XML Modifications and Variations

[KoolfuZ]

Darn, wish I'd seen this thread sooner...

Suggestion Idea: Chain Bonuses

Description: Bonus for connecting territory X with territory Y (i.e. do a check to see if a chained fortification from X to Y is possible). More generally, bonus for connecting N number of territories from set X with M number of territories from set Y.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would be useful for DiM's Age of Merchants map (if I understand correctly); I also have an idea for a map that would require this (post to come later).

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[Coleman]

I have a solution for non-deployable territories. When that is all you have left you lose. Period.

Okay, with some conditions:
Team Games Make sure that if you can still deploy for allies you don't lose.
Terminator Make it like running out of turns, you are still there to kill for points
Assassin Just like Terminator, or their assassin could just instantly win.

This might be really hard to code, I'm not sure. But there are some good maps in the works that depend on non-deployable territories, and I think it is worth it.

[Maybe]

[lackattack]

maybe this has been suggested already, but... (I did read up to p8!)
Add on to the 'Final Objective' idea...
Objective must be held for a set number of turns
eg:

Code: Select all

<continent>
...
</continent>
<objective>
  <name>West Coast</name>
  <turns>3</turns>
  <components>
     <component>Burkina Faso</component>
     <component>Benin</component>
     <component>Ghana</component>
     <component>Liberia</component>
     <component>Guinea</component>
     <component>Senegal</component>
     <component>Mauritania</component>
     <component>Western Sahara</component>
     <component>Morocco</component>
  </components>
</objective>
<country>
...
</country>

0 would mean you win the game on conquering the territory(ies)
1 means you win if you still hold the objective by the time your next turn comes round... etc.
Why? it would make the new idea more flexible and make for some exciting 'do or die' episodes near the end of the game.
Lack label:

Okay, I did like this at first but now that I'm programming it I realize that keeping track of the turns gets a bit messy especially with multiple objectives.

Instead I'm thinking of making it always 1 turn (i.e. you have to hold the objective) and finding another way to avoid fluke wins.

Ideas I came up with:
[*] re-initializing the game if someone starts off with an objective
[*] objectives are ignored in round 1

I'm leaning towards the second idea but I thought I'd ask the foundry for some feedback, so please provide if you have any

[DiM]

i vote for this one:

[*] re-initializing the game if someone starts off with an objective

ignoring it in round one is not enough. somebody might start with an objective completed and he might have a good position to defend well and keep it even in round 2.

[dominationnation]

why not have all objectives automaticly neutral

[lackattack]

why not have all objectives automaticly neutral

not good. what if an objective is to hold 3 "normal" continents? let's keep objectives flexible.

i think what i might do is try to avoid dealing out an objective, "re-shuffling" up to say 10 times if necessary. that should drastically reduce fluke wins and avoid any potential infinite loops.

[yeti_c]

why not have all objectives automaticly neutral

not good. what if an objective is to hold 3 "normal" continents? let's keep objectives flexible.

i think what i might do is try to avoid dealing out an objective, "re-shuffling" up to say 10 times if necessary. that should drastically reduce fluke wins and avoid any potential infinite loops.

I'd go for re-init.

OK agree about having to hold the objective to win... I know the GM scripts (BOB) will probs do this - but also perhaps a message saying "Objective almost won" or "Objective held by Red" or "Objective held by player name" or something if someone has it (in this example the red player!!?!?

C.

[lackattack]

Nice idea yeti, but I might leave that to the GM scripts to save time as I need to get this in quickly.

I was just testing objectives on the test site and I realized that I've programmed it to end the game with no points on terminator games.

What should happen when you reach a map objective in a Terminator or Assassin game? Full points or no points???

[yeti_c]

Nice idea yeti, but I might leave that to the GM scripts to save time as I need to get this in quickly.

I was just testing objectives on the test site and I realized that I've programmed it to end the game with no points on terminator games.

What should happen when you reach a map objective in a Terminator or Assassin game? Full points or no points???

How about nothing - it doesn't end the game at all...

It's null and void for Termy and Assassin.

Out of curiousity... for Team - is it team held objective or single player?

C.

[lackattack]

Here's the latest on XML extension:

Ranged attacks
They are going to be called "bombardments". The dice will function as normal but there is no advancing or fortifying.

