View Full Version : Some news from BSS
May I ask is it possible for Tzar to churn out hundreds of soldiers(200+ I mean) in a single mission or deathmatch map just like Settler 4 does? What a spectacle I mean if it does.
May I ask is it possible for Tzar to churn out hundreds of soldiers(200+ I mean) in a single mission or deathmatch map just like Settler 4 does? What a spectacle I mean if it does.
Yes. With many other units besides Soldiers and Peons.
Well then it really intrests me! I just get tired of a couple of guys with sticks coming and going in Age of Empire which sets the max population limit of 200.
Could you please be more specific on the population limit in Tzar? You meant to say soldiers are not included in the population, so I can produce them as many as I can just like I do in settler 4 only if resources permit, right?
thx !
kiri_hacker
19-04-2007, 15:22
"BINGFA" sounds Chinese to me :biggrin: :lol:
btw, I didn't know that Tzar is made by pepole from BSS. tzar was my favourite game... :king:
Btw, I know better poem
ПРИНОС КЪМ ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА ИСТОРИЯ
Оттук започва родината -
с гроб на незнаен юнак,
през който смъртта е преминала...
Смъртта, не - и вражият крак! :fire: :sniper:
Европа, млада и непохитена,
четеше своя рицарски роман,
когато, в зора незазорена,
загина рицарят Иван-Шишман.
Европа плачеше за Жулиета,
Европа се прехласваше по Бах...
А, с вълчи вой, в тракийските полета,
вървяха глутниците на Аллах.
Когато обкръжена от слугини,
тя плуваше в охолство и разкош,
във Солун, на пазара за робини,
гяурките вървяха, пет - за грош. :blush:
Когато тя строеше катедрали,
и замъци... В зимния Балкан,
скърбяха тънки липови кавали
и плачеха за воеводата Стоян.
Въздигаха се кървави калета,
градени със отрязани глави.
И, всъщност, си остана непревзета
страната на хайдушките орли. :wall:
А беше колкото калпак голяма,
широка колкото следа от лъв,
но се превърна в страшна вълча яма,
покрита с кости и залята с кръв.
Със кремъклийка пушка, с проста сопа,
със камък и стрели от бучиниш,
дедите ни завардиха Европа
и турците не стигнаха Париж!
Nice Poem, very nice :P But it makes me think about how Bulgaria is screwed and it has always been so and It will be forever
Well then it really intrests me! I just get tired of a couple of guys with sticks coming and going in Age of Empire which sets the max population limit of 200.
Could you please be more specific on the population limit in Tzar? You meant to say soldiers are not included in the population, so I can produce them as many as I can just like I do in settler 4 only if resources permit, right?
thx !
So long ago I am not certain. It was based on 2d sprite animations and so pop was limited somewhat by the Comp systems of the day. 300 seems to ring a bell (although I think you could change it in Custom maps). With more if you count spawned units. There is a company offering it as a shareware download (Global Star) http://www.simtel.net/product.php%5Bid%5D95542%5Bcid%5D8%5BSiteID%5Dsimt el.net
Tzar is a fantasy-medieval real-time strategy game with a touch of RPG. You play one of three distinct races, European, Asian or Arabian. Your civilization and your economy will depend on your ability to harvest four different resources, master two different trade methods and defend your kingdom with powerful and unique warriors. Expect to conquer territory fighting with - or against - Ninjas and Samurais, Stone Golems, Ogres and Dwarven Axe throwers, flying units like Dragons, Flying Carpets and Bats as well as a host of powerful ships like Pinques, Hulks and Galleons.
Thank you for your help! I will go check it out……
Traveller
21-04-2007, 08:01
I haven't played Tzar since a few years (although I get the Tzar nostalgia now and then), but IIRC the Asians had an upgrade, which increases their pop limit to 300. And there was, of course, also a cheat to increase the limit to 1000. And with spawned creatures you could make quite big armies (I remember one such army of mine with several hundred Golems). Of course, with so many units the game used to lag a bit, but on the newer computers I guess that wouldn't be a problem anymore...
