XML Suggestions and Modifications II

[cairnswk]

^^ Goodness, if that was around we wouldn't have had to rework Das Schloss...well maybe not

[MeanestBossEver]

Suggestion Idea: Dice Bonus

Description:
Add a <dice> tag to XML with a single number (positive or negative) for adjusting dice rolls.
Can also have 2 attributes(or separate tags) for separate adjustments of attack / defence rolls.

[/code]

Love this idea. If practical, I'd like to see it further extended to be optionally directional. Maybe something like:

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Birds</name>
...
<dice type="Attack" to="Freshly Washed Car">1</dice>
<dice type="Defence" to="Shotgun">2</dice>
</territory>


[Army of GOD]

Suggestion Idea: Random Bonus


Description: There are maps that have continents and territories that give out assured gains and losses. A random one will add more pizazzto every war. The mapmaker can make it so that a certain continent can gain/lose a bonus of -1 to 3 units or 0-5 or whatever s(he) feels like, instead of forcing "you will definitely receive x many if you hold this, no ifs ands or buts" (BORING! )

Why It Should Be Considered: Complete reinforcements in real war are never assured and things such as war-time disease and "accidents" exist all the time. Adding this feature and allowing us to use it will give map-makers another key tool when drawing and planning out maps.

[captainwalrus]

Suggestion Idea: Random Bonus


Description: There are maps that have continents and territories that give out assured gains and losses. A random one will add more pizazzto every war. The mapmaker can make it so that a certain continent can gain/lose a bonus of -1 to 3 units or 0-5 or whatever s(he) feels like, instead of forcing "you will definitely receive x many if you hold this, no ifs ands or buts" (BORING! )

Why It Should Be Considered: Complete reinforcements in real war are never assured and things such as war-time disease and "accidents" exist all the time. Adding this feature and allowing us to use it will give map-makers another key tool when drawing and planning out maps.

That would increase the amount of the game that is luck based though. If the bonus was the same for the whole game, but different from game to game, that would be good, but different each turn, meh, not so much.

[the.killing.44]

I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.

[captainwalrus]

I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.

Seconded!

[ender516]

I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.

Seconded!

I hope you two have already read the Dice Bonus/Adjustment topic. I think it makes some good points for interesting game play that could be introduced with a change like this.

And, really, don't most of the innovations at this site "ruin the integrity of R*sk"? Starting positions, killer neutrals, fog of war, ... How many of these are in the basic board game?

[ender516]

Suggestion Idea: Continental Reinforcements

Description: The <reinforcements/> tag would be made available within the <continent/> tag, thus simplifying the XML when a bonus structure like "Hold 4 for +2, 6 for +3, 8 for +4" is desired. The game log could state "ender516 received 3 troops for holding 7 regions in Blue Nitrogens".

Why It Should Be Considered: Some maps have enormous XML files in order to simulate this via multiple continents with bonuses and overrides and whatnot. Smaller, more understandable XML files are certainly to be desired: easier to create, easier to update and maintain.

[yeti_c]

R*sk - has these rules already... the LOTR risk had rules like this.

C.

[zimmah]

Suggestion Idea: Continental Reinforcements

Description: The <reinforcements/> tag would be made available within the <continent/> tag, thus simplifying the XML when a bonus structure like "Hold 4 for +2, 6 for +3, 8 for +4" is desired. The game log could state "ender516 received 3 troops for holding 7 regions in Blue Nitrogens".

Why It Should Be Considered: Some maps have enormous XML files in order to simulate this via multiple continents with bonuses and overrides and whatnot. Smaller, more understandable XML files are certainly to be desired: easier to create, easier to update and maintain.

this is allready possible (but it would be good if the XML could be smaller for that purpose, but still, there are in my opinion updates that should take place before updating this, because this is not really opening up new gameplay options

[max is gr8]

@Conditional Borders I suggest a following tweak

If certain territories are owned by another player. I.e. not neutral.

When the guard is owned by a player you cannot cross the bridge. If it is neutral or you own it you can.

@Losing Conditions

Would that count as being eliminated in an assassin game?

[WidowMakers]

I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.

Seconded!

Thirded

but what about this....

