Conquest of Elysium 3 dev log - Page 46

vladikus · #**451** February 6th, 2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Altho best IMHO is an alliance between early powerhouse and late game SCs.I like to play games with me allied to an AI. I love how the game allows allies to cooperate so much. And I love the cluster start switch where the allies start next to each other. With well-paired allies its a blast

I think that option is already available (a clustered start I think its called).

Edi · #**452** February 6th, 2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArkhanTheBlack

I've just seen Gandalf's new AAR where his ally started on the other side of the map, and I wonder if it's possible to add an option to force allies to be close to each other.
I like to play cooperative games with friends and it's usually nice if you start close to each other so one is able to help the other. If both are positioned far way each one is more or less playing his own game.

That option is known as "Clustered start for allied players" and is set at game creation.

As you can see, they start quite close together.

Ighalli · #**453** February 6th, 2012, 06:11 PM

Just out of curiosity: I know allies can steal from one another if the original owner doesn't leave any troops behind on their square. Is it possible for an ally to steal their friend's citadel and put them out of the game?

Allied troops can move past one another and coexist on the same square between turns, right?

Edi · #**454** February 6th, 2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ighalli

Just out of curiosity: I know allies can steal from one another if the original owner doesn't leave any troops behind on their square. Is it possible for an ally to steal their friend's citadel and put them out of the game?

Allied troops can move past one another and coexist on the same square between turns, right?

Yes, and yes.

Gandalf Parker · #**455** February 6th, 2012, 07:21 PM

If no unit is there then the first to walk in claims it just as if they were not allies. But if a unit of your allies is there then you cannot combat them.

However....
I have hidden inside my allies fortress. I have stationed troops inside my allies fortress to help defend it when he was weak. And (possible exploit warning) I have done dangerous summonings inside my allies fortress in order to force his troops to help defend me if the control fails.

Gandalf Parker · #**456** February 6th, 2012, 07:39 PM

Im sorry. I dropped the Druid / Baron Alliance AAR.
I think I gave some idea of what that alliance offers in a fun game. Enough to spark some interest.

Now I have started another alliance. The High Cultist (Rlyeh/Cthulhu) nation is allied with a Troll King nation. Not quite so friendly an alliance. They overlap in their needs. But if played properly it can still benefit both sides.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=48331

Tarrax · #**457** February 7th, 2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

If no unit is there then the first to walk in claims it just as if they were not allies. But if a unit of your allies is there then you cannot combat them.

Interesting. This is a bit of odd way of doing it don't you think? I mean I can understand a loose alliance where your "ally" can possibly take advantage of you when he sees your undefended castle. But then why wouldn't it when he sees you defending your castle with one single soldier if it's a loose alliance? If it's opportunistic, it should always be opportunistic I think.

So anyway... We have about 2 weeks until the target release date. Does it look like we will meet that target?

Gandalf Parker · #**458** February 7th, 2012, 12:35 AM

I dont mind the arrangement. It makes it easy to decide what things my ally can or cannot have. If I want him to hands-off then I leave at least one unit to say "excuse me but you cant have that". But if I want him to have it then I just march my troops off as soon as he is in the neighborhood.

It makes it easy to give iron or gold if I want him to boost his troops. or give him a castle if i want him to generate more of a presence in that part of the map

Gandalf Parker · #**459** February 7th, 2012, 12:37 AM

As far as "on time" Id guess so. We dont stop coming up with changes, but i dont think that will stop anything. And sometimes we do introduce some really nasty bug but Johan tends to fix that in a day so that shouldnt hang us up either.

The only thing that might concern me is that I still havent seen anything about who and how it will be distributed

Tarrax · #**460** February 7th, 2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

I dont mind the arrangement. It makes it easy to decide what things my ally can or cannot have. If I want him to hands-off then I leave at least one unit to say "excuse me but you cant have that". But if I want him to have it then I just march my troops off as soon as he is in the neighborhood.

It makes it easy to give iron or gold if I want him to boost his troops. or give him a castle if i want him to generate more of a presence in that part of the map

Ah I see. So it's done that way as of sort of a site trading mechanism. I guess it makes sense if that's the only site trading mechanism.