If the v1.41 campaign works on XP then next you should use a hex editor (e.g. HxD) to replace the following patterns in v1.41 AoW+.exe and the three *.xpl files:
- replace "AoWEPACK.xpl" with "+\+EPACK.xpl"
- replace "AoWTCPCK.xpl" with "+\+TCPCK.xpl"
- replace "AoWTools.xpl" with "+\+Tools.xpl"
Then also rename the xpl files accordingly, i.e. "AoWEPACK.xpl" to "+EPACK.xpl" and so on, and move them to the "+" directory (where the campaign folder is). Then see if you can run the game.

Make sure you completely remove all v1.42 files before you do this, and also make sure that you only replace bytes, not add any.

This is a very good point, and production time will definitely be tweaked.

The idea with v1.4x is still to be able to use any HSS. For v1.43 I will add some checks for the HSS overrides so that e.g. Elephants are only more expensive if their cost as defined in the HSS matches the default v1.36 value, and if you use an HSS where Elephants have a different cost then that value will remain unaffected.

Regarding mana balance, the current system is a work in progress. There's a number of things I'm trying to achieve, and I haven't yet figured out the best way to combine them:
- Elemental nodes should have a progression that rewards focussing on few spheres, e.g. exponential or with an offset.
- Generic nodes should still have non-insignificant income.
- Players shouldn't easily amass a huge mana surplus.

The main problem with all of this is the mana income from leaders/heroes. This is usually the only income in the very early game, so it shouldn't be negligible. But if you have a leader with Spellcasting IV and a hero with Spellcasting III, a progression of 5-10-15-20-25 already nets you 35 mana each turn which is quite a lot. In this case, a generic node giving only 5 mana would clearly be too little, but a higher value would result in an overall too high income if you have several nodes.

With v1.42 I attempted to circumvent this issue by reducing mana income from all sources as well as halving spell cost (though not upkeep or research) but it's clearly not a very popular change, and now that I've actually played v1.42 a bit I must say I'm not too happy with it either. I also acknowledge that messing with spell costs is a potential balance concern for any custom HSS.

If anyone has any bright ideas how to resolve this, I'm all ears.

Regarding some of the requested changes...
- Ignition chance is one thing I had briefly looked into before; there's actually a function called AoWE.IgnitionChance so I thought "well this seems trivial" and haven't bothered with it since. Looking at it again it seems there are a bunch of fixed values ranging from 0 to 80 that get assigned according to terrain, but there's also two instances where the base chance is increased by 5 depending on conditions that aren't entirely clear to me, so we're potentially looking at a range of 0..90 here. This seems to indicate an actual percentage, though I'm not entirely certain about this either. If it is a percentage, and I simply multiply IgnitionChance by a fixed value, this may cause previously distinct values to all behave as a 100% chance, which I'm not sure is desirable. Though I guess I could simply do that for the next version, and if it's too much I can tone it done later.
- Movement cost is something I have for a long time wanted to change myself, but so far I have been unable to figure out where this is defined.
- I can definitely reduce base vision range by 1. After all, v1.50 will have even further reduced vision for the basic units.
- The way I understand it, the chance for Fire Strike to cause Burning is determined by the stats; i.e. if the attack connects (and the target has no Fire Protection/Immunity) then it causes Burning. Is this not correct?

I'm not really a programmer; I have a rudimentary understanding of the basics since most of it is just applied logic, but that's about it.

I got AoW as part of a games collection a year or so after the initial release; it was the only TBS I enjoyed at the time because the need for micro-management didn't increase exponentially like in e.g. Civilization or Master of Orion, and on top of that AoW had more variety between the factions. Over time I ended up comparing any new strategy games to AoW, and apart from EU2/FTG they all fell short, so I just stuck with AoW.

An addendum regarding ignition chance: There's a simple byte edit anyone can do to increase the chance by a factor of two; just open AoWEPack.dpl (or in AoW+ v1.42, +EPack.dpl) in a hex editor and replace the 5 bytes starting at 0x000621D7 (should be '5E 5B C3 8B C0') with 'D1 E0 5E 5B C3'. Would be great if someone could playtest this and let me know if ignition happens frequently enough then.


By the way, if people want to express their appreciation then I would much prefer something practical. I'm in the planning stage for an AoW campaign for which I could really use some new unit sprites; there are a couple of decent ones on AoW Heaven and I can do basic palette swaps on my own (example) but what I'm really looking for is someone who can create more complex sprites, e.g. an Elven spearman with a High Men helmet and a large round shield. Would anyone here happen to be artistically inclined by any chance?

Isn't amassing a huge mana surplus just something that happens when people don't cast spells as much as they could be? If you have a summoning spells and buff spells like Stoneskin, Enchanted weapon etc, then you have plenty to spend mana on, also you can crank up research.

Would it be possible to implement green and blue blood? https://i.imgur.com/7zcE7i0.png

No.

I just followed these instructions and it still worked on Windows 10, but did not work on Windows XP (tbat same '0xc0000017" error). I guess the improved folder structure doesn't work on Windows XP? I'm going to try the opposite now and see whether changing 1.42 folder structure fixes this.


