Conquer Club

Evil DIMwit wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:....
Then you leave the accuser/accused starting position non-neutral, but undesignated in starting positions. That way, the greens are evenly divided and the pinks are divided separately.

Huh?
Did you do that correctly? I'm not sure what you mean by having them coded as a pooled starting position but then having them coded as neutral.
EDIT: please forgive my typing this morning..

Well (unless I'm sorely mistaken), what happens is that being in a Starting Position overrides the starting neutral value, but only if the starting position is assigned. The engine looks at the starting positions first and divides them equally among the players; it doesn't look at coded neutral values until it's done with SPs.

So, for example, say you wanted to change the Egypt: Lower map around so that each player gets an equal portion of the 5 capital territories, but the rest of the map is randomly assigned as usual. You'd code the capitals as neutral in their territory descriptions, but then set them all to be a pool of starting positions.

In a 2-player game, that's 2 capitals for each player with 1 left over (the 'neutral player' isn't assigned anything at this point); in a 3-player game that's 1 for each player and 2 left over. Say in a 3-player Egypt: Lower game, A-bt, Kha, and Ament are each given to one player. Khaset and Aneb-Hetch are left over so they get pooled in with the regular territries. However, because they're coded to have a neutral value, they're immediately set to neutral. The game begins with each player having one of the five capital territories, and the two left-over capitals starting as neutral.

I believe this mechanism is in use in Third Crusade right now, and it's kind of integral to the proposed XML scheme of Good Morning Woodboro.

natty_dread wrote:I like the new arrangement of territories. It's a lot better than the old one...

The roads as killer neutrals is a nice idea. I would suggest not making them spawn too many neutrals though. Something like 2, 3 at maximum. Otherwise it's going to be too hard to get around...

cairnswk wrote:

natty_dread wrote:I like the new arrangement of territories. It's a lot better than the old one...

Kewl

The roads as killer neutrals is a nice idea. I would suggest not making them spawn too many neutrals though. Something like 2, 3 at maximum. Otherwise it's going to be too hard to get around...

I was thinking on [1] to make it easy to move around....if not [2] at max.

natty_dread wrote:I like the new arrangement of territories. It's a lot better than the old one...

The roads as killer neutrals is a nice idea. I would suggest not making them spawn too many neutrals though. Something like 2, 3 at maximum. Otherwise it's going to be too hard to get around...

Evil DIMwit wrote:....
If it's more than that, it's not much of a road. [2] would easily get irritating, especially early on in the game.

isaiah40 wrote:...
Definitely a better layout Cairns! Now there is no confusion about where the inset territories attack to and from!!

Code: Select all

<positions>
  <position>
    <territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
    <territory>Prison</territory>
  </position>
  <position>
    <territory>Susannah Martin</territory>
    <territory>Thomas Beadle</territory>
  </position>
<!-- et cetera -->
</positions>


ender516 wrote:The discussion earlier about the starting positions was a little unclear to me, so I will just state my position on it. Forgive me if I am merely restating what was already said, but think of it as support for the idea. If I am taking a different position, then consider it a counter-proposal.
I think it would be better to code the starting positions as eight pairs of territories, with each pair containing one territory that is part of a bonus (accused or accuser) and one other territory. This prevents random distribution of the starts from giving any one player more of the bonus territories than any other player. Proper pairing of the territories can also minimize any bunching which might give one player a head start in the quest for a stronghold.

Code: Select all

<positions>
  <position>
    <territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
    <territory>Prison</territory>
  </position>
  <position>
    <territory>Susannah Martin</territory>
    <territory>Thomas Beadle</territory>
  </position>
<!-- et cetera -->
</positions>


cairnswk wrote:

ender516 wrote:The discussion earlier about the starting positions was a little unclear to me, so I will just state my position on it. Forgive me if I am merely restating what was already said, but think of it as support for the idea. If I am taking a different position, then consider it a counter-proposal.
I think it would be better to code the starting positions as eight pairs of territories, with each pair containing one territory that is part of a bonus (accused or accuser) and one other territory. This prevents random distribution of the starts from giving any one player more of the bonus territories than any other player. Proper pairing of the territories can also minimize any bunching which might give one player a head start in the quest for a stronghold.

Code: Select all

<positions>
  <position>
    <territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
    <territory>Prison</territory>
  </position>
  <position>
    <territory>Susannah Martin</territory>
    <territory>Thomas Beadle</territory>
  </position>
<!-- et cetera -->
</positions>


Thanks ender516 for that proposal.
With that however, and i could be wrong with my thinking on this, giving a player the same starting territories each time makes the game somewhat determinable after several games so that players may learn the ways to win.
The theory i guess would be to have two separate sets of starts so that each drop can be randomised to increase the odds of a player gaining the same starting positions less often. Did i explain that OK?

• define only the newly added green territories as starting positions with an underlying neutral coding, so that they are always divided evenly, with leftovers becoming neutral
• define the other starting territories (the original 8 accusers and accused) as normal territories and everything else as neutrals, so that those eight are again divided evenly among the players with all leftovers becoming neutrals

show: results

thenobodies80 wrote:Map for the new page

Interesting idea...I think you can bring out a good map.
Some comments after a quick look:

Hanged-Hill-Judge-Prison bonus is not clear
Not to mention that it took me hours to find all the judges and the prison , I see a region with this name: Judge Crowin, but it isn't a part of the Judges bonus. This region is good for the hanged,hill,etc bonus? Is it good for the judge bonus?
Hill could be coloured with the bonus color instead of the accused (title) color, but it's just a personal preference.

