Matrix Games Forums

Thanks for your kind words, Orm!

I don't have that much to show this week, but I have created the "Detailed Instructions" menu which would be referenced from the "Replacements" enactment itself. As a reminder, this is what that particular enactment menu would look like:


This is similar as what was posted on Dec. 22, but the above version is for "land troops" rather than naval forces.

If you decide to modify the instructions by clicking on "Detailed Instructions" you will get a menu similar to this one:


This does show the scarcity of usable manpower. Of course, manpower can be drawn from a wider area than an Operational Theater. It just costs more money to get the recruits where they are needed.

I'll try to post some additional screenshots by next weekend. I see now that the new Theater Report Dialog is going to need some additional information in it. Right now, there is nothing about manpower for recruiting.

OK, I have added some detail to the Theater Report dialogs. I also made them available from the control maps used in the first department of the Administrative Interface. To help the players realize this, I also added underlining/link highlighting as well as an ellipsis after the area's name. Here is an example with Gallia selected in the "Imperium" department:


Of course, clicking on the underlined button will bring up the report dialog:


This shows manpower, although the percent of volunteers is probably too high. It might be closer to zero at this point in history. I'll need to revisit that in the near future.

The things that I worked on this last week for the most part don't lend themselves to screen shots. I noticed some problems with the order of battle for the Palmyrene forces in the 270 A.D. scenario and I reworked the default unit sizes for some of the types (Eastern Horse Archers and Eastern Levy Infantry).

I did decide to add some new icons for city reports. This is pure chrome, of course. But it is something to post. I added different icons for the "Near Eastern" style of architecture when viewing report dialogs. These icons are similar to what I did in "Hannibal" and don't match the icons used on the map all that much. I did have fun doing them which is really the point.

So, for example, a Major City's report dialog already looked like this:


The "Near Eastern" style of architecture will now look like this:


As I said, pure Chrome, therefore anyone muttering "BFD" is actually right.

I also decided to add some one-off (meaning: bespoke) icons for certain important cities. The first is Jerusalem when it is a Capital City. That will only be seen in the first scenario, but, again, I did it mostly for fun. It looks like this:


I will probably try to add one for Alexandria and maybe a few other cities which begin a scenario as Capital Cities. Unlike in "Hannibal," a Capital City is just a really large city. I just didn't want to use terminology like "Huge City" or the like. Most "other" strategy games do something like that and it's a more precise use of language, admittedly.

I'll try to post before next weekend something new which reflects progress in actual game programming.

These images look great.

Indeed, it is a work of love mercenarius

As usual, thanks for the kind words, everyone!

I realized that I hadn't put into the game an easy to cancel existing recruiting orders and it is (currently) not possible to cancel an order for replacement troops or weapons upgrades. So, I have modified the menu which is launched by this button in the Exercitus Department in the Administrative Interface:


The menu which is opened by that button now has an item to allow the player to cancel existing recruiting orders. Here is a screenshot of it:


I will post some screenshots in a week or so which shows the actual process of using the new "Cancel" enactment from the above menu.

I do not remember if there has been any statements about the AIO.

I quite recently played a fame of Hannibal and had the best experience yet. the AIO put on a great performance. It was awesome. Thank you.

The game included:
Roman attack on Spain that was repulsed, with severe losses for the Carthaginians.
Two roman attacks on Afrika that was eventually repulsed. A truly costly affair for both sides, and cost the Carthagians their African ally.
Sicily changed hands twice.
Three Carthaginian sieges of Rome. First was two were relived by attacking Roman armies. Third would have made the day, but the time run out before it was completed, and the game ended in a draw.

Anyway.

I am wondering if there is anything to report about a possible AI opponent?

I quite recently played a fame of Hannibal and had the best experience yet...

Many, many thanks for such kind words, Orm!

I am wondering if there is anything to report about a possible AI opponent?

The short answer is that the game initially will ONLY have AI players/opponents, except for the human person playing the game.