Suggestion Idea: Different Sided Dice

Description:
Allow different types of dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20) for different territories or maps

Game engine just randomizes based on the type od die used.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Territory types and locations can be given more or less bonus but higher die values.
GP tweaks can be made with dice and with bonus structures

Examples:
-Now a tank (d8) will be more powerful than a soldier (d6).
-A mountain fortress receives very little bonus (bad strategic location for new troops to get to)
but get d10 dice due to the very good strategic location.

d6 vs d6 [1-6 vs 1-6] even
d6+3 vs d6 [4-9 vs 1-6] not fair not even
d8 vs d6 [ 1-8 vs 1-6] uneven but fair

[max is gr8]

I like yours best WidowMakers

Though I'd suggest a base figure still.

E.g. Tanks have a fairly consistant power level but soldiers vary a lot more so it could be:

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Tanks</name>
<border>Weak Soldiers</border>
<dicemodifiers>
   <dx>d3
   <lowerbound>4
</dicemodifiers>

<territory>
<name>Weak Soldiers</name>
<border>Tanks</border>
<dicemodifiers>
   <dx>d6
   <lowerbound>1
</dicemodifiers>

So in the above example the tank can be 4-6.
Soldiers can be 1-6.

[Evil DIMwit]

I like yours best WidowMakers

Though I'd suggest a base figure still.

E.g. Tanks have a fairly consistant power level but soldiers vary a lot more so it could be:

show

So in the above example the tank can be 4-6.
Soldiers can be 1-6.

Too complex; it should be one or the other. I do like WM's idea, though.

Another option is to let certain territories have extra dice offensively and/or defensively. You still match the highest two dice on each side, but the player with the advantage has more chances.

[WidowMakers]

Another option is to let certain territories have extra dice offensively and/or defensively. You still match the highest two dice on each side, but the player with the advantage has more chances.

So how about this?

Suggestion Idea: Different Standard Dice Count

Description:
Instead of just 2 defending and 3 attacking, allow more or less for each.
Current
Attack = up to 3 d6
Defend = up to 2 d6

Proposed
Attack = 1-10 d6
Defend = 1-10 d6

Why It Should Be Considered:
GP tweaks can be made with dice and with bonus structures.
Instead of just bonuses to determine territory strength, number of dice rolled can contribute.

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

[natty dread]

Suggestion idea: Reinforcement Only Borders

Description: Borders where you can only reinforce through, but you can't attack via these borders.

Why: This would allow better gameplay for battle maps, ie. You have a base, and next to the base, a "reinforcements" territory, which gets an autodeploy each turn. Then you could set reinforcement borders from the "reinforcements" territory to various territories on the battlefield, but these would need to be conquered by other means. Thus, you could have a more accurate representation of a command center calling more reinforcements to battle...

There are probably many other applications for this feature.

[captainwalrus]

That would be great. One application that comes to mind is in Eastern Hemisphere 1910, naval superiority should be able to reinforce, but not attack.

edit: or in something with artillery, it could bombard but not attack, but also reinforce.

[Evil DIMwit]

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

[WidowMakers]

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

[Evil DIMwit]

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

[ender516]

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.

[Evil DIMwit]

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.

I thought that was the aim... well, it's one or the other then.

[ender516]

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.

I thought that was the aim... well, it's one or the other then.

Well, using both could be done, but that could make for unnecessary complication. And it's true, you wouldn't need both, but since dice bonuses can not only shift the odds but also provide qualitative changes, I think they would be more useful. Dice bonuses can, but don't have to, allow invincible forces. Have you read the Dice Bonus/Adjustment topic? There were a lot of good ideas bouncing around in there about how they could provide features like conditional borders, and I suspect some more sharp minds could come up with other original ideas.

[max is gr8]

Name: Reinforcement Decay

Description: As units move through certain territories there is a decay in certain spaces.

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Desert Wasteland</name>
<border>Lush Oasis</border>
<border>Seaside Town</border>
<decaytype=reinforce>1</decay>

Would indicate that if someone fortified from Lush Oasis to Seaside Town they would lose 1 unit.

Why: Generate a sense of realism for certain maps, if units decay when they stay in a place then presumably they should decay if you go through them.

[Mr_Adams]

for conditional borders, perhaps the opposite? a border opened up if you DON't hold a certain territory? this could be set up so that a person could not be held in a bombard only territory. They could move out if they don't own any attacking territories. of corse, there would always have to be alternate routes, so that a person couldn't hide in an unnattackable territory.