Tribal War - Florida v14.2 [31 Jan 2012] pg27

[HighlanderAttack]

I have only played it a few times-but I really like it. Makes you think a lot and you have to pay attention. Good Job.

[thenobodies80]

The latest xml is NOT valid. Probably it's because you used UPPERCASE LETTERS instead of lowercase letters for territories.

Be sure to validate the xml using the tool at the top of this page before submitting

If something is wrong you'll see something like this:

then just scroll the page and you'll see a list of things that need to be fixed.
Instead, when you see this image at the top of the page:


it means you're ready to post your xml here again

Nobodies

[Seamus76]

Sorry TNB80. Thought I had it all done correctly. VJ will fix it up and repost tomorrow. Sorry for the time you took sending that incorrect file.

[V.J.]

Sorry about that.

Here is the valid XML that goes with those most recent graphics: http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/3202881//finalxml-v8.xml

[Seamus76]

Hopefully there were no issues with the last XML. Let us know when they have been uploaded so we can get some new games going. Thanks.

[thenobodies80]

Sorry TNB80. Thought I had it all done correctly. VJ will fix it up and repost tomorrow. Sorry for the time you took sending that incorrect file.

np, sometimes it happens.

These files were sent to lackattack:

Large Version http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9611 ... lwarv5.png

Small Version http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9611 ... lwarv5.png

Xml http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/ ... xml-v8.xml

Now just we're here, I tested both the images with 888 and I would suggest some minor changes to the placement of coordinates:

Large map:
CA-3 could be moved a bit to left
AI-3 could be moved a bit to left and down
TM-2 could be moved a bit to left and down
JE-4 could be moved a bit to left
CH-C could be moved a bit up
TQ-4 could be moved a bit up
CR-3 could be moved a bit to left
AP-1 could be moved a bit to left
CR-2 could be moved a bit to left
MI-3 could be moved a bit to left

Small map:
CH-3 a bit to left
CA-3 moved a bit to left
AI-3 moved a bit to left
JE-4 a bit to left
AP-3 a bit to left, but probably it's better/easier to move also the symbol
CR-3 a bit to left
Sheld Mound ruins it's strange to see (confused)
Je-3 to left
AI-1 a bit to left


Maybe there're some others that can be adjusted but for now i noticed those. In general, after writing your coordinates, it's always a good thing to test them using 888 with this tool http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php
Copy paste your xml and images into the appropriate fields then click on the "Only test coordinates" button
When the image appears, be sure that all your coords with 3 digits don't overlap your symbols or borders. If you don't have space, just let me know and we will find an optimal solution for them.

Nobodies

[Seamus76]

Thanks for taking the time to point all of those out. We're going to work on all of those.

Any word on the latest upload?

[thenobodies80]

Any word on the latest upload?

It was uploaded 2 or 3 days ago, sorry I forgot to post here.

[Seamus76]

For some reason V.J. can't get the xml to support the below starting positions. Can anyone help him with this?

2 = 8 territories
3 = 8 territories
4 = 5 territories
5 = 5 territories
6 = 5 territories
7 = 5 territories
8 = 5 territories

[ender516]

I think you are out of luck on that one. If you have 44 starting positions, each with one territory, then when the game engine divides them up, you get

2 players: = 22 territories
3 players: = 14 territories
4 players: = 11 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

The only correction you can make to that currently is to put an upper limit on the number of starting positions given to any player. You could then set this to, say, 8 and get

2 players: = 8 territories
3 players: = 8 territories
4 players: = 8 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

Another approach would be to group the starting territories into eleven starting position groups of four territories each. Then you could have

2 players: = 5 groups, 20 territories
3 players: = 3 groups, 12 territories
4 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
5 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
6 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
7 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 4 territories

Then you could set the limit to two groups and get

2 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
3 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
4 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
5 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
6 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
7 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 4 territories

If you can change that basic number, 44, to something else, like 42, then you could use fourteen groups of three and get

2 players: = 7 groups, 21 territories
3 players: = 4 groups, 12 territories
4 players: = 3 groups, 9 territories
5 players: = 2 groups, 6 territories
6 players: = 2 groups, 6 territories
7 players: = 2 groups, 6 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 3 territories

which perhaps could be limited to a maximum of 3 groups.

A base number of 40 territories could be divided into eight groups of five, giving

2 players: = 4 groups, 20 territories
3 players: = 2 groups, 10 territories
4 players: = 2 groups, 10 territories
5 players: = 1 group, 5 territories
6 players: = 1 group, 5 territories
7 players: = 1 group, 5 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 5 territories

which perhaps could be limited to a maximum of 2 groups.

