Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

[gameplay] allow building Blemmye camp and Nuba village in neutral territory
ClosedPublic

Authored by Nescio on Jan 3 2020, 8:38 PM.

Details

Reviewers
ValihrAnt
borg-
scythetwirler
Angen
Group Reviewers
Restricted Owners Package(Owns No Changed Paths)
Commits
rP23793: Allow building Kushite mercenary camps in neutral territory.
Summary

This patch allows the Kushites to build the Blemmye camp and Nuba village in neutral territory, removes their <TerritoryInfluence>, and reduces the <TerritoryDecay> to 1 (cf. merc_camp_egyptian.xml and ptol_mercenary_camp.xml).
See also D1863 and https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25893-kushite-nomad-camps-and-nuba-village/&tab=comments#comment-374552
See also D2506, D2507.

Test Plan

Apply the patch, play-test with Kushites, agree this is an improvement.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

Nescio created this revision.Jan 3 2020, 8:38 PM
Vulcan added a comment.Jan 3 2020, 8:40 PM

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/vs2015-differential/942/display/redirect

Vulcan added a comment.Jan 3 2020, 8:42 PM

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/docker-differential/1460/display/redirect

Vulcan added a comment.Jan 3 2020, 8:42 PM

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/38/display/redirect

I like this. It's the way I originally intended them to be, to emphasize that these mercs primarily lived outside the Kushite heartland. I'm not qualified to comment on how this affects balance though, although it seems similar enough to the Roman military camp.

Nescio added a comment.Jan 4 2020, 6:28 PM

Good to know!
The Roman army camp can be built in neutral and enemy territory (but not in own or allied); with this patch the Blemmye camp and Nuba village can be built in own and neutral territory (but not in enemy or allied), as is already the case for the Egyptian mercenary camp.
Furthermore, other factions that capture an Roman or Egyptian camp can typically train some of their own units there, as is the case with most structures, but the Blemmye and Nuba camps are quite useless to others. D2536 allows anyone to train Blemmye and Nuba at their respective camps, though only Kush can build the structures.

Nescio edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Feb 7 2020, 2:51 PM
Nescio added subscribers: borg-, ValihrAnt.
borg- added a comment.Sat, Jun 6, 1:07 AM

This can help make kushites a little better than they are and add a little more dynamics to the game. However, I have no historical point about it. Does that make historical sense or just for balance?

The Blemmye and Nuba lived outside the Kingdom of Kush proper, so yes, historically it makes sense. See also the forum posts.

borg- added a comment.EditedSat, Jun 6, 2:29 PM

The Blemmye and Nuba lived outside the Kingdom of Kush proper, so yes, historically it makes sense. See also the forum posts.

Yes I took a look and it really seems to make historical sense.
I dont agree with <TerritoryDecay disable=""/>

I will be doing a patch on mercenaries in a few days, I think it should make them more effective. Anyway this is for another discussion.

I have one last question/suggestion. Currently we can only build 2 camps, with this change it would be interesting to increase the number of camps that can be built, like maybe 3?
They are considered embassy, so I think this also affects the Carthaginians, they have 3 embassies but can only build two, which seems wrong too. What do you think?

ValihrAnt accepted this revision.Sat, Jun 6, 5:34 PM

I have one last question/suggestion. Currently we can only build 2 camps, with this change it would be interesting to increase the number of camps that can be built, like maybe 3?
They are considered embassy, so I think this also affects the Carthaginians, they have 3 embassies but can only build two, which seems wrong too. What do you think?

Having higher capacity is something I've wanted for a long time, though I think this might be out of scope for this patch.
Another thing to note is that the camps won't switch loyalty to another player when completely surrounded by their territory even if completely ungarrisoned. Although, they are easier to capture by units than barracks due to a larger footprint (can have more units capturing at once) and a smaller garrison size.
Overall, I like the change. It adds some extra strategy options and differentiation between civs.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sat, Jun 6, 5:34 PM
Nescio added a comment.Sat, Jun 6, 8:26 PM

I dont agree with <TerritoryDecay disable=""/>

Another thing to note is that the camps won't switch loyalty to another player when completely surrounded by their territory even if completely ungarrisoned.

Cf. docks. With territory decay entities revert to the territory owner (in neutral territory that's gaia). Without it, they remain with the current owner (the player who built or last captured it). Another possibility is to remove capture points altogether, but that's not really appropiate in this case.

I have one last question/suggestion. Currently we can only build 2 camps, with this change it would be interesting to increase the number of camps that can be built, like maybe 3?
They are considered embassy, so I think this also affects the Carthaginians, they have 3 embassies but can only build two, which seems wrong too. What do you think?

Having higher capacity is something I've wanted for a long time, though I think this might be out of scope for this patch.

Entity limits are defined in simulation/templates/special/player/player.xml. I don't really care whether the limit is 2, 3, or more. However, such a change belongs in a separate diff, because it has nothing to do with territory and other civs (cart) are affected by it too.

borg- accepted this revision.Tue, Jun 9, 2:11 PM
badosu added a subscriber: badosu.Sat, Jun 13, 4:24 PM

I agree with this change

I agree with this change

Feel free to click “Add Action...” → “Accept Revision” if you agree with everything a patch does.

scythetwirler accepted this revision.Thu, Jun 18, 7:17 PM
Angen requested changes to this revision.Thu, Jun 25, 8:43 PM

I can agree with allowing to build them on neutral territory and removing territory influence.

But I do not see need to remove territory decay. It is military kind of building ref roman army camp.
If player wants them to build on neutral territory, let him pay one soldier to keep their loyalty. If player does not want to waist that one soldier (or 2), one can still build on own.

Docs are more like secondary cc on water maps therefore it is "required" to not decay.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Thu, Jun 25, 8:43 PM

But I do not see need to remove territory decay. It is military kind of building ref roman army camp.

For comparison:

  • template_structure.xml (i.e. most structures) has a value of 20.
  • template_outpost.xml has a value of 2, which is halved by the tower_decay.json technology.
  • merc_camp_egyptian.xml and ptol_mercenary_camp.xml have a value of 1.
  • rome_army_camp.xml has a value of 37.5.

So what value would be appropiate for the kush_blemmye_camp.xml and the kush_nuba_village.xml?

Angen added a comment.Sat, Jun 27, 1:20 PM

I think 1 or 2 can be enough, just to not have it for free.

Nescio updated this revision to Diff 12471.Sat, Jun 27, 5:44 PM
Nescio edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
  • changed territory decay to 1, per @Angen
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Sat, Jun 27, 5:44 PM

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/docker-differential/2538/display/redirect

Angen accepted this revision.Sat, Jun 27, 6:28 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sat, Jun 27, 6:28 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.