Spartan

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Spartan

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Spartan

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Spartan - 6/30/2004 11:25:02 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The Diplomacy feature in this game is unbelievable. I counted 50 or 60 diplomatic choices, instead of the 100 I mentioned above when I looked them up in the manual. The 100 was a 100 playable factions/nations.

I just got the game. I haven't read the manual, just dove in after the tutorials and watched my Spartan "Empire" overrun by helots :)

As far as diplomacy options, I only have 4, where are the 50 options?

First impressions are that it's not bad. Lots of resources, plenty of decisions, though the combat is still far too limited. I'd have preferred they auto-resolve it rather than me being a spectator. World map is cluttered and unclear.

A question for anyone with the game, is there anyway to make armies automatically complete their movement without me reminding them? I set up a long move, press end turn, and it looks like I have to go to each army and tell it to continue moving on subsequent turns.

I hope to read the docs this weekend and get into it sometime after the holiday. I'd be interested in others's impressions.

Post #: 1

RE: Spartan - 6/30/2004 11:49:09 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Hi!

You have to research the diplomacy tree to get more options.

Yes, you have to move each army each move. It's not that difficult. Don't know many games where they move automatically so I don't see a problem here.

As for combat, you can auto resolve.

Are you sure you bought Spartan, or are you just unused to strategy games?

The game rocks btw.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 2

RE: Spartan - 7/1/2004 12:12:52 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
You have to research the diplomacy tree to get more options.

Makes sense, as ravinhoods post was one of the things which prompted me to buy the game I was just curious why I could only see a handful.

quote:

Yes, you have to move each army each move. It's not that difficult. Don't know many games where they move automatically so I don't see a problem here.

Silly me, I'm used to Combat Mission handling continuance orders for me. I know it's not difficult to do, I'm rarely hamstrung by the intellectual strain of making a mouseclick, but I would have expected an army to continue with it's orders, otherwise not much point in giving them to them.

quote:

As for combat, you can auto resolve.

Yes I know. But when considerable effort appears to have been put into the tactical game, it's surprising that charge/rally/run are the only options available to a player.

quote:

Are you sure you bought Spartan, or are you just unused to strategy games?

Am I sure I bought Spartan as opposed to buying say Driv3r or something else by mistake? Not sure what to say to that really.

Lava, perhaps you're touchy because I mentioned a couple of things which struck me as odd during the game?

quote:

The game rocks btw.

I hope so, it has all the makings of a good game, too early to tell though.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 3

RE: Spartan - 7/1/2004 3:47:25 AM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

@dinsdale

Sorry if I was a bit sarcastic.

I think after you give it a couple swings, you will get the rythem of it. Although I must admit I have on ocassion forgotten to move an army.

A lot of stuff impressed me about this game. One of the things is the interface. A lot of times I will give the tutorials a go, but not always, but sometimes I don't even bother with that. As for the rule book, I almost never look at it. In Spartan's case, I think anybody familiar with strategy games could play this one without a rule book, the interface is that good and intuitive.

Give it a chance, I think its quite fun. Believe me, I don't recommend games much, I've been suckered too many times.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 4

RE: Spartan - 7/1/2004 12:06:24 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

If I underdtand the provenance of this game it has been built on the Chariots of War game system, which works much the same way. So, the bottom line is that Spartan is the way it is becuase thats where it comes from and the designers know thats what there existing player base expects.

At least it sounds like they didn't try a leap too far and ruin the game with a real time interface like Sierra did to Lords of the Realm III.

I agree that the limited involvement in tactical battles allowed sounds like a waste of effort, but it seesm to be an improvement on CoW where all you can do is deploy your troops and click the start button.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 5

RE: Spartan - 7/1/2004 1:22:08 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

I agree that the limited involvement in tactical battles allowed sounds like a waste of effort, but it seesm to be an improvement on CoW where all you can do is deploy your troops and click the start button.

Hi!

Personally, I think the battles used in Spartan are a pretty good simulation of ancient combat. I know we all love to be able to take that unit and send it off to attack the guys flank, but that just didn't happen back in those days. Command and Control was almost zilch. Guys running around with bronze helmets covering their ears didn't help much. Also, a lot of Generals of that time actually lead from the front, wading in and fighting with their troops. In Spartan, you have a "general" unit you can include in your army. When the battle starts the little dude on his horse charges right into the fray and starts slashing with his sword.

Legion was the first in the series. Legion was just too easy to win, but conceptually I liked the game. I didn't buy Chariots of Fire. Ever since Legion I have followed Sliterines evolution of their gaming engine. Spartan is their latest product and its on my HD. I do remember an interview with the crew of Sliterine (possibly with Iain) and they said they sold 200,000 copies of Legion and it was still selling. I think Spartan will fair far better.

