Pathfinding Speculation |
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Author | ||
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Pathfinding SpeculationPosted: 25 Jul 2012 at 20:16 |
|
|
with the Gathering/Crafting/Trading update on it's way, I want to take a minute and talk about what isn't in that update, and speculate about what Path finding could be... . The below is speculation and hopeful thinking. Feel free to add to it!
Pathfinding is the function for units traveling on the map to find the most effective way to get to their destination. There are two ways to implement it: passive and active. Passive implies that the game will automatically find you the fastest route to your destination. This requires quit a bit of programming, but I think it is the best way for it to get implemented. Active path finding means it is up to each player to find and assign the desired path to their units. This is easiest to implement, and gives players something to do, but could be met with confusion by many new players. Right now all units pass over all land at the same speed. This will change when Pathfinding gets implemented. i predict the following modifications to existing terrain:
With these changes made, many paths will be modified. Units will be avoiding mountain ranges and passing through water due to the terrain over them. These changes will also isolate the islands, and create river borders between lands. These restrictions give good reason for new sov. structures. Here are my thoughts on what new sov. structures we will see released:
So now we have the ability to build walls on the world map. Gates in the walls to allow our alies through. Roads to greatly increase travel time for allied units. Bridges to get over most rivers and lakes. And ports to navigate the oceans... but wait a minute... ports require ships, where to ships come in at??? With Pathfinding, we will also see the first release of ships. Specifically transport ships.
So. Let's recap. We now have a good reason to find a more efficient path to our destination, since some terrain slows us down, and some is just impassable. Alliances have the option to build their own impassable barriers with walls, or decrease movement times with roads. Friendly ships and friendly ports MUST be used to transport goods across oceans. What does this all mean??? Here are some examples of how this functionality could be used: - Confederations have a whole new meaning. Alliance can build great road or ship lanes, and charge an escrow to become a confederation and use their roads and ships. - Port cities become significant strategic points. Destroy an enemies port, and they can't get access to your island. Want to make friends? Build ports that they can use. - Barricade your regional hubs. Surround your alliance's largest cities in a circle of walls with only 1 gate. No enemy diplomats or military units can touch your protected cities unless they break down the wall first. - Interstate travel. A well organized alliance can build a massive road traversing through multiple regions, resultiing in the ability to send troops through the regions at speeds way faster than the competition. Out speed your enemies, and charge an escrow for other alliances to use your roads. Now this is all great, but unbalanced, and requires alliance and players to HAVE to build bridges and ports just to get across water... So I am speculating that there will be WORLD bridges and WORLD ports that anyone can use... but there's a catch. These WORLD buildings can be occupied by anyon'e military force. And whomever occupies them, can set a TOLL to use the bridge or infrastructure. This adds a permanent tournament structures that alliances will be fighting for control over. |
||
![]() |
||
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 402 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 20:31 |
|
|
A lot of speculation
I'd like to see roads come in multiple variations from game trails and cart tracks to pave roads and super highways. Each with their own build requirements and gold upkeep. Alliance roads would have upkeep paid out of alliance taxes personal roads from the city that built it. Walls and gates would be interesting, but I think items that give diplos the ability to scale walls would be required and maybe siege towers that allow infantry, spears, and archers scale the walls. Also have the walls come in different sizes/upkeep. All interesting to think about. |
||
![]() |
||
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 20:44 |
|
I like the variations of walls and roads. Pay more upkeep to get higher results. Giving diplo's ability to scale walls would be pretty cool, especially if it's done using crafted gear (grappling hooks!!!) I still prefer to keep military units out of walls, unless they use siege engines to break them down. |
||
![]() |
||
demdigs
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 Status: Offline Points: 570 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 21:07 |
|
|
let's worry about crafting and trade v2 before we move onto roads, as much as i am excited for roads and all that can be done about that, we need to build up to it, GM's deserve a break after crafting and trade v2 come out.
|
||
![]() |
||
Torn Sky
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 402 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 21:22 |
|
City walls should still work the same but walls built on sov should not not be totally invincible, siege towers would be a nice balance to walls. |
||
![]() |
||
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 21:23 |
|
nah... no breaks! All just wild speculation... i was thinking about all of this while reading over the recent dev blogs. Just wanted to get my speculative thoughts out there and see what others thought. Not expecting someone to build these ASAP or anything. but come on, how cool would walls be :)
|
||
![]() |
||
Tatharion
Wordsmith
Joined: 11 Jun 2012 Status: Offline Points: 139 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jan 2014 at 18:52 |
|
|
Who has never been thinking as he/she is dispatching their preciously earned military or diplomatic units 1,000 squares
away : « I hope it will be useful» and from time to time : « I
hope they return safely home » ? Now, what we have all grown accustomed to is to never ask ourselves any questions whatsoever on what could happen to these units while on their way… As if upon clicking the « send » button, we were getting used to seeing these units enter hyperspace or to be « beamed » to their destination… I guess this odd feeling helped trigger the forum conversation on the concept of « Pathfinding ». I would like at this stage to warmly thank Geofrey for sharing his views above about what Pathfinding could look like and how it could evolve. I am convinced as well that as an single game
development it would become one of the most fruitful ever for Illyriad
