Conquer Club

XML Modifications and Variations

Topics that are not maps. Discuss general map making concepts, techniques, contests, etc, here.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby Lone.prophet on Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:38 pm

Suggestion Idea:
Fortress and attack state

Description:
A certain territory has a bigger chance of winning a defencif trow (if the attacker trows his dice number 1 higher he still loses) or a bigger chance of winning a attack (With the same number the attacker wins). and otherwise that the defensive or attacking player has a decreased chance of winning.

Why It Should Be Considered: it will create way mroe depth in new maps to come since certain key territories are stronger/weaker now. it will also create a more realiistic view on how war is fought on certain ground.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]
Image
Captain Lone.prophet
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Your basement Muahaha

Re: XML Modifications and Variations

Postby HighCommander540 on Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:17 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:
Molacole wrote:Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.


This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

HighCommander540 wrote:Being able to attack a single individual territory, by more than one. If you have more than one territory around a territory that you are trying to attack you should be ale to use all of the surrounding territories that you own. So to add more power and force. Better odds.


Some of these seem to be gameplay changes more than they're XML changes... frankly, I think this would overcomplicate the game.


Yes, I know it is gameplay changes. Also, what are you talking about over complicate? How does it make it any more complicated. It makes it more of a real fight. Which is the point of risk it is trying to simulate a war without having to lose people or have to see real blood shed. Also, Risk is to prove who is a better commander or general by strategy and luck (exactly like a real battle you have both). This would make it even more so...That is why the creators of Risk added it to their PC game.

Oh, and look at that this game is on the computer too. It would make it more real and require more thinking. To be attack on more than one side is a different battle than just one.

Many battle have been won by small forces, because together they are mighty.
Image

"What I represent can never be destroyed!"
Quoted from Dragon Ball Z's Goku
User avatar
Private HighCommander540
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:41 pm

Postby yeti_c on Tue May 01, 2007 3:25 am

Suggestion Idea:
Team Bonus

Description:
Not sure if this is XML or not... but perhaps you could have "team continents" where if a team owns all of the territories then the team get the bonus each one of their players turns... obviously these team bonuses would have to be ultra hard to get... and might only work on Bigger maps.

Why It Should Be Considered: Make team games more team oriented?

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby Molacole on Tue May 01, 2007 8:51 am

yeti_c wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Team Bonus

Description:
Not sure if this is XML or not... but perhaps you could have "team continents" where if a team owns all of the territories then the team get the bonus each one of their players turns... obviously these team bonuses would have to be ultra hard to get... and might only work on Bigger maps.

Why It Should Be Considered: Make team games more team oriented?

Lack Label (Mod Use):


I like this idea a lot. Imagine a map like world 2.0 with team bonuses split for holding a whole continent! That would definitely make that map even more popular
User avatar
Lieutenant Molacole
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:19 am
Location: W 2.0 map by ZIM

Re: XML Modifications and Variations

Postby Contrickster on Tue May 01, 2007 8:53 am

Molacole wrote:Suggestion Idea: Max troop limit

Description: Allow the map maker to select designated territories which can only be occupied by a certain amount of troops.

Why It Should Be Considered: It will allow for ideas like my paratroopers idea to exist without being abused. It could be used on maps to prevent a player from sweeping the board in a single round during esc. games. It can also give the option to prevent people from massing up troops and suiciding on somebody.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


Molacole, please read the thread first before posting to avoid repetition. Overloaded Territories is a subtle extension of this basic idea
Corporal 1st Class Contrickster
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby fluffybunnykins on Tue May 01, 2007 10:08 am

I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)
Superman wears 'Fluffybunnykins' pyjamas
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class fluffybunnykins
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:43 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby yeti_c on Tue May 01, 2007 10:15 am

fluffybunnykins wrote:I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)


Yeah scenario risk could be pretty cool...

Imagine scenarios with fog of war... that'd be cool...

On that point I guess Fog of war could go into XML - visiblity length could be defined here - although actually this would be best as an option on game start wouldn't it... please ignore my ramblings! (Shame they're sober ones too!)

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby Lone.prophet on Tue May 01, 2007 10:20 am

Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty: [No]
Image
Captain Lone.prophet
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Your basement Muahaha

Postby yeti_c on Tue May 01, 2007 10:25 am

Lone.prophet wrote:Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty:


Game Play change - and on the todo...

However a better suggestion would be

"Permanent fog" on some territories... you can only see into the territory if you own it or are attacking it...

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby ClessAlvein on Tue May 01, 2007 12:53 pm

There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?
Major ClessAlvein
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:30 pm

Postby Wisse on Tue May 01, 2007 2:50 pm

ClessAlvein wrote:There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

i recomend to not let them see it but let everyone see the amount of countrys every has (not the amount of armys)
Image Image
User avatar
Sergeant Wisse
 
Posts: 4448
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: The netherlands, gelderland, epe

Postby Molacole on Tue May 01, 2007 3:21 pm

Wisse wrote:
ClessAlvein wrote:There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

i recomend to not let them see it but let everyone see the amount of countrys every has (not the amount of armys)



if you don't allow everyone to see the amount of countries everyone has then it will give people who use greesemonkey an advantage over everyone else making the game style very unpopular to those who don't have greesemonkey and know what it does...
User avatar
Lieutenant Molacole
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:19 am
Location: W 2.0 map by ZIM

Postby Wisse on Tue May 01, 2007 4:55 pm

Molacole wrote:
Wisse wrote:
ClessAlvein wrote:There's a slight problem with "Fog of War" - if it's implemented, then spectators would have to no longer be able to view the game. If they could, then what would prevent one of the player from gathering satellite intel by asking another player to tell him the army positions?