Thanks for the guide! See what I've got:
hmnopop - sets population limit to 1000
That will make an amazing battle!
Great news indeed, oddly enough, just at the time I started playing KoH again!
:hello: , downloading Tzar right this very moment, and probably going to play Knigths of Honor soon. I absolutely cannot wait for KOH 2 to be released, if it will.
Merlin82
25-04-2007, 03:10
Guys i love your game and willing to support you,but what i tell you, you should focus with multiplayer on Global map with all those diplomatic things in KoH 2,trust me it is the most thing that players will love + you will not loose your time on this and recive great effort from it.Your KoH became popular, but if it is already had multiplayer on global map it would invite alot more people to play it.For now i just hope and keep watching for the news.
It would be more popular if the game changes to the era of Napoleon with multiplayer on global map and all those diplomatic stuffs.
Guys, ... I hate to say that, but the diplomacy in KoH is not well compatible with multiplayer on global map. It's not due to BSS inability to make multiplayer, it was rather design reasons behind the lack of multiplayer. KoH is single player simulation type of game by nature.
Imagine player with 3 realms and another one with 1 realm. The player who feels stronger would immediately attack the weaker one (nothing wrong with it, that's human nature). Now imagine the weaker one asking for peace giving, let's say, his daughter away. What the stronger player would say to this? I bet it would be something like "rotfl, I kick your booty now dude, go away with that diplomacy crap" :)
In other words, to be multiplayer, KoH would need major change of game rules on the global map. I am now sure you all would like it more, when it looses its beauty that comes from the simulation part.
Angryminer
25-04-2007, 18:46
Well, that "go away with your diplomay crap" is exactly how most people play KoH in singleplayer.
The typical KoH player uses diplomacy only when it is to his advantage ("OK, you sign peace with me right now in turn for my daughter, so I can conquer you later when I have no other wars to fight.") - the gamerules work that way.
You already toyed around with the 'kingdom power'/reputation concept. Some more thoughts in that direction would stop players from backstabbing other kingdoms because of the drop in reputation.
But generally that is more of an AI question - the AI needs to react in a realistic way ("Hey, you destroyed that kingdom even though it wasn't a threat to you at all! We break relations/declare war/tell everyone you're a traitor/call you names.") to enforce realistic player behaviour.
I add this reply even though it seems offtopic, because it shows a game design philosophy I like. In order to maintain a dense athmosphere a game doesn't need to restrict me to realistic actions - if the gameworld behaves realistically/logically I will also behave realistically/logically. A medieval king didn't destroy all smaller kingdoms because it would ruin his reputation. If the game had a similar reputation-mechanism built into the AI I wouldn't steam-roll over every small kingdom either.
If the player is inclined to do unrealistic/sensless things it's merely an indication of the game being unrealistic/unlogical in some aspect. Increasing realism on that certain weak spot will then increase the athmosphere of the game.
Angryminer
Well, thanks for the good words Angryminer. My question is: would you like to see more realism in KoH 2 (hmm .. theoretically) or you think the AI should react more for the sake of better simulation and somewhat more fun for the players?? Even if the second means that the AI would agree to players' peace terms when it can easily wipe him out of the map.
Scott716
25-04-2007, 20:22
Well, thanks for the good words Angryminer. My question is: would you like to see more realism in KoH 2 (hmm .. theoretically) or you think the AI should react more for the sake of better simulation and somewhat more fun for the players?? Even if the second means that the AI would agree to players' peace terms when it can easily wipe him out of the map.
Shouldn't it depend on the leader/King of the AI nation involved?. For example as it is now the Kings have attributes...some are warmongers and like expansion others are pacifists and would rather be at peace. I think it should be based on the AI King you are dealing with as to how he reacts. To add to this you should make the AI Kings personalility type random for every new game(or every new king) so it has great longterm replay value(this part is key and what I love about current KOH, every game is a bit different).
