Dice Bonus/Adjustment

[chipv]

Sorry if suggested before but here goes anyway

THIS IS A SUGGESTION FOR NEW MAPS NOT A CHANGE TO EXISTING ONES

Concise description:

Add Map Tag(s) so that mapmakers can increase or decrease the dice rolls of a territory (dice bonus)

Specifics:

Currently we can have +1 or -1 army for holding a territory - a territory bonus.

In addition to that we can have +1 or -1 adjustment per dice roll of territory - a dice bonus.
This could apply to attack or defence rolls or just both.

The adjustments cannot bring the overall number above 6 or below 1.
(So result is still between 1 and 6)

So a roll of 6 +1 is still 6
And 1 -1 is still 1

Game engine takes this into account when working out who won the assault.

Can add a dice tag to map xml with a single number (positive or negative) for adjusting dice rolls.
Can also have 2 tags for separate adjustments for attack / defence.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Mapmakers can adjust strength or weakness of specific territories.

(e.g. a territory that was heavily fortified in real life can have a +1 to defence rolls. A tank could have +1 to attack rolls etc)

Could have more than +/- 1 adjustment to dice rolls if necessary.

[chipv]

No takers on this one, then?

[Bruceswar]

nvm but nice idea

[laddida]

chip i understand what your trying to say its a good idea and i think it would be cool to be used on new maps being made that are specifically made to use those tools. But i would not very much like the current maps to have that tool implemented it would be something i would like in new maps but it would change the game too much if all maps were considered.

[chipv]

chip i understand what your trying to say its a good idea and i think it would be cool to be used on new maps being made that are specifically made to use those tools. But i would not very much like the current maps to have that tool implemented it would be something i would like in new maps but it would change the game too much if all maps were considered.

Agreed, current maps would not be affected this would be a new option for new maps (as the old xmls won't have these tags).

[Evil DIMwit]

This could be pretty darn useful for complex maps. I'd definitely use it to set up fortified positions, but I can see several applications. Sounds like a very good way to make maps more interesting without having to squeeze in more territories or bonuses.

[RedBaron0]

Sorry chip... here's my suggestion again.

It's a nice addition... only reservation I have is the fact the number can't go over 6. It's a coding issue I know, but what's the point if you can't get a 7 to override a defenders 6 if the attacker is supposed to be more powerful. I think it defeats the purpose.

That aside, I think it'd be a welcome addition.

And if what you say is true, that you can make up the value. Then if you can put a cap of say 7 as the highest value one can attack with it'd be balanced. So if an attacker runs into a defender with the same upgrade of +1 then the defender still has the advantage in a tie. It'd be like using the cards from Castle Risk, the General gave an attacker +1 to their highest roll and the Marshall gave the defender +1 to their highest roll.

I know this would be new maps, but a perfect kind of example would be Waterloo. Say you hold Napoleon or Wellington, you get a +1 attack advantage. The villages/ houses would have a +1 defensive roll bonus, being a fortified position.

[Little Witt]

this is just like heroscape has anyone played i have spent over 100$ on it and maybe more heroscape is awesome

[yeti_c]

I've a feeling this is in the LOTR risk that that other company make...

Which probably means it's a good idea.

I like the cap to 6.

C.

[nray]

Why force a cap? Make the cap part of the map option. Some places could give +1 cap 6, others could give +1 cap 7... They are different types/levels of reinforcement.

Like, you could have a defensive place (Castle) that has +6 cap 6, then a couple normal areas around (waste to attack from, gauranteed failure -- but technically you can and lose troops!), one or two "weak points" in the wall, where it's +1 cap 7, and then a catapult spot with +3 cap 7.

It doesn't seem like it's worth arguing over which is better, it seems like it's up to the map designer how their map should work.

But this seems like a great idea, and it would be neat to see!

-n

[chipv]

There doesn't have to be a cap at all. I was looking to the mapmakers to say which would be preferable, looks like no cap.

So you can simply have an additional tag (which is optional) which determines the cap.

If the tag isn't there then there is no cap for that territory.

So from the catapult example above, the xml might look like this

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Catapult</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Attack</type>
<bonus>3</bonus>
<cap>7</cap>
</dice>
</territory>

For a very weak defence with no cap

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Easy Target</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Defence</type>
<bonus>-3</bonus>
<cap /> (or no tag)
</dice>
</territory>

[ender516]

There doesn't have to be a cap at all. I was looking to the mapmakers to say which would be preferable, looks like no cap.