You would have to arrange the groups with some care to keep them equally valuable on the drop.

I'm sorry I'm a little out of touch with the discussion here, so I don't know how critical your proposed numbers are to the desired gameplay. I hope my suggestions help.

[Seamus76]

Thanks for taking the time to work that all out for us.

I really like your first suggestion, and I thought this was how he had it set up, but it doesn't seem to be limiting the number:

The only correction you can make to that currently is to put an upper limit on the number of starting positions given to any player. You could then set this to, say, 8 and get:
2 players: = 8 territories
3 players: = 8 territories
4 players: = 8 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

This seams more simple, and accomplishes what we're going for, which is to keep the possible bonuses on the drop down when too many starting terits are given, and also by giving enough terits in 8 player games so that someone has a fighting chance to play a turn if they are going last or something.

Is it possible for you to take a look at the last posted XML to see where we went wrong? Also, am I under the correct impression that adding a dash to each terit name shouldn't effect the XML? I tried to do that early on to clean it up a bit and got an invalid file, so I must have messed something else up.

Thanks again.

[ender516]

My comments unfortunately did not take into account any other territories that you have on the map which are not starting positions and which may or may not start neutral. I realised this when I search for some running games and saw that players were starting with seventeen territories.

A quick answer to why that is so is that each player starts with a share of the starting positions, plus a share of those territories which are not marked as neutral and which were not distributed through the starting positions. So any non-neutral territory in a starting position that is not used, either because the number of starting positions does not divide evenly by the number of players or because of the limit on the number of starting positions per player, ends up in the pot of the other non-neutral territories to be divided among the players (with that extra "neutral player" getting a 1/3 share in 1v1 games).

I will try to take a close look at the whole thing some time this week.

[Seamus76]

So how do we make this happen? We really need to limit the 1v1 to 8 territories each. A bonus on the drop is happening way too much.

[thenobodies80]

I will have some free time next week. I'll look at the numbers to see what we can do

[lostatlimbo]

I find it unclear that Canoe 2 is connected only via the Shell Mound Ruins.

It looks like it connects to the entire War Zone. Please consider making this clearer. The line should run directly to the territory it connects. Currently, the line ends at the blue War Zone, which is frustratingly confusing.

[lostatlimbo]

Also, I agree with the lopsided 1v1 issue. Hope that gets resolved soon as well! :)

[thenobodies80]

Ok, I checked your numbers and mostly I come out with the same results of ender.

These are the 3 best layout I suggest you to make what you want to do.

First of all it's necessary that all your territories are coded as neutral, where you'll have starting positions they will be underlying neutrals, so they will be ignored if the starting position is assigned to a player.

Option 1: 42 starting positions, 14 groups of 3 regions, max positions 3

In a 2,3 and 4 players game each player will start with 9 regions, to be precise:
2 players total 18 regions (3x3xpl) assigned and 39 neutrals
3 players total 27 regions (3x3xpl) assigned and 30 neutrals
4 players total 36 regions (3x3xpl) assigned and 21 neutrals
in a 5,6 or 7 players game each player will start with 6 regions:
5 players total 30 regions (3x2xpl) assigned and 27 neutrals
6 players total 36 regions (3x2xpl) assigned and 21 neutrals
7 players total 42 regions (3x2xpl) assigned and 15 neutrals
in a 8 players game each player will start with only 3 regions:
8 players total 24 regions (3x1xpl) assigned and 33 neutrals

Option 2: 44 starting positions, 11 groups of 4 regions, max positions 2

In a 2,3,4 and 5 players game each player will start with 8 regions, to be precise:
2 players total 16 regions (4x2xpl) assigned and 41 neutrals
3 players total 24 regions (4x2xpl) assigned and 33 neutrals
4 players total 32 regions (4x2xpl) assigned and 25 neutrals
5 players total 40 regions (4x2xpl) assigned and 17 neutrals
in a 6,7 or 8 players game each player will start with 4 regions:
6 players total 24 regions (4x1xpl) assigned and 33 neutrals
7 players total 28 regions (4x1xpl) assigned and 29 neutrals
8 players total 32 regions (4x1xpl) assigned and 25 neutrals

Option 3: 40 starting positions, 8 groups of 5 regions, max positions 2

In a 2,3 and 4 players game each player will start with 10 regions, to be precise:
2 players total 20 regions (5x2xpl) assigned and 37 neutrals
3 players total 30 regions (5x2xpl) assigned and 27 neutrals
4 players total 40 regions (5x2xpl) assigned and 17 neutrals
in a 5,6,7 or 8 players game each player will start with 5 regions:
5 players total 25 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 32 neutrals
6 players total 30 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 27 neutrals
7 players total 35 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 22 neutrals
8 players total 40 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 17 neutrals


I think that if you can change a bit your current starting neutrals (for example from current 13 to 12) you can do something similar with 45 regions and 9 groups of 5 or 15 groups of 3.

