Re: XML Starting Positions
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:47 am
Merged 'Starting Positions' into 'XML Starting Positions' thread
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=649&t=68154
Industrial Helix wrote:Ok... it separates the 8 starting positions into 4 each.... is there any way out of this?
MrBenn wrote:Feudal and AOR don;t use starting positions... all of the territories are coded neutral except for the castles.
MrBenn wrote:Each <position> can contain single or multiple territories.
thenobodies80 wrote:If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.
MrBenn wrote:To answer AndrewB's question, the same territory is not allowed to be part of more than 1 start position.
DJ Teflon wrote:Proposed Change
Ideally, it would be great to code starting positions to particular players..
Currently, as MrBenn states: "It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>"
Why
An example of this change would be that it would be possible to set one triples team up as the Germans in D-Day (i.e. 6-player coding) then we have another set of coding for quads (8-players). I'm not suggesting a change to that map by the way.
This could make a lot of maps more meaningful (e.g. war / sports maps where players / teams start with territories all on one side) and enable more gameplay creativity. Take, for example, Cairns' Galipoli (as it stands currently) - if different sets of coded start positions were possible according to different numbers of players, it would be possible to ensure each player has a fair share of the nice and horrible start positions. Currently, the xml wont allow this, which may be a problem. Similarly, the progress of the England map would have been much quicker if different coding were possible for different numbers of players.
As it stands currently, maps with limited starting territories (whether coded or not) inevitably go through the gameplay process of checking that each starting territory is relatively equal strategically. Enabling different coding for different numbers of starts would create more possibilities for mapmakers to create start positions (relatively equal sets of unequal starting territories). And, of course, it would enable starting positions to work for different types of team games.
<positions>
<position>
<territory>Accuser A</territory>
<territory>Landowner A</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Accuser B</territory>
<territory>Landowner B</territory>
</position>
…
<!-- Territories -->
<territory>
<name>William Shaw</name>
...
<neutral>3</neutral>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Joseph Buxton</name>
...
<neutral>3</neutral>
</territory>
<!-- ...and so forth for every green SP-->
<!-- Start positions -->
<positions>
<position>
<territory>William Shaw<territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory>Joseph Buxton</territory>
</position>
<!-- ...and so forth for every green SP-->
yeti_c wrote:Consult the City Mogul XML for starting positions with more than 1 item.
C.
thenobodies80 wrote:If you want them totally random but evenly splitted by group among the players, is not possible because each region can't be used for more than one single SP.
With the 44 system you will have the two groups splitted equally and i think that adding the underlying neutrals you can use them with all game size.
But they are NOT random.
The player with Accuser A will have always Landowner A, the player with Accuser B will have always Landowner B, etc etc...
the.killing.44 wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:If you want them totally random but evenly splitted by group among the players, is not possible because each region can't be used for more than one single SP.
With the 44 system you will have the two groups splitted equally and i think that adding the underlying neutrals you can use them with all game size.
But they are NOT random.
The player with Accuser A will have always Landowner A, the player with Accuser B will have always Landowner B, etc etc...
Right. So you probably want to put all your options into random.org and have pairs come out, so Accuser A is with Landowner D, A B with L A, etc., if you choose this.