As for multiplayer, it's nice to have but most would play single player anyways so no biggie. I would rather you concentrate on one really good single player game then trying to be master of both which never works.
Angryminer
25-04-2007, 20:44
I think players who like KoH do so because of the athmosphere. Stepping out of our work-life and ruling a medieval kingdom for a while, that kind of stuff.
Players who want a quick game look for other games like Age of Empire or C&C.
Those players who like athmosphere will look down on illogical things in the game. They try to behave realistically as much as they can, because they want to maintain the athmosphere.
It is difficult to maintain this athmosphere when WorldWar0.1 brakes out all over the map and everyone goes completely nuts like in the release of KoH. Many KoH players tried to restrict themselves to realistic actions. e.g. in my mod I removed the possibility to hire other army leaders than family members for a while. Other players attempt to fullfill a set of tasks that are realistic for their kingdom (like the french trying to rechristen the holy land, or a german earldom trying to reunite the roman empire with it's borders from acient history).
So a gameworld that behaves realistically ('logically') is definitely appreciated. Especially from a viewpoint of complexity. A logical gameworld is easy to explain. I usually explain the KoH battle&morale-system as "just act as if it was a real battle" - that simple. Players always know how 'realistic' works and you never have to explain to them why other kings don't like to be backstabbed.
That said realism has to stop where players run out of things to do. Being a king in the medieval wasn't very exciting. A player doesn't want to look at a throneroom with messangers walking in once every 2 days. The player needs to have enough tasks to perform to keep him busy, preferable tasks of strategic importance that require planning.
And, realism has to stop where it forces more mechanisms on the player than he can keep track of. Usually this is a result of the point above - the player was given too many tasks and now he doesn't know what to do next. In that case realism helps to reduce work-load. Example: Managing a 20 province empire can be difficult in KoH. Bakery here, townwatch there, archery there, recuit men at arms there, but then move the marshall here so he can add crossbowmen and then construct stonemason... etc. A real king didn't have to do all that - he had feudalism to help him. He gave people the task to watch over things and in turn looked after his vasalls. So he gave away repetitive tasks and gained strategically important tasks. (* Feudalism was very flexible. If a king did it well he was in control of many aspects of the kingdom like the late french kings. The emperor of the HRE however was much less directly in control. The player can play the game like he wants.)
Similarly feudalism helped a king to keep track of things. When the king didn't give enough attention to his vasalls they made him pay attention. If the king of England is too busy waging war against the French the earl of York will surely inform him with a note if he expects a certain action to be performed. This is why feudalism is so handy - it assists the player in managing his kingdom while giving him a set of tasks to perform that are logical. No player will ask why the earl of York becomes very dissatisfied with the crown of England when the King denies assistance in a case of inheritance dispute.
And most importantly: This is my opinion. I haven't yet played a game with those aspects in mind. Especially concerning feudalism the line between logical and "I'm not in control of my kingdom!" is very small. But generally 'logical' makes it very easy to forget the watch, since immersion is very directly related to credibility.
So basically: Realism and credibility often help to improve fun. Yes, I'd like to see a game that is based more on logics and realism so no artificial restrictions break the immersion.
Angryminer
Anguille2
25-04-2007, 22:05
Well, thanks for the good words Angryminer. My question is: would you like to see more realism in KoH 2 (hmm .. theoretically) or you think the AI should react more for the sake of better simulation and somewhat more fun for the players?? Even if the second means that the AI would agree to players' peace terms when it can easily wipe him out of the map.
I only play singleplayer (lack of time to play long sessions mostly) and like to see realism in games. One of the key features i enjoy in KoH the most is diplomacy.
One of the aspects i would expand are the knights and families. For example, it should be possible to have one Knight in each city...
Reasons not to attack/destroy other kingdoms:
- Maybe the other king is from the same familly
- Strong alliances of the kingdom
- When an empire becomes too big, it should be harder to control (money, knights who rule a region declare themselves independant, mood etc...)
