Moderator: Cartographers
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
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.
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?)
yeti_c wrote:Pretty sure positions are territories only.
C.
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.
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.
<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>
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.
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.
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.
will be doing another rather useful addition first.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
chipv wrote:Error: Reinforcements defined with no Minimum Reinforcements
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users