- This topic has 333 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
actually, aiming for something more ini like rather than string of numbers:
[attribute]
name=name
type=string
[attribute]
name=war
type=number
[general]
name=Liu Bei
war=70
int=85
chr=99
otherstat=something
etc=ohyeah
item stuff… yeah have to figure something out for that but whatever atm heh. there's some issues with using a pure ini format though (which is handy since the 'compiler' i'm using already supports ini reading) — i don't believe you can have duplicate [header] things (else, how does it know what part of the ini tree you're pulling from) .. and you prolly can't have duplicate (key=value) [key] names within a discussion block (thus, something like item=swordsoffate item=huohupowder would cause problems). I'll prolly just have to move it away from the built-in ini processing into something of my own construct (easy enough, just was trying to avoid it).
as a side note, with the ~500 generals defined already, the ini they're in is actually [general0] [general1] [general2] etc…. kinda tedious.
normal math: yeah yeah yeah, modders being lazy. willing to learn grammar of config files and graphic file names and all of that, but totally at a loss when it comes to reorganizing their math formulas, those bastards :). normal math is on the plate… but it takes all of 15min to learn how to convert a 'normal' formula into an 'rpn' one…. so it's not foremost on the plate hehehe.
although, i'll prolly need to make it so before the the 'demo' thing… since the demo is supposed to help get others involved. formulas / stats / etc being one of the bigger things needing filling in…. 'normal' math would prolly be best there so I don't have to rewrite a bunch of formulas for ya lazy bastards :P.
The exact methoid doesn't matter as long as it's user-friendly; my method was inspired by the format they use for Caesar 3:
Code:41,Statue 1,{,12,3,1,-1,3,0,0,0,},
42,Statue 2,{,60,10,1,-2,4,0,0,0,},
43,Statue 3,{,150,14,2,-2,5,0,0,0,},Obviously we want a more readable format than C3, though!
As for items, just give them numbers the way my example did.
at day job, i've been fiddling with openwatcom's source… so… as you can imagine, my desire to fiddle with parsers and such is at an all time low :P
anything involving token, sym, emit'ing, strings, trees, folding, sorting…….. yeah, no thanks. hopefully i'm not going to be a SKOB soon.
Looking like this weekend should be a project-oriented weekend, can hopefully get a lot done! o/
Glad to have gotten uncharted waters out of my system, hate it when that itch strikes. Did some conversations years ago with someone in the big fan site about a remake they were working on, don't think he ever got anywhere tho.
edit: added time frame conversation about UW.
what a headache :/ … progressing but yeeshed.
really dunno if i'm gonna be up for more parsing and shit this weekend heheh.
If you aren't really up to parsing, then don't parse. We don't exactly have a deadline, after all.
And as the other half of this project, I can always try and fill in if necessary.
From what I've been reading, this looks like a very interesting project. It also reminds me I should bet back to at least try to finish ROTK2 for my SGE series.
http://www.youtube.com/pananning
http://pananning.blogspot.com
http://openmedia.ca/lockdownYeah... Pretty much...
The hope is to be able to offer classic and updated style play… and so far so good. I'm just glad it's making slow steady progress.
BTW, Hi PA! o/
Out of curiosity, what will we do about minor forces?
Zhang Xian, for example, rebelled against Liu Biao and was able to stay independent until his death; he died in 200, yet according to Rafe he was already independent by 197.
Yet, to my knowledge, he hasn't been in even one RoTK game.
Quote:Out of curiosity, what will we do about minor forces?Zhang Xian, for example, rebelled against Liu Biao and was able to stay independent until his death; he died in 200, yet according to Rafe he was already independent by 197.
Yet, to my knowledge, he hasn't been in even one RoTK game.
Well, might depend on how you wanna set up your map. 2 treats things as provinces although they're not proper historical provinces. If your map is instead counties + commanderies, you'd prolly be able to show that just fine. This might also fit better into the whole 'block' thing we were discussing earlier. Later games that treat thins as cities is closer ?
This drastic of a map layout change might make the whole battle thing needing the battlescape expansion stuffs as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.