Conquer Club

I have added the errors for Territory with killer neutral+bonus and Territory border+bombarding same territory.

I've modified the head post to explicitly say what the Wizard actually does when it encounters warnings and errors on validation.
(Auto correction)

Please can some of you take a look to see if it looks sensible.

Here's what I think...

chipv wrote:

• Error: Territory X has mutiple entries
  Action: Duplicate instances of Territory X are removed.
  Suggested action: Duplicates are renamed X(x++) (i.e. "X(1)", "X(2)")
  
• Error: Position X has component Y which does not exist as a territory
  Action: Position X is removed from positions list.
  Suggested action: Component Y is removed from position X.
  
• Error: Mutiple positions contain component X
  Action: Duplicate instances of positions with Component X are removed from positions list.
  Suggested action: None
  

C.

yeti_c wrote:Here's what I think...

chipv wrote:

• Error: Territory X has mutiple entries
  Action: Duplicate instances of Territory X are removed.
  Suggested action: Duplicates are renamed X(x++) (i.e. "X(1)", "X(2)")
  
• Error: Position X has component Y which does not exist as a territory
  Action: Position X is removed from positions list.
  Suggested action: Component Y is removed from position X.
  
• Error: Mutiple positions contain component X
  Action: Duplicate instances of positions with Component X are removed from positions list.
  Suggested action: None
  

C.

I'm not sure about the suggested action for 'Territory X has multiple entries' because that would then create territories that
are not contained within the same continent , for which there are no warnings or errors. If X is contained within a objective
or any territory list containing X then you would have a similar dilemma because X(x) won't be.

Something like this could be a genuine mistake or maybe a result of the XML being generated.

That XML would now subsequently be valid (probably with one-way warnings for new territories X(x)) whereas perhaps it should flag some warning.
A corrected XML shouldn't produce any additional warnings.

Agreed with suggested actions on positions. (Can positions contain continents btw - the tutorial implies territories?)

chipv wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Here's what I think...

chipv wrote:

• Error: Territory X has mutiple entries
  Action: Duplicate instances of Territory X are removed.
  Suggested action: Duplicates are renamed X(x++) (i.e. "X(1)", "X(2)")
  
• Error: Position X has component Y which does not exist as a territory
  Action: Position X is removed from positions list.
  Suggested action: Component Y is removed from position X.
  
• Error: Mutiple positions contain component X
  Action: Duplicate instances of positions with Component X are removed from positions list.
  Suggested action: None
  

C.

I'm not sure about the suggested action for 'Territory X has multiple entries' because that would then create territories that
are not contained within the same continent , for which there are no warnings or errors. If X is contained within a objective
or any territory list containing X then you would have a similar dilemma because X(x) won't be.

Something like this could be a genuine mistake or maybe a result of the XML being generated.

That XML would now subsequently be valid (probably with one-way warnings for new territories X(x)) whereas perhaps it should flag some warning.
A corrected XML shouldn't produce any additional warnings.

Agreed with suggested actions on positions. (Can positions contain continents btw - the tutorial implies territories?)

Hang on - what does the multiple entries error mean?

Your comment seems to imply that it is inside of continents?

I am assuming that it is just in the territory list...

The problem with removing multiples here - is that the multiples could be correct with other work having gone into them - but badly named (copied?) - and you lose data...

Perhaps doing nothing would be better?

Pretty sure positions are territories only.

C.

yeti_c wrote:Pretty sure positions are territories only.

C.

They are (at the moment).

So too are objectives (for the time being).

natty_dread wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Here's a suggestion: implement an automatic bonus calculator, that uses the formula in one of the spreadsheet ones to calculate bonuses for the continents...

Not something that needs to be done ASAP, but it would be a nice detail...

On the other hand, bonus assignment is fairly context-sensitive and the spreadsheets are always more like recommendations. Ideally this tool would get used after all the squabbling over gameplay specifics is done with.

Yeah, but it would be a nice addition to the tool. They can always be adjusted by hand later on. And it would make deciding bonuses easier, as you wouldn't have to count territories and borders and whatnot for the spreadsheets, but the program would do it for you.

Chip and I had a long discussion about this at the start of this project - we decided to stay away from that coding suggested bonuses into the tool. This was firstly because there are no perfect algorithms to describe the bonus structure for every potential, because the simplest algorithms are devoid of context and complex algorithms struggle to cope with too many permutations. Secondly, the tool is to assist with XML development, which is the last thing a map needs - at this stage it's probably too late to still be overhauling bonus values.

chipv......

YOU ARE THE MAN!!!

yeti_c wrote:Hang on - what does the multiple entries error mean?

