Problem With Unit Fire

Problem With Unit Fire

[Elijah Meeks]

Hey guys, I've got $45 million and no place to put
it...  Wait, no, I'm dead broke and my units won't
fire.  I've set up acp-to-fire, the fire tables,
everything, and it doesn't seem to work.  Anyone want
to take a look?

http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xconq-cil.zip 



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Re: Problem With Unit Fire

[Hans Ronne]

>Hey guys, I've got $45 million and no place to put
>it...  Wait, no, I'm dead broke and my units won't
>fire.  I've set up acp-to-fire, the fire tables,
>everything, and it doesn't seem to work.  Anyone want
>to take a look?

You are using combat model 1, which does not support fire actions.

Hans

Re: Problem With Unit Fire

[Elijah Meeks]

Well, that explains it.  Does combat model 1 allow for
protection and capture tables?  Is there a list of the
features it does and doesn't support?

--- Hans Ronne <hronne@telia.com> wrote:
> >Hey guys, I've got $45 million and no place to put
> >it...  Wait, no, I'm dead broke and my units won't
> >fire.  I've set up acp-to-fire, the fire tables,
> >everything, and it doesn't seem to work.  Anyone
> want
> >to take a look?
> 
> You are using combat model 1, which does not support
> fire actions.
> 
> Hans
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Re: Problem With Unit Fire

[Hans Ronne]

>Well, that explains it.  Does combat model 1 allow for
>protection and capture tables?  Is there a list of the
>features it does and doesn't support?

Capture can only happen as a result of an attack against an advanced unit
(city) in combat model 1, but for this special case the capture tables
still apply. The protection table is also used in this special case but
nowhere else.

The model 1 attack code instead uses the occupant-affects-attack etc.
tables that you find at the end of table.def to specify how occupants and
transports affect each other. These tables are actually much more flexible
than the old protection tables.

There is no list of supported stuff. The best way to see what works is to
examine the code, in this case model_1_attack in combat.c. Basically, it
works pretty much like Civ2.

Hans

Getting the Treasury to Work and Other Issues

[Elijah Meeks]

A couple questions for the more xconq-savvy:

My units aren't transferring materials to the
treasury, in the case of units that can store
materials, they just keep it and in the case of units
that cannot store materials, the materials simply
aren't collected.  I've checked to see if this is an
ownership issue by assigning ownership to the two
terrain types that produce material (Farmland and
coal) but nothing changed.

Also, is it possible to invest features with anything
more than a name and location?  I'd like to assign
some value to political areas, states or counties or
whatever.

The latest version of the game is here:
http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xconq-cil.zip 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Re: Getting the Treasury to Work and Other Issues

[Hans Ronne]

>A couple questions for the more xconq-savvy:
>
>My units aren't transferring materials to the
>treasury, in the case of units that can store
>materials, they just keep it and in the case of units
>that cannot store materials, the materials simply
>aren't collected.  I've checked to see if this is an
>ownership issue by assigning ownership to the two
>terrain types that produce material (Farmland and
>coal) but nothing changed.

You have to specify what materials should be kept in the treasury (default
nothing):

(add cash treasury true)

 ... and also specify what units give stuff to the treasury (default no units):

(table gives-to-treasury
	(places cash true)
)

see the games that use treasuries (3rd-age, advances, ancient and civ2) for
further details.

Units that cannot store a material are unable to handle it, and cannot
therefore give it to the treasury.

Ownership does not matter. Usage does for advanced units. Only one advanced
unit can use a given cell at any time (just as in Civ).

>Also, is it possible to invest features with anything
>more than a name and location?  I'd like to assign
>some value to political areas, states or counties or
>whatever.

Nope. Features are purely decorative right now. The absence of a
state/country/province object is a major limitation of xconq. I have
considered adding it severall times, but it would take quit a lot of coding
to implement.

Hans

Doctrine, Plans, Tasks, Standing Orders

[Elijah Meeks]

The design manual isn't too clear on where to put
these commands, does anyone have any experience with
them or is there a scenario that uses them?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Occupant Protection

[Elijah Meeks]

I've rewritten CIL to use combat model 0:

http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xcil-new.zip

And, though it seems to work mostly like it should,
I've found that when occupants protect against an
attack, they all seem to protect.  The result is that
a single division ends up attacking every division in
an opposing army.  I've got cell protection and
occupant protection set up, so maybe I'm overdoing it?
 Any ideas on how to rectify this?  



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Re: Occupant Protection

[Hans Ronne]

>I've rewritten CIL to use combat model 0:
>
>http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xcil-new.zip
>
>And, though it seems to work mostly like it should,
>I've found that when occupants protect against an
>attack, they all seem to protect.  The result is that
>a single division ends up attacking every division in
>an opposing army.  I've got cell protection and
>occupant protection set up, so maybe I'm overdoing it?
> Any ideas on how to rectify this?

This is how things should work. If you think the total protection of the
army is to high, just reduce the amount of protection per occupant/divison.

Hans

P.S. The occupant protection, stack protection and cell protection code
have quite different roles. See this commented piece of combat code:

    /* Account for protection by occupants. */
    for_all_occupants(other, occ) {
	if (in_play(occ) && completed(occ)) {
	    prot = uu_protection(occ->type, o);
	    if (prot != 100)
	      chance = (chance * prot) / 100;
	}
    }
    /* Account for protection by neighbours. */
    for_all_stack(other->x, other->y, unit2) {
	if (unit2 != other
	    && in_play(unit2)
	    && completed(unit2)
	    && unit2->side == other->side) {
	    prot = uu_stack_protection(unit2->type, o);
	    if (prot != 100)
	      chance = (chance * prot) / 100;
	}
    }
    /* Note that this code differs from that above in that it treats
       all units in the same cell equally, whether occs, suboccs or
       cellmates. This also means that one occ can protect another occ
       in the same transport. Moreover, the protective unit also
       protects itself. These rules simulate real situations such as
       when triple-A protects all nearby units (including itself)
       against bombers, or when a city wall protects all other
       occupants against ground attack. */
    for_all_stack_with_occs(other->x, other->y, unit2) {
	if (is_active(unit2)
	    /* We also extend protection to our buddies! */
	    && trusted_side(unit2->side, other->side)) {
	    /* This is when a unit, such as triple-A, extends unique
	       protection against a specific attacker, such as
	       bombers, to all other units in the cell. */
	    prot = uu_cellwide_protection_against(unit2->type, a);
	    if (prot != 100)
	      chance = (chance * prot) / 100;
	    /* This is when a unit (such as a garrison) specifically
	       protects a second unit, such as a fort (but not other
	       nearby units), against all forms of attack. It thus
	       works the same way as uu_protection and
	       uu_stack_protection. */
	    prot = uu_cellwide_protection_for(unit2->type, o);
	    if (prot != 100)
	      chance = (chance * prot) / 100;
	}
    }

Re: Doctrine, Plans, Tasks, Standing Orders

[Hans Ronne]

>The design manual isn't too clear on where to put
>these commands, does anyone have any experience with
>them or is there a scenario that uses them?

Tasks and plans are parts of the AIs internal machinery. You should never
have to deal with them as a player or game module writer.

Doctrines are basic principles like how badly should a unit be damaged
before it heads back for repair. You typically set doctrines for different
sides as a game module writer.

Standing orders are commands just like any other commands that you give to
units during the game. I think they are explained in the manual. They are
not widely used, though.

Hans

Re: Doctrine, Plans, Tasks, Standing Orders

[Jim Kingdon]

> Doctrines are basic principles like how badly should a unit be damaged
> before it heads back for repair. You typically set doctrines for different
> sides as a game module writer.

For example, lib/stdunit.g contains:

    (doctrine default-doctrine
      (construction-run (u* 1))
      (rearm-percent 40)
      (resupply-percent 60)
      (repair-percent 75)
      )

    (doctrine place-doctrine
      (construction-run (u* 99) ((carrier battleship) 3) (nuke 1)))

Setting Advanced Unit Size

[Elijah Meeks]

Is there a way to set an advanced unit's size in GDL? 
It seems that the unit's size is stored with unit
information, but I don't see any place in the .g file
that correlates.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Re: Setting Advanced Unit Size

[Hans Ronne]

>Is there a way to set an advanced unit's size in GDL?
>It seems that the unit's size is stored with unit
>information, but I don't see any place in the .g file
>that correlates.

Certainly. Just change:

(city 317 193 1 (n "Uruk"))

to

(city 317 193 1 (n "Uruk")(size 7))

in the Ancient Near East game to make Uruk start out as a size 7 city
instead of the default size 1.

Remember, however, that size is a dynamic property. Cities will grow or
shrink depending on the food supply.

Hans

Supply and AI

[Elijah Meeks]

I'd appreciate comments on the newest version of Cast
Iron Life:

http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xcil-new.zip

There's a lot there:  The Union and the Confederacy
and a fun tech tree, some native populations, British
North America with a fleet, French Mexico without much
going for it and neutral Havanna.  For fighting
there's some marines, cavalry, artillery and ironclads
along with your regular infantry and militia.

The AI seems to understand the way I want combat to
occur, it can build a decent fleet or army and move it
around, but it prefers garrisoning its cities and an
drastically conservative overall stance.  If anyone
who knows how xconq handles AI has any suggestions,
please let me know.

I've disabled the supply system.  The material is all
held in the treasury, so I'd assumed it would transfer
to a unit that needs food or ammo automatically, but
it doesn't, and ships and troops end up starving. 
Again, if someone knows how to fix this, let me know.

Because of the strange style of combat, there are some
issues.  Protection gives a unit multiple attacks, and
the effects don't seem right, sometimes too strong,
sometimes too weak.  Shore bombardment, which I
designed to be damaging but not too damaging, is
almost ineffectual, heavy artillery seems the same.  I
haven't playtested it too rigorously, so maybe I'm
just misreading the results.

There's also a fatal error if too many transports with
occupants are placed in a fleet.  You can reproduce
the error by placing three Marine Divisions each into
three transports and placing these transports into a
Fleet.

So I'll call this the beta Cast Iron Life, there's a
lot to be added and a lot to fix, but overall it's
interesting.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Re: Supply and AI

[Jim Kingdon]

> I'd appreciate comments on the newest version of Cast
> Iron Life:
> 
> http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xcil-new.zip

Might be a while before I'll get around to playing it, but I have
added some links to http://sources.redhat.com/xconq/

Seems cool all the activity which is going on at
http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/ - hopefully it won't be too long
before you can start enhancing xconq, as well as just trying to figure
out what is already in xconq (well, and the functionality which is
only half-there :-)).

Re: Supply and AI

[Hans Ronne]

>I'd appreciate comments on the newest version of Cast
>Iron Life:
>
>http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xcil-new.zip
>
>There's a lot there:  The Union and the Confederacy
>and a fun tech tree, some native populations, British
>North America with a fleet, French Mexico without much
>going for it and neutral Havanna.  For fighting
>there's some marines, cavalry, artillery and ironclads
>along with your regular infantry and militia.

You have made a lot of progress in the last few weeks.

>The AI seems to understand the way I want combat to
>occur, it can build a decent fleet or army and move it
>around, but it prefers garrisoning its cities and an
>drastically conservative overall stance.  If anyone
>who knows how xconq handles AI has any suggestions,
>please let me know.

This is not the AIs fault, because when I run the game under manual control
I am unable to make any occupants leave their cities. Clearly, something is
wrong with the game module. The ferry tables or the enter/exit tables are
likely culprits.

BTW, if you want the AI to be less protective about cities (generally not a
good idea) you can change ai-peace-garrison and ai-war-garrison from their
defult values of 0 and 1, respectively. However, I recommend the opposite:
a war garrison of at least 2 units is needed in most games.

>I've disabled the supply system.  The material is all
>held in the treasury, so I'd assumed it would transfer
>to a unit that needs food or ammo automatically, but
>it doesn't, and ships and troops end up starving.
>Again, if someone knows how to fix this, let me know.

The supply system does not work well, this is a known problem. Disabling it
is OK in most games. Moreover, sharing of material between transports and
occupants (which is what is most important) does not involve the supply
system and will thus still work if you disable it, provided that the GDL
tables are set up correctly.

>There's also a fatal error if too many transports with
>occupants are placed in a fleet.  You can reproduce
>the error by placing three Marine Divisions each into
>three transports and placing these transports into a
>Fleet.

Do you have a stack trace? If you tell me where the code is crashing it
will be easier to fix.

Hans

Re: Supply and AI

[Elijah Meeks]

> This is not the AIs fault, because when I run the
> game under manual control
> I am unable to make any occupants leave their
> cities. Clearly, something is
> wrong with the game module. The ferry tables or the
> enter/exit tables are
> likely culprits.

In the immortal words of Microsoft: it's not a bug,
it's a feature.  You can only move units in armies, so
you load them onto armies (or fleets for ships) from
the city.  The ferry tables allow for movement from
armyy to city and city to army.  Units then attack
from the armies.  There are no repair settings, yet,
but eventually cities will repair units.

> BTW, if you want the AI to be less protective about
> cities (generally not a
> good idea) you can change ai-peace-garrison and
> ai-war-garrison from their
> defult values of 0 and 1, respectively. However, I
> recommend the opposite:
> a war garrison of at least 2 units is needed in most
> games.

I changed this and it didn't seem to have any effect.

> Do you have a stack trace? If you tell me where the
> code is crashing it
> will be easier to fix.

I'm afraid I don't even know what a stack trace is.

Transports have very little functionality as is,
though, because it doesn't seem you can load
sub-occupants.  I'll probably need to cut them loose
from the whole Fleet/Army system, anyway.

As usual, thanks for the help,
Elijah

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Re: Supply and AI

[Hans Ronne]

>In the immortal words of Microsoft: it's not a bug,
>it's a feature.  You can only move units in armies, so
>you load them onto armies (or fleets for ships) from
>the city.  The ferry tables allow for movement from
>armyy to city and city to army.  Units then attack
>from the armies.  There are no repair settings, yet,
>but eventually cities will repair units.

I see. Well, that explains why the xconq AI is perplexed, too. It expects
to be able to move its units after creation. Eventually, it might be able
to figure out that it needs armies to "ferry" free units, but the transport
code is not too bright, so don't count on it.

You are really trying to do something for which xconq is not designed: move
groups of units as one unit. A better way to implement the army concept
might be to use multipart units, something which is supported in xconq.

>> BTW, if you want the AI to be less protective about
>> cities (generally not a
>> good idea) you can change ai-peace-garrison and
>> ai-war-garrison from their
>> defult values of 0 and 1, respectively. However, I
>> recommend the opposite:
>> a war garrison of at least 2 units is needed in most
>> games.
>
>I changed this and it didn't seem to have any effect.

It will if the AI can move the free units.

>> Do you have a stack trace? If you tell me where the
>> code is crashing it
>> will be easier to fix.
>
>I'm afraid I don't even know what a stack trace is.

It's the output you get if you crash when running the app under a debugger.
Ver useful since it tells you what happened before the crash.

>Transports have very little functionality as is,
>though, because it doesn't seem you can load
>sub-occupants.  I'll probably need to cut them loose
>from the whole Fleet/Army system, anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you can certainly load occs that
have their own occs if things are set up correctly.

Hans

Re: Supply and AI

[Elijah Meeks]

> I see. Well, that explains why the xconq AI is
> perplexed, too. It expects
> to be able to move its units after creation.
> Eventually, it might be able
> to figure out that it needs armies to "ferry" free
> units, but the transport
> code is not too bright, so don't count on it.
> 
> You are really trying to do something for which
> xconq is not designed: move
> groups of units as one unit. A better way to
> implement the army concept
> might be to use multipart units, something which is
> supported in xconq.

When I began writing CIL in xconq, I used multi-part
units, but it didn't work out.  I might try them out
now that I understand xconq a little more.  However,
the AI does a pretty good job of using the Armies and
Fleets (Kudos to whoever did the AI) and the only
problems I see are the aforementioned transport
problem, the combat resolution (due to protection) and
that the AI likes to build enormous quantities of
empty Armies and Fleets because they're cheap (Which
is my fault, because from a game sense this is a smart
strategy). 

The first issue will be resolved by replacing
Transports with Transport Fleets (More detail below)
unless there's a fix in the code.  There's not much I
can do about the second, as I see it, and any help on
that matter would be appreciated.  For the last issue,
I placed limits on Armies and Fleets, but the type
limits appear to be absolute, so that you can only
have 6 Armies over the course of your entire game,
whereas I wanted 6 armies in play at one time.

Overall, I'm happy with how the AI handles the
mechanics, and you can see when the game starts up, it
does all right with the armies and fleets in play.  I
just need to price out Armies and Fleets to where the
AI buys them sparingly, or limit it properly.

> >Transports have very little functionality as is,
> >though, because it doesn't seem you can load
> >sub-occupants.  I'll probably need to cut them
> loose
> >from the whole Fleet/Army system, anyway.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but you can
> certainly load occs that
> have their own occs if things are set up correctly.

That does work, what doesn't is trying to load
occupants onto units that are already occupants.  In
the parlance of CIL, I can load three Marine Divisions
onto a Transport and load that Transport onto a Fleet,
but I cannot load three Marine Divisions onto a
Transport that is itself already loaded onto a fleet. 
It's not too big a deal, really, and just another
indication, as you've pointed out, that I'm trying to
do things with xconq that it wasn't designed to do,
and the workaround isn't a big deal, I'll just
introduce a Transport Fleet unit that carries infantry
directly, instead of having Transports as part of a
Fleet.

Elijah

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Advanced Unit Damage

[Elijah Meeks]

Is there a setting to cause an advanced unit to lose
population due to damage?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Re: Advanced Unit Damage

[Hans Ronne]

>Is there a setting to cause an advanced unit to lose
>population due to damage?

No. And the way these units are used in most games, they are immune to
damage. They just pass it on to the occupants, which are damaged and
eventually killed instead, thus enabling capture of the advanced unit.

What you can do, however, is to starve them by occupying the adjacent cells
(at least the good ones).

Hans

website update

[Erik Jessen]

Is there any way to get the website updated to have the latest source
and Windows binaries?  I have had a couple of friends go to look at
Xconq, and immediately get turned off by all the stuff about installing
cygwin, etc. etc.

Erik

Downloading Xconq

[Elijah Meeks]

I've posted the full download for Xconq here:

http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/xconq.zip 

You still need to download ActiveTCL(8.3.5.0):

http://www.activestate.com/Products/ActiveTcl/ 

The latest binaries can be found here:

http://w1.694.telia.com/~u69400018/

That should be relatively painless.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

A Couple Questions

[Elijah Meeks]

Does change-type work?  I don't see a command for it
on the list and when I type 'change-type' into the
console, it says it doesn't recognize the command.

Is there any game that uses opinions?  If not, how do
they work?  I know how to set a unit's opinions
(has-opinions true, opinions) but I don't know how
xconq handles these.

Thanks.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: A Couple Questions

[Hans Ronne]

>Does change-type work?  I don't see a command for it
>on the list and when I type 'change-type' into the
>console, it says it doesn't recognize the command.

This was discussed on the list last year. If I remember correctly, the
short answer is no. The change-type command is fully supported in the
kernel, and also in the network code. However, the corresponding interface
code is lacking. So until somebody writes it, there is no way to execute
the command.

>Is there any game that uses opinions?  If not, how do
>they work?  I know how to set a unit's opinions
>(has-opinions true, opinions) but I don't know how
>xconq handles these.

There is no game that uses them, but I think they are fully functional.
Opinions are part of the unit revolt code, and helps to decide to what side
a unit defects. Only a handful of games currently use the revolt code, but
I think it could be more widely used. Perhaps you should try it out? For
details of how it works, see unit_revolt in run2.c (reading the kernel code
is usually the best way to figure out a feature).

There are quite a few features like these in in xconq, that are either not
working at all or are not used in any games. I have tried to remove the
former from the interfaces, so that the user does not get confused. Some of
you may remember an "Agreements" window which did nothing. This was part of
an elaborate but never fully implemented agreements code that has now been
commented out.

As for functional but little used features, there are several that could be
useful in game writing. Some examples:

* Self-units, e.g. special units that are either "Leaders" (mobile) or
"Capitals" (immobile) and whose capture or death may cause the side to lose
the game. Example: Sauron in the Lord of the Rings game.

* Weather, including temperature, winds and clouds. I think many users were
unaware of this feature because it was only fully supported in the Mac
interface. However, I added support in the tcltk code recently. For an
example of a game that uses weather, se Napoleon (the base module, not the
Austrian campaign).

* Temporary coatings, such as snow or mud, that modify terrain properties
(usually making it more difficult to move). See ww2-eur-42.

* Daylight cycles that affect visibility. See Gettysburg and Cherbourg.

Hans

Re: A Couple Questions

[Elijah Meeks]

> This was discussed on the list last year. If I
> remember correctly, the
> short answer is no. The change-type command is fully
> supported in the
> kernel, and also in the network code. However, the
> corresponding interface
> code is lacking. So until somebody writes it, there
> is no way to execute
> the command.

Ah ha.  That makes sense, because it doesn't complain
about any change-type settings, there just isn't any
change-typing to be done.

> There is no game that uses them, but I think they
> are fully functional.
> Opinions are part of the unit revolt code, and helps
> to decide to what side
> a unit defects. Only a handful of games currently
> use the revolt code, but
> I think it could be more widely used. Perhaps you
> should try it out? For
> details of how it works, see unit_revolt in run2.c
> (reading the kernel code
> is usually the best way to figure out a feature).

I'll take a look at it.

> * Weather, including temperature, winds and clouds.
> I think many users were
> unaware of this feature because it was only fully
> supported in the Mac
> interface. However, I added support in the tcltk
> code recently. For an
> example of a game that uses weather, se Napoleon
> (the base module, not the
> Austrian campaign).

I'm leary of utilizing clouds, simply because of how
they look.  Is there any way to improve their
appearance?  Is it in an imf somewhere?


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: A Couple Questions

[Hans Ronne]

>I'm leary of utilizing clouds, simply because of how
>they look.  Is there any way to improve their
>appearance?  Is it in an imf somewhere?

No. The clouds do not use images but instead rely on XFillArc with tcltk's
predefined FillStippled patterns. I guess you could reduce the radius so
that clouds don't overlap. But the result doesn't looks very natural. Too
regular.

Hans

New Game

[Elijah Meeks]

I've just finished up a new offering, it's called
Specula, and it's based loosely on Master of Magic. 
There are some shortcuts that had to be taken, and
it's a big one, but I think you should find it fun.

It's still got a few rough edges, but for the most
part it's all there.  After you get a feel for it, I'd
recommend multiplayer, because it's more fun to have
your troops blasted by Power Word, Kill and Fireball
than just regular old monsters.

http://castironlife.sourceforge.net/spec.zip



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: New Game

[Hans Ronne]

>I've just finished up a new offering, it's called
>Specula, and it's based loosely on Master of Magic.
>There are some shortcuts that had to be taken, and
>it's a big one, but I think you should find it fun.
>
>It's still got a few rough edges, but for the most
>part it's all there.  After you get a feel for it, I'd
>recommend multiplayer, because it's more fun to have
>your troops blasted by Power Word, Kill and Fireball
>than just regular old monsters.

This is a very nice game! And rather different from the usual xconq modules.

Hans