Knights and Merchants.net Forum

As always, I would first like to thank you for all your hard work on the Remake.

Anyway, I was wondering what the map size limit is for the Remake. Mostly; though, I'm wondering if the same glitches in very big maps (corn, trees, and grapes not growing) still exist in the remake. I think the biggest fully functional map size for KaM was 176x176, right?

Yes 176 was the maximum map size you could use in KaM. It allowed 192 but had those bugs like corn/trees not growing below tile 176, and from memory the minimap might not have worked.

These bugs don't exist in the Remake because we've had to rewrite all of the code so we didn't inherit the bugs, we would have had to have made the same mistakes. Same goes for other bugs like multiplayer sync, we've had to rewrite it all so there's no reason for the Remake to have the same bugs.

Currently the Remake fully supports maps up to 192 and we plan to increase this later. There may be some issues to overcome such as pathfinding limitations and supporting maps larger than 255 will require changing all places we store coordinates or map sizes from a byte to a word. (there's only a few cases of this though)

Making a good 192x192 map is already a mammoth task and a map of this size fits 8 players comfortably, so we'll probably only worry about this when we increase the player limit. (imagine a multiplayer KaM game with 16 or 32 players - madness! )

Quite the Epic battle

For 192*192 maps, indeed there's enough room for 8 players :p
I can imagine a 32 players fighting ... hmm no I can't imagine :p It would be sooo messy, but quite fun !

Yes endeed!

I don't think KaM needs more than 8 players per MP match to be honest, but as there's no limit - we could try it.

Yes I agree that this is not very important, 8 players is a lot already. It would be interesting to try though.
Increasing the player limit for single missions is quite important though, because often the AI is divided into many players. (a lot of missions use all 8 players even though the player probably only thinks there are 3) Also things like attacks at the beginning are often done with another player to ensure that player doesn't try to launch the same attack again later on.

Yes, I can thank of dozens of times where I wanted to use a player 9 for the AI...

It would open up a whole new world to scripters.

Personally, I would rather have "Triggers"
For example, if the human player attacks player 2 then player 3 would send a huge army towards the human player's base, resulting in a tricky surprise attack (just when player 1 sends his army away from his base, he gets attacked)
Or, if a computer gets attacked and loses his storehouse, he builds another if he survives.
Triggers that activate messages would be cool (this can be done now, but only in the simplest of ways)

The possibilities could be endless.

Triggers are one of the things planned when we extend the script system.

Having thought about it, it would be nice to have 9 players in multiplayer because that allows for 3vs3vs3 which is a whole new game dynamic.

Good, point Lewin.

But if we have 10 players we could have a 5v5
It could go on forever!

The thing about a 3v3v3 map; though, is that, for example, team A would sit back while team B and C fight and, in the end, team A kills the winner of team B and C, resulting in A getting an easy win.

Once, This happened to me in a 1v1v1 mission on the map Cross_Update (I was attacking and after I defeated my Oppenheimer, the camping player attacked me)
But I still won, haha. I bet he was embarrassed. 8)

Nope, 11 is a prime number
That's a good point... Maybe 3vs3 would be a bit messy. I enjoy 4vs4 and 3vs3 the most, although I haven't played many games online because I'm always too busy...
Nice work by the way, usually when that happens the camping player always wins.

You will always have that problem with 1v1v1 or 2v2v2 or 3v3v3 for that matter. Those games could still be very interesting though. Our free for all game with 5 players on 'Ambushed' for example:
Zoltan was fighting someone whose name I forgot, I was fighting Shadaoe and Ben was sitting back. When the battle between Shadaoe and me was at a crucial point, Ben attacked me in my back and I could only escape with some knights and a few crossbowmen. Zoltan killed alot of soldiers from 'someone' but also took some losses.
Then everyone started regrouping and playing defensively. Ben, having way more soldiers than anyone else, attacked and defeated Shadaoe. Then he went on to Zoltan and it was a draw. Both players retreated with only archers left. 'Someone' had now the most troops and we all allied against him but still lost.
Although free for all with 5 players doesn't sound very fair this was one of the most interesting games I've played so far (only "Shadaoe + someone vs xzaz and me + the winners would face Ben" was more interesting. In the end we were down to a couple of archers, nothing more than that).

Anyway my point is that when people manage to retreat in time and then team up against the player who is the strongest can make such games pretty fair.

This could work very good sometimes if we could make allies after the game started (as long as people didn't gang up just to be mean). However, the host should have the option to "Lock Teams" before the match starts to prevent players from betraying (unless the players were doing a "last man standing")
If this option is ever available, sharing your allies LOS (Line of Sight) should only be available in "Locked Teams."

The game The Dark Lord is speaking about was indeed the best game I ever played on this map, It was really Interesting !
The other player who won was The_French? (sylvain)
It was really a good game, and The Dark Lord did some damages to ben with the few knights he had left :p

That map was awesome Very good game.
The problem is that you can't create a scenario like this, it is possible though if the user can't destroy buildings without a worker.