XML Modifications and Variations

[ClessAlvein]

Suggestion Idea:
Travel Time

Description:
Some crossings, especially those involving harbours and ships, would have x turn delays in the army reaching their destinations. Armies en route could be visible or invisible, and I suppose a new "territory" of a ship would be created when the attack arrives (not counting towards the territory total). If the attacker succeeds, then the territory would be taken and the transient ship territory disappears; if the attacker fails, then the remaining armies would return to the original position. If the position that the attacker attacked from was taken by a hostile army, then that army would disappear.

Why It Should Be Considered: It creates scenarios where opportunistic strikes would be very important, and allows the defender to scramble for a defense (although the attacker could be doing this as a distraction!).

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[Evil DIMwit]

Looks like we have a whole bunch of good ideas that need to be put into a regular format. But, one idea per post, so something I've been meaning to address myself:

Suggestion Idea:
Variable basic army grants

Description:
I don't know what else to call it; basically this would allow mapmakers to fundamentally alter the minimum number of armies each player gets per turn, and the number of territories needed to gain more armies per turn.

A slightly more challenging version might allow for different scales, like logarithmic (i.e. you need one territory for the 1st army, two for the 2nd, four for the 3rd, eight for the 4th, etc.); possibly allowing mapmakers to set their own equations for this based on certain variables like number of territories, continents, or armies held.

The default values should still probably be three and three.

Why It Should Be Considered:
The basic version, I think, is a natural way to extend the XML, and would probably be beneficial to small maps, of, say, eighteen territories (though even in a thirty-territory map the minimum of twelve territories for the first extra army seems a little high). Or it could be used for larger maps accordingly.

The more complicated version, admittedly, does have less use, though I can imagine it being useful to change the underlying balance of the game -- a logarithmic scale would likely prolong a game, while an exponential scale would make holding on to every territory that much more important. Maybe someone else can come up with a better use to justify adding this...

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Maybe]

[Janiv]

Suggestion Idea:
Starting Neutral Territories

Description:
This allows the map creator to force some countries to be neutral at the start of the game. In addition, the number of armies starting in the neutral territory could be specified in the XML.

Why It Should Be Considered:
This would allow map creators to have special territories that give bonuses without having to worry that any one player would start with those bonuses. Being able to specify the number of armies would allow the map creator to determine how hard that territory is to capture.

This could help out in capture-the-flag type maps or other things like in the map "Valley of the Kings."

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

[Evil DIMwit]

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow map creators to have special territories that give bonuses without having to worry that anyone player would start with those bonuses. By being able to specify the number of armies would allow the map creator to determine how hard that territory is to capture.

Ooh, really good idea there.

[dominationnation]

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow map creators to have special territories that give bonuses without having to worry that anyone player would start with those bonuses. By being able to specify the number of armies would allow the map creator to determine how hard that territory is to capture.

Ooh, really good idea there.

I agree, that way Siege! could have continued its original bonus idea in the throne room

[cairnswk]

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow map creators to have special territories that give bonuses without having to worry that anyone player would start with those bonuses. By being able to specify the number of armies would allow the map creator to determine how hard that territory is to capture.

Ooh, really good idea there.

I agree, that way Siege! could have continued its original bonus idea in the throne room

I would luv to have that option of neutral territories in my Valley of the Kings map....the Afterlife would then have to be attacked to get the bonuses. Very good idea!!

[Janiv]

Suggestion Idea:
Ranged Attacks

Description:
Some borders could be marked as ranged borders with an attribute in the XML. If a country had a ranged border, then you could attack that country but not be able to advance your armies into the territory if you conquer it. Instead the country would be populated with a 0 neutral in the territory or if that was not possible a 1 neutral.

Why It Should Be Considered:
This would allow for the simulation of air attacks, siege weapons, artillery, archers, wizards casting spells from towers, etc.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

[cairnswk]

Suggestion Idea:

1. Fractional Individual Territory Bonuses 2. With Variable Conditions

Description:
1. As well as having a continent/region bonus allocated on the basis of holding all territories in the continent/region, another game play could be if each territory that was held by a player could accumulate a fraction bonus i.e. 0.5 or 1.5 at the end of each round.
2. This fractional bonus could then be dependant on certain conditions using if, then or else statements (if these are possible in XML).

Why should this be considered:
1. This would enable individual territories to be coded with bonuses for themselves rather than for the continent as a whole. It would enable a different procedural game plan to be developed, perhaps slower or faster depending on the individual bonus allocated. At present I believe (if I am correct) we can only distribute whole number in the bonuses XML.
2. Variable conditions woudl allow for greater game variation to be developed. (Not sure if this can be accomplished with the new modifications)
1. Lack Label: (Mod Use) [No]
2. Lack Label: (Mod Use) [No]

[Wisse]

Suggestion Idea: Mutiple attacks

Description: you can attack 2 countrys at once without loosing extra armys (or 1/2 of the normal armys, mayby there would be an option to choose that too)

Why It Should Be Considered: Could be something for a defensive wall or something like a strong place, or countrys in the middle of other continents

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea: Final Objective

Description: Similar to a continent definition... if a player holds all of the objective territories then they win the game.

Why It Should Be Considered: Kindof similar to mission cards - but defined across the whole map... would give 2 routes to victory... My original idea for this was in a "Trivial pursuit map" where you had to gain all 6 "cheese" squares and the centre territory... this coupled with Neutral territories would be ace.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea: Trade Routes

Description: Method of moving armies along specific routes (only affects Adjacent)

Why It Should Be Considered: You have trade routes that connect to each other and you can reinforce along their length as you wish...

