XML Modifications and Variations

[TaCktiX]

Suggestion Idea: Conditional Bombardment

Description: If you hold a group of territories, then get a certain territory (or territories) gain the ability to bombard other territories. Think Arms Race without all the one-ways.

Why it should be considered:
1. It would expand the ability of mapmaker's to put in new and different things.
2. There are lots of other Conditional ideas floating around, might as well do the gamut in one fell swoop and be able to recycle code.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Suggestion Idea: Conditional Neutrality

Description: If certain territories are owned, then certain other territories become neutral. This also can be extended to killer neutral.

Why it should be considered:
1. Mapmakers could replicate the effects of a bomb or artillery shell without worrying about bombardment getting crap dice.
2. Fantasy-themed maps would be able to add in "walls" that players can "fortify" by owning a castle or something simliar.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Suggestion Idea: Constant Killer Neutrals

Description: I've suggested it before under a different name, but in essence killer neutrals that reset each and every single turn, not just the turn of the owning player.

Why it should be considered:
1. I'm eventually going to pick Trench Warfare back up, and the ability to have machine guns mow down players will be a key part of the brutal gameplay I'd like.
2. It would be another option for mapmakers, suppose a territory so volatile (a la USApocalypse) that people can only attack through it, and die instantly if they stay.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Suggestion Idea: Scripted Conquering Text

Description: Essentially, a mapmaker could add a tag that whenever a territory is conquered (or conquered by a specific territory), instead of something generic like "PlayerX conquered The Castle from PlayerY" it would be more flavorful, like "PlayerX stormed the gates of The Castle and took it from PlayerY". Or consider Arms Race: "PlayerX called in a nuclear strike on Washington, vaporizing PlayerY's men". Along with this would need to be a re-interpreting of the game log code as to assure backward compatibility, so I'm not expecting this to happen any time soon.

Why it should be considered:
1. It would add flavor to the game log instead of a near-scientific approach to winning.
2. Maps like AoR and Arms Race would benefit from another level of detail to bring people into the map's theme.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[bryguy]

For the last one....


I dont think that if that gets done, it should get done for fog. It would make it WAY to easy for people to know what is happening and where everybody is if like for in AoR: Might, say i (bryguy) to your (taCktiX) aoria castle, then it would probably say something like:

Bryguy stormed the gates of Aoria and took it from taCktiX


which would tell everyone in the game where you/me were at.

[t-o-m]

For the last one....


I dont think that if that gets done, it should get done for fog. It would make it WAY to easy for people to know what is happening and where everybody is if like for in AoR: Might, say i (bryguy) to your (taCktiX) aoria castle, then it would probably say something like:

Bryguy stormed the gates of Aoria and took it from taCktiX


which would tell everyone in the game where you/me were at.

i dont think DiM or yeti would be editing the XML file for that, to include that, anyway.

[blakebowling]

Suggestion Idea: Paratroopers


Description: territories that allow you to attack anywhere on the battle field. You could also have territories with air defense symbol or something like that so you can control the location of paradrops.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would make things extremely interesting and combined with my max troop limit option it could prove to be a good option to have around without being able to be abused or used as a location to mass troops while having no direction. -(see my max troop limit idea to prevent this from being abused)

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

you can do this now, the mapmaker would just need to add every territory to the <border> list

[Androidz]

Suggestion Idea: SingleFoggy Terretories.


Description:

Makeing some areas foggy and some not. So if you have one terretorie which is special which you want people only to see when you border it then you you foggy it. (When its not foggy already ofc)

Why It Should Be Considered:

More gameplay to the maps, dunno if already suggested or works allready tough.

[Androidz]

another map with XML problem:

Well i was thinking of make a map of prussia with a new gameplay.

So ill need xml To Disable bonuses the first round.
And when a you conquer a terretorie you cant conquer any new terretorie before next turn.

[Androidz]

Could that be any good. With Teams dropped by echoter or something.

A map just for teams not standard:O

So Basicly a new moderation of Team beeing dropped.

[sam_levi_11]

Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

[Friskies]

I don't know if that was already asked, but I read the XML tutorials and didn't find it there.

Suggestion Idea: weight for territories

specifics: put a weight on territories, so that, when conquered, some territories would earn more than others in terms of reinforcements AND/OR so that conquering some specific territories (and not the whole map) would be accountable for a victory.

Why It should be considered: some territories could be key places like a Castle, a Fort, a Capital, a Gate, and conquering these places would have more weight on the victory. For instance, this could also be coupled with a heavy fortified neutral territory. Or else, one can devise some maps where a balanced victory could be available. One wouldn't be forced to conquer all the enemy's territories, and for a No Card game it would give a less boring end to play.

Lack Label:

[blakebowling]

I don't know if that was already asked, but I read the XML tutorials and didn't find it there.

