Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[nolefan5311]

Hey cairns. Hope your weekend is going good.

I'm hoping to finish this today and get is posted, but I have a couple questions...

I don't think the map graphically reflects the new losing condition, unless holding a Command Ship AND a Non-Treasury Region is now the condition (which isn't how it's written in the XML). The current XML is just a non-Treasury/Monarch region as the Command Ships are not a separate requirement.

There isn't a territory name on Portland (where the Beacon is).

The battles (Eddystone, Portland, etc) are NOT ship regions, and cannot bombard, correct?

The border between EYS D and Regazona is a little too thin. You might want to make it slightly more pronounced.

Might have a few more coming to you later...

Can you put these in the thread please.

Here you go cairns.

[nolefan5311]

Hey cairns. Hope your weekend is going good.

I'm hoping to finish this today and get is posted, but I have a couple questions...

I don't think the map graphically reflects the new losing condition, unless holding a Command Ship AND a Non-Treasury Region is now the condition (which isn't how it's written in the XML). The current XML is just a non-Treasury/Monarch region as the Command Ships are not a separate requirement.

There isn't a territory name on Portland (where the Beacon is).

The battles (Eddystone, Portland, etc) are NOT ship regions, and cannot bombard, correct?

The border between EYS D and Regazona is a little too thin. You might want to make it slightly more pronounced.

Might have a few more coming to you later...

Can you put these in the thread please.

Here you go cairns.

I should clarify that the XML file you provided to me didn't have the requirement as the map states it. I have written that a player has to hold a non Treasury/Monarch region AND a Command Ship, which based on what's on the map, is the way its supposed to be.

There also might a 4 corner issue at Antelope, FS (B), GL (C), and GL (E).

[cairnswk]

...
I'm hoping to finish this today and get is posted, but I have a couple questions...
There isn't a territory name on Portland (where the Beacon is).

Fixed V36. Sorry about that.

The battles (Eddystone, Portland, etc) are NOT ship regions, and cannot bombard, correct?

No, these are sea regions...therefore ships and can be bombarded and bombard. New instruction placed under those regions on the map.

The border between EYS D and Regazona is a little too thin. You might want to make it slightly more pronounced.

Fixed Should be more prominent now.

There also might a 4 corner issue at Antelope, FS (B), GL (C), and GL (E).

I didn't think it was an issue, but i have made it clearer

I don't think the map graphically reflects the new losing condition, unless holding a Command Ship AND a Non-Treasury Region is now the condition (which isn't how it's written in the XML). The current XML is just a non-Treasury/Monarch region as the Command Ships are not a separate requirement....
I should clarify that the XML file you provided to me didn't have the requirement as the map states it. I have written that a player has to hold a non Treasury/Monarch region AND a Command Ship, which based on what's on the map, is the way its supposed to be.

Losing Condtions: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commnder Ship (B&S) will be eliminated

Regardless of what was written in the previous xml i handed back to you (which i had not changed any regarding the losing condition, even though i had changed it on the map)
the above states clearly...
are you able to do that in the xml?

I am in the middle of reviewing some of the text instructions at the bottom...will post the updated version later this evening.

[nolefan5311]

I can do it in the XML, that both players are to hold both regions of a Commander's Ship, and a non-Treasury region (including the Monarch). Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

[cairnswk]

I can do it in the XML, that both players are to hold both regions of a Commander's Ship, and a non-Treasury region (including the Monarch). Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

Noooooo!
The Monarch position M is part of the Treasury....the instructions clearly state that...

That's correct, players are not distributed to both regions on the Command ship at start.

here is the new version 36 with adjusted instructions on it....i hope they are clearer.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[nolefan5311]

Thanks cairns. I will have the code posted in a couple days.

[iancanton]

Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

That's correct, players are not distributed to both regions on the Command ship at start.

will both bow and stern be part of each start position, or do u intend that, to avoid losing on turn 1, player 1 must conquer the one he doesn't hold already?

ian.

[cairnswk]

Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

That's correct, players are not distributed to both regions on the Command ship at start.

will both bow and stern be part of each start position, or do u intend that, to avoid losing on turn 1, player 1 must conquer the one he doesn't hold already?

ian.

ian, as per front page....starting positions....players start with one-half of a command ship.
therefore they have to conquer the other half to earn the bonus.

as for the losing condition....player 1 would not lose on first turn (and i think my thinking on this is correct) because the losing condition is an "and" condition meaning that both conditions must be satisfied (as opposed to an "or" condition) for the player to be tossed out.
since the other half of the losing condition is any non-treasury region, and player 1 starts with one of those as the SS (or LB) region they would still be in the game.
But if they didn't fort that command ship early on, then yes, in perhaps ro-und 2/3 they stand to be evicted by the losing condition.
Does that make sense or clearer?