Code: Select all

<country>
   <name>Yellow King</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Y2</border>
   </borders>
   <bombardments>
      <bombardment>Red King</bombardment>
   </bombardments>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>184</smallx>
      <smally>283</smally>
      <largex>219</largex>
      <largey>332</largey>
   </coordinates>
</country>

2007-05-22 09:04:01 - lackattack bombarded Red King from Yellow King and annihilated BeerMeNow's armies

Final Objectives
The game will re-initialize if someone is dealt an objective (up to 50x which should never happen ) In team games an individual player must hold the entire objective, just like a continent. Holding an objective in Assassin gives full points. I propose this for Terminator: Holding the objective ends the game and gives you points for all non-terminated and non-deadbeat opponents. Comments?

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

Overruling continent bonus
Instead of a <bestof> tag how about a set of <overrule>s, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
   <overrules>
      <overrule>Any 2 Kings</overrule>
      <overrule>Any 3 Kings</overrule>
   </overrules>
</continent>

Comments?

Last-Minute Proposals
I appreciate the ideas, but it's too late. I have to wrap up my short list so that I can get the next update done before I leave town again. We'll do this exercise again in a few months and I'll re-consider all the ideas that didn't make it in.

Suggestion Idea: Starting Neutral Territories shuffle

Wisse, you'll have to chance someone starting off with the continent.

I have a solution for non-deployable territories. When that is all you have left you lose. Period.

Interesting, but it will have to wait for next time...

[yeti_c]

<required> and <overrules>

Are a brilliant idea... That will be perfect and work well...

So basically if you have 4 kings - you just don't get any bonus from 3 or 2.

Yeah that works - and sounds pretty easy for you... means you can label each continent up differently easily...

I have a solution for non-deployable territories. When that is all you have left you lose. Period.

Interesting, but it will have to wait for next time...

Yeah I agree with this - if you can't deploy - you're dead... works for me.

Can't wait for that to come around...

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

It's not clear to me in what way this is more flexible than the current collection system. It seems to me like more of a hassle to put every bonus separately.

[yeti_c]

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

It's not clear to me in what way this is more flexible than the current collection system. It seems to me like more of a hassle to put every bonus separately.

It has to be taken into consideration with the <overrules> bit as well I reckon.

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

It's not clear to me in what way this is more flexible than the current collection system. It seems to me like more of a hassle to put every bonus separately.

It has to be taken into consideration with the <overrules> bit as well I reckon.

C.

I am, but I still can't see what requires/overrules can do that collections can't do more easily (especially if collections are allowed to overrule other things as well).

Come to think of it, a regular continent seems to me just a collection with a single bonus level for as many items as are in the collection, the difference being that that a collection can give bonuses for part of its members and a continent can't.

Unless I completely misunderstand how collections work.

[Janiv]

The xml changes and added structure look to be done very nicely. I think you've done a good job working them all out efficiently and making them flexible. Nicely done.

[Wisse]

Suggestion Idea: Starting Neutral Territories shuffle

Wisse, you'll have to chance someone starting off with the continent.

i don't understand what you did say byt,
it has no need for time, but if i do it with the impletments you got now, the neutral country will always be the same and could be boring, but i will just change it when you do make one for this

[glee]

i'm not sure if it's easier to use <overrules> rather than <bestof> but i guess it doesn't really matter which one you use

as i said i'm not good at xml coding but the improvements look good and quite easy to use

good job lack

[KEYOGI]

Good work Lack. I can't wait to see how some of these new changes are implemented into new maps. It's just a shame I don't have time to make maps myself at the moment since I've had ideas in my head for ages that would turn out nicely with some of the XML changes.

[Guiscard]

I'm not much of a code-head, so I really can't be debating collection/override/required stuff (it's all greek to me!) but I thought I'd give a little input on what I like and don't like:

Ranged Attacks: I like the idea in general, and it will be great to use as catapult type stuff (would have been good in Siege)... I'm assuming it can only be used from and to certain territories, which is good, but I have a question - Will it allow you to conquer the territory (either with your own troops or as a neutral) or just wear them down to a single soldier (which is sort of how I imagine bombardments to work, as they do in games like Civ and stuff...) I think I would prefer it if you did not conquer the territory, because then there is the chance of being able to deploy there next turn if your opponent doesn't deal with it or has horrid dice. Imagine a bomb being dropped, great, but then 6 soldiers jump out of it a day later... Not too fun really... Conquering the territory also takes away the strategic value of being able to protect another player's last territory in Terminator games to an extent if we go with the 0 neutral thing.

