XML Suggestions and Modifications II

[cairnswk]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy +1 or +2 or whatever is set in the code for these territories.
2. if you fail to keep them at 3 or above, they will revert to neutral (whatever value let's say n3)
3. and you have to assault them again and put 3 or more troops on them again to get the autodeploy to work again.
4. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
5. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

[rdsrds2120]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.
2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

So, could this be expanded into something in the xml that checks/compares troop values?

BMO

[greenoaks]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.
2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

awesome idea.

is this something your idea would allow - if you conquer a territory and don't hold x amount of troops on it for x number of turns, it revolts (turns neutral)

[cairnswk]

...
So, could this be expanded into something in the xml that checks/compares troop values?

BMO

rds...i don't know xml programming, so i cannot say if it has the capability of checking and comparing values because that sort of function would work from if statements.
But if it is possible it would open up all sorts of new gameplay
I just found this link to possible use in this fashion.

[cairnswk]

...
awesome idea.

is this something your idea would allow - if you conquer a territory and don't hold x amount of troops on it for x number of turns, it revolts (turns neutral)

yes greenoaks, your idea would follow from that because the mechanics would allow checking for that x number of turns and x number of troops.

[thenobodies80]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.
2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

I understand what you want and it's interesting, but there are some things to consider:

These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.

You're saying that if a player has less than 3 troops on that region, it turns neutral? Or do you mean it is a decay? In the first case, it looks a modification to the current killer neutrals. We might change neutral tag to allow a second option into the tag, let me say a value="X", where X is the minimum value to not activate the neutral.
Written as code it could be like this:

Code: Select all

<neutral killer="yes" value="3">5</neutral

That region will start with 5 neutral troops and it will revert to 5 again if the troops on it are less than 3. To keep it valid for existent maps we can make that if value is not specified, then the territory is always a killer neutral.
Instead, if you mean that it needs to decay, so have a negative bonus, it can't turn to neutral. Decay has effect only if the number of troops on a region is bigger than 1. If i'm not wrong someone suggested a "decay to neutral" feature.

Then,

1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.

If in the previous part you mean decay, this is not possible, being decay an autodeploy. To make it possible we need to extend the bonus tag into the territory, creating some options, same system used for collections, but for regions.

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>TerrName</name>
...
<bonuses>
<bonus>-1</bonus>
<bonus type="conditional" required="3">2</bonus>
</bonuses>
...
</territory>

In the above example, one bonus is fixed and it is the decay. The other activates only if you have at least 3 troops on the region. the dacay bonus works all time and they sum up so from 3 troops you will receive a total of +1 troops autodeployed.

2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)

Yes, although I don't understand which is the connection with conditional borders. You can always deploy on a region you hold. If you mean to fort, yes you can as long as you hold the condition, that in most of cases it means the whole turn.

3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

This is really interesting, but i fear also tricky to do. It is a part i would leave out from this suggestion for now.

[cairnswk]

Suggestion Idea: Happiness Builders

Description: "Main" territory called Cheyenne has one or two other happiness territories attached to it called Social Club and Saloon.
These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.
1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy +1 or +2 or whatever is set in the code for these territories.
2. if you fail to keep them at 3 or above, they will revert to neutral (whatever value let's say n3) thus disenabling the autodeploy function.
3. and you have to assault them again and put 3 or more troops on them again to get the autodeploy to work again.
4. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)
5. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

Why It Should Be Considered: this is almost now possible in normal gameplay, but having the maintanence facility would add another dimension to gameplay.

I understand what you want and it's interesting, but there are some things to consider:

These resource territories will decay to neutral unless they are maintained at a certain level, let's say 3.

You're saying that if a player has less than 3 troops on that region, it turns neutral?

I have adjusted the initial 3 points to 5 to explain it better.
Yes..

.2. if you fail to keep them at 3 or above, they will revert to neutral (whatever value let's say n3)

Or do you mean it is a decay?

no, it must not be decay otherwise the function does not work in the manner for which it is intended.
although, this could provide another concept for play if the decay function were available.

In the first case, it looks a modification to the current killer neutrals. We might change neutral tag to allow a second option into the tag, let me say a value="X", where X is the minimum value to not activate the neutral.
Written as code it could be like this:

Code: Select all

<neutral killer="yes" value="3">5</neutral

understand, yes that might work, but it need the game engine to recognise the x value.

That region will start with 5 neutral troops and it will revert to 5 again if the troops on it are less than 3.

Ah, that doesn't quite make sense to start with 5n.
you need to it to start with n1 or n2 otherwise is it too difficult to conquer.

To keep it valid for existent maps we can make that if value is not specified, then the territory is always a killer neutral.

understand, but this is what this modification is all about....not kepping the territory as always a killer neutral

Instead, if you mean that it needs to decay, so have a negative bonus, it can't turn to neutral. Decay has effect only if the number of troops on a region is bigger than 1. If i'm not wrong someone suggested a "decay to neutral" feature.

no that's not what i meant to use the decay to neutral, and it was me that suggested the decay to neutral i beleive, although it is so long ago, i'd have to back search.
For interest, decay to neutral would be:

Code: Select all

<neutral decay="yes" value="1">3</neutral>

...but that depends on the having the decay function available in the GE.

Then,

1. if you keep them at 3 or above, they will autodeploy.

If in the previous part you mean decay, this is not possible, being decay an autodeploy.

well it could be possible if the min value was set at say 3, and this is what rds was asking about...

To make it possible we need to extend the bonus tag into the territory, creating some options, same system used for collections, but for regions.

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>TerrName</name>
...
<bonuses>
<bonus>-1</bonus>
<bonus type="conditional" required="3">2</bonus>
</bonuses>
...
</territory>

In the above example, one bonus is fixed and it is the decay. The other activates only if you have at least 3 troops on the region. the dacay bonus works all time and they sum up so from 3 troops you will receive a total of +1 troops autodeployed.

OK.

2. you can add to them with deployment to keep them from falling below 3 as long as you hold them (conditional border which we know have)

Yes, although I don't understand which is the connection with conditional borders. You can always deploy on a region you hold. If you mean to fort, yes you can as long as you hold the condition, that in most of cases it means the whole turn.

well it could be made conditional that you must hold Cheyenne and say Social Club for the function to work.

3. you can fort off them if you hold Cheyenne, but only as much as it will allow you to continue receiving autodeploys from them.

This is really interesting, but i fear also tricky to do. It is a part i would leave out from this suggestion for now.

Well i think that this would be natural gameplay as it stands now.
if you hold two terrs side by side and they share a common border i beleive you can fort off them.

[thenobodies80]

Yes, but not "only as much as it allow you to continue receiving the autodeploys from them."
You can fort as you want, fortification has no lower limits different than 1

[cairnswk]

Yes, but not "only as much as it allow you to continue receiving the autodeploys from them."
You can fort as you want, fortification has no lower limits different than 1

tnb. if the min level was set to 3, and the number on the terr was 5, then you could only fort off it 2.
if you forted more, it would reset to neutral (prob at beginning next turn and no autordeploy would be forth-coming)

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Suggestion Idea: Non-Deployable Territories

Description: Add XML code that would make it so you can't deploy on specified territories.

Why It Should Be Considered: I'm sure this could be used for a number of different ways, but the main one that comes to mind would be to simulate areas such as barracks, forts, etc. where you can train troops would be the only deployable territories on a map and the rest would be marked non-deployable. I think this would give a nice way to better simulate troop movement limitations. I think this option would go great with any trench games.

[dolomite13]

Suggestion Idea: Gameplay Exceptions

Description: Mapmakers able to set territories as exempt from certain types of gameplay. For instance setting certain territories as "no-nukes" would not include them in the cards for nukes games. Or maybe "no-cards" would remove the territory from having a card at all in any game. "no-fog" would allow all players to see the troops on that territory.

Why It Should be Considered: Currently it is hard to create maps with conditional borders if the trigger can be killed by a card ion a nukes game. It would also be useful to be able to display areas of the map to everyone regardless of the fog in a fog of war game,

[dolomite13]

Suggestion Idea: Value Ranges

Description: In the XML you would specify a range rather than a set value for a territory at a specific amount you would write it something like 1-3 and any time that territory was set up at the start of the game or reset from being killer it would roll a dice inside that range.

Why It Should be Considered: This would add greater replay value to maps as it could change the path you take through the map to reach your enemies.

In the example below setting it randomly to a number from 1 to 3. This could be interesting if applied to continent bonuses or autodeploys etc.

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Test</name>
<borders>
<border>Blah</border>
<border>Blek</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
</coordinates>
<neutral>1-3</neutral>
</territory>


[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Suggestion Idea: Minimum troops for bonus

Description: Allow bonuses to be dependent on a minimum number of troops being present on a specific territory by the beginning of the player's turn.

Why It Should be Considered: It would add some interesting new dimensions to gameplay. The reasoning behind this could be something like needing at least 10 troops to maintain order in a given city/area in order to gain money, raise troops, or enslave some population.

[EricPhail]

Suggestion Idea: Minimum troops for bonus

Description: Allow bonuses to be dependent on a minimum number of troops being present on a specific territory by the beginning of the player's turn.

Why It Should be Considered: It would add some interesting new dimensions to gameplay. The reasoning behind this could be something like needing at least 10 troops to maintain order in a given city/area in order to gain money, raise troops, or enslave some population.

For continent type bonuses I'm not sure I like this, but for auto-deploys this is something I could get behind (eg auto-deploy 1 always, 2 if 5 troops on the territory, 3 if 15 on a castle or similar) as it brings more to the strategy on them.

Could also be interesting with decays (effectively a maximum of troops that can be fully supplied there, more and you suffer losses)

[greenoaks]

Suggestion Idea: Minimum troops for bonus

Description: Allow bonuses to be dependent on a minimum number of troops being present on a specific territory by the beginning of the player's turn.

Why It Should be Considered: It would add some interesting new dimensions to gameplay. The reasoning behind this could be something like needing at least 10 troops to maintain order in a given city/area in order to gain money, raise troops, or enslave some population.

