XML Starting Positions

[hecter]

Coolio. Thanks Mr. Benn!

[MrBenn]

My understanding of how the start positions work is as follows:

• Each <position> can contain single or multiple territories.
• The <position> groups are divided equally amongst the players, with each player getting all of the territories in the <position(s)> they have been allocated. Any remaining territories in left-over <position> tags are divided equally (with 1/3 neutral in 2-player games).
• Territories in <position> tags can be dealt to players even when the underlying territory has a <neutral> tag
• Any territories not in <position> tags, and that do not have <neutral> starts, are divided equally amongst players (with 1/3 neutral in 2-player games)
• If there are more players than starting positions, the <position> tags are ignored
• It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>
• It is not possible to specify a <position> that will be dealt out in every game
• It is not possible to limit the number of positions to the number of players (ie. the game engine will distribute 8 positions evenly amongst 4 players, rather than allocate 1 each and have 4 positions starting neutral)

Correct - also note that with the positions tags - you can set the amount of armies those territories start with too.

C.

The thing I'm wondering now, is what would happen if a map had 5 starting positions, with no starting neutrals?
In 1v1, the starts are divided into 3 - 1 for each player and 1 for neutral... With 5 starts in a 1v1, each player gets given 1, 1 turns neutral; what happens to the other 2? Are they allocated neutral, or do they get lumped together with the non-designated starts?

[yeti_c]

The thing I'm wondering now, is what would happen if a map had 5 starting positions, with no starting neutrals?
In 1v1, the starts are divided into 3 - 1 for each player and 1 for neutral... With 5 starts in a 1v1, each player gets given 1, 1 turns neutral; what happens to the other 2? Are they allocated neutral, or do they get lumped together with the non-designated starts?

They get put in the Non designated starts...

This happened in Das Schloss the first cut - and led to some people getting starts when they shouldn't've...

To combat this then you have to designate the starting positions as neutral X...

Note - Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player).

C.

[MrBenn]

Note - Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player).

So with 5 starting positions in a 1v1, 2 each would be allocated to players, with the third being added to the pot for distribution unless it was a designated neutral.

I think I've got it now

[yeti_c]

Note - Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player).

So with 5 starting positions in a 1v1, 2 each would be allocated to players, with the third being added to the pot for distribution unless it was a designated neutral.

I think I've got it now

Correct.

C.

[dolomite13]

Note - Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player).

So with 5 starting positions in a 1v1, 2 each would be allocated to players, with the third being added to the pot for distribution unless it was a designated neutral. I think I've got it now

So here is my dilema, I think what you are saying here solves my problem. I would like the drop to start out by assigning my <positions> tag territories. and then do the standard random drop of the remaining 16 territories. I do not want the extra territories from the first 8 to be added to the pool of 16 additional drops.



I have 8 wizards (color circles on the above map) I have assigned start positions to and set them to neutral 1.
I have 16 monsters (black circles on the above map) that I have not assigned neutrals to.

In a 2 player game
- both players would have 4 wizards each.
- both players would have 8 monsters each.

In a 3 player game
- all players would have 3 wizards each with 2 remainder set to neutral.
- all players would have 6 monsters each with 2 remainder set to neutral.

In a 4 player game
- all players would have 2 wizards each.
- all players would have 4 monsters each.

In a 5 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 3 remainder set to neutral.
- all players would have 3 monsters each with 1 remainder set to neutral.

In a 6 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 2 remainder set to neutral.
- all players would have 2 monsters each with 4 remainder set to neutral.

In a 7 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 1 remainder set to neutral.
- all players would have 2 monsters each with 2 remainder set to neutral.

In a 8 player game
- all players would have 1 wizards each.
- all players would have 2 monsters each.

Here is the starting positions for the 8 wizards.

Code: Select all

<!-- Starting positions -->

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Rayden</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Brago</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Yesha</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Sythe</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Grath</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Olan</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Purlin</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory start=1>Cryma</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

Here is a sample from the XML of the starting territories (wizards).