Suggestion Idea: weight for territories

specifics: put a weight on territories, so that, when conquered, some territories would earn more than others in terms of reinforcements AND/OR so that conquering some specific territories (and not the whole map) would be accountable for a victory.

Why It should be considered: some territories could be key places like a Castle, a Fort, a Capital, a Gate, and conquering these places would have more weight on the victory. For instance, this could also be coupled with a heavy fortified neutral territory. Or else, one can devise some maps where a balanced victory could be available. One wouldn't be forced to conquer all the enemy's territories, and for a No Card game it would give a less boring end to play.

Lack Label:

Uhh, this was done a long time ago, read the XML tutorial before suggesting something else

[max is gr8]

When I read that I understood it as, some territs earn more reinforcements like this

12 territs = 4 units

12 territs worth 1 territ
OR
10 territs worth 1
1 territ worth 2

etc. Re-reading I'm wrong but I think that may be a good idea

[t-o-m]

Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

[blakebowling]

Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

yeah, it would mess up gameplay on the AOR maps, as well as Feudal probabally

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

yeah, it would mess up gameplay on the AOR maps, as well as Feudal probabally

Assuming that a "shared" bonus would have to be tagged in the XML - otherwise this is a site suggestion not an XML suggestion.

C.

[blakebowling]

Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

yeah, it would mess up gameplay on the AOR maps, as well as Feudal probabally

Assuming that a "shared" bonus would have to be tagged in the XML - otherwise this is a site suggestion not an XML suggestion.

C.

ooh, that would work, you can only share bonuses that are marked shareable in the xml

[OliverFA]

Suggestion Idea: Turn this thread into a sub forum

Description: Instead of having a single thread for all the XML suggestions, creat a sub-forum inside the map foundry and make each suggestion a separate thread

Why It Should Be Considered: Are you really expecting that someone will read the 44 pages of this thread before making their own suggestion? I tried to see what people had already suggested, to avoid repeating a suggestion myself, or to comment on the suggestion. But honestly, is not much user friendly.

Lack Label (Mod Use): <To be used at a later date, to determine feasibility>

[t-o-m]

viewtopic.php?f=127&t=54619

[OliverFA]

Oh I see! Thanks Tom. May I suggest placing this list in the first post of this thread?

[t-o-m]

I still think a sub-forum would be better though, i agree with you.

It wouldnt be good to sticky that topic, as we have too many stickies in here, but the first post would be good.

[e_i_pi]

Suggestion Idea: INCREMENTING NEUTRALS

Description: Neutrals that would increment by x number of units every x number of turns

Why It Should Be Considered: I want to include it in a map. A very important neutral city would get this bonus making it harder to conquer as time goes by and more turns are played.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

If this is going to be implemented, I request that the increment could be negative also. Would allow a key-point neutral on a map to become easier to conquer the longer the game goes for.

[e_i_pi]

Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

Description:
If a player were to take a certain territory or a certain group of territories, then they would get a bonus and be able to deploy however many extra armies it was worth right after they take the territory or territories and then continue attacking and finish their turn.

This could lead to abuse problems in Freestyle team games, such as Italy Citta bonus, cross-over province bonuses in Battle for Iraq, and probably some more too.

[e_i_pi]

Suggestion Idea: Visibility of territories

Description: Allow a territory to be visible from another territory, but not have an attack route.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would allow mapmakers to create maps with territories such as lookout posts, scouts, cliff-tops, etc. Would only really have any sort of effect on FoW maps. At the moment, on a map such as Waterloo it is crucial to own cannons in order to have an overview of what's going on. Would be great if there could be territories like that which are important, but cannot necessarily attack the territories that they can see.

Lack Label:

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea: Visibility of territories

Description: Allow a territory to be visible from another territory, but not have an attack route.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would allow mapmakers to create maps with territories such as lookout posts, scouts, cliff-tops, etc. Would only really have any sort of effect on FoW maps. At the moment, on a map such as Waterloo it is crucial to own cannons in order to have an overview of what's going on. Would be great if there could be territories like that which are important, but cannot necessarily attack the territories that they can see.

Lack Label:

Yeah - this one's been mentioned before - but it doesn't stop it being an awesome idea.

C.

[Androidz]

Suggestion Idea: Visibility of territories

Description: Allow a territory to be visible from another territory, but not have an attack route.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would allow mapmakers to create maps with territories such as lookout posts, scouts, cliff-tops, etc. Would only really have any sort of effect on FoW maps. At the moment, on a map such as Waterloo it is crucial to own cannons in order to have an overview of what's going on. Would be great if there could be territories like that which are important, but cannot necessarily attack the territories that they can see.

Lack Label:

ME like but also like the opposite where mapmakers could put single terretories to be fogged with No fog of war.

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: Variable length for objectives

Description: Allow an objective to be set for X rounds in order to be completed

Why It Should Be Considered: because it adds strategy and tactical options

Lack Label: