XML Modifications and Variations

[fireedud]

Suggestion Idea: Multiple X/Y coordinates

Description: Youu could add two or more sets of X and Y cooordinates for both the small map and the large map.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would be possible for 3-d maps, that have multiple images (with overlapping to tell where to attack), and your army number appears twice (in the same territory, but a different place).

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: Modifiable bonus for number of owned terits

Description: normaly you get 1 for every 3 terits you own (minimum 3 troops if you have less than 12). well, i'd preatty much like to regulate these numbers. for example get +1 for each terit. or +3 for every 2 terits, or why not? get absolutely nothing regardless of the terits you have

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this. i know i keep saying this reason but it's the truth

Lack Label (Mod Use):

You can do this with the collections bonuses...

C.

perfect. thanks yeti_c

[DiM]

i posted this before but no response on it so i'm posting it again to avoid being forgotten.

Suggestion Idea: Converting Territories

Description: a territory can be converted to another player if certain conditions are met. let's say we have a green territory surrounded by blue. if blue's troops are ten times stronger the green teritory becomes blue with just one army

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this no, seriously it could bring very nice tactical options.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


and another one

Suggestion Idea: Variable Attack Range

Description: we have ranged attacks but those are predefined ranged attacks and can only be applied to set territories. i want those attacks to be variable. so you have a catapult in territory A and it can attack at a certain range (let's say 3 territories in any direction) but in time that catapult becomes a cannon and thus it should be able to attack at a longer range.

or perhaps you get a certain territory that while it is held it provides a boost in catapult range and if you lose it you return to normal range.


Why It Should Be Considered: more options more fun.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

this was posted before but nt using the form. since lack said it's not possible yet i've completed the suggestion form because i really need this.

Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this plus it would add a whole new dimension to tactics and realism.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: Win condition - number of armies

Description: can a specific number of armies be added as a wining condition? let's say you must have terit x & y but also have 100 armies in those terits.

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Description: some terits are not attackable but more players can move into the same terit.
let's say we have terit A -> B <- C
with the arrows being one way moving. not attacking just moving. green is in terit A and he moves his troops to B. he selects attack but no dice are rolled he just moves. then red has terit C and also moves into terit B. now both red and green have their armies in the same terit. it's multiple ownership. since the teit is move only there's not the problem of someone attacking it to see who defends and such

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[unriggable]

Dim and his damned projects...

[DiM]

Dim and his damned projects...

what can i do?
i got lots of ideas

[Coleman]

I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

[wcaclimbing]

I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

but reading the list of new things could give you a good idea for a map.

[DiM]

I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

actually this thread is not just about gathering ideas but also about improving them.
and not to forget making them known to the whole community.

i'm kinda upset i know nothing about programming so basically all my requests are just shots in the dark as i have no idea if they are even remotely possible

[yeti_c]

Everything is possible in the code...

XML, despite what a lot of people think, isn't code... it's merely data.

C.

[DiM]

Everything is possible in the code...

XML, despite what a lot of people think, isn't code... it's merely data.

C.

so what i wrote above is possible?

wonderful. all i have to do is convince lack to implement them

[Wisse]

Everything is possible in the code...

XML, despite what a lot of people think, isn't code... it's merely data.

C.

xml is one of the only internet "langluages (^sp)" that uses cordinates

[KEYOGI]

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Is this really so different to continents sharing a border? I'm interested to see in what context it would be used as I don't really see much point to it from what you have said.

I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

Could you imagine the amount of PM's poor Lack would have to go through if this was the case. I'm sure he's got enough of them already without adding to them. Then there's the fact the same idea would be put foward over and over again by different people... and then, there would need to be an announcement thread anyway so everyone was kept up to date. I think the system in place works really well.

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Is this really so different to continents sharing a border? I'm interested to see in what context it would be used as I don't really see much point to it from what you have said.

it is totally different. here's a pic to help.

as you can see we have red army and blue army in the eyes.

now they decide to MOVE (not attack but move) towards the mouth.
in the mouth both armies can coexist in a multiple ownership. multiple ownership means there are more players on the same terit at the same time.

in sharing terits (like space map) there can be only one army in a terit at any given time.

[KEYOGI]

I guess that would work for team games, but it seems kind of a useless feature for single player games. I dunno, just my opinion... perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

[DiM]

I guess that would work for team games, but it seems kind of a useless feature for single player games. I dunno, just my opinion... perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

i have a project that needs this feature.
i need certain terits that all people can go to regardless of how many armies they have.

if i don't have this feature a guy with huge armies might move into such a terit and keep others away because they don't have the strenght to breach the defence. if multi ownership (as presented above) is introduced anybody can move into such a terit no matter how many armies they have. it is really important for my gameplay.

[KEYOGI]

So I'm guessing there's no attacking within the territory itself?

[DiM]

So I'm guessing there's no attacking within the territory itself?

no attacking inside that terit.

also if you want to go in that terit you select attack but no dice are rolled and you just move. so hit attack button and the dice phase is skipped and you instantly have the option to select how many armies to move.

[unriggable]

That's a pretty hard thing to do with xml, dim. Don't count on it. I would just make it a space that counts as connecting to all adjacent countries for all player, you know, for fortification.

[DiM]

That's a pretty hard thing to do with xml, dim. Don't count on it. I would just make it a space that counts as connecting to all adjacent countries for all player, you know, for fortification.

i don't know if it hard or not. as i said, i have no idea how xml works. but yeti_c said anything is possible. so i still have hope.

[yeti_c]

That's a pretty hard thing to do with xml, dim. Don't count on it. I would just make it a space that counts as connecting to all adjacent countries for all player, you know, for fortification.

It's piece of piss in XML to do anything...

It's the parser that might make it tricky...

When will people learn exactly what XML is?

"eXtensible Markup Language."

It's not code...

C.

[DiM]

more things i need: (i know i'm beginning to stretch it here but the project i'm working on is very different and the more i progress in doing the more i realize i need more and more xml features)


so:
#1

Suggestion Idea: Random assigned xml features

Description: let's say i have a map where some terits give bonuses. i want those terits to be random every time a new game starts

Why It Should Be Considered: some maps could use a little randomness to avoid boredom.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

#2

Suggestion Idea: Motion detectors

Description: i want triggers in the xml for certain actions done by the players. let's say a players moves from terita A to B. if he moves 10 troops it's ok but if he moves 100 troops a motion detector is triggered and a xml feature is applied (like an impassable border or decay or something)

Why It Should Be Considered: cause it's cool

Lack Label (Mod Use):

i think #2 could be done through the suggestion below but i'm not sure so i posted it. if the one below also includes #2 then just ignore #2.

Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this plus it would add a whole new dimension to tactics and realism.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

That's a pretty hard thing to do with xml, dim. Don't count on it. I would just make it a space that counts as connecting to all adjacent countries for all player, you know, for fortification.

It's piece of piss in XML to do anything...

It's the parser that might make it tricky...

When will people learn exactly what XML is?

"eXtensible Markup Language."

It's not code...

C.

what you're saying is music to my ears

the only impediment is lack's available time to do all this work. but i'll be patient