[iancanton]

what u say makes sense, but it isn't what the legend says, which is players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any commander ship will be eliminated.

the losing condition is therefore currently players failing to hold this and that will be eliminated. the way i read it, u have to hold this and that to stay alive, where this is any non-treasury region and that is any commander ship.

ian.

[cairnswk]

what u say makes sense, but it isn't what the legend says, which is players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any commander ship will be eliminated.

the losing condition is therefore currently players failing to hold this and that will be eliminated. the way i read it, u have to hold this and that to stay alive, where this is any non-treasury region and that is any commander ship.

ian.

Duh! me so stupid sometimes

OK what if we change it to....

Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and either bow or stern of a command ship will be eliminated.

[iancanton]

if a player holds the bow of two command ships and nothing else, then is that all right, since the bows are all non-treasury regions?

ian.

[cairnswk]

if a player holds the bow of two command ships and nothing else, then is that all right, since the bows are all non-treasury regions?

ian.

Mmmm. new wording for Command Ships:
♦ are not part of the non-treasury region
♦ are not part of the “Single Ships of same Nation” bonus
♦ consist of Bow & Stern which border each other ♦ Bow & Stern separately border adjacent Ships
♦ non-white sections are impassable ♦ are a “Conditional Border” as stated below

[iancanton]

that clarifies things a bit.

SS Paxat La Isabela ought to be SS Paxat la Isabela, with a lower case l.

this still hasn't been fixed.

for some reason, san cristobal has turned into san cristobel. is that a mistake?

ian.

[cairnswk]

that clarifies things a bit.

Good.

SS Paxat La Isabela ought to be SS Paxat la Isabela, with a lower case l.

this still hasn't been fixed.

Ah i think it has otherwise the "l" would have a foot _ ...or shoudl it be Isabela, with 1 x "l"...my list tells me so.

for some reason, san cristobal has turned into san cristobel. is that a mistake?
ian.

Mmm. don't remember why that happened...anyway, fixed to "a"

Version 37 Small


Version 37 Large

Click image to enlarge.

[nolefan5311]

Attached is the completed XML to reflect the above changes. 6200 lines lol.

cairns, I thought we previously discussed this, but I couldn't find it in the thread; did we agree to put a maximum of 2 on the starting positions, to keep players in 1v1 from getting 6 starting positions (3 player games would also go from 4 to 2 per player, and 4 player games would go from 3 to 2). The attached file does not have the maximum, but that's a quick fix, so let me know one way or the other.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/3303803/ArmadaV4.xml

[cairnswk]

Attached is the completed XML to reflect the above changes. 6200 lines lol.

cairns, I thought we previously discussed this, but I couldn't find it in the thread; did we agree to put a maximum of 2 on the starting positions, to keep players in 1v1 from getting 6 starting positions (3 player games would also go from 4 to 2 per player, and 4 player games would go from 3 to 2). The attached file does not have the maximum, but that's a quick fix, so let me know one way or the other.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/3303803/ArmadaV4.xml

Well no, i don't think this was discussed, but if we're going to do that it needs to be on the map.
So let me know what you and ian decide.
Also, can you adjust some of the centering for the treasury each side and also the beacons. I think the ships and land regions are pretty good.

[nolefan5311]

Attached is the completed XML to reflect the above changes. 6200 lines lol.

cairns, I thought we previously discussed this, but I couldn't find it in the thread; did we agree to put a maximum of 2 on the starting positions, to keep players in 1v1 from getting 6 starting positions (3 player games would also go from 4 to 2 per player, and 4 player games would go from 3 to 2). The attached file does not have the maximum, but that's a quick fix, so let me know one way or the other.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/3303803/ArmadaV4.xml

Well no, i don't think this was discussed, but if we're going to do that it needs to be on the map.
So let me know what you and ian decide.
Also, can you adjust some of the centering for the treasury each side and also the beacons. I think the ships and land regions are pretty good.

Ok. I will wait until Gilligan checks it to see if he any more suggested adjustments.

Also, I don't think the position maximum needs to be on the map. It's not for most maps that have limited start positions (Conquer Rome, Antarctica, Pot Mosbi, are just a couple examples).

[Gilligan]

Cairns and noles, now that you do have the large map I can start to do the check. Be aware, though, it will take a bit longer than the others!

[Gilligan]

Ow, my head. Sorry this is taking longer than usual it's just such a MONSTER

[cairnswk]

Ow, my head. Sorry this is taking longer than usual it's just such a MONSTER

That's OK, no hurry

[Gilligan]

Pool LB change neutral to 1, Beacon Pool needs to be neutral
are SS territories supposed to be a part of Spanish Ships bonus?
capitana stern doesn't border bow
Doncella missing bombardments - Santa Barbara, San Buenaventura
Santo Andrea misspelled Santo Andros
Army de Parma Front missing border Army de Parma Rear
Border between Hope and Revenge Stern is unclear
Border between Triumph Bow and Elizabeth Jonas is unclear
Truro LB missing Eddystone bombardment
Border between Rainbow Stern and Bark Bond is unclear
Rainbow Bow does not bombard Cygnet
Beacon Penzance should not border Penzance LB
Penzance LB does not border its beacon
Beacon Plymouth B should not border Plymouth
Beacon Portsmouth should not border Portsmouth
Beacon Hastings should not border Hastings
EYS C does not bombard Capitania B
EYS D does not bombard Capitania B, Princesa
FS B does not bombard GL C
Both TF regions shouldn't be able to bombard? Same with all of the army territories. They aren't listed as ships or able to bombard.
Missing conditional borders on San Lorenzo Bow/Stern
White Bear missing bombardment on Portland
Cygnet should not border Rainbow B
Bridgewater is missing E on map

[nolefan5311]

Thanks Gilligan! I will get it corrected and hopefully posted in the next 24 hours.

[nolefan5311]

Pool LB change neutral to 1, Beacon Pool needs to be neutral

Beacon Poole has been changed to 1 neutral, but think Poole LB needs to stay at 2 like all of the other LB starting positions.

are SS territories supposed to be a part of Spanish Ships bonus?

They are, as confirming by a post from cairns on December 7, 2012.

capitana stern doesn't border bow

Fixed.

Doncella missing bombardments - Santa Barbara, San Buenaventura

Fixed

Santo Andrea misspelled Santo Andros

This has been changed in all instances to Santo Andres (which is what the map states).

Army de Parma Front missing border Army de Parma Rear

Fixed

Border between Hope and Revenge Stern is unclear

For cairns

Border between Triumph Bow and Elizabeth Jonas is unclear

For cairns

Truro LB missing Eddystone bombardment

Fixed

Border between Rainbow Stern and Bark Bond is unclear

For cairns

Rainbow Bow does not bombard Cygnet

Cygnet is 3 regions away, so I don't think it should bombard it.

Beacon Penzance should not border Penzance LB
Penzance LB does not border its beacon
Beacon Plymouth B should not border Plymouth
Beacon Portsmouth should not border Portsmouth
Beacon Hastings should not border Hastings

Are you sure the open Beacon's don't border the regions their in? I assumed they did, which is why the border isn't there. I think cairns will need to clarify this. And the xml file shows Penzance LB did appear to border the Beacon. It's reflected in the file.

EYS C does not bombard Capitania B

Fixed

EYS D does not bombard Capitania B, Princesa

Fixed

FS B does not bombard GL C

Fixed

Both TF regions shouldn't be able to bombard? Same with all of the army territories. They aren't listed as ships or able to bombard.

I don't believe they bombard. Land Regions aren't listed in the legend as being able to bombard. cairns?

Missing conditional borders on San Lorenzo Bow/Stern

How did I miss that? Fixed.

White Bear missing bombardment on Portland

Fixed

Cygnet should not border Rainbow B

Fixed. I think was listed above, but I see where the confusion is. I've removed the bombardments from both Cygnet and Rainbow Bow.

Bridgewater is missing E on map

I'm not sure if the map is incorrect, but I've changed the XML to match the territory on the map. If an "e" needs to be added, cairns, let me know and I'll change the file.

Corrected file: http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/ ... a27Mar.xml

[nolefan5311]

And the XML file is attached in this post.

[Gilligan]

as far as the beacon thing, the arrow in the top corner is a one-way arrow. that's why I thought the beacon didn't attack its region.

As far as TF and Army bombardments, you do have them in the xml. We agree here but the xml doesn't.