i recomend to not let them see it but let everyone see the amount of countrys every has (not the amount of armys)



if you don't allow everyone to see the amount of countries everyone has then it will give people who use greesemonkey an advantage over everyone else making the game style very unpopular to those who don't have greesemonkey and know what it does...

read it again...
Image Image
User avatar
Sergeant Wisse
 
Posts: 4448
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: The netherlands, gelderland, epe

Postby The_Devil on Tue May 01, 2007 5:03 pm

Suggestion Idea: Bonus After Atking

Description: You get a bonus if you own a continent before your turn, but if you conquer another continent you can take an extra bonus

Why It Should Be Considered: Then freestlye players don't have to wait for the next person to move to get their bonus (that they got)

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]
Peace out

highest place...4948
User avatar
Private 1st Class The_Devil
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: A place without peace

Postby The_Devil on Tue May 01, 2007 5:05 pm

yeti_c wrote:
Lone.prophet wrote:Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty:


Game Play change - and on the todo...

However a better suggestion would be

"Permanent fog" on some territories... you can only see into the territory if you own it or are attacking it...

C.


I think you copied this from final conquest..
Peace out

highest place...4948
User avatar
Private 1st Class The_Devil
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: A place without peace

Postby yeti_c on Tue May 01, 2007 7:35 pm

What's "Final Conquest"

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby neoni on Tue May 01, 2007 7:43 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:Idea
Fog of war

how does it work
you can only see the surrounding countries so no country that doesnt border one of your countries

Why cause it will create a dynamic gamefield with suprises.

diffuclty:


this was my idea too, would be amazing
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class neoni
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:05 am
Location: obar dheathainn :(, alba

Postby mibi on Tue May 01, 2007 10:03 pm

holy crap... i didnt even know this thread existed until now. i have some reading to do.
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Postby mibi on Tue May 01, 2007 10:31 pm

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses

Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies

Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


great Idea! this should definitely be implemented.
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Postby mibi on Tue May 01, 2007 10:34 pm

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Postby Evil DIMwit on Tue May 01, 2007 10:37 pm

mibi wrote:
Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.


On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.
User avatar
Captain Evil DIMwit
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Philadelphia, NJ

Postby mibi on Tue May 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Suggestion Idea: NON - DEPLOYABLE TERRITORIES


Description: It would be territories that cannot be deployed on at thet beginning or during ones turn

Why It Should Be Considered: Lets say you have an area that is supposed to be defended or separated from the rest of the map by one small area. The defense would be totally useless if people could just deploy in this 'defended' area. You could still fortifiy fi you had a direct line to the territory but you wouldn't be able to dump armies there on your turn. An example of this would be in the Valley of the Kings map where you coulnd't deploy in the after life, only get through through the scarabs.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Postby sammy324 on Tue May 01, 2007 10:49 pm

yeti_c wrote:
fluffybunnykins wrote:I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)


Yeah scenario risk could be pretty cool...

Imagine scenarios with fog of war... that'd be cool...

On that point I guess Fog of war could go into XML - visiblity length could be defined here - although actually this would be best as an option on game start wouldn't it... please ignore my ramblings! (Shame they're sober ones too!)

C.


So, to condense:

Idea: Assigned starting continents (scenarios)

Description: Certain maps, designed for this purpose, have equal-sized continents awarded in their entirety to a player at beginning of game. Mimics real war, for example, as entire US fights Japan and Pacific Islands (WWII). Probably best used with freestyle play.

Why it should be considered:Like I said, it mimics real war, and could set up fun hypothetical wars ("hot" Cold War). If all continents were created equal, placement would be completely fair. Also, 2-person games would be possible.

Possible maps: (off the top of my head)

    North America: US vs. Canada vs. Mexico and Central America.
    Pacific Ocean: Japan, Australia, South America, North America, Pacific Islands, Russia? (possible for 6, 3, or 2 person games)
    Europe
    Other "real" and abstract maps could work as well.


Lack Label (mod use): [No]

I couldn't explain all the good things in my head, but I'm sure you can imagine most of them.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class sammy324
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:11 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Max Army Bonuses

Postby JupitersKing on Wed May 02, 2007 12:33 am

Max Troop Limit
Non-deployable Territories


These all seem to me the same idea/problem/suggestion.

The answer to me comes from the Risk II game.

A territory can add 1 army for itself and 1 army for each adjacent terrirtory. Thus if you own Australia only you can place 3 armies on Indonesia and Eastern Australia and 4 armies on New Guinea and Western Australia. Same goes for after turn deployment. You can move 3 onto Indonesia and up to 4 onto WA/NG.

This solves both problems at once with out imposing a hard cap on the troop levels per territory, which would be impossible in the Foundry anyway to get everyone to agree that these spaces are capped at 20 and these at 12.....

JK
"Oh Shit!" George Armstrong Custer, 25 June 1876.

7th Cav Productions
User avatar
Cadet JupitersKing
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:13 pm
Location: 1 Up

Postby Wisse on Wed May 02, 2007 3:35 am

mibi wrote:Suggestion Idea: NON - DEPLOYABLE TERRITORIES


Description: It would be territories that cannot be deployed on at thet beginning or during ones turn

Why It Should Be Considered: Lets say you have an area that is supposed to be defended or separated from the rest of the map by one small area. The defense would be totally useless if people could just deploy in this 'defended' area. You could still fortifiy fi you had a direct line to the territory but you wouldn't be able to dump armies there on your turn. An example of this would be in the Valley of the Kings map where you coulnd't deploy in the after life, only get through through the scarabs.

Lack Label (Mod Use): No-Deploy


i suggest that you could also put in a option that you can only fort to it when you have the whole continent

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]
Image Image
User avatar
Sergeant Wisse
 
Posts: 4448
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: The netherlands, gelderland, epe

PreviousNext

Return to Foundry Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users