Conquer Club

natty dread wrote:Quick thing... on George Jacobs Sn., is the Sn. short for Senior?

If so, isn't it usually abbreviated as Sr. ?

Yes you are correct, natty. Good pick-up.
Funny how you can write something one way all your life and nobody says it's wrong.
I'd always thought Sr. was the abbrevioation for Sir or Sister (as in nun)..
Oh well. Adjusted in images above.

cairnswk wrote:

natty dread wrote:Quick thing... on George Jacobs Sn., is the Sn. short for Senior?

If so, isn't it usually abbreviated as Sr. ?

Yes you are correct, natty. Good pick-up.
Funny how you can write something one way all your life and nobody says it's wrong.
I'd always thought Sr. was the abbrevioation for Sir or Sister (as in nun)..
Oh well. Adjusted in images above.

You're right, Sr. can be used as the abbreviation for Sister. Similarly, Fr. for Father, and Br. for Brother. But I doubt Mr. has ever been used for Mother.

I also doubt anyone has ever needed to abbreviate Sir.

Version 30

Question.

In the xml, you have starting positions coded, with a max. of 1 starting position per player. But since the underlying territories of the starting positions aren't coded as neutrals*, it means that after each player gets 1 starting position, the rest of the territories in the rest of the starting positions are divided among the players randomly.

Is this intentional?

* - in fact, it seems that some territories are coded as neutrals, and some territories are not...

natty dread wrote:Question.

In the xml, you have starting positions coded, with a max. of 1 starting position per player. But since the underlying territories of the starting positions aren't coded as neutrals*, it means that after each player gets 1 starting position, the rest of the territories in the rest of the starting positions are divided among the players randomly.

Is this intentional?

* - in fact, it seems that some territories are coded as neutrals, and some territories are not...

That was me screwing up - I forgot to code them as neutrals.

Here is how the rumour bonus will work.

if you hold one of the meeting houses plus (any) 5 landowners you get +2. This is non-stackable, so if you hold 10 landowners plus one the meeting houses you don't get more bonuses.

If you hold the two meeting houses plus 5 landowners you have to get +4, since this would give you 2 x two seperate continents (as above). This is also non-stackable.

If you hold both meeting houses plus more than 5 landowners, you still only get +4.

I think it should be this way because of the main component is "either of two meeting houses" and not the "plus 5 landowners" component.

If there is better wording that needs to be in place, then please let me know and i will make the adjustments.

Gilligan, can you give me a post of any/all stackable and non-stackable bonuses you have in the xml please.
I would like this so that perhaps they can be notated on the map somehow.

Just 1 Reverend and 6 Landowners and 1 Accused and 1 Accuser.

Gilligan wrote:Just 1 Reverend and 6 Landowners and 1 Accused and 1 Accuser.

Stackables?

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Just 1 Reverend and 6 Landowners and 1 Accused and 1 Accuser.

Stackables?

Yes. Everything else is non-stackable.

Gilligan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Just 1 Reverend and 6 Landowners and 1 Accused and 1 Accuser.

Stackables?

Yes. Everything else is non-stackable.

Thanks.

XMl link
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... Final6.xml

Gilligan, you have 2 seperate bonuses for gossip bonus.

1. MH + 5 LO =+2
2. other MH +5 LO = +2

I could be wrong, but don't you need some overrides here so that if a players has
1 x MH + 10 x LO they won't get +4 since there will be double the number of LOs?

cairnswk wrote:XMl link
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... Final6.xml

Gilligan, you have 2 seperate bonuses for gossip bonus.

1. MH + 5 LO =+2
2. other MH +5 LO = +2

I could be wrong, but don't you need some overrides here so that if a players has
1 x MH + 10 x LO they won't get +4 since there will be double the number of LOs?

I don't think so. I didn't put in a bonus for Meeting House + 10 Landowners, so it's not possible for them to get it? As far as I can see, with the Meeting House bonuses, someone can only get +2 from the Old Meeting House and +2 from the Town Meeting House.

Gilligan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:XMl link
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... Final6.xml

Gilligan, you have 2 seperate bonuses for gossip bonus.

1. MH + 5 LO =+2
2. other MH +5 LO = +2

I could be wrong, but don't you need some overrides here so that if a players has
1 x MH + 10 x LO they won't get +4 since there will be double the number of LOs?

I don't think so. I didn't put in a bonus for Meeting House + 10 Landowners, so it's not possible for them to get it? As far as I can see, with the Meeting House bonuses, someone can only get +2 from the Old Meeting House and +2 from the Town Meeting House.

OK, we'll see how it plays out and what natty says.
I'm just re-creating some of the bonus wording so that it is clearer for players.
Image coming shortly.

Version 31.
Some clarification has been made in the bonuses.
Because there are stackable and non-stackable components of these bonuses, i think it is necessary to clarify what is what.
1. * signifies non-stackable in the main bonus title
2. this has been placed against those main bonuses that are non-stackable.
3. while it is less eloquent that perhaps the wording, the gossip bonus is also clarified (mathematically)
4. the landowners all have the same houses now, for consistency.
5. symbols of these landowners now are identified in the main legend for easier identification, and also in the gossip bonus.

I hope this works. The larger version will be produced once the small is sorted.

Do we really need the asterisk by Judges, Accused and Accusers? I think it's implied that it needs all of them, because there's no required number associated with them.

Other than that, I think it's good.

Gilligan wrote:Do we really need the asterisk by Judges, Accused and Accusers? I think it's implied that it needs all of them, because there's no required number associated with them.

Other than that, I think it's good.

No, we don't really need * on the those continents mentioned, but because by having it, there is now an either or condition...you know - black or white...it might create some confusion if it's not there.

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Do we really need the asterisk by Judges, Accused and Accusers? I think it's implied that it needs all of them, because there's no required number associated with them.

Other than that, I think it's good.

No, we don't really need * on the those continents mentioned, but because by having it, there is now an either or condition...you know - black or white...it might create some confusion if it's not there.

Yeah, I thought of that after I posted too. Let's hear some other opinions

I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.

ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.

I guess you'd get +6 if you have if you have 2 reverends and 12 landowners. Am i right Gilligan?

Well i thought that putting the non-stackable term on there would help clarify to all users rather than not have it there which would leave them in doubt.
Or perhaps i could use the reverse "stackable"

How about saying that you only receive the bonus once no matter how many you have?

isaiah40 wrote:How about saying that you only receive the bonus once no matter how many you have?

how about "non-cumulative"
oops, i should have used non-accumulative

ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.

2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.

The XML checks out now. Let's hope I haven't missed anything

Oh and Gilligan, please post the latest XML to this thread so the wrong one won't be uploaded by accident or anything...

Anyway,



enjoy

Thanks natty for the xml check.

Gilligan wrote:

ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.

2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.

Yes, that means it accumulates, doesn't it.
So for the other bonuses which don't accumulate, they would be non-accumulative, or is that still the wrong word?