Civilization Wars: Map Development

[supersexyy]

Sorry, there 'shouldn't' be an unbeatable strategy. Everything should have a counter.
That's what needs to be address. Top and bottom lanes are booooooring

[RaptorXI]

The best players always took mid. I don't plan any changes on that.
Why do you keep saying A, non A, and A again, just to tease me?

When you suggested main changes, like the terrain, the modes, actually everything that was a possibilty, but now you fall back into your own maze:

Put Mauso at 1000 gold and see what happens.
Make big Ben 60% of the cost
Magellans spawn 4 cavs and up price by 300
Hoover etc 50% cost

What is your calculation about these changes? Inntention is balance. I can makethe Bazaar cost 10 gold and pay off 1000 gold per set, everyone would rush it. tell me how this would be more balanced?

[RaptorXI]

@supersexyy
Indicate me your thoughts on suggested changes like this, please:
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... 45#p238648

[supersexyy]

It was a typing error. Obviously a 'perfect strategy' should never exist in any game.
They are all rough estimations. Mag with 4 cavs and a very slight cost increase (whilst making it much more economically efficient) will make it a niche wonder.
Big Ben, Hoover, panama completely suck.

Numbers aren't exact but you can follow my train of thought. Fix the things that need fixing. Lighthouse, obelisk and mid towers don't really need fixing.

[rmp20002000]

If the towers are located together, then it makes rushes weaker

No. The AI would attack the front towers first, focussing fire more, like a skilled player would do.

because you can "Trade lanes"

There is no "trading lanes", maybe at the map you play on Garena.

I strongly believe that "rushes" are legitimate strategies

I do too.

and the rewards vary in terms of 1) Total Lane Control, 2) destroy top/bottom castle, 3) Destroy more than 1 castle. So I would prefer it if the towers remained where they were. If towers that you can build have +50% HP and more armour, then this becomes even more unnecessary.

Maybe I have contributed to the miscommunication here. What I meant by "trading lanes" is for example:

1) East rushes west with mass longboats
2) West fails to defend the rush and/or simultaneously decides to counter-rush bottom
3) West loses top lane towers, but keeps all castles. East loses bottom lane towers, but keeps all castles
4) Both sides are able to defend their castles effectively despite losing the lane
----> East has traded the bottom lane for the top lane
Effectively, the Top lane belongs to East, and the bottom lane belongs to West.

The objective of a rush is not to "trade lanes" usually. Most of the times, it is out of desperation and choosing the most optimal time, given the circumstances, to achieve the ultimate objective i.e. Destroying all of the other side's castles. Placing 8 towers in a central location that can effectively target enemies from all 3 directions means that it is no longer viable to rush a lane to "win". With the arrangement you suggested, the only outcome of any rush in the side lanes is "lane trading".

Current situation: Top/Bottom lane rush is defended by 2 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP. Middle lane is defended by 4 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP.

Proposed situation: Top/Bottom lane rush is defended by 8 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP. Middle lane is always (rush or no rush) defended by 8 automatically upgraded towers.

My humble assessment of such a change is that, nobody will consider a rush to end the game. Currently, it is viable to overcome a 2 tower defense, and in the middle lane, it is possible but challenging to overcome a 4 tower defense. When you increase from 2 ---> 4 (Top/bottom) or 4---> 8 (middle), you are no longer worried about losing your castle in a rush. What then would be the benefit of focusing the resources of 2-3 players in a single lane other than the possibility of "lane trading".

This effectively removes "rushing" as a strategy to end the game.

As to other modes. I believe this game was inspired from Sid Meier's Civilisations Series. In that series, you can win the game through various methods such The Space Race, World Domination, Diplomacy, and Conquest (I think i'm missing one more victory option). I feel that if people wanted that sort of game, they should host a Sid Meier's Civilisation multiplayer on a tiny map and accelerated tech trees and play that. In a custom WC3 map, it is not realistic to retain all the elements of the original game, and we have to decide as a community what flavours we want to keep. I think there is a place for Space Race or Nukes on the WC3 map, but the community has not evolved the interest and/or strategies to play with such modes enabled.

If we allowed Space Race, a new team strategy might evolve where one player incomes and techs heavily to the Space Race end point while the other 2 players plays "tower defense". I'm not sure how nukes would play out in our community. In the Sid Meier series, you can use nukes to wipe out enemy armies because they tended to be in crazy doom stacks. You can also target enemy cities and territory to cripple them but you can expect your enemy to retaliate with their own nukes while other civilisations become more hostile to you.