Do I dare compare it with the Total War series? Yes. Granted it's not as complex & the battle systems are different (but I would argue Sliterines system is more historic. The difference to me is, Sliterines product is more "fun."

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 6

RE: Spartan - 7/1/2004 7:43:26 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Research your GOLD tree Dinsdale, every level you get more diplomatic options to use, plus you must build your intial foreign embassy in your capital city so be sure and leave a spot for it.

It's like learning to be a good diplomat, you don't get all 50 or 60 right off the bat, you have hundreds of years to play, so they give you a little at a time based on your research.

Also there's a button you can press on the right hand side of the screen that moves all your moving units in sucession, but, you still have to press it, but, you don't have to point and click in the field every move for every unit, just keep pressing this button.

Many people found patch 1.013 and that's probably the version you bought to be too HARD, heh I myself enjoy the heck out of it, I just finished a GC playing one of the "very hard" faction on the hard difficulty the "Argrainians", it was very difficult, but, if you don't get overly frustrated and don't mind getting beat for several games, you'll eventually figure it out and then even so, it's still very challenging, but, at least you "can" win if you don't make too many mistakes.

Also there's more to that tactical battle than you may think, many battles take careful setups and planning, especically since most times you will find yourself outnumbered 2 to 1. Hope you are a good tactician. ;)

Oh, one other thing about diplomacy, your "relationship" with the nations varies, some nations you will get more options than others, when you only get (4) like that, that means they don't like you very much and you have to find the proper "things" to give you more options with them, I'll let you find that out for yourself. ;)

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 7/1/2004 12:46:25 PM >

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 7

RE: Spartan - 7/1/2004 7:54:52 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

Yes I know. But when considerable effort appears to have been put into the tactical game, it's surprising that charge/rally/run are the only options available to a player.

Using that charge at the proper time can make the difference in winning or losing a battle, you'll grow to know when and where to use it. Keep in mind "terrain" favor is everything in this game.

Also "rally" gives you +200 morale boost to your army, using it at the proper time can win or lose a battle as well, use it too early and you may not have enough to hold out the fight, use it too late and too many of your units will rout.

and the Retreat flag, that's "new" to Slitherene games, many people complained that they didn't like the "all or nothing" aspects of Legion and Chariots of War, so now if you are faced with odds you just feel you cannot win against, you can retreat and take damage to your units instead of "losing ALL of them" like in their previous games.

I enjoy the combat system myself, that hands off approach after the battle begins except for a few choice features, really makes if feel like what it should be like commanding a battle, instead of your RTS fests where you move each and every individual unit. This game reminds me somewhat of an old Amiga game "Waterloo" though different, yet, still alike in the "command" only ability.

Also, don't get too happy with that "auto resolve" feature, you'll lose more than you will win with it, it's clearly in the AI's favor if you use it. The game was meant for you to "command" not to auto resolve. ;)

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 8

RE: Spartan - 7/2/2004 8:32:44 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

Lava,

np, it looks like we just misunderstood each other :)

------------------

Had a chance to play through a couple of campaigns to learn the game. First of all, let me say it looks like an entertaining game, and the number of resources and diplomatic/research options make it far deeper than any other game of it's type. That said though, I'm a little disaspointed that it is so obviously a game, rather than a strategic sim.

The game plays like CIV on a limited map. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but as I played I got the feeling that the game was both timeless and placeless. It might as well have been a fantasy map as the mechanics are certainly not at all connected to the period.

Having not played their earlier games I didn't know what to expect, but had hoped for a game which played out like ancient Greece and less generic.

Having browsed the slitherine boards, they look to be a very responsive and dedicated company, they certainly deserve to get some sales from this game.

-------------------------

Ravinhood
Your posts in the other thread prompted me to go out and get the game. However, I think your praise for it was a little misleading. First of all the AI changes in the latest patch don't affect how the AI plays, rather they just allow fewer outrageous cheats for the AI. IMHO, that's hardly a breakthrough in challenging AI's, more a case of using cheating to provide a challenge.

Secondly, while the diplomatic options are impressive, most are variations of the same kind. There are multiple methods of improving or deteriorating relations, I don't think that two options with a slightly different % chance and different +- modifier are truly different options. It would be more accurate to say that there are about 10 diplomatic options with variations on them.

Thirdly, diplomacy is a one way street. The AI sent some diplomats to my City, but never did anything with them, not even informing me that we were at war.

Fourthly, diplomacy has no rhyme or reason other than % chances of affect. If I spend enough money, I can get my worst enemy to sign a peace treaty, same with my best friend. There also doesn't appear to be any way to stop a war, other than boosting relations to a level where I can try for a treaty, or by completely conquering the opposition.