Your comment seems to imply that it is inside of continents?

I am assuming that it is just in the territory list...

The problem with removing multiples here - is that the multiples could be correct with other work having gone into them - but badly named (copied?) - and you lose data...

Perhaps doing nothing would be better?

Pretty sure positions are territories only.

C.

Yes your assumption same as mine, in the territory list.
To exemplify what I was saying:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Solar System</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<components>
<territory>Earth</territory>
<territory>Mars</territory>
</components>
</continent>

<territory>
<name>Earth</name>
...
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Earth</name>
...
</territory>


If I rename the duplicate territory, then the duplicate won't be automatically included in territory lists containing the original.

So here if I rename the multiple to Earth2 then Solar system will only include Earth. This could easily be missed by the user
as there won't be a validation problem if the multiple is renamed.

I think maybe do nothing on this one, but still flag.

chipv wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Hang on - what does the multiple entries error mean?

Your comment seems to imply that it is inside of continents?

I am assuming that it is just in the territory list...

The problem with removing multiples here - is that the multiples could be correct with other work having gone into them - but badly named (copied?) - and you lose data...

Perhaps doing nothing would be better?

Pretty sure positions are territories only.

C.

Yes your assumption same as mine, in the territory list.
To exemplify what I was saying:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Solar System</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<components>
<territory>Earth</territory>
<territory>Mars</territory>
</components>
</continent>

<territory>
<name>Earth</name>
...
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Earth</name>
...
</territory>


If I rename the duplicate territory, then the duplicate won't be automatically included in territory lists containing the original.

So here if I rename the multiple to Earth2 then Solar system will only include Earth. This could easily be missed by the user
as there won't be a validation problem if the multiple is renamed.

I think maybe do nothing on this one, but still flag.

Is there some way to catch and prevent the creation of a duplicate territory? This wouldn't help with the problem of duplicates in XML that the user loads in, but it gets us part way home.

I'm assuming Chip has that as part of his tool - this is purely for loaded XML.#

C.

ender516 wrote:Is there some way to catch and prevent the creation of a duplicate territory? This wouldn't help with the problem of duplicates in XML that the user loads in, but it gets us part way home.

Yes, I could either flag it dynamically or better still, I think, would be to flatly refuse to show the generated XML until
duplicates have been resolved. That would then mean I can leave alone loaded duplicates, but still validate them as errors.

That means the generated XML would always be correct which is what the intention is.

chipv wrote:

ender516 wrote:Is there some way to catch and prevent the creation of a duplicate territory? This wouldn't help with the problem of duplicates in XML that the user loads in, but it gets us part way home.

Yes, I could either flag it dynamically or better still, I think, would be to flatly refuse to show the generated XML until
duplicates have been resolved. That would then mean I can leave alone loaded duplicates, but still validate them as errors.

That means the generated XML would always be correct which is what the intention is.

Ah, an excellent solution. Make your watchword: "Garbage in, perhaps, but never garbage out." Never generate XML which has errors. You might even pop up an "Are you sure?" box before showing the XML if warnings are present, so that the user must actively take responsibility for using XML that might not be kosher.

Perhaps a warning if someone tries to upload and work on a map which is over the size restrictions would be useful?

Just updated the tool (mostly for performance on save and load) but I have corrected the system for
adding positions. There is now a new tab for Positions so you can now add multiple territories per position which
should complete the XML combinations now.

I will take a look at the other suggestions including warnings and errors shortly but will be doing another rather useful addition first.

will be doing another rather useful addition first.

I hope it'll be the sideways scrolling

I think it would be useful for this tool (or some other) to allow the user to test the XML by assigning territories to players and showing the bonuses achieved. Objectives could be tested in this way as well. This could avoid problems like the one in the Jamaica map where the sugar/slave combinations were carefully planned out, but a small slip made them too generous.

ender516 wrote:I think it would be useful for this tool (or some other) to allow the user to test the XML by assigning territories to players and showing the bonuses achieved. Objectives could be tested in this way as well. This could avoid problems like the one in the Jamaica map where the sugar/slave combinations were carefully planned out, but a small slip made them too generous.

Oh that's good, that's good. I need to get you on MSN or Skype.

chipv wrote:

ender516 wrote:I think it would be useful for this tool (or some other) to allow the user to test the XML by assigning territories to players and showing the bonuses achieved. Objectives could be tested in this way as well. This could avoid problems like the one in the Jamaica map where the sugar/slave combinations were carefully planned out, but a small slip made them too generous.

Oh that's good, that's good. I need to get you on MSN or Skype.