So you can simply have an additional tag (which is optional) which determines the cap.

If the tag isn't there then there is no cap for that territory.

So from the catapult example above, the xml might look like this

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Catapult</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Attack</type>
<bonus>3</bonus>
<cap>7</cap>
</dice>
</territory>

For a very weak defence with no cap

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Easy Target</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Defence</type>
<bonus>-3</bonus>
<cap /> (or no tag)
</dice>
</territory>

I'm not sure if it would make any difference in processing, but I would prefer a more compact style, say:

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Poorly Defended Catapult</name>
...
<dice>
    <attack bonus="3" ceiling="7 />
    <defend bonus="-3" floor="-1" /> <!-- Note that I have introduced terminology for a lower bound with regard to negative bonuses. -->
</dice>
</territory>

I just don't see the need for content in these tags that would have to be fixed to a limited set of strings. It seems to me better to limit the actual entity names and attribute names. The only reason for content would be if something were needed to show in the game log (version 2.0?).

And could/should there be a separate bonus for bombardment as opposed to attacks? Some weaponry is more effective at long range than short. (If I decide to lob a nuke, I might use a lower yield if it is landing right next to me.)

What about multiple adjustments which are separately applied to your best die, second-best, and worst? If you attack with fewer than three, apply accordingly. You could do some odd things with that:

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Overloadable Landing Craft</name>
...
<dice>
    <attack bonus1="2"  bonus2="1" bonus3="-1" ceiling="7" floor="0" />
</dice>
</territory>

Of course, this would be more useful if you had the choice to attack with less than 3 troops when you have 3 or more. One could support multiple ceilings and floors as well.

Brainstorm! Perhaps this dice bonus could be applied to continents as well. If holding a continent applies a large negative defending dice bonus to a territory then you have come pretty close to conditional borders, haven't you? You could rig it to guarantee a successful attack at the cost of no troops which lets you walk right through. If the territory was a killer neutral, it could slam shut again, but still be passable next turn if you still held the required continent.

This whole thing would mean lots of rework for the Assault Odds addon.

EDIT: On a sidenote, shouldn't our XML refer to regions, zones and intensity cubes rather than territories, continents, and dice?

[chipv]

Thanks very much for the input, ender516.

There doesn't need to be a distinction for floor/ceiling because it is implicit from the sign of the bonus.

I've got nothing against using attributes in the XML personally. We already have one in use, so agree with the reasoning.

I think the bombardment bonus is a natural progression so long as the bonus is understood to affect all bombard destinations.
(i.e. any attempt to bombard incurs the bonus/penalty)

I don't know about multiple adjustments, I think try and keep this as simple as possible to begin with particlarly with the game engine in mind
as well as mapmakers.

Dice bonus on continents is also a reasonable progression too.

Let's see if any mapmakers are actually interested otherwise there's not much point in progressing with this suggestion.
If this is likely to be used by the experienced mapmakers then maybe it is worth pursuing, I wasn't really sure this was even worth mentioning.

[nippersean]

Surely this has to be a great option for maps / mapmakers if it is possible.
I particularly like the idea for historical (or not) fortresses and strongholds.

e.g Yep the defender wins with any 5 or 6 (if it's the original suggestion) but that's just part of the gameplay that gets tested?

A new twist and a good one? Definitely.
I'm sure there are mapmakers that would love this functionality, and come out with something great.

Cairnswk - Gallipoli?

Keep going Chip

[sully800]

This is an interesting idea, especially since the switch away from dice to "intensity cubes". Dice have 6 sides for a reason, but the intensity cubes could go all the way up to level 9 without causing any sort of problem. It could definitely make for some unique and more complicated gameplay with fortresses or weak zones.

[ender516]

This is an interesting idea, especially since the switch away from dice to "intensity cubes". Dice have 6 sides for a reason, but the intensity cubes could go all the way up to level 9 without causing any sort of problem. It could definitely make for some unique and more complicated gameplay with fortresses or weak zones.