I'm glad I got the game, but it really wasn't quite as you advertised and certainly not what I expected.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 9

RE: Spartan - 7/2/2004 2:20:06 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

@dinsdale

Your right about the diplomacy part of the game. But it sure has come a long way since Legion, when you could essentially "buy" alliances and isolate your enemies quite easily.

I use my diplomats strategically. Basically I just plop them in the countries, and get back to conquest. The mere presence of a diplomat in a country causes it to slowly lean towards you as an alley. For example, in the Spartan grand campaign I put them in countries right next to Athens (whom I knew in the end would be my toughest conquest). I have read that others playing that campaign had the Athenians swoop down on them and got crushed. In my game, the Athenians, found it necessary to go to war against my allies, and it was a cake walk to take them down.

I think perhaps you feel "distant" from the game because you obviously don't like the battle simulation. Fair enough.

Personally, I think for a small company, Spartan is a remarkable achievement. Like I said, I'm waiting for the Gates of Troy expansion pack to get a chance to try to conguer Greece as either the romans or the persians.

Ray (alias Lava)

< Message edited by Lava -- 7/2/2004 12:22:58 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 10

RE: Spartan - 7/2/2004 6:06:31 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
I use my diplomats strategically. Basically I just plop them in the countries, and get back to conquest. The mere presence of a diplomat in a country causes it to slowly lean towards you as an alley. For example, in the Spartan grand campaign I put them in countries right next to Athens (whom I knew in the end would be my toughest conquest).

Yes, and I do like that relations degrade unless you continue to buff them. Do other states ever "gang up" on you?

quote:

I think perhaps you feel "distant" from the game because you obviously don't like the battle simulation. Fair enough.

After playing through a number of them and playing with the options, I think they did a fairly good job. I see the battles as a side game, dwarfed by the strategy part. The only mild criticism I would have is that they tend to turn into a scrum in the middle of the field.

quote:

Personally, I think for a small company, Spartan is a remarkable achievement. Like I said, I'm waiting for the Gates of Troy expansion pack to get a chance to try to conguer Greece as either the romans or the persians.

I will probably get it too, there's nothing wrong with it being more a game than I would have preferred, and as a game I certainly can't think of many others which are as good.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 11

RE: Spartan - 7/2/2004 6:53:51 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Yes, and I do like that relations degrade unless you continue to buff them. Do other states ever "gang up" on you?

Indeed they do, I've found that I'm normally at war with at least 2 other city states. Of course, even after you crush one of them, and start to make progress towards your objectives (and make enemies by doing so) the AI has this quaint habit of finding "some" city state away from your main line of attack to popup and start hearasing you. In my Maacedonian campaign (400+ moves now) I'm at war with at least 4 city states and the two which hold my objectives have huge armies sitting on their borders. Yikes!

It makes for a continuos challenge, unlike other games where once you get "over the hump" its down hill all the way until victory.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 12

RE: Spartan - 7/2/2004 7:27:25 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Hi!

Here is the situation I'm in right now (playing Macedonian Grand Campaign). The white (which I enhanced) is territory owned by me. The red and dark red areas, of course, are empires which are in disagrement with my policies..

The Green are allies, in which I have diplomats. The white squares with the black dots are the aproximate positions of the objectives I still have to conquer. People who are attacking me or are at war with me are outlined in sky blue. Note, just as I thought I was about to take out a couple states in Turkey, the dudes to the west of me (ethnic macedonians, attacked me.) Geez...

My diplomacy was to be friendly with countries to the southwest to from a buffer with encroaching romans, and to the northeast to battle the pirates that dominate that region. Dunno if my strategy was very good here. Proabably should have placed my diplomats all to the south and fought across the north of the map and then down south into turkey. Instead, I have bascially gone directly towards my objectives.

The problem I am having is the length of my frontier, and the amount of troops and supporting economy required to keep things under control, while at the same time trying to build a bridgehead in turkey.

Ray (alias Lava)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lava -- 7/2/2004 5:28:32 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 13

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 1:40:22 AM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Bought my copy this afternoon. Completed the Tuitorial and the first scenario. Looking forward to starting one of the big campaigns.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 14

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 2:35:07 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Sorry you felt mislead Dinsdale, that wasn't my intention. Basically my statement was a generalized one and I thought I was praising the AI more than I was the "realism" of the history.

I just find it a fascinating good time playing it. It's been a long time since I've had a game that was this much fun to play. I think it was April of last year when I got Medieval Total War, but, it didn't last very long because the AI is just too easy. It's a good game, it was fun for a little bit, but, +4 points of morale for the EXPERT mode of that game to the AI and nothing else, heh I'm sorry that just didn't cut it for me.