I'm not sure to be honest, I've never paid too close attention to Fire Strike given it's mediocrity. Will try to pay closer attention or maybe run some tests.

I'll try the Ignition edit also, will let you all know what happens. Maybe next time my LAN group comes over we can spend some time messing with sprites, but none of us have ever tried our hand at it - don't expect anything groundbreaking from us here haha.


As for mana, I don't think there's anything wrong with Spellcasting III and IV granting a large mana income (nor its scaling compared to a mana node), given the following points:
- Spellcasting III/IV on a Hero/Leader is not easily achievable at all (at least not in multiplayer... at which point the increased mana isn't necessarily more valuable than the much higher stats / better abilities your opponent may have chosen)
- This mana income is easily lost with 10HP / less DEF, and its importance encourages careful play with Heroes instead of the usual 1.36 tank build
- By the time these levels of Spellcasting are achieved, low level Spells should already be researched, with exception to the campaign where you get to add a new sphere. But even then, this creates an interesting choice between new quickly researched Level 1 Spells, or getting a significant increase in mana income
- Being the most powerful magic user in the known world with Spellcasting V should feel significant

My mana income suggestions are made with next to zero regard to current Spell Cost/Research/Upkeep (anyone can easily change them), and are based only on relative scaling between mana income sources. I do agree about the significance of initial Leader Spellcasting mana income, and currently would be leaning towards keeping Level 1 Spell Research costs unchanged in my ruleset (based on Spellcasting I = 5 mana income), but raising Research costs for all higher level spells, at which point a player has either increased his mana income, or has misplayed / is losing and doesn't deserve to research them quickly anymore lol. I guess I just don't think 5 mana income from a node compared to the 35 is a problem; it's a massive investment of time and effort to achieve and should pay dividends accordingly in my opinion.

Great, so we've found the cause of the problem. Now we just need to fix it.

Instead of '+\+' can you please try the following variants and let me know which work and which don't:
- a\+ (this will probably not work)
- +\a (this might work)
- a\a (this should work)

Sure, I'll try it. Will post update soon.

I am. I draw this f.ex.
this stuff require months of drawing monster new deaths, wound states, attacks in multiple directions, plus i add smooth animation (12 frames instead 4 - dont judge me, my life is pointless anyway), to match previous drawing style.

Im happy draw something in the weekends. I already has some requests although that i want to finish.

I already check how to open the AoW ILB graphic files. I plan to draw a hydra for dark elves (and my aspiration end on planning :) )

choose please and specify for start 1 unit, that is most important for you and easiest to do from frankespriting.

Sorry for the delay, I'm slowly getting the hang of this, made a few dumb mistakes lol

I've only done the a\+ variant so far, upon running game in Windows 10, the first city I try to enter throws an error "Access violation at adress 017BB742 in module '+TCPCK.dpl. Write of address 000000E4."

Windows XP throws the same error at attempted start up as before.

Will try the next ones.

Maybe we should be paying you then, lol.

Exact same behaviour for +\a as a\+. Will try to get a\a done before company arrives, otherwise will be later tonight.

Ah geez, a/a is presenting the exact same problem. I'll retry from a fresh install later tonight to see if I've introduced human error. Real life calls for now lol.

mock up in center

im rich

Thanks for the offer! All units I have in mind can more or less be created by frankenspriting since I was assuming I had to create everything myself. In fact most units will be very similar, so the most critical resource is a base unit that the others could then be derived from. This base unit would consist of the following parts:
- The head/helmet of a Human Swordsman/Archer.
- The torso of a Highman Swordsman/Archer, or an Elf Swordsman/Archer with the sleeves in skin tone.
- The legs of a Human Swordsman/Archer with the pants in skin tone.
- The feet of an Azrac Swordsman with some sandals and greaves.
- A simple one-handed spear like the Human Medium Cavalry or Halfling Pony Rider.
- The shield will be always be replaced, so it should be small or non-existent.

From this base unit, a variety of units could then be derived:
- Generic spearman: Add a large oval shield.
- Elite spearman: Add a large oval shield and a Human Musketeer/Cavalier helmet plume.
- Hoplite: Add a large round shield and a Highman helmet crest.
- Legionary: Replace the spear with a sword, add a tower shield, and remove the greaves.
- Praetorian: Replace the spear with a sword and add a large oval shield and a Highman helmet crest.

These units would further be diversified by colorising the skirt, armor, shield, and crest/plume. Now the base unit is clearly not so simple to make, and anyway I would need each part as a separate layer. I don't have any other unit requests that are important though. However, I would also have some use for that hydra you were planning to draw, as it is one of the few creatures from ancient mythology that are missing in AoW. Or for a much simpler task, a cyclops (i.e. a Giant with only one eye) would be great.

By the way, when I edit AoW unit sprites the first thing I do is always to move the death sprites from DeadUnit.ILB to the respective unit ILB just so I won't forget about them. When defining a unit in AoWEd it makes no difference where the sprites are located anyway.

You guys paying Lagi would absolutely work for me, lol.

This strongly suggests user error. And you should always work from the base files that are known to work.