players. This discussion is not new. The game has gone in a different direction as Trade V2, Gathering and Crafting were released and these development were also very entertaining indeed. They contributed mostly to create desirable assets for players and alliances and ways to trade these. Large alliance wars were an inevitable by-product as well… Today, I would like to make a suggestion to improve the « neighborhood » feeling in Illyriad as well as contribute to upgrading the realism in warfare. In many board games, the concept of Zone of Control which represents the tiles adjacent to tiles occupied by a unit has been used. I believe Illyriad could greatly benefit from deploying this concept as well. Zones of control commonly are used to represent the portion of the map over which a military ground formation has a direct influence, due to the range of its weapons and the distance its sub-units may deploy from its center of gravity (typically identified as a HQ). Game rules often include specific effects associated with a zone of control. Typical effects include one or more of the following: ·
Destruction of
retreating enemy units. ·
Enemy units must be
attacked. ·
Increased movement cost. ·
Interdiction of enemy
supply lines. ·
Partly negate enemy zone
of control. ·
Prevent further
movement, including voluntary advances or retreats. · Reveal hidden enemy units. Zones of Control also represent the indirect effect a formation has on the movement rate of an enemy unit in its vicinity. That is, units deep behind friendly lines, and so outside enemy zones of control, may move almost at road speed under many conditions, while once they approach an enemy unit - and so enter its Zone of Control - their movement rate should slow dramatically, perhaps only to yards per hour, which in game terms is indistinguishable from stopping in the presence of the enemy. Now, I would suggest to consider the following:
any military units above a certain unit count threshold would gain the ability to
create a Zone of Control around the closest tile center to its location (as it
looks like the handling of “moving units” in Illyriad is continuous and appears
not to jump from tile center to tile center). Whenever an “enemy” units steps into this Zone of Control, a combat would ensue (or alternatively could ensue if a probability grid of interception is designed with for instance less probable interception at night, etc…) provided that the speed of the intercepting unit is greater than the one of the intercepted party. This development could be a two step-process: 1) Immobile units could establish such a ZoC area. 2) Moving units could as well establish a ZoC area. It could also be considered that armies in which unit counts (adjusted for unit gold expense) are 100K and above could deploy a wider ZoC; which would mean something going above and beyond in size the regular ZoC... Depending on the ensuing combat result, such intercepted armed party would either return home (if incurring a loss of over 25% or...50%?) or carry on its movement to destination. I do understand that deploying this concept of Zone of Control in such a large area like Elgea would be tremendously hungry in servers raw CPU-time, but I believe that by setting a high enough threshold for military unit count – 10K? 20K? 30K? - in gold adjusted terms to benefit from this ZoC "ability" (maybe a new set of research branches could be created to that effect?), it could help trim significantly the extra burden… I genuinely believe deploying this ZoC concept would radically transform overnight warfare in Elgea. A corollary to this discussion would obviously revolve around the possibility for vans to be liable to interception as well…which begs for the possibility of armed convoys i.e. armies (possibly from several cities) attached to vans... All of a sudden, Illyriad would become a lot more local as armed borders would likely be built and actively monitored by groups of players and/or alliances…. At a later stage it would be useful to refresh discussion on topics like roads, fleets, and others… I would be happy to confront these views with everyone interested in making Illyriad a better game. Tatharion, Consul Invictus Edited by Tatharion - 25 Jan 2014 at 23:47 |
||
|
Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.
|
||
![]() |
||
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 Jan 2014 at 19:40 |
|
|
Interesting suggestion. As a small movement in this direction, I think it would be awesome if armies posted with scouts could get information on armies that were moving through their diplo visibility bubble. This information could be limited to army size, but would also potentially be interesting if it displayed army orders. Thus alliances could post "sentries" on their "borders" to reveal which attacks were feints or where a siege might land. Alliances would then be motivated to fight "on the borders" to take out sentries before military action went further into someone's territory.
I'm not a huge fan of territorialism in general, preferring instead to live with people from a variety of (hopefully friendly) alliances around me, but I do think this feature could result in some interesting strategies and tactics. Edited to add: And given that we used to be able to see army size for traveling units, at least for friendlies, it doesn't seem that it would be hard to re-add the size feature, but subject to diplo visibility. Don't know if the orders part would be harder.
Edited by Rill - 25 Jan 2014 at 19:41 |
||
![]() |
||
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 31 Jan 2014 at 15:30 |
|
|
Tatharion, fantastic post.
Your Zone of Control would be a much simplier execution of some of the pathfinding concepts I originally had. The ability to auto scout as Rill suggested would be a fantastic addition to the auto fight mechanics. Some additions to your concept: * Establishing Zone of Control should be optional. Maybe a new military operation called Military Camp or Zone of Control Camp would be required instead of the regular Occupy. * I think a direct auto combat mechanism may be too harsh. Instead the existing raiding mechanism should be adapted. The Zone of Control army will raid any army that passes within their zone. If raid successful, the moving army retreats. If raid unsuccessful the moving army continues. This increases tactical and strategic decisions since it would now be more beneficial to put offensive troops in Zone of Control Camps, making them vulnerable to direct attack without wall defenses. * Lastly, such a system would only work if player had pathfinding options to divert their troops in a different direction. Currently the straight line only movements allow for too much abuse of a zone of control system.
|
||
![]() |
||
ropadope
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Nov 2012 Location: Yes Status: Offline Points: 65 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 31 Jan 2014 at 18:41 |
|
|
I'm always a fan of keeping things simple. My vision of pathfinding is a way to link neighbors and friends.
Keep it simple by applying a new type of building to sov'd squares in the form of a brick, clay, or wood road with upkeep costs. Of course steel would be used for bridges and such... Surely this would not take any great feat in programming as they have the basic idea already established, ie production buildings.
This would bring neighbors together (as well as bring about new conflicts theoretically) But all in all it would, imho, bring about a new lvl of co-operation in a game that I believe has the best community there is possible. In fact...if there are negotiations on road tolls(might take a bit of programming), then indeed it would either tear regions apart or solidify them. |
||
![]() |
||
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |