly build, Ubuntu 13.04.

I made a notification on launchpad, about flickering graphics. Later on, I did not see it anymore. But now there are some strange things happening again. The text is not flickering, but steady.

(Internet browser is also open, and for so far I can see, comes the text from the underlaying internet page.)

See http://members.razcall.com/tukkie images selectie_001 thru selectie_004. I made a new notification on launchpad.

Top

Quote

micadunlap wrote:

how do i test it???

You need an up to date development version. Either download one of the linked version from our download page or build it yourself.

Top

Quote