I feel that there are 2 problems which more critically endanger our tiny Civ community. 1) The learning curve of the game. It is not easy to learn every aspect of the game, much less master it. For all effective purposes, there is no effective resource (Manual, wikia, forum guides) where a new player can learn to play the game to a reasonably "basic" level. 2) Civ Wars requires a high level of "team play". Individual team members need to have their own skill level and know their roles in the game, while at the same time, cooperating with each other in terms of push/rush/defense/tech. Half the time, I either find myself in games where there is either no cooperation, or at least one player cannot understand the rest because they probably do not understand my language.

Perhaps, as a community, we can start having a Civ Wars FAQ thread (basic, intermediate, advance strategies) if nobody can set up a Wiki. As it evolves, Forum members can create special threads where they elaborate how a particular meta-strategy works, how best to make it work, and how it can be countered. E.g. ("How To": Great Wall Mid / Bazaar / Zeus or colossus + zipang) or ("Rushes": Longboat / Mounted Raider / Catapults / Carracks / Siege Cannons / Tanks / Dive Bombers).

I'm not sure how to deal with the communication problem, but I think less in-game taunting, name-calling and flaming coupled with more professionalism would make it all more pleasant.

[rmp20002000]

Sorry, there 'shouldn't' be an unbeatable strategy. Everything should have a counter.
That's what needs to be address. Top and bottom lanes are booooooring

I agree. There is a counter to almost everything, and I'm reluctant to say it, but Bazaar can be beaten. However, in a game where all sides are similarly proficient and cooperative, my bet would be on the side that has bazaar instead of the side that went zeus or GW mid. That's why I feel there should be a slight nerfing of Bazaar, either in terms of cost and/or bonus income/market set.

Top is the most boring because there appears to be only 2 common plays (heavy mass penteconter or 9 + 2/4 docks and tech). Bottom is less boring because there are many many unit types, and your unit formation and terrain (hill elevations) heavily influence your chances of success. Top lane support is usually raider/longboat/caravel/ironclad/sub and leader. Bottom lane support can come in so many more variations.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that maybe we should also discuss how to make the top lane more appealing to play.

[RaptorXI]

It was a typing error. Obviously a 'perfect strategy' should never exist in any game.
They are all rough estimations. Mag with 4 cavs and a very slight cost increase (whilst making it much more economically efficient) will make it a niche wonder.
Big Ben, Hoover, panama completely suck.

Numbers aren't exact but you can follow my train of thought. Fix the things that need fixing. Lighthouse, obelisk and mid towers don't really need fixing.

Tell me why there are computers in other games like chess which are made for nothing else than striving for perfect strategies?
And stating that something sucks is the same like stating it's imba. For me, not much to work, since you leave it all up for me, while keeping the right for complaining by whatever changes are being, for the sake of complaining.
Feel free to comment on future changelogs.

I agree. There is a counter to almost everything, and I'm reluctant to say it, but Bazaar can be beaten. However, in a game where all sides are similarly proficient and cooperative, my bet would be on the side that has bazaar instead of the side that went zeus or GW mid. That's why I feel there should be a slight nerfing of Bazaar, either in terms of cost and/or bonus income/market set.

Top is the most boring because there appears to be only 2 common plays (heavy mass penteconter or 9 + 2/4 docks and tech). Bottom is less boring because there are many many unit types, and your unit formation and terrain (hill elevations) heavily influence your chances of success. Top lane support is usually raider/longboat/caravel/ironclad/sub and leader. Bottom lane support can come in so many more variations.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that maybe we should also discuss how to make the top lane more appealing to play.

This is why were Dromons were reworked. I have hosted some private 1v1 games with pros or clan players to test it and it all looks like they are a bit too strong now. Still waiting for more feedback before this will be changed again.
I am not leaving the Bazaar as it is in 2.30 final, because that one is too strong, promoting lazy gamestyle. There is no reason to promote this style of playing, while others like locking 1 certain are much harder.