- etc...
While i believe that you should keep total conquest available, i should however be almost impossible to achieve it. Other victories, maybe with specific scenarios, should be the main goals.
Cheers
Anguille
Scott716
25-04-2007, 22:14
I think players who like KoH do so because of the athmosphere. Stepping out of our work-life and ruling a medieval kingdom for a while, that kind of stuff.
Players who want a quick game look for other games like Age of Empire or C&C.
Those players who like athmosphere will look down on illogical things in the game. They try to behave realistically as much as they can, because they want to maintain the athmosphere.
It is difficult to maintain this athmosphere when WorldWar0.1 brakes out all over the map and everyone goes completely nuts like in the release of KoH. Many KoH players tried to restrict themselves to realistic actions. e.g. in my mod I removed the possibility to hire other army leaders than family members for a while. Other players attempt to fullfill a set of tasks that are realistic for their kingdom (like the french trying to rechristen the holy land, or a german earldom trying to reunite the roman empire with it's borders from acient history).
So a gameworld that behaves realistically ('logically') is definitely appreciated. Especially from a viewpoint of complexity. A logical gameworld is easy to explain. I usually explain the KoH battle&morale-system as "just act as if it was a real battle" - that simple. Players always know how 'realistic' works and you never have to explain to them why other kings don't like to be backstabbed.
That said realism has to stop where players run out of things to do. Being a king in the medieval wasn't very exciting. A player doesn't want to look at a throneroom with messangers walking in once every 2 days. The player needs to have enough tasks to perform to keep him busy, preferable tasks of strategic importance that require planning.
And, realism has to stop where it forces more mechanisms on the player than he can keep track of. Usually this is a result of the point above - the player was given too many tasks and now he doesn't know what to do next. In that case realism helps to reduce work-load. Example: Managing a 20 province empire can be difficult in KoH. Bakery here, townwatch there, archery there, recuit men at arms there, but then move the marshall here so he can add crossbowmen and then construct stonemason... etc. A real king didn't have to do all that - he had feudalism to help him. He gave people the task to watch over things and in turn looked after his vasalls. So he gave away repetitive tasks and gained strategically important tasks. (* Feudalism was very flexible. If a king did it well he was in control of many aspects of the kingdom like the late french kings. The emperor of the HRE however was much less directly in control. The player can play the game like he wants.)
Similarly feudalism helped a king to keep track of things. When the king didn't give enough attention to his vasalls they made him pay attention. If the king of England is too busy waging war against the French the earl of York will surely inform him with a note if he expects a certain action to be performed. This is why feudalism is so handy - it assists the player in managing his kingdom while giving him a set of tasks to perform that are logical. No player will ask why the earl of York becomes very dissatisfied with the crown of England when the King denies assistance in a case of inheritance dispute.
And most importantly: This is my opinion. I haven't yet played a game with those aspects in mind. Especially concerning feudalism the line between logical and "I'm not in control of my kingdom!" is very small. But generally 'logical' makes it very easy to forget the watch, since immersion is very directly related to credibility.
So basically: Realism and credibility often help to improve fun. Yes, I'd like to see a game that is based more on logics and realism so no artificial restrictions break the immersion.
Angryminer
It sounds like you are leaning to dumbing down the current system and I think you would have more of a uproar over making it less deep. It's really not that difficult to manage many provinces, in fact I think it's very easy. I would rather not see the current system go backwards, it was tried with Lords of the Realm III where they dumbed it down and took away choices and things to do and you know how well that went over.
I also don't want to see a game like the Paradox titles where your chained to certain events happening at certain times and you can't do this until a certain event happens etc...that just ****s all the fun out. The great thing about this game is that it kept the fun factor in,it plays different every time and has great replay value. I hate the trend in games now to them less deep because gamers are lazy..as in Railroads!..let us make the choices and direct what happens not the game. I like the game as it is now but with tweaks and deeper gameplay into the family trees etc..
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.