Now, I've recently coverted over to patch 1.017, kept my 1.013 folder on another drive, but, anyways, I thought I'd see how easy the AI had been dumbed down in longer terms than I had looked at it before. Heh, I started on the "hard" difficulty and had over-run the SW portion of Greece and Crete in a matter of a few turns, with basically ONE army, nothing retaliated, oh they built like ONE unit that I had to destroy, but, no armies like the ones you'll see in v.1.013.

So anyways, I decide to move up to the "impossible" difficulty and in this game I got some action, but, it was all "calvary, every bloomin state around Sparta (I'm playing Sparta), was building calvary, Athens, Boeonians (well they are known for calvary), but, Messnians well the Messians did build a 16 unit army of those sorry infantry (you know the ones that cost "food" lol0, Archaians, Corinthians, Euleans on and on building calvary......this was messed up.

Soo, I went into the "Priority Build".txt files and had a look at things, and decided to change some things around, putting Gold and Silver top priority since that brings in the most income for the AI. Also moved around the way they built up armies, putting Heavy Infantry top priority, then Light Infantry, Skirmishers and Calvary, heh, even moved up the "Generals", in hopes I'll see some AI generals on the field, except for the Romans who are the only ones I've ever seen with generals.

Well anyways, I start another game, with my modifications. Holy smokes (don't get exicted Dinsdale this is holy smokes to ME) ;) I am now encountering well balanced armies, not just lights and skirmishers, but, heavies, lights and skirmishers AND calvary.
The Cretans are amazing me the most with their builds, very well balanced and I'm losing fricking tactical battles!!! haha This never happened before, I was like 97 and 2 on the hard level of patch 1.013 and I'm about "even" in this version 1.017 with my modifications so far (but, this is the "impossible" difficulty now).

Also, let me clue you in, just sitting in some nations with your diplomat does not make your ratings always rise, I've been sitting in Messnia watching them and started paying them off in the early game, got them up to about 66% and all of a sudden, it started going down, I couldn't keep up with flattering, and now they are sitting on my border with (5) 5 dot stacks just looking at Sparta! lol, I'm down to less than 40% now right at the antagonistic level with them and I have no idea what went wrong, but, the new patch did say that the AI will now react to things you do, guess they didn't like me putting out that ONE single 5 dot stack of my own.

But, I'm having to deal with the Arcanians I believe that is their names, right to the right of me and the Cretians have been sniping me since the games early start, they've taken that island city twice now and two of my other coastal cities once, I've beaten them back, but, at a huge price and if the Messnians attack now, I'm fodder under their feet. ;)

I will continue to play it more and if I see the AI continues to build "balanced" armies and you guys want a copy of that "prioritybuild.txt" I can email it to you. I didn't change anything else, just the way the AI prioritizes it's builds and I must say, it's better than it was, there's not all those calvary units running around anymore. Heh, hopefully I'll last long enough to see a general appear, that will be like just the greatest if I have put it in the right spot and I hope I have. ;)

Will do some more testing and let you guys know. ;)

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 15

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 3:44:55 AM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Hi!

Indeed, for the experienced gamer I do not recommend using the 1.017 patch. This game has some small bugs, but nothing I really noticed. It's fine right out of the box.

If it's too tough for you, then download the patch. It was pretty plain from the changes they advertised that the patch would turn the AI into a moron, at least to me. The asked me to try it, but why should I change a game I like?

@ravinhood - I'd be definately interested in the new build system. So when you think its ready to go, let us know.

Ray (alias Lava)

< Message edited by Lava -- 7/3/2004 1:46:14 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 16

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 1:36:40 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Still playing around with it Lava, but, the unit organizations still look pretty good. Basically I'm adjusting for the "impossible" level, the organizations should trickle down to any level.

What I have found new and improved in the 1.017 patch are the relationships based on "threat" and "oppurtunity" have been modified. Those wonderful seemingly friends, don't always remain wonderful friends in some cases anymore. I've watched one go up to 68 and then pummel down less than 40 all the way into antaganizer and then attack me. The bassturds. lol

I could not believe their top priority for research #1 was "calvary", no wonder the fools like to build calvary so much. Calvary isn't that bad though, the heavier ones and the upgraded lights aren't too bad against skirmishers, but, of course the spearmen units eat them for lunch.

What I have them build first is really preferencial choice, I like seeing lots of infantry and few calvary, as opposed to lots of calvary and few infanty. It all depends where one puts that lightcalvarybarracks1 in the prefered order of things. I have heavies #1, then lights, then skirmishers, then calvary, if a city is 5 or 6 brick city with some levels of calvary, then they should build calvary there and paddocks. The city I took with calvary barracks and a paddock was a level 5 calvary city and level 4 bricks. So it seems logical what they built there, calvary barracks, calvary paddock and a brickyard.