I had originally intended to offer some kind of multiplayer option, but my first efforts in that regard were not successful. I don't think that I posted anything about this at the time, however.

At some point, I would LIKE to have some multiplayer capability for this game, and for the Victory & Glory games in particular, but I don't know when I'll have the resources to make that happen. I hope to raise some funds for this in the future and offer such a feature as an expansion kit or a downloadable purchase.

I have coded the "Cancel Recruiting" enactments for both the Exercitus and the Naves Departments. I will probably tweak these a little in the next month or so, but the basic structure is set.

If you use this button from the menu posted above a couple of weeks ago:


You will see a "Selection Area" similar to the next screenshot. The icons in the area will depend on what kind of orders are on tap for recruits, replacements, and/or weapons upgrades. For this sample, I put 2,000 (4 cohorts) of Limitanei on order. Here is a working sample:


You can select each recruit order and mark it for deletion if desired, using the checkbox (obvious, I know):


The actual enactment will look something like this, when the player clicks on "Cancel Orders":


I say "something" because I do think that the summary text in that enactment could use a little improvement.

Note: to make an easier fit, I used the smallest size that the game has. That does affect the quality a little. This was used at 1366 x 768. Larger screen sizes can use a larger Admin Dialog. Even 1440 x 900 will get a bump up in size.

I will try to post something on a different theme in about two weeks.

I haven't forgotten about all of you! I got - somewhat - derailed a little with some typesetting issues that I encountered after purchasing a new laptop. The admin dialog needed to be bigger at its maximum size for a large, high DPI display. I didn't have the hardware to test this until I got the new laptop. So, I have had to invest some time reworking a few interface elements. I think that I am back on track and will try to post some screenshots of new features in a week or two.

In the meantime, I also completed the 'custom' icons for the very largest cities in the Roman empire. In the process I downgraded Ephesus from a Capital City to a Major City. (Sorry, Ephesians). But I added Miletus to the game in part to make up for that. Also, because...I don't know why I had overlooked it to begin with. Its harbor did silt up and the city declined significantly, but maybe not until about 300 A.D.

Yes, by reducing Ephesus I did save time on having to create a custom icon for the city. Just a coincidence. But a happy one, I suppose.

Here is a sample of one of the 'custom' city icons. This is for Smyrna which is a Capital City in most scenarios. (Maybe all, actually. I have to think about 5th century conditions a little).



It would be nice to have individualized icons for each city, but...not enough data, and there are just too many of them.

Here is the strategy map with Miletus selected, by the way:


The coastline reflects the significantly silted-up coastline from later antiquity. It would be cool to have the coastline be dynamic, but...no.

I will try hard to post new content very soon.

mercenarius wrote: Sun Mar 01, 2026 5:33 pm
The short answer is that the game initially will ONLY have AI players/opponents, except for the human person playing the game.

Yes.

But what I am wondering is if there is any progress in making the AIO a wonderful opponent.

Hello Orm!

As always, thanks for your kind words!

Unfortunately, lately I have focused on interface issues, and still have a little cleanup to do concerning supply and finance. But I will try to post some news on the AI as soon as I can. I do plan to get more work done in that area this month.

Edit: didn't express myself so well the first time!

A good question, Orm! I have a few resources which I hope will help me jump start this area of the game's development. Right now, it's the one area which is really lagging.

Mercenarius, Watching with baited breath for many years! Is it possible we may see our legions spring forth this year?

CSSS wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2026 9:46 pm Mercenarius, Watching with baited breath for many years! Is it possible we may see our legions spring forth this year?

I will do everything in my power to make that happen. But...we'll see how it goes.

In the meantime, here is a screenshot of something new. This is the dialog for the "Acclaim Leader" operational command. In this case, of course, the player knows that the "other claimants" aren't going to accept Vespasian as a co-emperor.


I will try to post something next weekend for the reaction that follows from such an event in the game. (I haven't programmed that, yet).

Well, I haven't forgotten about you or what I posted last. I went on vacation for a family thing (which was good) and took my laptop. But I didn't get a lot done.

If also occurred to me that there are two things which haven't been finished which are actually needed before the acclamation logic can be completed. These are the primary two ways of inducing rival or hostile leaders to defect to your leader's cause.

Here is what the front end of the Ops Command looks like:



This is the dialog which implements the "Negotiate In Secret" command:



The target in this sample is the garrison in Alexandria, which went over to Vespasian before he was formally acclaimed Emperor by his troops. Because Vespasian is - before his acclamation - still loyal to the "legitimate" emperor Otho, the city is an allied city, and that is the reason for the configuration of the Ops Command menu in the first screenshot.

The values in the dialog are somewhat canned, but I hope to have this finished in a week or so and when that happens, I will post some new screenshots. (And everything will be real and functional).

P.S. It's a historical coincidence that the commander of the garrison in Alexandria at this time was Tiberius Julius Alexander and is therefore known as Alexander for most purposes in the game.

Getting generals/provinces to switch to your side using subterfuge is gonna be fun to see, especially in scenario with more than two players (thinking of a possible Constantinian scenario, or V century scenario with Aetius, Bonifatius and the central government).

So, I finished, and then revised, the front end of the "Secret Negotiations" and have mostly worked out the factors for success. Here is what the revised version looks like, with the same target as before:


Now that is the chances for a "remote" negotiation. The other options, "Estates & Pension" and "Senatorial Status" give better chances but also cost more money. The "Estates" option requires 1,500 pounds of gold, and the "Senatorial Status" offer will cost the player 1,000 pounds of gold.

Just to illustrate, here is what the Tool Area looks like with Alexandria selected:


However, there is another option for the player. If Vespasian moves by sea to Alexandria, he can use the same Ops Command to make, in effect, an offer in person:


As you can see, there is a bonus for doing this face-to-face. Vespasian can do this because he isn't at war with Otho at the beginning of the scenario. His forces are allied with Otho and the Senate. (Once he is acclaimed Emperor it's going to be a different story, of course).

With that bonus, here are the chances:


The completion of the command just uses an animation with a message in the tool area:


Admittedly, it's rather obvious. I will add a notification event and post a screenshot of that next week.

The "Vox Populi" line indicated a possible adjustment in the offering leader's Auctoritas and Opprobrium values. Granting Senatorial Status can create friction with the Roman Senate if the target leader is obnoxious. That is measured by the target leader's current Opprobrium value. In this case, the effect on such opinion is negligible, hence the value "Indifferent."

"Vox Populi" literally means the Voice of the People, of course, but here it is the opinion of "upper crusty" kind of people that is being estimated.

P.S. Leaders can move by sea without a fleet or a transport because it's assumed that they can commandeer or rent a single ship. Of course, if there are hostile fleets at sea then it won't be safe to do this.

One very small nitpick, while I believe governors could not leave their assigned province without permission (though Vespasian was not really a governor at the time), someone of senatorial rank definitely needed imperial permission to enter Egypt. So perhaps Vespasian moving to Egypt should trigger a war with Otho (maybe not right away though, to give Vespasian time to intrigue without being arrested right away).

Very good points! In particular, there should be a check for "interference" and I will add that at some point (hopefully very soon). Obviously, any attempt to court a leader or interfere with forces belonging to another faction or nation must produce some kind of response.

I am not sure how the AI should try to enforce the rules against Senators visiting Egypt when that violation is made by a friendly Roman power. In general, unwanted access by an allied power would seem to require something along the lines of a diplomatic protest all the way up to a threat of war.

I don't think that I want to try to detect the mere presence of an allied leader during another player's turn. For example, suppose a player moves a leader like Vespasian to Egypt, checks how much the "in person" bonus improves the chances for success in a secret negotiation, and then decides to move the leader back out without actually doing anything. In a case like that, I don't think that I want to try to program a response from the AI. If the player's leader is still there at the end of the turn, that would be something else.