Yeah - I always wanted Lack's tester to be able to allow you to allocate starting neutrals too...

The ability to parse the XML - show neutrals/starts/dropping bonuses etc would be great...

Of course - you need to be able to chose the number of players too... 2->8

C.

Yeah already on it.

I'm looking at adding a button "Test Drop" and allow choice of number of players.

Then I calculate random drop and colour each 88 accordingly leaving white for neutrals - how's that?

chipv wrote:Yeah already on it.

I'm looking at adding a button "Test Drop" and allow choice of number of players.

Then I calculate random drop and colour each 88 accordingly leaving white for neutrals - how's that?

Sweetness...

(How are you generating the 88's? - Raw HTML doesn't allow us to create the exact numbers? - Or are you using 9 images and overlaying them?!)

C.

yeti_c wrote:

chipv wrote:Yeah already on it.

I'm looking at adding a button "Test Drop" and allow choice of number of players.

Then I calculate random drop and colour each 88 accordingly leaving white for neutrals - how's that?

Sweetness...

(How are you generating the 88's? - Raw HTML doesn't allow us to create the exact numbers? - Or are you using 9 images and overlaying them?!)

C.

No, I'm proposing to show coloured 88's using a single image and background position for speed.
(The white and yellow 88s are from same image, I also have the rest of the colours)

Army numbers is a whole different ball game, I would have to do what lack does and go through a server to generate a png overlay.

I am thinking that by colouring the territories correctly (taking into account neutrals and maybe showing bonuses calculated) would be good enough.

chipv wrote:Yeah already on it.

I'm looking at adding a button "Test Drop" and allow choice of number of players.

Then I calculate random drop and colour each 88 accordingly leaving white for neutrals - how's that?

Not a bad idea, but it would be also good to be able to press a button which gives the whole board to one player and spells out all the objectives and bonuses (with their values). Then add a way of changing the ownership of a region/territory so the user can break zones and objectives and rebuild them for some other player, so you can check progressive bonuses, like hold two of four for +1, three of four for +2, and so on. As far as display goes, I'm thinking of stuff like BOB's Continent Overview and Objective Summary. The ability to hover over these things and highlight the pertinent areas on the map would be excellent.

ender516 wrote:

chipv wrote:Yeah already on it.

I'm looking at adding a button "Test Drop" and allow choice of number of players.

Then I calculate random drop and colour each 88 accordingly leaving white for neutrals - how's that?

Not a bad idea, but it would be also good to be able to press a button which gives the whole board to one player and spells out all the objectives and bonuses (with their values). Then add a way of changing the ownership of a region/territory so the user can break zones and objectives and rebuild them for some other player, so you can check progressive bonuses, like hold two of four for +1, three of four for +2, and so on. As far as display goes, I'm thinking of stuff like BOB's Continent Overview and Objective Summary. The ability to hover over these things and highlight the pertinent areas on the map would be excellent.

You can already hover on continents/objectives/start positions to see the territories highlighted.
Do you mean after the test drop? Yes I'm doing that. (Actually done, just testing now).

I can add what you want simply by allowing 1 player to the test drop and do a special case.

I think If I publish what I've done then might be easier, as I'm not sure what you are gunning for regarding method of changing ownership.

Ok published. You can now test initial automatic troop drop. I have modified head post to include detail but it is straightforward.

Basically choose number of players, press Test Drop and the whole map lights up in player colours.
The drop is random so you can keep pressing Test drop to see what could happen in a real game.
All calculations are automatically done including starting positions, starting neutrals, required and overrides.
(Those last 2 are for the map inspect colouring)
Map inspect is coloured accordingly as you would expect to see. Hover over territory names or continent names or objective names too.
In the continents tab all territories are coloured. In addition if continents are held by one player the left cell is highlighted in that
colour to make it easy to see.

Added new error check

Error: Reinforcements defined with no Minimum Reinforcements

This is the first stage for drop testing, plenty more to come, but this will help for sure.

Let me know feedback and requests for additions to drop testing please.

Thanks again to WidowMakers for sorting a problem out with a .png

chipv wrote:Error: Reinforcements defined with no Minimum Reinforcements

Not an error - could be a warning... without the minimum you get the default 3.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

chipv wrote:Error: Reinforcements defined with no Minimum Reinforcements

Not an error - could be a warning... without the minimum you get the default 3.

C.

Yeah realised when I was coding some new stuff for the tool.

The XML Tutorial says

"The minimum reinforcement must be a number greater than zero."

but it perhaps should say it is not mandatory with reinforcement tags because both examples have it together with reinforcement tags.
This makes it look like you need minimum reinforcement if you are using reinforcement tags.