Conquer Club

Gilligan wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:Is the XML being worked on? Just looking for an update on this one.

Yes

Thank you sir

I will try my best to have it completed this week. Been busy with moving into my dorm and the holidays!

No rush at all.

nolefan5311 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:Is the XML being worked on? Just looking for an update on this one.

Yes

Thank you sir

I will try my best to have it completed this week. Been busy with moving into my dorm and the holidays!

No rush at all.

Well there is for me, I gotta get it done before classes make it to fourth gear!! Haha.

Good god.









It does look magnificent with the numbers though...

*faints*

After chatting with isaiah, I misunderstood what he meant by the interstate bonus.

What he DID mean was that you can go throughout any interstate and connect 5 for +3, however that brings up WAY too many possibilities for bonus and nearly impossible to code.

What do you all think about doing +3 for any 5 interstate territories?

+3 for every 5 consecutive interstate cities means 15 bonuses for i-80, 3 bonuses for i-55 and so on. roughly 100 interstate bonuses is a figure that is by no means impossible or even especially difficult to code, but it'll be a lengthy and tedious process with a lot of copying where errors are hard to spot, unless someone knows of a shortcut; by shortcut, i mean something more elegant than the brute force method of copying the list of ordered i-80 cities 14 times, then deleting the unwanted ones from each bonus.

+3 for every 5 interstate cities is so easy that both players in 1v1 are almost certain to start with one or more of these bonuses, with the first player depriving the second player of one or more of his bonuses, which is not what we want. another downside is that, on the longer interstates such as i-80, the principles of best play dictate that a player has to keep counting the number of an opponent's cities on that road to determine how many cities he must conquer to reduce that opponent's current interstate bonus, which is not much fun. the upside is that the new collections xml makes implementing this bonus a piece of cake.

is +5 for every 7 consecutive interstate cities a reasonable alternative? this reduces the number of interstate bonuses by 28. will players bother with playing for such a long, thin bonus that can be broken at almost every city? if not, then this defeats the point of the bonus.

ian.

iancanton wrote:+3 for every 5 consecutive interstate cities means 15 bonuses for i-80, 3 bonuses for i-55 and so on. roughly 100 interstate bonuses is a figure that is by no means impossible or even especially difficult to code, but it'll be a lengthy and tedious process with a lot of copying where errors are hard to spot, unless someone knows of a shortcut; by shortcut, i mean something more elegant than the brute force method of copying the list of ordered i-80 cities 14 times, then deleting the unwanted ones from each bonus.

+3 for every 5 interstate cities is so easy that both players in 1v1 are almost certain to start with one or more of these bonuses, with the first player depriving the second player of one or more of his bonuses, which is not what we want. another downside is that, on the longer interstates such as i-80, the principles of best play dictate that a player has to keep counting the number of an opponent's cities on that road to determine how many cities he must conquer to reduce that opponent's current interstate bonus, which is not much fun. the upside is that the new collections xml makes implementing this bonus a piece of cake.

is +5 for every 7 consecutive interstate cities a reasonable alternative? this reduces the number of interstate bonuses by 28. will players bother with playing for such a long, thin bonus that can be broken at almost every city? if not, then this defeats the point of the bonus.

ian.

Ian, your first scenario there I already have coded - but the way isaiah wanted it was that you could travel through different interstates - IE, you could have Boston, Worcester, Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo.

At the moment, I have +3 for every 5 consecutive cities coded within each interstate, just like route 66 is coded. You could also say "+3 for every 5 consecutive interstates and +3 for each city after that".

Gilligan wrote:Ian, your first scenario there I already have coded

wow! u've done well!

Gilligan wrote:but the way isaiah wanted it was that you could travel through different interstates - IE, you could have Boston, Worcester, Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo.

the example u've given is all on i-90. if u mean something like augusta, boston, worcester, albany, syracuse, then this does become something of a nightmare to code because u have to take account of every fork in each interstate. all through the gameplay stage, i had been working on the assumption that all 5 consecutive cities in each bonus had to be on the same interstate. if the 5 consecutive cities can be on more than one interstate, then the differences in interstate names and colours, such as i-90 being red, no longer have a part in gameplay and their function becomes purely decorative. to my mind, the map would lose a little something if that happened.

ian.

I think I missed understood my own idea! The way Gilligan has it coded is the best way.

iancanton wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Ian, your first scenario there I already have coded

wow! u've done well!

Gilligan wrote:but the way isaiah wanted it was that you could travel through different interstates - IE, you could have Boston, Worcester, Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo.

the example u've given is all on i-90. if u mean something like augusta, boston, worcester, albany, syracuse, then this does become something of a nightmare to code because u have to take account of every fork in each interstate. all through the gameplay stage, i had been working on the assumption that all 5 consecutive cities in each bonus had to be on the same interstate. if the 5 consecutive cities can be on more than one interstate, then the differences in interstate names and colours, such as i-90 being red, no longer have a part in gameplay and their function becomes purely decorative. to my mind, the map would lose a little something if that happened.

ian.