Maybe I have contributed to the miscommunication here. What I meant by "trading lanes" is for example:

1) East rushes west with mass longboats
2) West fails to defend the rush and/or simultaneously decides to counter-rush bottom
3) West loses top lane towers, but keeps all castles. East loses bottom lane towers, but keeps all castles
4) Both sides are able to defend their castles effectively despite losing the lane
----> East has traded the bottom lane for the top lane
Effectively, the Top lane belongs to East, and the bottom lane belongs to West.

Those strategies are covered with the map already. But thx explaining.

Current situation: Top/Bottom lane rush is defended by 2 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP. Middle lane is defended by 4 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP.

This is not true: After all lanes are claimed, every lane has 4 starting towers and they all have the same HP since they receive the same free upgrade after certain technologies have been researched by at least one player.

Proposed situation: Top/Bottom lane rush is defended by 8 automatically upgraded towers, which have higher HP. Middle lane is always (rush or no rush) defended by 8 automatically upgraded towers.

I am against, it would making rushing pointless. And again, even mid has only 4 starting towers.

If we allowed Space Race, a new team strategy might evolve where one player incomes and techs heavily to the Space Race end point while the other 2 players plays "tower defense". I'm not sure how nukes would play out in our community. In the Sid Meier series, you can use nukes to wipe out enemy armies because they tended to be in crazy doom stacks. You can also target enemy cities and territory to cripple them but you can expect your enemy to retaliate with their own nukes while other civilisations become more hostile to you.

Custom modes have been part of the map like years. I'm not going to remove any of them.
Simple suggestion: Who doesn't want to play games with other modes than the "normal" one, takes red, because like in many other WC3 games, only player 1 can do the mode.

I feel that there are 2 problems which more critically endanger our tiny Civ community. 1) The learning curve of the game. It is not easy to learn every aspect of the game, much less master it. For all effective purposes, there is no effective resource (Manual, wikia, forum guides) where a new player can learn to play the game to a reasonably "basic" level. 2) Civ Wars requires a high level of "team play". Individual team members need to have their own skill level and know their roles in the game, while at the same time, cooperating with each other in terms of push/rush/defense/tech. Half the time, I either find myself in games where there is either no cooperation, or at least one player cannot understand the rest because they probably do not understand my language.

Kinda agree, but bots like Ent16 record wins/loses and sort players in an elo ranglist.
Since all play on Ent16, isn't it what the community wants?
So unless you host your own, why not leave it as it is?

My job is to work on the map. If we want to make it easier for new players to get into the game we could add something like a guide in the Quest Menu or a Tipp popping up every X ticks. But i'm ot sure if the community wants to become really nicer.

[Krayyzie]

Raptor, I think the problem right now if you want to do anything with the map is you dont listen to the players who were around when there was competive play, and you do not have enough knowledge how the game is played in a real pro way(or when and how to use different towers/wonders).
just the simple quote from last post saying bazaar is the lazy play proves that, locking bot lane vs bazaar is easier than actually being able to swing bot lane after you get bazaar. It is Alot more work to play with bazaar compared to locking a lane... Aslong as you wont listen to the community, your map will never be played, espically no if you do make changes that makes the game unbalanced... If someone else is willing to take the discussion with ent if they would be interested in creating some kind of inhouse play, I will be willing to help, both in the part of playing, teaching players, and possible even moderate it, but it will be on the last final version, which has been played for many years, not a med version with alot of changes which doesnt benefit the gameplay.

[Krayyzie]

Or possible if you could get x.g who did actually make a real attemp to update the map 2ish years ago to help you, but this try is pretty much just making changes that will create a boring game

[RaptorXI]

As long you keep impersonating the community and claim "what the games is and how it has to played", I will not listen you to.
You are just picking on me, not replying with serious feedback liker the other pros have done so far.
I would be all willing to work with XG if he returns to Warcraft 3.

Changelog (based on 2.30 final):

-Added a new loading screen made by Noz

General changes:
- Workers don't do damage anymore
- reduced the HP of a deactivated unit to 500, armor to 0
- non-starting towers have +50% Hp by now

Mode changes:
- increased the cost of the Mission Control Centre: 8500 => 11000
- only the owner receives the free technology for building the Manhattan Project

Technology changes:
- reduced cost of pottery: 125 => 100
- reduced cost of Guerilla Warfare: 375 => 300
- increased the cost of Gunpowder: 375 => 450

Unit changes:
- remade and buffed Dromon
- remade and buffed Commando Mech
- Crossbowmen received +100 range

Wonder changes:
- remade the Mausoleum: a 2nd command aura that stacks with the units requiring leadership, increased cost to 1600
- remade the Bazaar of Alexandria: increases cost 750 => 9000, reduced the gold income epr set to 15
- increased the cost of the Great Obelisk: gold 540 => 550, material 125 => 200
- reduced cost for Magellan's expedition: 2700 => 2500
- reduced cost for Big Ben: 4200 => 4000
- decreased the cost of Genereal Mills, the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam for each to 1000 gold

Other changes:
- disabled the chance to spawn a great leader, due to a bug
- fixed some typos

[rmp20002000]

Those strategies are covered with the map already. But thx explaining.

How are these covered by your proposed changes?

This is not true: After all lanes are claimed, every lane has 4 starting towers and they all have the same HP since they receive the same free upgrade after certain technologies have been researched by at least one player.

Ok maybe I'm confused. In the photo you showed, there were coloured arrows, which you said would be the location of the towers. So perhaps you need to clarify this for me again because I still don't understand you. Where are you proposing to locate all the towers nearest to the castle (the 2 belonging to each side, and 4 belonging to mid)?

Kinda agree, but bots like Ent16 record wins/loses and sort players in an elo ranglist.
Since all play on Ent16, isn't it what the community wants?
So unless you host your own, why not leave it as it is?

My job is to work on the map. If we want to make it easier for new players to get into the game we could add something like a guide in the Quest Menu or a Tipp popping up every X ticks. But i'm ot sure if the community wants to become really nicer.

I was just expanding on the discussion. Personally, I agree with leaving the mode as it is.

Yes, maybe a basic guide or explanation in the Quest Menu coupled with a -Tip popping up at the start telling new players to check there for more information/tips/guides.

[RaptorXI]

Beta phase is about to end.
All posts made in this thread are saved and will be considered for future versions.

@rmp20002000
Thank you for all suggestions and feedback so far. Your input is very welcome.

Changelog (based on 2.30 final):

-Added a new loading screen made by Noz

General changes:
- Workers don't do damage anymore
- reduced the HP of a deactivated unit to 500, armor to 0
- non-starting towers have +50% Hp by now

Mode changes:
- increased the cost of the Mission Control Centre: 8500 => 11000
- only the owner receives the free technology for building the Manhattan Project

Technology changes:
- reduced cost of pottery: 125 => 100
- reduced cost of Guerilla Warfare: 375 => 300
- increased the cost of Gunpowder: 375 => 450

Unit changes:
- remade and buffed Dromon
- remade and buffed Commando Mech
- Crossbowmen received +100 range

Wonder changes:
- remade the Mausoleum: a 2nd command aura that stacks with the units requiring leadership, increased cost to 1600
- remade the Bazaar of Alexandria: increases cost 750 => 9000, reduced the gold income epr set to 15
- increased the cost of the Great Obelisk: gold 540 => 550, material 125 => 200
- reduced cost for Magellan's expedition: 2700 => 2500
- reduced cost for Big Ben: 4200 => 4000
- decreased the cost of Genereal Mills, the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam for each to 1000 gold

Other changes:
- disabled the chance to spawn a great leader, due to a bug
- fixed some typos

[DUTCHWEEDLOVE]

Beta phase is about to end.
All posts made in this thread are saved and will be considered for future versions.

@rmp20002000
Thank you for all suggestions and feedback so far. Your input is very welcome.

Changelog (based on 2.30 final):

-Added a new loading screen made by Noz

General changes:
- Workers don't do damage anymore
- reduced the HP of a deactivated unit to 500, armor to 0
- non-starting towers have +50% Hp by now

Mode changes:
- increased the cost of the Mission Control Centre: 8500 => 11000
- only the owner receives the free technology for building the Manhattan Project

Technology changes:
- reduced cost of pottery: 125 => 100
- reduced cost of Guerilla Warfare: 375 => 300
- increased the cost of Gunpowder: 375 => 450

Unit changes:
- remade and buffed Dromon
- remade and buffed Commando Mech
- Crossbowmen received +100 range

Wonder changes:
- remade the Mausoleum: a 2nd command aura that stacks with the units requiring leadership, increased cost to 1600
- remade the Bazaar of Alexandria: increases cost 750 => 9000, reduced the gold income epr set to 15
- increased the cost of the Great Obelisk: gold 540 => 550, material 125 => 200
- reduced cost for Magellan's expedition: 2700 => 2500
- reduced cost for Big Ben: 4200 => 4000
- decreased the cost of Genereal Mills, the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam for each to 1000 gold

