Multiplayer maps: prefix labelling, terrain

[|Heerbann|_Luculus]

For me the suffix like (fl) are helpful and easy to know. But real names are quite more interesting than numbers like flatinland_01 etc.

I would prefer a mix of it. At first the name should express for how many armies the map is used to be, then some information about the terrain and at last a name of the map.

For example:

(8f)Fields_of_Agincourt: You see its for 8 players, its almost flat and "fields" causes an impression of the terrain, and the name Agincourt makes it easy to remember it.

[Puzz3D]

R'as has correctly pointed out that all we have are large and small maps, and a single non-alphanumeric prefix would be enough to separate the large from the small in the list. The terrain type could be designated by the map's name, by an optional suffix or carry no designation as is the case with the original STW maps.

[R'as al Ghul]

R'as has correctly pointed out that all we have are large and small maps, and a single non-alphanumeric prefix would be enough to separate the large from the small in the list. The terrain type could be designated by the map's name, by an optional suffix or carry no designation as is the case with the original STW maps.

Yuuki and I've discussed this pretty extensively and this is the result:
1. The two different groups of maps, SP and MP, will be seperated in the list of selectable maps simply by saving them in different locations. (/savemaps and /Battle/Maps)
The effect is that the MP maps are listed first and visually seperated by a slightly darker font. They form the first block.
The second block consists of all smaller maps, SP custom maps and campaign battle maps like flatinland_etc.

2. Within the large MP maps, we'd like to leave out any prefixes or suffixes to give the mapname the most space. However that doesn't mean we prohibit anything.
A mapmaker may choose to include a prefix to keep all his maps together in the list. In that case, please use an underscore "_" to seperate your author prefix from the mapname. Example: "O_Mizulands 01" (O=OrdaKhan) Btw, we try to get away from using numbers.

3. Concerning the terrain, we don't see a real need for a designator in the name. We expect a certain quality and fairness when it comes to maps that we include into our mod. Official map updates will always be approved by us to ensure that.
What do we mean by quality and fairness?
That's certainly subjective and not easy to define, but as a rule the maps shouldn't favor either side of the players. Defenders' and attackers' sides should be treated equally by map creators. Keep in mind that we play without designated attacker and defender roles in MP. Maps should reflect the Taishos' intention to choose a suitable terrain for huge armies to meet. (We can hardly fight a 4vs4 in a mountainous all forest map) 4th Kawanakajima is a nice example for this which most players should know, it's only missing wooded areas to hide units in. (It's included in beta_7 and 8 and in original STW)
I hope this isn't too blurry.

R'as

[Puzz3D]

Yuuki and I've discussed this pretty extensively and this is the result:
1. The two different groups of maps, SP and MP, will be seperated in the list of selectable maps simply by saving them in different locations. (/savemaps and /Battle/Maps)

My understanding is that large maps will go in /Savemaps and small maps in /Battle/Maps. All maps are available for use in MP, but the small maps are only recommended for 1v1 or 2v2 since the usable playing area is smaller than it was in stw.

The /Battle/Maps folder should contain all of the original STW province maps under their original names and duplicates renamed into the MTW naming convention for use in the SP campaign, 16 castle maps derived from the original STW castle maps renamed for use in the SP campaign and many small custom maps created by various players for original STW.

[Tomisama]

An outstanding job gentlemen, I really mean that

This will be the greatest mod ever!


Please let me intervene here for a moment, because of something that was mentioned above.

Keep in mind that we play without designated attacker and defender roles in MP.

I am a strong advocate against attacker/defender designations, considering it a major flaw in Total War multiplayer conventions. I wish they would have just called them the armys of the North and South, or something.

But anyway. In a discussion about this, a Clan m8 of mine brought up the range advantage of the armies in the South. And although this “fractured feature” may not pose and significant imbalance, I had forgotten the details and wanted to ask you guys for a refresher. Can you help with the spec on this please?

Thanks in advance

P.S. I would like to suggest that in order to avoid any confusion, and to help to build a strong Samurai Wars community, that this current forum be archived (but still available for reference), and a fresh one started. The problem is all of the previous versions, revisions, instructions, contests, links, etc. could lead someone astray, or cause them to assume that it would be to complicated to try and install. Thinking that we want the only challenges to playing this fantastic mod to be on the battlefield, and not in trying to get there. Please consider this.

[Puzz3D]

I am a strong advocate against attacker/defender designations, considering it a major flaw in Total War multiplayer conventions. I wish they would have just called them the armys of the North and South, or something.

Somebody has to attack or else there is no battle. The attacker chooses the weather, and in STW this was important because of the effect it had on ranged weapons. It's less of a tactical advantage for the attacker in MTW because the weather is mostly random making it impossible to tailor an army to an expected weather condition. To some extent the dynamic playbalance between attacking and defending, which declined in MTW, has been restored in Samurai Wars by returning to the stronger RPS gameplay of the original game, selecting an overall morale level which provides a balance between positional and attritional gameplay when utilizing individual units or combinations of units and a return of the deep back kills of guns which puts close packed, static formations of units at a disadvantage. Ideally, these tactics can be utilized to overcome significant terrain disadvantages, and thus allow a greater variety of maps to be used.

But anyway. In a discussion about this, a Clan m8 of mine brought up the range advantage of the armies in the South. And although this “fractured feature” may not pose and significant imbalance, I had forgotten the details and wanted to ask you guys for a refresher. Can you help with the spec on this please?

Archers and xbows are 20% more effective when shooting from the south towards the north.

[Tomisama]

Somebody has to attack or else there is no battle.

Everyone who comes to play multiplayer is looking to win. You put opposing players on a map, and they will eventually fight for that honour. That is self evident, that’s why they came! Assigned attacker/defender roles to instigate multiplayer battle are unnecessary, and can limit peoples thinking, and there by their choice of armys, and their gameplay as they try to fulfill these imaginary designations.

I always dread to see the chat “are we the attackers (or defenders)?”, and always try to answer “no, we are the winners!”. Or worse, “you must attack us, you are the attackers”, always shouted from atop an impenetrable camp site. To the later I have no answer

Archers and xbows are 20% more effective when shooting from the south towards the north.

Ok, thanks. Just to be clear, if the southern army is forced to shoot to either east or west against a flanking enemy, does increased percentage still hold?