Even 9 doesn't have to be a limit if the attacks continue to show the actual dice rolled, with the adjustments depicted separately. This might be worth doing to preempt further complaints from people about crooked dice. The dice statistics addons could continue to measure and confirm the statistical randomness of the "intensity cubes".

[MeanestBossEver]

I really like this idea...although I'd encourage it to be on a per neighboring territory basis and separate for attack and defense.

Take this hacked together map:

[A]
----------
river
----------
[D][E]

When attacking across the river, you'd suffer from an attacking bonus; but when attacking your neighbor on the same side of the river, there would be no effect.

Also, I'd argue for deciding on either on cap or no cap to keep this from being unnecessarily complex and add one more thing that mapmakers would need to explain.

[chipv]

I don't see why not. You are right, though, the more complex this gets , the worse it will be for mapmakers to convey this to the game player
on the map.

[ender516]

If it is a problem of explaining this feature to game players, I vote for no cap. Isn't it simpler to understand "add one to your die" than "add one to your die but limit the total"? "No cap" also leaves the possibility of creating (with a dice bonus of +6) an irresistable force or (with a dice bonus of -6) an immovable object.

[chipv]

If it is a problem of explaining this feature to game players, I vote for no cap. Isn't it simpler to understand "add one to your die" than "add one to your die but limit the total"? "No cap" also leaves the possibility of creating (with a dice bonus of +6) an irresistable force or (with a dice bonus of -6) an immovable object.

A defence bonus of +6 would only be immovable if the bordering attackers have no attack bonus.

It would be possible to have a +6 defence surrounded by say +3 attackers.

Some thought would be needed because a player holding a +6 defence territory bordered by attackers with no dice bonus
could not be eliminated.

I think for brevity you are right, probably better to have no cap.

[ender516]

If it is a problem of explaining this feature to game players, I vote for no cap. Isn't it simpler to understand "add one to your die" than "add one to your die but limit the total"? "No cap" also leaves the possibility of creating (with a dice bonus of +6) an irresistable force or (with a dice bonus of -6) an immovable object.

A defence bonus of +6 would only be immovable if the bordering attackers have no attack bonus.

It would be possible to have a +6 defence surrounded by say +3 attackers.

Some thought would be needed because a player holding a +6 defence territory bordered by attackers with no dice bonus
could not be eliminated.

I think for brevity you are right, probably better to have no cap.

Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.

Intriguing gameplay trick #1: If you had different bonuses for each die, and the first defence die was normal but the second die was +6, with no attack bonus, you would have to attack on two successive turns to capture the territory.

I am presuming that the attacking and defending dice would be sorted against each other before bonuses were applied. However, that doesn't quite fit with my earlier idea of three different attack die bonuses. Oh, well, we are playing with ideas here, right?

Intriguing gameplay trick #2: If you had different bonuses for each die, and the first attack die was normal but the second die was +6, with no defense bonus, you would have a guaranteed troop loss on the defending side, provided you had enough troops to attack with more than one die, but no guaranteed safety for the attacker.

There are lots of intriguing tricks that could be constructed, but they do depend on how the bonuses are applied: before or after sorting. The question of sorting again after applying the bonuses should also be addressed.

[MeanestBossEver]

Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.

Interestingly, you could have a territory that was invincible on attack but extremely vulnerable on defense. One could even create a loop of rock-paper-scissors territories. It creates some huge new potentials.

[yeti_c]

Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.

Interestingly, you could have a territory that was invincible on attack but extremely vulnerable on defense. One could even create a loop of rock-paper-scissors territories. It creates some huge new potentials.

RPS & Risk - sounds like a winner to me?!

C.

[ender516]

Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.

Interestingly, you could have a territory that was invincible on attack but extremely vulnerable on defense. One could even create a loop of rock-paper-scissors territories. It creates some huge new potentials.

RPS & Risk - sounds like a winner to me?!

C.

Rock-paper-scissors was a key play element in the Gang Crusades of TORONTO map, at least as far as politicians one-way attacking police divisions which one-way attacked gangs which one-way attacked the politicians. Regrettably the map is now in the Recycling Bin of the Map Foundry.

[the1brother]

I was about to post a thread asking about dice bonuses when I found this.

I think it would be a good idea. Though could you have territory that would gives bonuses to some of dice no matter where you are defending/attacking (something like Research & Conquer)?