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[Gilligan]

Suggestion Idea: Neutral Players

Description: When a player becomes a deadbeat, the "computer" can take their turns, as a normal player. This could happen in the beginning too, with the few neutral territories.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would change people's strategies, and with 3 or 4 deadbeats in the game it won't be boring.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea: Neutral Players

Description: When a player becomes a deadbeat, the "computer" can take their turns, as a normal player. This could happen in the beginning too, with the few neutral territories.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would change people's strategies, and with 3 or 4 deadbeats in the game it won't be boring.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

I'm 100% sure this isn't an XML change... this would be a gameplay change!!

C.

[Contrickster]

Suggestion Idea: Overloaded Territories

Description: On specified territories (mountainous, icy, desert, wasteland etc), once armies reach above a certain specified number either

a) No more can be added (there is an army number limit for that territory

or

b) Once the territory becomes overloaded the territory loses a specified number of armies every turn until the territory restores to the load limit (unless constantly replenished).

Why It Should Be Considered: Added territory realism and strategy consideration. Is it really realistic to have 100 armies on Greenland and 1 in Ontario - what do they feed on, where are their energy supplies, how are they housed - it should be more of a challenge to populate specified challenging regions with armies. This could open up "close up maps" such as with cities (urban areas) and forests etc.


Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[dominationnation]

bonus go on specific territorys

It would be sort of like getting a set of cards. When you get certain bonuses instead of putting them where ever you want they automaticly go on a predetermined territory.


That way you could have a training camp and any troops that you get as a bonus for that would automaticly go on the last territory



Lack label: [Yes]

[Wisse]

whaha i started with the underline and everyon is doing it too

[Janiv]

Suggestion Idea:
Decay Territories

Description:
A territory marked as a decay territory in the XML could result in a specified number of troops killed in that territory per turn.

An alternative variation to this idea could be troop loss only occurs when you move into the territory or deploy additional troops to that territory.

Why It Should Be Considered:
This could allow for the creation of things like mine fields, poisonous or radiated land, hot lava, areas under attack from bombardments, etc.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

[Contrickster]

Suggestion Idea:
Decay Territories

Description:
A territory marked as a decay territory in the XML could result in a specified number of troops in that territory per turn.

An alternative variation to this idea could be troop loss only occurs when you move into the territory or deploy additional troops to that territory.

Why It Should Be Considered:
This could allow for the creation of things like mine fields, poisonous or radiated land, hot lava, areas under attack from bombardments, etc.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Good idea. Radiated land features in USApocalypse.

[WidowMakers]

Suggestion Idea:
KEY/SWITCH Territories

Description:
A territory marked as a KEY/SWITCH territory in the XML would activate map changes to borders or bonuses.

Why It Should Be Considered:
For example imagine a map where two territories are connected by a bridge. Both territories ca attack each other. However, if a player occupies a territory on one side of the bridge and the bridge SWITCH territory, they then control the bridge function. This makes the bridge 1 way in favor of the owner of the SWITCH owner.

This could be used for locking doors, lowering bridges, raising and lowering water levels, or adjusting bonuses for you or opponentsetc.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Maybe]

[WidowMakers]

Suggestion Idea:
Negative Opponent Bonus Territories

Description:
A territory (or groups of territories) marked as a Negative Opponent Bonus territory in the XML would give negative bonuses to opponents on their turn

Why It Should Be Considered:
Instead of going after a bonus that gives you more armies your next turn you could go after a bonus that gives everyone else less armies the very next turn. The results are immediate.

There would probably need to be a certain group held because if only 1 territory was required to give others negative bonus, the first turn could be the end of the game.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[WidowMakers]

Suggestion Idea:
"TRUE" Teleport Territories

Description:
A territory marked as a "TRUE" Teleport territory in the XML would provide actual troop movement how a teleport works.
Why It Should Be Considered:
Currently the closest thing we have to teleports is the 1-way border. The issue with this is that if you attack from a 1-way with 18 on 7 and you win, you only need to put 1 army in the conquered territory. This is not how it should be. How did the 18 guys you attacked with get back to the attacking territory if it is a 1-way?

A "TRUE" Teleport territory would allow an attacker to attack but all of the troops sent through would be stuck. So if the attacker had 20 vs 6 and chose to attack with 12. Those 12 would be sent through and there would be a 12 vs 6 auto attack on the other side of the teleport. If the attacker wins the remainder of the troops are now stuck on the other side.


Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[Coleman]

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): [Yes]

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea:
Bonuses Multipliers

Description:
At present bonuses are whole numbers... the ability to use multipliers (preceded by an x) to multiply reinfocement bonuses.


Why It Should Be Considered:
This could be useful for certain maps - DiM's resource map was looking for this too.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[ParadiceCity9]

Suggestion Idea:
Negative Opponent Bonus Territories

Description:
A territory (or groups of territories) marked as a Negative Opponent Bonus territory in the XML would give negative bonuses to opponents on their turn

Why It Should Be Considered:
Instead of going after a bonus that gives you more armies your next turn you could go after a bonus that gives everyone else less armies the very next turn. The results are immediate.

There would probably need to be a certain group held because if only 1 territory was required to give others negative bonus, the first turn could be the end of the game.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

I actually like this

[AndyDufresne]

Looks like we are getting a few good suggestions Keep them up, and thanks for following the form!


--Andy