It's really a shame I can't code each individual faction and how it builds, that way based on where the faction starts and the resources they start with, I could make a much more defined production build for each one. It was really detrimental to the Eubeans who are predominantly a calvary starting faction, all those calvary levels in each city and they still built a Heavy and Light Infanty barracks, with no copper, so I guess they were just using up all their resources advantage in the early part of the game to get what they sent at me for several tries.

I was playing that little city out from the Eubians, the one that has one city and the objective is to build the Colossus. I'm using it for my test grounds and figured everyone would leave me alone, but, nooooooooooooo, the Eubeans decided they wanted my ONE flippin city and they had like (4). Well unlike patch 1.013 they didn't come in wave after wave after wave of 5 dot armies, but, they did send several 5 dot armies over there at me. I eventually got 16 units in my army and waited for their next 5 dot army to arrive, I massacred it, then stormed to the beachs and took out 3 cities in 3 turns, their 5 dot building days were over. ;) Waited a couple of more turns for reinforcements and took their last city. That's when I noticed nearly everyone of those cities had a level of calvary in them for calvary paddocks.

I did find they are building so far as I have modified them to build, I found a Heavy Infantry Barracks, a Light Infantry Barracks and a Calvary Barracks and calvary paddocks. Some educational buildings, bricks and of course food. I'm seeing a lot more proto hoplite/heavy infantry stacks now, than the usual light infantry icon, though these armies are still pretty balanced, The Cretans are still coming with warriors and veterans as well. Now, I just have to adjust their resources some more I think, on the impossible level it's not even anywhere close to playing the "hard" level of patch 1.013. So, I'm going to adjust the AI's resources by 150 instead of 100 in the next game. What appears has happened is there's some "hardcoding" of the amounts of resources the AI starts with, in 1.013 I think each one was about 10000 lol I can definitely see they've cut the resources the AI gets down a lot. Army builds look basically "normal" on the "impossible" level and this shouldn't be so. Should be about 3x more than what they are building right now for "impossible".

The resource advantage appears the same on every difficulty level, the adjustment for this is how much the AI has to pay for each unit and building per difficulty level, like easy is set at basically 2x resources for 1 unit, then as the difficulty gets higher it goes down to like 65% of full value that the human pays. Now I could adjust here as well and put that down to like 25% and that would give them 4 units to my 1, and that's not counting their starting resource advantages which is 100% of the human players at all difficulty levels. Then the other adjustment is how many inital turns the AI waits before it starts building units, now that doesn't mean it "has" to start building them, but, easy and normal are set to like 12 and 6 turns and hard and above are set to turn 1. I usually see the AI start to put units out around turn 6 on "impossible", don't know why they don't start on turn 2 at least, but, then I see them really churn out a chitload of units after they start and full 5 dot stacks no less. The Messerians had like (7) 5 dot armies out pretty rapidly and decided to go pay the Spartans a visit! heh

I really wish there were a way to save a game and then go into it and look at the cities and see what the AI have built in all of them, then I can tell a lot better if these modifications are working properly.

There's some adjustments for "threat" offensive and defensive settings, but, they have these set to zero's. Zero's apparently give the AI total choice, whereas I might set "threat" opportunity to 75%, meaning 75% of the time when they have an opportunity to gain they will build and offensive stack and go after it. But, then that puts their defensive threats and opportunities to 25%, meaning they will only keep 25% of their entire army for defense and us human players are good at over-running low defenses.

Maybe a 60/40 setting or a 55/45 setting would be appropriate? Giving them the choice it seems they pretty much go the 75/25 setting anyways. When I hit the Eubeans they had like (2) and (4) units in each city. In 1.013 heh they had full frickin stacks and still built full frickin stacks of offensive armies lol.

I liked the defensive builds in 1.013, but, the offensive builds were so fast and nearly every other turn or two here come another 5 spot army made it seem like I was playing WWI instead of Ancient History. ;)

I found it soooo funny, one of the Eubeans 5 dot armies was just about all calvary, lol, I had skirmishers and light infantry out the ying yang (16) total together and just setup in a rough terrain spot and waited for them to come. What a massacre, I hardly lost a thing.

Anyways back to the testing and fun. Will keep yah clued ;)

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 17

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 4:20:44 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Hi!

You see sliterine has announced a free new online game.. Legion arena? Worth checking out their website if anyone is interested.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 18

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 7:48:44 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Heh, I'm still trying to get this AI to come alive in patch 1.017 on "IMPOSSIBLE", I've given them 150% of the players resources and lowered their costs of units/buildings, and they still seem like playing the "easy" level. lol

I think I played patch 1.013 too long, I've become good enough to beat that on "hard" difficulty and coming to 1.017 is like going to romper room Spartan style. lol

Dang, and I like the new relationship feature that is included in 1.017. I did discover that there is a "random" factor that decides which of your neighbors are hostile and which are friendly every game though. Wondered how they did that, then I found the code for it. It's just a bunch of random set values and based on a random roll it runs through those values and picks one for every nation on the map, then adjusts according to ethnic group and location, so as an eastern nation won't make a bee line for you at the start of the game if you are in the west or vice versa, it apparently just affects what they call "boundary" threat levels. Heh I think I'll set all the randoms to 1's hahahah that means everyone will probably hate everyone at the start of the game, haha that might be funny just to see.

I'm really disappointed they dumbed the AI down so much in patch 1.017, after I gave so much praise about this game to all my friends and so many websites forums and then they go and do this, people are going to think I "mislead" them! hehe (hiya Dinsdale) ;)

Well, back to the grunge, I think I'm about done messing with these files, but, I may still port over the unit priority structure build, that should make 1.013 even harder, since it has organized the armies more if nothing else good. lol

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 19

RE: Spartan - 7/3/2004 8:59:04 PM

Hertston

Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline

Hmm..

Been toying with buying this one for a while, but to be honest I suspected the in-store price would be discounted pretty quickly so I hung on a bit.

I'm curious, why would anyone ever dumb down AI, certainly when from what you say there are varying difficulty levels ?

< Message edited by Hertston -- 7/3/2004 7:00:12 PM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 20

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 1:19:22 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Because 10,000 screaming babies ran to the Slitherene Spartan forum and whined that the AI was too hard on the "easy" difficulty. So, by fixing the Easy difficulty, they have ruined ALL the AI's in patch 1.017, well IMHO they have, because I am used to playing the 1.013 patch on "hard" and losing and winning. It's the most challenging AI I've encountered in years and they fudged it up so bad, even with all my modifications to the "impossible" difficulty of 1.017 doesn't seem to bring the effect that 1.013 had on the lowest of levels. Heh it was very hard, they weren't lying, but, Slitherene shouldn't have messed up the whole difficulty tree by redoing the hardcoding for the "resources" the AI gets. I'm not kidding, I swear they start out with 10,000 resources of each item in 1.013, but, it's a hellofa challenge and I really like it a lot.

I'd have to say for a more "realistic" unit build the 1.017 patch is correct, the AI gets the same amount of resources you do and the only difference in difficulty is how much each unit and building costs them, like easy now is twice as much as normal and impossible is or was 45% of normal, I have futher lowered it to 25% of normal, but, it's still nowhere like in 1.013 where they got a unit a turn per city!!! heh, now that was challenging, but, hardly realistic.

So, it's just preference here, I'd rather have a challenging AI than realism any day. Especially since most AI's over the past few years have been so lame and nothing has been improved about them, it was a breath of fresh air to play an AI like in 1.013. I challenge anyone to defeat the "whole map" in the Grand Campaign on the "impossible" setting of 1.013. I drop the gauntlet. ;) I ain't done it yet, heck I haven't even made it there on the "hard" setting yet. lol

(in reply to Hertston)

Post #: 21

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 1:54:49 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

ravinhood

Don't worry, I'll take it as enthusiasm, not misleading ;)

You're still not getting it about the AI though. All they changed were the massive cheats through starting resources.

If you make progress on making the AI more effective then please, please share it with us!! A modded AI file is usually much better than any which ship with a game :)

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 22

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 4:15:06 AM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Because 10,000 screaming babies ran to the Slitherene Spartan forum and whined...

It seemed more like less than a dozen or so, which rather amazed me that they should change the AI for so few complaints.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 23

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 9:53:07 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

What I think happened is Iain himself played 1.013 and got his butt stomped and decided to change the AI for everybody! LOL

Dinsdale have you played just 1.013 vs 1.017 on the same difficulty levels? They are so opposite each other it's like 100% effective vs 0% effective when I compare them.

I at least have the AI putting out it's heavies in 1.017, but, the massive amounts of 5 dot armies are no more I'm sad to say. I can get them to build 5 dot armies, but, they run out of resources much faster than they did in patch 1.013, I can definitely see that difference right away.

The beauty of patch 1.013 is they would keep a large garrison of men in many of their cities and still have large amounts of units on the map. Whereas in 1.017 they still put out large amounts of units on the map (for a short time), but, their garrisons are very puny and no better than the initial start values.

As an example, I spent 11 game years taking out the Boeonians with the Athenians in patch 1.013 (hard difficulty), in patch 1.017 on {"impossible difficulty), I took them out in less than three years. Playing Sparta with patch 1.013 (hard difficulty) it took over 20 game years to take out SW Greece, in patch 1.017 I did it in less than three years on the "impossible difficulty). If you attacked a faction in 1.013, they churned out units like flies on bananna's, if you attack a faction in 1.017 they go, oh well, here's some more cities, we are lazy and eating our bananna's now. lol

Now I've also discovered they changed the city happiness level affected by the garrisons, however many garrisons you have in each city increases happiness by 10 points, so if you have 16 armies in your city that's +160 to happiness, lol, my citizens are "jubilent" all the time and I have taxes maxed out and efficiency maxed out and giving them no food at all. In the origional version AND patch 1.013 this was always limited to (6) garrison/visiting units max and you had to deal with disorder and discontent. This is another feature they have messed up.

In reality now, I wouldn't recommend this game to anyone if patch 1.017 was the only option one has, but, the copies being sold for now are patch 1.013 and that's the version that I found great.

I'm also getting some feedback from "Gates of Troy" the expansion, and it's already sounding like patch 1.017 AI, when you move 70 turns and nothing has happened something is broken.

I also don't care what Iain said about they only adjusted the AI difficulties from Normal difficulty downward to Easy, it's plainly not so and it's easily proven if anyone has played the "Hard" difficulties of each version or Higher it's very easy to see a MAJOR difference.

If someone asked me how good of a game is Spartan and all there was, was the AI of 1.017, I'd say it sux!!!! Wait for the Bargain bin on this one. Fortunately for many until they print a fresh batch of new boxed games, many will still get the 1.013 version and get their money's worth, but, when they start producing 1.017 boxed versions, well I feel sorry for that bunch of buyers.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 24

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 10:21:43 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

You're still not getting it about the AI though. All they changed were the massive cheats through starting resources.

I don't know how many years you have been computer gaming Dinsdale, but, I've been playing them for almost 25 years now. I really wish people would quit calling them "cheats" because this is exactly how the AI is IMPROVED for ANY game for the last 25 years. There's no new intelligence on difficulty levels, it's just more "advantages", it always has been for 25 years. (Except for the Chess games).

From the early 1980's to the present, the higher difficulties did not make the AI a smarter more intelligent or more strategic or tactical opponent, it just was given more advantages, like "resources", more starting area, more unit morale factors, less fog of war, combat bonuses etc. etc.

Even your favorite Paradox games are enhanced by "advantages" in resources, and decreases in costs of things that the player must overcome, and put to be more aggressive without much thought as to what it's even being aggressive with. Every AI out there gets your socalled "cheats", but, they are not "cheats", they are "advantages"/"handicaps".

It's no different than handicapping a bowler, I don't know if you bowl or not, but, they give bowlers with averages with less than 200 (my analogy for an AI with less than 100% intelligence) an 80% handicap of their average subtracted from 200. This gives them a chance to compete with 200 bowlers who don't get any handicap at all. Same in golf, there are handicaps in golf that work the same way so a 90 avg golfer can compete with a 72 avg golfer. those aren't considered cheats and neither should the advantages that the AI gets considered cheats, advantages are merely a handicapping system for creating an game that is challenging to the players at it's most difficult level.

( I had a 135 average in bowling at one time, and through advantages and handicapping I won many tournaments against 200 average bowlers, now some people said I "cheated" cause I got such a high handicap and bowled games over 170, but, I can't help it if I just focused more during tournaments and drank less beer.) ;) The AI's of all games deserve the same advantages, so players with high strategic and tactical knowhow can still find challenge in attempting to overcome the advantages/handicaps/cheats whatever you wish to perceive them as. ;)

I don't know of a single game I've played in the last 25 years, and I've played a lot believe me, that the AI improved on it's tactics and strategy as the difficulty levels went higher, the only setting that is adjusted for higher difficulties that may APPEAR like strategy and tactics improvements are how much the AI pays for it's units and research and on what turn it is allowed to start building units. All I've ever seen were the advantages in what I spoke of above.

But, beside all of that, that is what is missing in patch 1.017 for the "Impossible" difficulty, it's not even as hard to play the "impossible" difficulty of 1.017 as it is the EASY difficulty of 1.013, because they have bascially taken away all the advantages, all of the handicaps out of the AI, it no longer is getting it's Viagra. ;)

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 25

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 1:06:08 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Yes. Handicap Level would be a better term for it than intelligence. The classic handicap given in chess games is of course a time limit to best move calculation and the inability to calculate more than a few moves ahead.

Having just bought Spartan I am a little concerned about the patch. Whilst I don't want AI controlled opponents to be given ridiculous advantages, if they are so easy to beat without them the game clearly has AI problems elsewhere.

I have always considered it to be the mark of a poor AI if it has to be given huge handicap advantages to stand a chance of winning against a human opponent. In the case of Spartan this is made even more annoying by the fact that playing PBEM aganst human opponents is not an option.

Just about finished my second campaign on Crete, working my way up to the mega campaigns.

< Message edited by Didz -- 7/4/2004 1:37:19 PM >

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 26

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 3:33:30 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Hi!

Actually, I think the problem with the patch is not just giving the AI an advantage in resources.

What happened is that actually took the "aggressiveness" out of the AI. As they put it, the AI will no longer attack you unless it has reason. In other words, unless you attack it. I have real problems with that. The lack of aggressiveness is what made Legion a coaster in my opinion. Just think about it. Here you are conquering cities left and right and your neighbors stand quietly by as you build a huge empire. Does that make sense? In truth, as a player, if I see a country next to me that is expanding in another direction, I get concerned. I think it is only correct that countries should view expansion by the human player to be a threat whether it is direct or not.

To compound the problem, they changed the diplomatic setup such that a player is forewarned well in advance that a neighbor is going to attack you. Geez... I don't forewarn my hapless neighbors, why should they forewarn me?

The patch made some rather drastic changes to the play of the AI. I have been a proponent of the game and like it alot. If, however, it had shipped with the newest patch already installed, I highly doubt if I would have endorsed the product.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 27

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 3:43:28 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Hmmm! This is starting to sound really bad.

I would have thought the AI would have a set objective script for each nation from which it could assess and select sensible options based upon liklihood of success. The liklihood of an attack ought to be based upon diplomatic relationships and those should be affected by interaction between the AI nations and the players.

Thus, for example, if the AI controlled nation has a script which states that it has a claim over several of your cities it might launch a pre-emptive invasion if it see's an opportunity to take them and diplomatic relations are bad. On the other hand if diplomatic relations are good it might begin badgering the player for compensation or gifts to turn a blind eye to your constant occupation of its land.

That sort of approach would be far better than what you seem to be describing.

< Message edited by Didz -- 7/4/2004 5:54:16 PM >

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 28

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 3:54:44 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

The game itself is fine, its the patch that sucks.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 29

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 8:12:18 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Let me see if I can explain this where you will understand how the AI determines who to attack Ditz.

At the very beginning of the game all of the surrounding border states around your starting state take a random roll number, this number then decides which two or three states will have negative diplomatic relations with you and more likely to attack you during the opening moves of the game. This is done for all of the nations overall, but, the affect is specifically geared more toward where YOU the player have chosen to start. It's called a Threatboundary modifier and then Reltrust modifier, these two modifiers affect who is going to dislike you at the start of the game and the boundarythreat modifier is the one that most affects the states surrounding you, some will like you some won't, sometimes all of them might not like you, but, it's a sure bet at least two of them are not going to like you, but, it's not the same every game, so that is a good thing.

The reltrust modifier goes on to determine whether you can improve relations or whether your relations will continue to deterioate each and every turn, till the faction attacks you.
You can save some time with diplomacy, but, it's expensive in the amounts of 1000 and 2500 silver at the early stages of the game which give 6 positive diplomatic points if they are successful, 20% of the time they are not. ;)

What I liked about patch 1.017 is they improved this relationship trust feature so that it's not so easy just to make "green" allies out of all those surrounding you like in patch 1.013, if they don't like you they are going to continue to go down in relationship trust till they decide to attack.

I do believe I can eventually bring the difficulty of 1.013 to the "impossible" difficulty of patch 1.017, through adjusting the resource amounts and lowering the costs, I'm now getting the AI to produce that effect of 1.013 in those "trains" of 5 dot armies more each time I make adjustments. hehe this is what I want also, because when you do find yourself in a war, you will see the "trains" on the impossible level when I am finished. ;)

When I compared the two tweak.txt files of 1.013 and 1.017 there was hardly any difference in them, not enough to compare to the what appeared to be unlimited resources of 1.013, so by adjusting the resources in levels of 100 to the player I believe I will eventually see the "trains" I'm looking for.

I pity the people buying "Gates of Troy" because Iain stated this morning that the AI in Troy was actually already in Spartan, he just forgot to mention it in detail. Heh, I don't blame him, knowing Troy has that 1.017 AI, I wouldn't be interested in buying it until I'm sure I can create the AI flavor of patch 1.013 in Spartan.

I love the game concept, don't get me wrong, I WANT this game to work and be what excited me about it when I first got patch 1.013 version. If I can bring it around to be what it was, then I will be elated and people can download it or get it through and email from me if they want an enhanced "handicapped" tougher and challenging AI.

Ditz if you are any kind of strategist, you will slaughter the 1.017 AI. And you will appreciate what I'm doing to try to bring the 1.013 AI to the 1.017 version. ;)

And for you LAVA: When I get through adjusting "battletrust% modifier" your surrounding allied neighbors aren't going to like you nearly as much when you attack another allied faction, even your allies will take a hit if they are near the surrounding attack area. ;) I got this to work in patch 1.013, so this is not going to be a problem at all. Heh, don't be surprised if you see antagonistic and hates you after you attack an allied faction by the surrounding factions if you use my mod. ;)

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 7/4/2004 4:25:25 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 30