Other changes:
- disabled the chance to spawn a great leader, due to a bug
- fixed some typos

Looks good! I agree with most of it, thank you for your work Raptor. Only thing I'd say is the Bazaar nerf is a little too heavy 9000 gold is a bit high (probably typo :p) and the 15 income of a set really is a big decrease. Locking bot will become a very strong meta now along with taking obelisk early which might see no real counterplay. At the moment locking bot with iron works versus bazaar is a very good strat which doesn't see much play. Mauso buff is too strong maybe, will have to test. I really don't agree with the change to deactivated units. It slows down the time you have to defend a rush also if the first towers break and it's adds a lot to the mid early game possible strategies. Why simplify the game even more? Another thing, can you fix the negative income and build limit bug? Please try. Vanishing of the multiboard sucks also and show appropriate great leader chance.

After a bit more thought I have some more suggestions (credits to MiikeShinoda too):
- Grenadier Barracks hitpoints reduced from 700 to 650.
- Riflemen Barracks requires Gunpowder, Machinery and Military Tradition.
- Sharpshooter Barracks now requires Gunpowder, Machinery, Military Tradition and Guerrilla Warfare.
- Espionage radius increased from 600 to 800.
- New sea unit, the Galleon, which is upgradeable through the Dromon for no cost (meaning it costs 800). Requires Invention. Same stats as a Ballista with its debuff, but with Normal attack.
- New sea unit, the Pirate Battleship, which is upgradeable through the Galleon for 1000 gold. Requires Metallurgy and Military Tradition. Same stats as a Field Cannon with its debuff, but with Shock Damage. Upgrades to Submarine Pen.
- Using your workers abilities to select top or bot will now instantly teleport your worker to top or bot lane.

I feel that there are 2 problems which more critically endanger our tiny Civ community. 1) The learning curve of the game. It is not easy to learn every aspect of the game, much less master it. For all effective purposes, there is no effective resource (Manual, wikia, forum guides) where a new player can learn to play the game to a reasonably "basic" level. 2) Civ Wars requires a high level of "team play". Individual team members need to have their own skill level and know their roles in the game, while at the same time, cooperating with each other in terms of push/rush/defense/tech. Half the time, I either find myself in games where there is either no cooperation, or at least one player cannot understand the rest because they probably do not understand my language.

Perhaps, as a community, we can start having a Civ Wars FAQ thread (basic, intermediate, advance strategies) if nobody can set up a Wiki. As it evolves, Forum members can create special threads where they elaborate how a particular meta-strategy works, how best to make it work, and how it can be countered. E.g. ("How To": Great Wall Mid / Bazaar / Zeus or colossus + zipang) or ("Rushes": Longboat / Mounted Raider / Catapults / Carracks / Siege Cannons / Tanks / Dive Bombers).

There has been made a pretty great guide by XG, Hades and myself found HERE.

We should try to think of a way to let the community find this guide if they wish to. I just got this message on Skype, shows there is still some interest ^^:

Code: Select all

[1:47:46 PM] *** ******* would like to add you on Skype
Hey Felix, I just started play civ wars in our group and I'm doing research on possible playstyles and optimal builds/counter builds. It seems the site for this game is dead, but you seem to be the go to for this game and I'd like to pick your brain to improve my civ wars skills. Thanks! ***

[rmp20002000]

- Riflemen Barracks requires Gunpowder, Machinery and Military Tradition.
- Sharpshooter Barracks now requires Gunpowder, Machinery, Military Tradition and Guerrilla Warfare.

Would it not be weird if "Riflemen" don't require "Rifling"? Maybe change Rifling pre-requisite tech from Military Tradition to Machinery?

[DUTCHWEEDLOVE]

- Riflemen Barracks requires Gunpowder, Machinery and Military Tradition.
- Sharpshooter Barracks now requires Gunpowder, Machinery, Military Tradition and Guerrilla Warfare.

Would it not be weird if "Riflemen" don't require "Rifling"? Maybe change Rifling pre-requisite tech from Military Tradition to Machinery?

Yea good point, perhaps change the name of Rifling to Hull Armour Plating (ironclads).