Code: Select all

<territory>
   <name>Olan</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Ora</border>
   </borders>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>286</smallx>
      <smally>405</smally>
      <largex>383</largex>
      <largey>532</largey>
   </coordinates>
   <neutral>1</neutral>
   <bonus>3</bonus>
</territory>


Also I have 16 additional territories that I don't care how they get dropped. They are coded like this.

Code: Select all

<territory>
   <name>Jeo</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Heb</border>
      <border>Koz</border>
   </borders>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>458</smallx>
      <smally>354</smally>
      <largex>612</largex>
      <largey>464</largey>
   </coordinates>
</territory>

I was under the impression that the code worked this way.

- Game engine "counts" the players (A) and the starting positions (B).
- B/A = C (and D) ... 8/7 = 7 (and 1)
- Where C is the number of starting positions for each player and D is a eventually remainder.
- The game engine will sum the remainder with the other territories (E), then the total number will divided among players again.
- D+E / A = F (and G) ... (1+16)/7 = 2 (and 3)
- F will be the number of territories assigned to a player (with 3 default troops) and G an eventually remainder (3 neutral troops)

It sounds like the <neutral>1</neutral> in my starting territory would change that. And the leftover starting territories would become neutrals and not be added to the general pool for distribution. Is this correct?

Thanx

--D

[yeti_c]

I think you're missing something here...

Territories - and Starting positions aren't mutually exclusive entities - there fore D cannot be added to E - as D may already part of E.

Say you have a map with 40 territories - 20 of them are neutral territories.

10 of these are starting positions.

Without further info - you cannot work out the starting territory count...

C.

[thenobodies80]

I think you're missing something here...

Territories - and Starting positions aren't mutually exclusive entities - there fore D cannot be added to E - as D may already part of E.

Say you have a map with 40 territories - 20 of them are neutral territories.

10 of these are starting positions.

Without further info - you cannot work out the starting territory count...

C.

The example he did was use by me to explain him how the starting will work....E is the group of territories to split among players without neutrals and without starting position. ( so is not exactly a part of D). I know, i used a large way to explain him
He was just saying that the eventually reminder will be splitted among players with other territories

His problem is about the reminder....he want to know if a starting position could be coded as a neutral if it will be a part of reminder....

example: 8 starting position

8 players --> 1 starting position for each player, no reminder
6 players --> 1 starting position for each player, a reminder of 2 territories.

His question:
Is possible to set this 2 territories to have them ever neutral if not used as starting positions?

Virtually <neutral> tag is the last one of a single territory so it would be possible doing what dolomite was saying, but i'm not sure at 100%....
yeti it's my thought correct?

[yeti_c]

Yes - If a Starting position isn't used - and it is set to Neutral - then it will be neutral...

Obviously that same "neutral" territory - could be used as a Starting territory depending on the draw...

So - the only way to guarantee similar starts is either making ALL of your starts neutral - or ALL of your starts "normal"...

Or if you have multi territory starts - that the same mix applies...

i.e. 2 territories per start - one is neutral and one is normal.

C.

[Industrial Helix]

Ok, if I have 8 starting positions on a map, the rest is random deployment... in a 1v1 game will each player get 4 of the starting positions?

I'm really stumped on this and need to know for the gameplay aspect of my map, here's a link to the discussion we've had over there:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=78339&start=165

[thenobodies80]

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

[The Neon Peon]

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Um... no. Each player would have 2 starting positions because it would be the same as in a 3 player game, with the third player being replaced by more neutrals.

Disagree.
Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player)
What you said is true only if the starting tag isn't used.
Ask to yeti_c if you want

[The Neon Peon]

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Don't edit my post to reply to it. It looks as if I'm bipolar and I changed my mind halfway through typing it.

[thenobodies80]

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Don't edit my post to reply to it. It looks as if I'm bipolar and I changed my mind halfway through typing it.

sorry

[The Neon Peon]

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Don't edit my post to reply to it. It looks as if I'm bipolar and I changed my mind halfway through typing it.

sorry

no problem.

[thenobodies80]

Merged 'Starting Positions' into 'XML Starting Positions' thread

[Industrial Helix]

Ok... it separates the 8 starting positions into 4 each.... is there any way out of this?