Colors, I got these results using Vischeck (colorblind simulation)

show: results

I think that some colors/bonus are hard to distinguish

one last thing, the legend that explains how roads work in the left corner, i think it will look better and clearer in this way:


Looking forward your next update
Nobodies

Evil DIMwit wrote:What I proposed was something like

Code: Select all

<!-- 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-->


But only for the green starting positions. The bonus starting positions are the only other territories left non-neutral, but they're not designated as starting positions. What would happen (if I understand correctly) is that the Starting Positions tag overrides the initial neutral coding of the green territories, so those are divided evenly, with the remainder being turned neutral. Then the eight remaining, bonus, starting positions are all that's left, and those get divided evenly, with any remainder becoming neutral.

You could switch it around and make the eight bonus SPs coded and the eight green positions uncoded. There's not much difference except that in 2-player game for the coded octet each player gets 4, and for the uncoded octet the "neutral player" gets taken into account, so each actual player gets 2.

oaktown wrote:maybe I'm not reading you right, but it sound like you want each players to have an equal number of territories from group A (Accused/accusers) and an equal number from group L (Landowners) - and for every A that a player has he also has a L. And you want them to be assigned at random. And i assume you want it to work for 2-8 players. That's a lot to ask from a very limited XML feature.

44's solution of coding pairs is close and will work for some game sizes. In a five player game (for example) each player will get one pair, but then I believe that the remaining six territories will be distributed randomly, each player receiving one extra territory. In a two or three player game each player would also get one odd, unpaired territory. And the A-L pairs would be pre-set, not random as you wish.

Another imperfect solution would be to code each A territory as a start, so you have eight starts of one territory each. Those eight would be distributed first, so everybody will get at least one A. The A's that are left over would be thrown into the mix with the L's, which would also be distributed at random. Unlike 44's idea the territories are distributed randomly, but there is a chance that somebody won't get an L territory. (Like 44's solution it will work perfectly for 4, 6, 7, and 8 player games, but everything else will be off.)

Evil DIMwit's idea of coding territories both neutral and as starting positions would eliminate this problem in that the left-over coded territories would go neutral, not back into the random mix, but I'm skeptical that the site will recognize both... I'd call in yeti before trying that out, but if it works it is the way to go.

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...

MrBenn wrote:To answer some of the questions that have been raised:
Yes, territories can be coded start positions, and as neutral. The start position takes precedence, and so if not allocated with other starts will revert to neutral. The number of armies (player or neutral) doesn't have to be the same in the coding for the starting position/neutral tags.
In manual deployment games, coded starting positions will start with the number of armies specified in the code. I thought you could drop more armies on them during the deployment phase though...

Oh, I'll merge this with the other XML Start Positions Topic

yeti_c wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:Also, slightly related question while we're here -- if you've coded an initial troop number for a starting position, how is that handled in a manual deployment game? Can you redistribute those troops, or are they locked in place? How about if you haven't coded an initial troop number?

Have you ever played City Mogul manual? You can't drop armies on a starting position that has a starting value.

Wait a minute... if that were the case then City Mogul would be unplayable in manual - because you only get starting positions...

I agree with Benny here - although I haven't witnessed it.

C.

MrBenn wrote:Right, so in Manual deployment games, starting positions (with coded starting armies) are not 'overridden' in the same way as the standard 3 from normal territories. Where deployments are able to made, these can be made on any available territory.

Evil DIMwit wrote:...

Well, that makes sense if every territory has a fixed initial number -- not that you can't deploy manually to them, but that in manual you only get troops from non-fixed territories. In City Mogul there is nowhere to take troops from.

Third Crusade is a better example, since that mixes coded SP and non-coded territories. Indeed, here's a composite screencap of a manual Third Crusade game right after the deployment turn:
{refer to map}
Every starting position except Cairo has been deployed to with no incident.

Code: Select all

<!-- Positions begin-->
−
<positions>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">London</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Paris</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Ratisbon</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Castile</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Thessalonica</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Tunis</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Cairo</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory start="6">Amasia</territory>
</position>
</positions>

cairnswk wrote:So is anyone interested in continuing feedback for this map???

ender516 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:So is anyone interested in continuing feedback for this map???

I think this is a fine map, but if you are trying to pull back to meet the two map limit, it makes sense to put this on vacation while your other more advanced maps move forward. The question is whether the Boys In Blue will allow it to resume without a substantial update when you want to move forward again. It would be nice to get them to mark this "on vacation without prejudice" so it can simply be restored to active status when there is room on your drafting table.

• Coach Stops are killer neutrals.
• Roads connect Coach Stops but isolate other territories.
• The road system is accessed only via Coach Stops by the lands that adjoin them.
  or (alternate wording)
• The road system is accessible only to lands which adjoin Coach Stops.

natty_dread wrote:Frankly, I would rather see Cricket vacationed than this, but that's just my opinion... Since I grew up as that kid who'd listen to heavy metal and read comics rather than go out and do sports, I think it's obvious I like witches more than cricket

ender516 wrote:By the way, if you are still looking for a new name for Road Progression Points, why not Coach Stops? Then your legend could read:

Road Travel

• Coach Stops are killer neutrals.
• Roads connect Coach Stops but isolate other territories.
• The road system is accessed only via Coach Stops by the lands that adjoin them.
  or (alternate wording)
• The road system is accessible only to lands which adjoin Coach Stops.

You could call them Buggy Stops, but then you have to write Buggy XML, and no one wants that.

MrBenn wrote:At first glance this map hits me in the face with "I don't have time to get my head around it".

Further inspection (and the discussion about starting positions) gives me some initial concerns about getting balanced gameplay that works with the accused/accusers concept.

cairnswk wrote:

MrBenn wrote:At first glance this map hits me in the face with "I don't have time to get my head around it".

Yes, that would be par for course for most of my maps, wouldn't it?