Linked lists

[Lupus]

Hi,

As I understand, the PC version calculates limits in army lists differently than the TT version. In the TT version an army list shows a "Bases per BG" column and a "Total bases" column. Therefore, for example, one can build an Late Ptolemaic army containing 2 BG each comprising 6 bases of armoured Romanised infantry (see Later Ptolemaic Starter army) and no Thureophoroi or Thorakitai. 0-12 bases are allowed for the linked list of Thureophoroi, Thorakitai and Romanised infantry, with individual limits of 6-8, 6-8 and 4-8 bases per base per unit type.
In the example we would have 12 bases in 2 groups, which is perfectly legal, as each BG has between 4 and 8 bases.

In the PC version each TT bases limit is divided by 2 (or 3 for most of the pike unit types). So our example tabletop BGs would translate to 6 PC BGs. But this is not possible in the D.A.G., because the editor has a limit of 0-4. The 4 probably comes from dividing the TT limit maximum bases per BG simply by 2.

Is this a bug or a feature, talking Microsoft-like?

I know, the PC version is "inspired" by the TT game, not a 1:1 translation, but it would be nice to be able to create the PC variant of the TT starter armies (or more generally every "legal" TT army).

Rgds

L

[batesmotel]

In the TT game, different BGs can often have a varying number of bases in a single BG. Due to the decision to have each BG in the PC game occupy a single hex, this pretty much means that all BGs in the PC version are the same size or at least fight on the same frontage, e.g. 2 stands. For most troop types, each BG on the PC is the equivalent of a 4 stand BG deployed in 2 ranks for the TT game. Exceptions to this are that Elephants and chariots are the equivalent of 2 stand BGs on the TT since these are troops that only fight in one rank. Pikes are a bit of an oddball. They fight at full strength as the equivalent of an 8 stand BG 4 ranks deep but they lose effectiveness at double the rate of other BGs in the PC game so the points for them are about 1.5 times the TT point cost.

Chris

[Lupus]

Sure, I'm bascially happy with the "amendments" of the rules for the PC version. It's a fast-paced game, and it's almost perfect for the platform, but as I said, I would like to have it possible to translate my TT armies to PC. The Late Ptolemaic is only an example. I guess the problem is not the conversion of BG and bases, but the way the RoR PC lists are build. The "and" and "or" attributes in the xml lists defining the armies are simply not sufficient to model more complex aspects of linked lists.

Rgds

L

[batesmotel]

Sure, I'm bascially happy with the "amendments" of the rules for the PC version. It's a fast-paced game, and it's almost perfect for the platform, but as I said, I would like to have it possible to translate my TT armies to PC. The Late Ptolemaic is only an example. I guess the problem is not the conversion of BG and bases, but the way the RoR PC lists are build. The "and" and "or" attributes in the xml lists defining the armies are simply not sufficient to model more complex aspects of linked lists.

Rgds

L

Looking at the Later Ptolemaic list, this looks like an outright error in the list. I suspect there should be no separate min/max for the Romanized entries since these are grouped in a yellow box with the Thureophoroi/Thorakitai.

Chris

[rbodleyscott]

Sure, I'm bascially happy with the "amendments" of the rules for the PC version. It's a fast-paced game, and it's almost perfect for the platform, but as I said, I would like to have it possible to translate my TT armies to PC. The Late Ptolemaic is only an example. I guess the problem is not the conversion of BG and bases, but the way the RoR PC lists are build. The "and" and "or" attributes in the xml lists defining the armies are simply not sufficient to model more complex aspects of linked lists.

Rgds

L

Looking at the Later Ptolemaic list, this looks like an outright error in the list. I suspect there should be no separate min/max for the Romanized entries since these are grouped in a yellow box with the Thureophoroi/Thorakitai.

Chris

The reason I grouped them together in the TT list is that as far as I can see, though Nick Sekunda's interpretation is that the Ptolemys started to switch to imitation legionaries, the contemporary depictions on which this interpretation is based could just as easily be thureophoroi and thorakitai. Essentially they show guys with an oval shield, spear and helmet. IIRC only one shows a guy in armour, and he is usually interpreted as a member of the thorakitai, but could just as easily be an imitation legionary. Hence, in my view, they are alternative interpretations of the same thing, which is why they share the same maximum.

However, alternative views are possible, so I don't think it matters very much if the PC list differs in that detail.

[batesmotel]

The reason I grouped them together in the TT list is that as far as I can see, though Nick Sekunda's interpretation is that the Ptolemys started to switch to imitation legionaries, the contemporary depictions on which this interpretation is based could just as easily be thureophoroi and thorakitai. Essentially they show guys with an oval shield, spear and helmet. IIRC only one shows a guy in armour, and he is usually interpreted as a member of the thorakitai, but could just as easily be an imitation legionary. Hence, in my view, they are alternative interpretations of the same thing, which is why they share the same maximum.

However, alternative views are possible, so I don't think it matters very much if the PC list differs in that detail.

I have no objection if the list was changed intentionally. But in this case I strongly suspect it was just a matter of someone mis-entering the data when converting the list to the PC game. (That certainly looks to be the case for the Parthian Elymaian allies error I posted in a separate thread where the current implementation makes it impossible to simultaneously buy the minimum number of cataphracts and horse archers.

Chris