XML Modifications and Variations

[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

I could do that with the current xml using the new override and collection bonuses. Although it would be nice to have something simple in the header to do it faster.

yep i know yeti_c told me but as you said it would be nice to have a simpler method.

[DiM]

I understand your frustration. Perhaps Lack wants to see how often the newest XML updates are implemented before investing more time in further updates? If a feature is only going to be used once or twice, it's hardly worth the effort.

almost all of the maps that are now in final forge and some that have been quenched are using the new features.
also many of the maps in production are using them so i think they are a real success and should be followed by more features.

[Coleman]

Is there a list of what is in and how it is implemented somewhere? If so, could we make it easier to find? Sticky perhaps? If not could we make one and then sticky it. Or make a current sticky link to it, or something???

[AndyDufresne]

I believe if you check the 'How To' Announcement, and visit the link XML Tutorial the new improvements (along with basic XML info) can be found there.


--Andy

[Qwert]

Balsiefen



Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 1249
Location: The ford of the Alder in the east of the kingdom of Lindissi
Posted: 08 Jul 2007 16:14 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggestion Idea: Default territories

Description: Certain Territories that always start together (for instance in qwert's eastern front map, one team could start with territories on the far east and the other on the far west (although, not a full continent)

Why It Should Be Considered: This would be good for maps based on wars and battles whare the sides wern't spread around randomly but origionated from one point, you could still have most territories random but keep a power base for each player

Yes these very interesting,you can put in all front from north to south neutral numbers,but problem will be bonuses for extra terittory(Moscow Stalingrad,leningrad)

[Coleman]

Suggestion Idea: Nested Continents

Description: In the xml if I want to make a new continent that I know contains two smaller ones it would be nice if I could just put the continent name instead of all the countries.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would save a lot of space on larger maps which may use it. Also if I then used this as a selection group it would be a really easy to say if someone holds two of these five continents then they get this extra bonus (or negative bonus). Which actually would not be possible with the countries, or it would take a lot of work.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[oldbenjamin]

A Slightly less powerful substitute might be creating multiple territories in the same place. Think of it like a house: one player can occupy the top level, another the ground floor, and a third the basement. Each might have doors to the outside, and possibly stairs up or down.

Also, on a side note, maybe if the script was open source, other people could help implement game changes?

[DiM]

A Slightly less powerful substitute might be creating multiple territories in the same place. Think of it like a house: one player can occupy the top level, another the ground floor, and a third the basement. Each might have doors to the outside, and possibly stairs up or down.

Also, on a side note, maybe if the script was open source, other people could help implement game changes?

i already suggested this but nothing yet

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

[DiM]

anybody knows if and when will be the next batch of updates?

Suggestion Idea: One-time Bonus

Description: you receive a one time bonus when you conquer a terit. after that the terit gives no other bonus regardless if somebody else takes the terit.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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)

Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour

Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered
so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:

Code: Select all

if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral)
if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral)
......


[Coleman]

Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour

Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered
so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:

Code: Select all

if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral)
if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral)
......


I'm starting to see the need for this one myself. I'm not sure if the rest neutral is the right way of saying it, that can be designated if desired by neutral values in the actual territories. What I would like from this is being able to designate some territories to a specific player depending on total player count and leaving the rest randomly assigned.

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour

Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered
so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:

Code: Select all

if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral)
if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral)
......


I'm starting to see the need for this one myself. I'm not sure if the rest neutral is the right way of saying it, that can be designated if desired by neutral values in the actual territories. What I would like from this is being able to designate some territories to a specific player depending on total player count and leaving the rest randomly assigned.

Something along the lines of...

Code: Select all

<starts>
  <start>
    <players>2</players>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <neutrals>
      <neutral>Brazil</neutral>
      <neutral>Central America</neutral>
      <neutral>Kamchatka</neutral>
      <neutral>South Africa</neutral>
    </neutrals>
  </start>
  <start>
    <players>3</players>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <position>Brazil</position>
    <neutrals>
      <neutral>Central America</neutral>
      <neutral>Kamchatka</neutral>
      <neutral>South Africa</neutral>
    </neutrals>
  </start>
  <start>
    <players>4</players>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <position>Brazil</position>
    <position>Central America</position>
    <neutrals>
      <neutral>Kamchatka</neutral>
      <neutral>South Africa</neutral>
    </neutrals>
  </start>
  <start>
    <players>5</players>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <position>Brazil</position>
    <position>Central America</position>
    <position>Kamchatka</position>
    <neutrals>
      <neutral>South Africa</neutral>
    </neutrals>
  </start>
  <start>
    <players>6</players>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <position>Brazil</position>
    <position>Central America</position>
    <position>Kamchatka</position>
    <position>South Africa</position>
  </start>
</starts


Apologies for the poor example - but you get the idea...

So you have 6 "Starting positions" in mind... so each player gets 1 - the rest are neutral... in fact thinking about it... following the above code to it's logical conclusion - all you need is this...

Code: Select all

  <start>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <position>Brazil</position>
    <position>Central America</position>
    <position>Kamchatka</position>
    <position>South Africa</position>
  </start>


So each player gets a starting location - and the rest of the starting location are neutral for less than 6...

Then for the rest of the map you can pick and choose what should be neutral...

C.

[gimil]

I feel this is really needed

however it should be tweaks a little to allow the possibility of starting armies together

Code: Select all

<start>
  <player>
    <position>UK</position>
    <position>Northern Europe</position>
    <position>Western Europe</position>
  </player>

  <player>
    <position>Siam</position>
    <position>India</position>
    <position>China</position>
  </player>

  <player>
    <position>Brazil</position>
    <position>North Africa</position>
    <position>Congo</position>
  </player>

  <player>
    <position>Central America</position>
    <position>Western US</position>
    <position>Eastern US</position>
  </player>

  <player>
    <position>Kamchatka</position>
    <position>Japan</position>
    <position>Mongolia</position>
  </player>

  <player>
    <position>South Africa</position>
    <position>Madagascar</position>
    <position>east Africa</position>
  </player>
</start>

[DiM]

it's useless guys. i've posted these requests more then 2 months ago and nobody even looked at them. i don't think they will ever get implemented.

i have several projects that need them and i had to abbandon them because of lack of features

[Jota]

Despite the fact that lack's not currently looking for ideas for new XML features, I'd still like to express my support for gimil's proposal, in case lack does want more work to do in the future. The different sides should be randomly allotted, of course, and if there are few enough players (e.g. two or three), players should receive multiple sides.

There are several important questions, though:

After handing out sides, should the randomizer try to make sure that every player still ends up with the same number of countries total, or the same number of extra countries?

What should happen if there are more players than sides? (I suppose this question implies an answer to the previous one.)

If there are sides left over (e.g. with six sides and four players), what happens to the remaining ones? Are they given to a couple of the players en masse? Divided up country by country? Treated as neutral? (I'd veto the last one as an automatic behavior: mapmakers should just use the <neutral> tag on those countries if desired, and the <player> tag can simply override it when there are enough players.)

[AndyDufresne]

When Lack first approved the new XML additions, he did mention this was just the first 'batch'. Be patient, not everything that is good can come at once.


--Andy

[Qwert]

Well for mine map WWII Western Front,its must have these Win Condition-holding 40 terittory.

[DiM]

When Lack first approved the new XML additions, he did mention this was just the first 'batch'. Be patient, not everything that is good can come at once.


--Andy

i know he said that but several months have passed since and he hasn't even looked at the new proposals

[AndyDufresne]

Don't worry, a time will come again. He wants to finish up some major things with the few next updates.


--Andy

[DiM]

Don't worry, a time will come again. He wants to finish up some major things with the few next updates.


--Andy

cool.

[yeti_c]

Well for mine map WWII Western Front,its must have these Win Condition-holding 40 terittory.

You could program in a bonus for holding 40 - but I don't think the <required> tag goes into the <objective> tag...

It would be fairly simple for Lack to do this though...

C.

[Jota]

Not just any bonus, but a bonus of 600 armies -- that'd be practically equivalent to declaring a win. (I'd advise against 6000, though, on the grounds that it'll look terrible against the army shadows.)

[gimil]

Not just any bonus, but a bonus of 600 armies -- that'd be practically equivalent to declaring a win. (I'd advise against 6000, though, on the grounds that it'll look terrible against the army shadows.)

i cant help but feel this is in the wrong thread lol or am i just stupid?

[DiM]

Not just any bonus, but a bonus of 600 armies -- that'd be practically equivalent to declaring a win. (I'd advise against 6000, though, on the grounds that it'll look terrible against the army shadows.)

i cant help but feel this is in the wrong thread lol or am i just stupid?

i have the same feeling. or we share the same stupidity

[gimil]

So long as im not alone:D

[GreecePwns]

I managed to find this thread.

Suggestion Idea: Territory Hold Time Bonus

Description: A bonus that is given for holding a certain territory, maybe in the middle of a map or connected to many territories, for a set amount of turns.

Why It Should Be Considered: This xml variation could be used for war scenarios (WWII and D-Day would have been great with these), and would make for focal points on the map.