Topic: Widelands tournament 2016; official announcements

toptopple wrote:

King has won.

Had to give up my hopeful game because I incidentally razed my own Tower!
Not sure what exactly happened, but I intended to upgrade an ATL Tower to something greater and the effect was it crumbled probably under the influence of an enemy Tower. Is this possible?

yes. if you upgraded it, it stopped conquering terrain, and you had no other military building nearby, and my tower was nearby, so you lost all the terrain.

But you were going to lose anyway at that point. I had twice your military power, and twice your buildings. too much economical advantage to recover.

Top

Quote

>yes. if you upgraded it, it stopped conquering terrain, and you had no other military building nearby, and my tower was nearby, so you lost all the terrain.

On a side-note, if you allow, King, this sounds like a big nonsense to me! When I remember the Settler II game correctly, there was no territory loss in upgrading buildings, which is required to keep up your dominations.

As for our game, I must concede your woodlands buildup was superior, probably you would have won anyway. On the other side, Checkmate is heavily biased towards to blue player, which can nicely be seen in our replay. Perhaps I will go into detail later on. I don't make a fuzz of it, of course, because this is just "for fun" playing, isn't it? I will publish a "checkmate stripped" version of the map where the bias can be seen and evaluated. On the other hand, I think Widelands, if it wants to become a noticeable match game, would have to pay more attention to the balance status of its match maps.

Top

Quote

You can't assume that Widelands code is identical to Settlers II code, so it is not nonsense.

And yes, balancing needs work in general, and you have already helped us with that. Much appreciated

We have been experiencing crashes when people try to join this game - the reason is a new check that we have introduced for the artifacts win condition and the fact that the map needs to be transmitted. So, the host should wait until everybody has joined and received the map before setting the Artifacts win condition.

Busy indexing nil values

Top

Quote

On a side-note, if you allow, King, this sounds like a big nonsense to me! When I remember the Settler II game correctly, there was no territory loss in upgrading buildings, which is required to keep up your dominations.

Settlers 2 did not allow to upgrade buildings. This is a feature we added in Widelands - and there we decided that you never loose land as long as you have military control over it. An enhanced building during its building phase does not station soldiers, so it cannot be attacked, so it also does not have military influence. Ergo you lost control. I think it makes sense, stated like this the rules are also fairly simple. Of course we can always discuss the rules again.

Top

Quote

Settlers 2 did not allow upgrade of buildings, but Settlers II - Next Generation did! As I remember you could upgrade a military building from a Barack up to a Castle as long as enough space was allocatable - which rarely was the case. I believe upgrading was impossible as long as the building was under attack. - I hold what happened to me should never happen to any player: razing your tower without intending it, thanks to a weird logic of the game. So what are the possible solutions?

1. The possibility of upgrade military buildings appears to be a very selective treat in Widelands. Only a few types can do, perhaps only the ATL can, I'm not sure. I can walk with such a feature completely absent. It makes sense to say: one should be able to calculate with an opponent's strategic building setup. Also, one has to make decisions in the first place. Turning a Sentry into a Castle in a few minutes at little cost is indeed quite unrealistic. This "remove" solution makes a lot of sense to me.

2. Disable the option if the building's covered area is under threat of an enemy.

3. At minimum warn the player about the loss of area and poll for a decision.

Top

Quote