XML Suggestions and Modifications II

[zimmah]

How about having a territory be represented twice on one map? Like when there is a pop out piece in a map, the territory connecting the cut out to the rest of the map could be on the regular map and the cut out? or is this already possible?

It could be written:

Code: Select all

<territory>
...
<coordinates>
<smallx>a</smallx>
<smally>b</smally>
</coordinates>
<coordinates>
<smallx>c</smallx>
<smally>d</smally>
</coordinates>
...
</territory>

and the same number would show up at (a,b) and (c,d)

no, you can only show the actual troop number on 1 place, and i would not want it any other way. it would be too confusing to have the same troops showing up on 2 or more places.

[ender516]

How about having a territory be represented twice on one map? Like when there is a pop out piece in a map, the territory connecting the cut out to the rest of the map could be on the regular map and the cut out? or is this already possible?

It could be written:

Code: Select all

<territory>
...
<coordinates>
<smallx>a</smallx>
<smally>b</smally>
</coordinates>
<coordinates>
<smallx>c</smallx>
<smally>d</smally>
</coordinates>
...
</territory>

and the same number would show up at (a,b) and (c,d)

no, you can only show the actual troop number on 1 place, and i would not want it any other way. it would be too confusing to have the same troops showing up on 2 or more places.

I'm not privy to the inner workings of the game engine, but I don't see why it couldn't be modified to loop through multiple coordinates while displaying the same value. That said, I agree that it could be confusing, at least until an elaborate version of Map Inspect from BOB was built into the site.

[koontz1973]

Suggestion Idea: Decaying Neutrals /Killer Decaying Neutrals

Description: Allow neutrals to decay. This would allow pathways to be blocked for a certain amount of rounds / once decayed to 0, resets.

Why It Should Be Considered: As above, it would allow the games to change through out the game. The neutral could start at 30 with a decay of 5. So by round 5, it is only a 5 neutral which can be broken through but would then carry on like the normal decaying troops we have now.
This would allow winning conditions to be blocked from players till round?
New pathways could be added to games that come into effect later in the games - Cape Town to Perth in classic map - round 6 using the above example.
Once a pathway as opened up, to can be blocked again giving players a limited time to get through.

[Ogrecrusher]

Suggestion Idea: Conditional Borders

Description: Allow the existance of a border between 2 territories to depend on the ownership of a third, unrelated one.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow interesting possibilities for sea or bridge crossings. One example I had in mind was from the Eastern Hemisphere map, if you owned the "naval superiority" territory, then all your colonies could border each other.
Another vague idea I had involved a vertical view of a building where you had to own all "scaffolds" to create a border to the next floor.
I have no idea how possible it would be to add this feature, but I feel that it has a lot of potential.

[natty dread]

Already been suggested numerous times... maybe we'll get it in 2020.

[cairnswk]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy +1 or +2 or whatever is set in the code for these territories.
2. if you fail to keep them at 3 or above, they will revert to neutral (whatever value let's say n3)
3. and you have to assault them again and put 3 or more troops on them again to get the autodeploy to work again.
4. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
5. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

[rdsrds2120]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.
2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

So, could this be expanded into something in the xml that checks/compares troop values?

BMO

[greenoaks]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.
2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

awesome idea.

is this something your idea would allow - if you conquer a territory and don't hold x amount of troops on it for x number of turns, it revolts (turns neutral)

[cairnswk]

...
So, could this be expanded into something in the xml that checks/compares troop values?

BMO

rds...i don't know xml programming, so i cannot say if it has the capability of checking and comparing values because that sort of function would work from if statements.
But if it is possible it would open up all sorts of new gameplay
I just found this link to possible use in this fashion.

[cairnswk]

...
awesome idea.

is this something your idea would allow - if you conquer a territory and don't hold x amount of troops on it for x number of turns, it revolts (turns neutral)

yes greenoaks, your idea would follow from that because the mechanics would allow checking for that x number of turns and x number of troops.

[thenobodies80]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.
2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

I understand what you want and it's interesting, but there are some things to consider:

These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.

You're saying that if a player has less than 3 troops on that region, it turns neutral? Or do you mean it is a decay? In the first case, it looks a modification to the current killer neutrals. We might change neutral tag to allow a second option into the tag, let me say a value="X", where X is the minimum value to not activate the neutral.
Written as code it could be like this:

Code: Select all

<neutral killer="yes" value="3">5</neutral

That region will start with 5 neutral troops and it will revert to 5 again if the troops on it are less than 3. To keep it valid for existent maps we can make that if value is not specified, then the territory is always a killer neutral.
Instead, if you mean that it needs to decay, so have a negative bonus, it can't turn to neutral. Decay has effect only if the number of troops on a region is bigger than 1. If i'm not wrong someone suggested a "decay to neutral" feature.

Then,

1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.

If in the previous part you mean decay, this is not possible, being decay an autodeploy. To make it possible we need to extend the bonus tag into the territory, creating some options, same system used for collections, but for regions.

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>TerrName</name>
...
<bonuses>
<bonus>-1</bonus>
<bonus type="conditional" required="3">2</bonus>
</bonuses>
...
</territory>

In the above example, one bonus is fixed and it is the decay. The other activates only if you have at least 3 troops on the region. the dacay bonus works all time and they sum up so from 3 troops you will receive a total of +1 troops autodeployed.

2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)

Yes, although I don't understand which is the connection with conditional borders. You can always deploy on a region you hold. If you mean to fort, yes you can as long as you hold the condition, that in most of cases it means the whole turn.

3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

This is really interesting, but i fear also tricky to do. It is a part i would leave out from this suggestion for now.

[cairnswk]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy +1 or +2 or whatever is set in the code for these territories.
2. if you fail to keep them at 3 or above, they will revert to neutral (whatever value let's say n3) thus disenabling the autodeploy function.
3. and you have to assault them again and put 3 or more troops on them again to get the autodeploy to work again.
4. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
5. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

I understand what you want and it's interesting, but there are some things to consider:

These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.

You're saying that if a player has less than 3 troops on that region, it turns neutral?

I have adjusted the initial 3 points to 5 to explain it better.
Yes..

.2. if you fail to keep them at 3 or above, they will revert to neutral (whatever value let's say n3)

Or do you mean it is a decay?

no, it must not be decay otherwise the function does not work in the manner for which it is intended.
although, this could provide another concept for play if the decay function were available.

In the first case, it looks a modification to the current killer neutrals. We might change neutral tag to allow a second option into the tag, let me say a value="X", where X is the minimum value to not activate the neutral.
Written as code it could be like this:

Code: Select all

<neutral killer="yes" value="3">5</neutral

understand, yes that might work, but it need the game engine to recognise the x value.

That region will start with 5 neutral troops and it will revert to 5 again if the troops on it are less than 3.

Ah, that doesn't quite make sense to start with 5n.
you need to it to start with n1 or n2 otherwise is it too difficult to conquer.

To keep it valid for existent maps we can make that if value is not specified, then the territory is always a killer neutral.

understand, but this is what this modification is all about....not kepping the territory as always a killer neutral

Instead, if you mean that it needs to decay, so have a negative bonus, it can't turn to neutral. Decay has effect only if the number of troops on a region is bigger than 1. If i'm not wrong someone suggested a "decay to neutral" feature.

no that's not what i meant to use the decay to neutral, and it was me that suggested the decay to neutral i beleive, although it is so long ago, i'd have to back search.
For interest, decay to neutral would be:

Code: Select all

<neutral decay="yes" value="1">3</neutral>

...but that depends on the having the decay function available in the GE.

Then,

1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.

If in the previous part you mean decay, this is not possible, being decay an autodeploy.

well it could be possible if the min value was set at say 3, and this is what rds was asking about...

To make it possible we need to extend the bonus tag into the territory, creating some options, same system used for collections, but for regions.

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>TerrName</name>
...
<bonuses>
<bonus>-1</bonus>
<bonus type="conditional" required="3">2</bonus>
</bonuses>
...
</territory>

In the above example, one bonus is fixed and it is the decay. The other activates only if you have at least 3 troops on the region. the dacay bonus works all time and they sum up so from 3 troops you will receive a total of +1 troops autodeployed.

OK.

2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)

Yes, although I don't understand which is the connection with conditional borders. You can always deploy on a region you hold. If you mean to fort, yes you can as long as you hold the condition, that in most of cases it means the whole turn.

well it could be made conditional that you must hold Cheyenne and say Social Club for the function to work.

3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

This is really interesting, but i fear also tricky to do. It is a part i would leave out from this suggestion for now.

Well i think that this would be natural gameplay as it stands now.
if you hold two terrs side by side and they share a common border i beleive you can fort off them.

[thenobodies80]

Yes, but not "only as much as it allow you to continue receiving the autodeploys from them."
You can fort as you want, fortification has no lower limits different than 1

[cairnswk]

Yes, but not "only as much as it allow you to continue receiving the autodeploys from them."
You can fort as you want, fortification has no lower limits different than 1

tnb. if the min level was set to 3, and the number on the terr was 5, then you could only fort off it 2.
if you forted more, it would reset to neutral (prob at beginning next turn and no autordeploy would be forth-coming)

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Suggestion Idea: Non-Deployable Territories

Description: Add XML code that would make it so you can't deploy on specified territories.

Why It Should Be Considered: I'm sure this could be used for a number of different ways, but the main one that comes to mind would be to simulate areas such as barracks, forts, etc. where you can train troops would be the only deployable territories on a map and the rest would be marked non-deployable. I think this would give a nice way to better simulate troop movement limitations. I think this option would go great with any trench games.