Honestly right now we should understand what is the layout you like more.

Nobodies

[thenobodies80]

So?

[Ishihara]

a few notes on the gameplay, after sending congrats to the designers for a great new map (looks great, plays great)... I have only finished 12 games on it, but a few things:

- bonus structure: I'm ok with leaving the Creek as a +3, but Choctaw needs to stay a +2.. . the panhandle areas are the easier bonuses to hold, so having the value increase west to east makes sense...
- tomahawks, arrows and the Spanish bonuses have only come into play for me during a nuclear game or in desperation, when the neutral 3 has been knocked down to a 1... with the varied ways to get a bonus on this map, a player going for a neutral 3 has rarely happened, so that bonus value probably is just fine...
- haven't played this in singles yet, but I can understand the complaint about bonuses on the drop... it plays great for dubs/trips, a little busy on quads (but then, what map isn't)...

again, great work guys... now let's hurry up and get this out of beta so we can use it for clan wars...

[V.J.]

The only correction you can make to that currently is to put an upper limit on the number of starting positions given to any player. You could then set this to, say, 8 and get

2 players: = 8 territories
3 players: = 8 territories
4 players: = 8 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

ender516, I tried the upper limit with <positions max="8"> but that didn't work. any suggestions?

[V.J.]

Ok, I checked your numbers and mostly I come out with the same results of ender.

These are the 3 best layout I suggest you to make what you want to do.

First of all it's necessary that all your territories are coded as neutral, where you'll have starting positions they will be underlying neutrals, so they will be ignored if the starting position is assigned to a player.

Option 3: 40 starting positions, 8 groups of 5 regions, max positions 2

In a 2,3 and 4 players game each player will start with 10 regions, to be precise:
2 players total 20 regions (5x2xpl) assigned and 37 neutrals
3 players total 30 regions (5x2xpl) assigned and 27 neutrals
4 players total 40 regions (5x2xpl) assigned and 17 neutrals
in a 5,6,7 or 8 players game each player will start with 5 regions:
5 players total 25 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 32 neutrals
6 players total 30 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 27 neutrals
7 players total 35 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 22 neutrals
8 players total 40 regions (5x1xpl) assigned and 17 neutrals


I think that if you can change a bit your current starting neutrals (for example from current 13 to 12) you can do something similar with 45 regions and 9 groups of 5 or 15 groups of 3.

Honestly right now we should understand what is the layout you like more.

Nobodies

Nobodies, we like your suggestion with 40 starting positions. Now, when I tried in xml <positions max="8"> it didn't work. Your suggestion?

[thenobodies80]

Why max=8?
In the quote example you should have 8 positions, each one with 5 components (territories) into it and set the max option to 2.
Like in this example:

<positions max="2">
<position>
<territory>territory A</territory>
<territory>territory B</territory>
<territory>territory C</territory>
<territory>territory D</territory>
<territory>territory E</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>territory F</territory>
<territory>territory G</territory>
<territory>territory H</territory>
<territory>territory I</territory>
<territory>territory L</territory>
</position>
.
.
.
etc
etc
</positions>

Remember that positions are given out randomly, so be careful to group together your territories into positions.

Let me know if you need more info or if it's clear
Nobodies

[V.J.]

Why max=8?
In the quote example you should have 8 positions, each one with 5 components (territories) into it and set the max option to 2.
Like in this example:

<positions max="2">
<position>
<territory>territory A</territory>
<territory>territory B</territory>
<territory>territory C</territory>
<territory>territory D</territory>
<territory>territory E</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>territory F</territory>
<territory>territory G</territory>
<territory>territory H</territory>
<territory>territory I</territory>
<territory>territory L</territory>
</position>
.
.
.
etc
etc
</positions>

Remember that positions are given out randomly, so be careful to group together your territories into positions.

Let me know if you need more info or if it's clear
Nobodies

I just say that I used that MAX before and didn't work. I understand what you are saying and I'll try it out as soon as I get some time. I'm still shaken by stripping my Premium membership and accusations that I have multi accounts. Great reward for paying membership and mapmaking for this website

[V.J.]

Lack, can you update our map with this XML so we get this out of BETA? This should fix the starting positions issue:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/3202881/finalxml-v8.xml

[thenobodies80]

Sent to lackattack!