Page 2 of 2

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:20 pm
by DEB
I will check about Fabius. I am in the middle of moving and my workstation is currently offline. I think that he does start promoted and the 'unpromoted' value for him is an unused definition. In the original board game Fabius does NOT start the game in the Promoted state.
Noted.

[ I am a little surprised that Hannibal and Fabius are marked differently on the Leader's list, despite being the same ( as it were ). I guess this is due to that difference with the board game... ]
As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).
I suspected as much. I find most games have these "issues" ( as it were ). It happens...

[ My main concern here is really whether he is in the game ( but not on the Leaders list ), or just not in the game at all. I fully expect that not all possible Leaders made the "final cut"... ]
I'll write a little more next week when I have finished moving.
Thanks. [&o]
Thanks for your interest in the game!
That's OK. It's a great "little" game.

[ My first serious attempt at this ( some time ago ), got me an outright win ( Hannibal took Rome ); albeit on Easy and with Hannibal starting in "Italy". Recently I had another two goes, again on Easy ( etc. ). I lost both. The first in about 2/3 turns ( without any re-reference to the rules [X(] ) ; and the second at the end of turn 20. Here I lost too many siege battles where I had besieged somewhere and got attacked by a relief force ( due to that lack of a chance to use the Battle Cards [8|])... Note to self : Read the Rules [:-] ! ]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:19 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius

I will check about Fabius. I am in the middle of moving and my workstation is currently offline. I think that he does start promoted and the 'unpromoted' value for him is an unused definition. In the original board game Fabius does NOT start the game in the Promoted state.

As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).

I'll write a little more next week when I have finished moving.

Ummm - move over ? [&:]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:51 pm
by mercenarius
Yes, my move is over, although I am still unpacking and dealing with items still in storage. [:@]

In the original board game, Fabius doesn't start the game in the promoted state. And what you saw in the code that I posted reflects that. Somewhere along the way I decided that Fabius was so experienced that he should start the game in the promoted state, and now we does.

So, the code sample that I showed is not wrong, but it does have a value that is never actually used in the game. (Because after creating the Roman leader pool, the game always promotes him as part of the initialization code).

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:36 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius

Yes, my move is over, although I am still unpacking and dealing with items still in storage. [:@]

In the original board game, Fabius doesn't start the game in the promoted state. And what you saw in the code that I posted reflects that. Somewhere along the way I decided that Fabius was so experienced that he should start the game in the promoted state, and now he does.

So, the code sample that I showed is not wrong, but it does have a value that is never actually used in the game. (Because after creating the Roman leader pool, the game always promotes him as part of the initialization code).

Interesting...

Thanks.

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:45 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius

As to the Cornelius clan, the game's design simplifies certain matters. Some things the Romans did cannot be duplicated precisely by the AI. But it can get reasonably close in the larger scheme of things, I think (I hope).
I suspected as much. I find most games have these "issues" ( as it were ). It happens...

[ My main concern here is really whether he is in the game ( but not on the Leaders list ), or just not in the game at all. I fully expect that not all possible Leaders made the "final cut"... ]

Ummm, can I take it that Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus is not in the game ?

[ For "mercenarius" ]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:29 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: nalivayko

Hanno, Bomilcar son - 5

Bomilcar - 4

Who is Bomilcar here ?

Do you mean Hamilcar...

[ There was a Bomilcar who was an Assassin in Rome... ]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:51 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius

Generic Hanno 6 8
Hello again,

I have just realised that the "first" name specified here is rather odd.
Does the term "Generic" ( here ), imply that this Leader covers more than one Leader also named Hanno ( aside that of Hanno ( son of Hamilcar ) ) ?

[ I am aware of at least three Hanno's, including Hanno ( son of Hamilcar ) and Hanno the Great... ]

If so, does this mean he may reappear ( after "death" ) unlike the other Leaders ?

[ If not, perhaps "he" should, or else what is the point in using the term "Generic" here, rather than just a "real" name like the other Leaders... ]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:47 pm
by mercenarius
Ummm, can I take it that Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus is not in the game ?

Yes, that is correct. 'Africanus', his father, and Cethegus are the only Cornelii in the game.

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:53 pm
by mercenarius
Who is Bomilcar here ?

Bomilcar

I wanted some additional generals that would add a little "what if" variety for the Carthaginians.

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:01 am
by mercenarius
I have just realised that the "first" name specified here is rather odd.

It mostly means that he is just a made-up person in the sense that this leader is not a historical figure. This was to add some variety to the Carthaginian pool of leaders, and to help fill it out. It is also to differentiate him from other men with the same name.

This leader can be killed, however. He doesn't reappear if he is killed. You CAN run out of leaders in the game.

P.S. I did the same thing with the leader pool for Syracuse. I had a hard time finding men who actually served or could be imagined that they would have served as generals if needed when Syracuse was allied with Rome. Hence the leader "Genericos" is not a historical person and that usage is kind of a joke. But I needed a fourth leader to fill out the pool for pro-Roman leaders in Syracuse.

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:47 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius
Ummm, can I take it that Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus is not in the game ?

Yes, that is correct. 'Africanus', his father, and Cethegus are the only Cornelii in the game.
Noted - Thanks.

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:54 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius

Who is Bomilcar here ?

Bomilcar

I wanted some additional generals that would add a little "what if" variety for the Carthaginians.
Re the link - thanks, that was indeed informative. However, your subsequent remark confuses me...
Are you suggesting Bomilcar is in the game ? He is not included on your list...

[ My question was really aimed towards "nalivayko" as he had Bomilcar on his list of Carthaginian Leaders. ]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:01 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius
I have just realised that the "first" name specified here is rather odd.

It mostly means that he is just a made-up person in the sense that this leader is not a historical figure. This was to add some variety to the Carthaginian pool of leaders, and to help fill it out. It is also to differentiate him from other men with the same name.
As suspected. Fair enough I guess.
This leader can be killed, however. He doesn't reappear if he is killed. You CAN run out of leaders in the game.
Again, fair enough - but I think my point still stands. I.E. he should really have just been a named Hanno ( with an initial perhaps - like H. Gisco )...
P.S. I did the same thing with the leader pool for Syracuse. I had a hard time finding men who actually served or could be imagined that they would have served as generals if needed when Syracuse was allied with Rome. Hence the leader "Genericos" is not a historical person and that usage is kind of a joke. But I needed a fourth leader to fill out the pool for pro-Roman leaders in Syracuse.
Noted.

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:27 pm
by mercenarius
Well, it's been so long that I forgot about Bomilcar. I included some resources to allow for a general named Bomilcar. But I changed my mind and didn't add him to the game's logic. So, you are right, there is no leader in the game named Bomilcar.

Sorry to cause confusion. It's been a while since I have played 'Hannibal'. [:(]

RE: Generals' ratings

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:06 pm
by DEB
ORIGINAL: mercenarius

Well, it's been so long that I forgot about Bomilcar. I included some resources to allow for a general named Bomilcar. But I changed my mind and didn't add him to the game's logic. So, you are right, there is no leader in the game named Bomilcar.

Sorry to cause confusion. It's been a while since I have played 'Hannibal'. [:(]

Noted - Thanks.