[The Neon Peon]

Ok... it separates the 8 starting positions into 4 each.... is there any way out of this?

Same as they did in Feudal and AoRs to keep 1v1s from having 3 starting points, but having 2 instead. I don't know how, but you could always take a look at the xml of those maps.

[MrBenn]

Feudal and AOR don;t use starting positions... all of the territories are coded neutral except for the castles.

[The Neon Peon]

Feudal and AOR don;t use starting positions... all of the territories are coded neutral except for the castles.

Then that is how you do it.

[AndrewB]

Another questions about starting positions.

As I understand multiple territories can be included into one starting position:

Each <position> can contain single or multiple territories.

So first question:

If one starting position has Terr A and Terr B in it and another starting position has Terr B and Terr C in it, what will happen?

Second question:

If one starting position has Terr A and Terr B in it and another starting position has Terr B in it, what will happen?

My guess is that last dealt starting position will override any previous allocations.

It might create some pretty interesting sets of the starting positions, possibly covering the whole map...

[MrBenn]

To answer AndrewB's question, the same territory is not allowed to be part of more than 1 start position.

[yeti_c]

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Correct

To answer AndrewB's question, the same territory is not allowed to be part of more than 1 start position.

Correct

C.

[Teflon Kris]

Proposed Change A
Part 1
Ideally, it would be great to code starting positions to particular players, as opposed to them being randomly handed-out. (If I understand things correctly)

Currently, as MrBenn states: "It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>"

show: The Tricky Bit

Why
An example of this change would be that it would be possible to set one triples team up as the Germans in D-Day (i.e. 6-player coding) then we have another set of coding for quads (8-players). (I'm not suggesting a change to that map by the way.)

This could make a lot of maps more meaningful (e.g. war / sports maps where players / teams start with territories all on one side) and enable more creative freedom in terms of gameplay.

Part 2
Ideally, it would be great have different sets of coding for different numbers of players,

Why?
The above suggestion is great for designing maps with team-starts, however, this second change would create even more creative freedom for mapmakers.

However, let's say a map is fine with 4+ players with no coding, but coded start positions are a potential way of ensuring players don't drop bonuses in 1v1 (& 3-player games). It may be that a whole load of coding would involve neutrals which would mess-up the gameplay for the 4+-player scenario which was previously fine ("if a Starting position isn't used - and it is set to Neutral - then it will be neutral"). Currently, maps have to amend their gameplay to fit all numbers of players - which can mean compromising innovative gameplay which would have worked very well for most games.

The slow progress of the England map in achieving its Gameplay Stamp is a classic example of how this change would be of benefit in bringing more creative gameplay freedom for mapmakers.

Effect of Both Changes

The combination of these 2 changes would both give more possibilities for mapmakers to create start positions (relatively equal sets of unequal starting territories) and to use start positions to prevent gameplay issues which arise with certain game types.

[MrBenn]

Proposed Change
Ideally, it would be great to code starting positions to particular players..

Currently, as MrBenn states: "It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>"

Why
An example of this change would be that it would be possible to set one triples team up as the Germans in D-Day (i.e. 6-player coding) then we have another set of coding for quads (8-players). I'm not suggesting a change to that map by the way.

show: The Tricky Bit

This could make a lot of maps more meaningful (e.g. war / sports maps where players / teams start with territories all on one side) and enable more gameplay creativity. Take, for example, Cairns' Galipoli (as it stands currently) - if different sets of coded start positions were possible according to different numbers of players, it would be possible to ensure each player has a fair share of the nice and horrible start positions. Currently, the xml wont allow this, which may be a problem. Similarly, the progress of the England map would have been much quicker if different coding were possible for different numbers of players.

As it stands currently, maps with limited starting territories (whether coded or not) inevitably go through the gameplay process of checking that each starting territory is relatively equal strategically. Enabling different coding for different numbers of starts would create more possibilities for mapmakers to create start positions (relatively equal sets of unequal starting territories). And, of course, it would enable starting positions to work for different types of team games.

While a change like this would be welcome, lackattack specifically avoided coding the starting positions as "allottable", and it seems unlikely that this will be changed in the immediate future - for now let's try and focus on what Is available/possible