Whoops yeah, my fault. So we are all okay that it's plus 3 for each 5 consecutive cities WITHIN an interstate? eg, +3 for 5 and +3 for each consecutive after that.

Gilligan wrote:So we are all okay that it's plus 3 for each 5 consecutive cities WITHIN an interstate? eg, +3 for 5 and +3 for each consecutive after that.

yes, absolutely agree with plus 3 for each 5 consecutive cities WITHIN an interstate! sorry for the delay: there was something in the back of my mind that i knew i wanted to jot down, which i've remembered, and it's that each +3 i-90 bonus needs to override the next four neighbouring i-90 ones, for example boston-worcester-albany-syracuse-buffalo overrides worcester-albany-syracuse-buffalo-erie, albany-syracuse-buffalo-erie-cleveland, syracuse-buffalo-erie-cleveland-toledo and buffalo-erie-cleveland-toledo-goshen, but boston-worcester-albany-syracuse-buffalo probably shouldn't override any i-95 bonuses that happen to include boston.

ian.

To try and keep the XML down in size, there has been a change to one of the bonuses. Instead of +3 for 5 consecutive interstate cities, it is now +3 for any 5 cities which includes 1 capital. You must hold one capital to receive the bonus, no capital, no bonus.

I also slightly moved 2 army ovals on the small only, Arcata and San Fransisco.
Large:


Small:


Links:
Large: http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/3713/megausav5large.png
Small: http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8494/megausav39small.png
Starting Neutrals: http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/8728/startingneutrals.png

from +3 for every 5 consecutive interstate cities, we've changed to +3 for any 5 cities on an interstate includes 1 capital and you must hold one capital to recieve the bonus.

if u hold 10 cities on i-95, then do u still receive only +3 for i-95? receive has been misspelled as recieve.

ian.

iancanton wrote:from +3 for every 5 consecutive interstate cities, we've changed to +3 for any 5 cities on an interstate includes 1 capital and you must hold one capital to recieve the bonus.

if u hold 10 cities on i-95, then do u still receive only +3 for i-95? receive has been misspelled as recieve.

ian.

I thought we agreed to change it to "for every 2 capitals held along the same interstate route you receive an additional +2", right?

nolefan5311 wrote:

iancanton wrote:from +3 for every 5 consecutive interstate cities, we've changed to +3 for any 5 cities on an interstate includes 1 capital and you must hold one capital to recieve the bonus.

if u hold 10 cities on i-95, then do u still receive only +3 for i-95? receive has been misspelled as recieve.

ian.

I thought we agreed to change it to "for every 2 capitals held along the same interstate route you receive an additional +2", right?

Correct! I just haven't got around to updating the images. Will do that later today.

Images updated above!

I think you need to clarify it to say, "For every 2 capitals held along the same interstate you will receive +2".

Also, maybe transpose the "Capital Bonus" and the "D.C. Autodeploy" with each other, so that the Capital Bonus and Interstate Bonus are right next to each other.

It is on the small map not totally clear if there is a connection between Berlin and Waterville.

Also, could Gulfport move a bit to the left to be more clearly in MS? The border with FL is now not reallyu visible. New Orleans might then have to move a bit as well.

nolefan5311 wrote:I think you need to clarify it to say, "For every 2 capitals held along the same interstate you will receive +2".

agreed.

nolefan5311 wrote:Also, maybe transpose the "Capital Bonus" and the "D.C. Autodeploy" with each other, so that the Capital Bonus and Interstate Bonus are right next to each other.

better still will be the capital bonus, interstate bonus and dc autodeploy on the left, with the airport and ships on the right. this groups together the bonuses on the left and the transport on the right.

sannemanrobinson wrote:It is on the small map not totally clear if there is a connection between Berlin and Waterville.

between these cities, we need to have at least two whole black dots. to give enough room, this necessitates a more north-south i-95 between waterville and bangor.

sannemanrobinson wrote:Also, could Gulfport move a bit to the left to be more clearly in MS? The border with FL is now not reallyu visible. New Orleans might then have to move a bit as well.

several cities straddle a border, but this is the only one where the troop count is about half in each state (with more than half of the 888 in the wrong state).

ian.

Considering that it's really big, before I start to check it....the xml posted here is the final and correct one?
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=163962&start=15#p4061629

I would like to do it all at once, so a confirmation would be nice before proceed.
Thanks in advance
Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:Considering that it's really big, before I start to check it....the xml posted here is the final and correct one?
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=163962&start=15#p4061629

I would like to do it all at once, so a confirmation would be nice before proceed.
Thanks in advance
Nobodies

Nope, I moved 4 army ovals on the small and 2 on the large (maybe more once I finish). I'll be posting an update here soon.

Small update:

- Moved Berlin NH, Gulfport MS, Pensacola FL, Amarillo TX army ovals on the small,
- Moved Pensacola Fl, Gulfport MS army ovals on the large,
- Moved the southern Michigan border up so it is more visible on both

Large:


Small:

So it's just a couple of coords? everything else it's like in the current xml?

Yes, other than those coords the XML is final

I have updated the post in the XML check thread to reflect the change in coordinates above