Final Objectives: Great, and I'd go with the remaining points in Terminator games. As for Assassin games, do you not think it makes the game a little pointless? Killing a certain player IS the objective, is it not?

As for the maybes you've looked at, I really would love to see variable XML / Images more than anything. I'd love to play one turn in the summer where I can attack through a mountain pass, but have that border closed off next turn in the winter as it freezes over. Something like that could give a player on the brink of defeat an extra burst of life if he/she has time to play some cards and beat off the powerful neighbour over the pass.

[unriggable]

Guiscard, there would be nothing special if you could conquer the territory. I think you wear it down to a single fighter.

[lackattack]

Hold on - I programmed bombardments to kill everyting and leave 1 neutral. Are you saying it should kill everything except for the last soldier?

In other words, should you be able to bust a continent with bombardments?

[dominationnation]

I like the one neutral. Its almost like there is no one there but there is a lingering effect of the ash or what ever that might kill off a few of your soldiers

[WidowMakers]

RANGED ATTACK

I'm not much of a code-head, so I really can't be debating collection/override/required stuff (it's all greek to me!) but I thought I'd give a little input on what I like and don't like:

Ranged Attacks: I like the idea in general, and it will be great to use as catapult type stuff (would have been good in Siege)... I'm assuming it can only be used from and to certain territories, which is good, but I have a question - Will it allow you to conquer the territory (either with your own troops or as a neutral) or just wear them down to a single soldier (which is sort of how I imagine bombardments to work, as they do in games like Civ and stuff...) I think I would prefer it if you did not conquer the territory, because then there is the chance of being able to deploy there next turn if your opponent doesn't deal with it or has horrid dice. Imagine a bomb being dropped, great, but then 6 soldiers jump out of it a day later... Not too fun really... Conquering the territory also takes away the strategic value of being able to protect another player's last territory in Terminator games to an extent if we go with the 0 neutral thing.

I think it should be a single neutral army. It allows an attacker to cripple a defender by taking away his bonus. A bombardment should leave 1 neutral army!

FINAL OBJECTIVES

Final Objectives: Great, and I'd go with the remaining points in Terminator games. As for Assassin games, do you not think it makes the game a little pointless? Killing a certain player IS the objective, is it not?

I agree. For assassin the objective is to kill a specific person. I think that all other XML objective should be overridden for all assassin games. No other objectives for assassin except kill your assigned player!

REQUIRES/OVERRULES
As for the requires/overrules XML. It is going to be much easier that trying to figure out all of the combinations of the territories. For King of the Mountains. I has 26 different "continent" bonuses. 10 for every pair. 10 for every group of 3. 5 for every group of 4. And 1 for all of them.
With this system I would have had 4 requires sections. The XML for the 3-5 grouping would contain the overrule portion.
I love this addition and I know other cartographers will like it even more. I might even start doing mu own XML again.

[KEYOGI]

Bombardments should definately leave a neutral 1. It makes the most sense.

[yeti_c]

Ranged Attacks:
A bombardment should leave 1 neutral army!

I agree

FINAL OBJECTIVES
No other objectives for assassin except kill your assigned player!

I agree - although could extend to Termy too?

REQUIRES/OVERRULES
As for the requires/overrules XML. It is going to be much easier that trying to figure out all of the combinations of the territories. For King of the Mountains. I has 26 different "continent" bonuses. 10 for every pair. 10 for every group of 3. 5 for every group of 4. And 1 for all of them.
With this system I would have had 4 requires sections. The XML for the 3-5 grouping would contain the overrule portion.
I love this addition and I know other cartographers will like it even more.

Yeah I like it like this - it's much more flexible than having one lot, as in previous examples, and it fits the existing Schema...

I might even start doing mu own XML again.

And where would that leave us Coding guru's who are crap at art?!

Lack - Once you have all your coding done and the ideas finalised... let me know and I can extend that schema .xsd file I sent you if you like.

C.