For continent type bonuses I'm not sure I like this, but for auto-deploys this is something I could get behind (eg auto-deploy 1 always, 2 if 5 troops on the territory, 3 if 15 on a castle or similar) as it brings more to the strategy on them.

Could also be interesting with decays (effectively a maximum of troops that can be fully supplied there, more and you suffer losses)

the decay one is good. too often Decay is ignored because the troops you have there are huge compared to the -1 for having them there.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Suggestion Idea: Minimum troops for bonus

Description: Allow bonuses to be dependent on a minimum number of troops being present on a specific territory by the beginning of the player's turn.

Why It Should be Considered: It would add some interesting new dimensions to gameplay. The reasoning behind this could be something like needing at least 10 troops to maintain order in a given city/area in order to gain money, raise troops, or enslave some population.

For continent type bonuses I'm not sure I like this, but for auto-deploys this is something I could get behind (eg auto-deploy 1 always, 2 if 5 troops on the territory, 3 if 15 on a castle or similar) as it brings more to the strategy on them.

Could also be interesting with decays (effectively a maximum of troops that can be fully supplied there, more and you suffer losses)

Or for the decay, it could be that you need to have a certain number of troops on a territory or you end up getting decay on the territory. A thematic explanation could be needing to have a certain number of troops to maintain control/order or else the territory begins to rebel.

[EricPhail]

Or for the decay, it could be that you need to have a certain number of troops on a territory or you end up getting decay on the territory. A thematic explanation could be needing to have a certain number of troops to maintain control/order or else the territory begins to rebel.

Perhaps but that just sort of goes back to the current situation (place a large stack or leave just 1), I can see the thematic function but frankly if that were what I was aiming for I'd rather have the territory as a Killer Neutral when below that threshold (if that's even possible).

Actually, I'm going to stop discussing this (minimum troops for bonus) as we all agree it's a good idea and are just arguing on how people could/should use it

Going back to my first point - conditional killer neutrals eg. Its a Killer unless you also hold this other territory.
If you could get it to work with the minimum troops for bonus, it would also be a way to have a territory decay all the way to neutral eg. if 3 or more troops decay 2, if 2 or less, Killer

[dolomite13]

Suggestion Idea: Warlords

Description: This is sort of a combination between a neutral territory that increases (opposite of decay) and the addition of simple AI to the game.

Territories could be marked as "warlord" and would become aggressive if ever reduced to 0 neutral units. They would immediately be granted a number of troops. The units would have black unit numbers (white border) and be marked with the letter (w). These units would be controlled by a fictional extra player (9th player in an 8 player game) and would go last ever turn. On their turn they would increase by a set amount. When the troops reached an amount that was at least 2 times as much as the largest neighboring territory they would auto assault that territory. Moving no more than 3 units into that new territory.

Why It Should be Considered: So that map makers can simulate a constant growing threat from rebels or possibly as a way to curb neutral bombarding to gain cards while avoiding real conflict between players.

I know this would be considerable engine work on top of just xml. But could be fun for map makers and players alike.

=D13=

[dolomite13]

Probably asked for before...

Suggestion Idea: Commanders

Description: If assigned during setup a player could be given a number of commanders that need to be placed with troops (or set up randomly). These would be represented by an asterisk (*) after the unit number in a location. For example c88*. A territory could only ever have one commander in it. When they are in a territory that is conquered they are eliminated. Territories with commanders would roll an additional die on both offense and defense. When assaulting with a commander you would be asked if you want to move the commander when you conquer a territory. Additionally you would be given an opportunity to move commanders during reinforcements following normal rules (one move for regular games, unlimited in unlimited, trench is one space etc...)

Again I know this would be considerable engine work on top of just xml. But could be fun for map makers and players alike.

=D13=

[Aleena]

I have just one thing to suggest:

Suggestion Idea: If... Then statements

Description: Allow everything in the xml to be placed in an if...then statement: territories, borders, victory conditions, bonuses, autodeploys, etc.

Why It Should Be Considered: Anything can be done with if..then statements.

Sorry about writing so little. My 'e' key is broken, so I am having to use copy and paste, which is very tedious. But I think most people can figure out for themselves what can be done with them... conditional borders and autodeploys were two that were already mentioned.

As a fellow Basic Coder - If then would be a huge improvement to coding - especially if nested If then statements would work...

[Aleena]

Probably asked for before...

Suggestion Idea: Commanders

Description: If assigned during setup a player could be given a number of commanders that need to be placed with troops (or set up randomly). These would be represented by an asterisk (*) after the unit number in a location. For example c88*. A territory could only ever have one commander in it. When they are in a territory that is conquered they are eliminated. Territories with commanders would roll an additional die on both offense and defense. When assaulting with a commander you would be asked if you want to move the commander when you conquer a territory. Additionally you would be given an opportunity to move commanders during reinforcements following normal rules (one move for regular games, unlimited in unlimited, trench is one space etc...)

Again I know this would be considerable engine work on top of just xml. But could be fun for map makers and players alike.

=D13=

Like this idea of commander...
But the bonus the commander would give should be also assigned...
Bonus 1 option: Add 1 Die to defensive rolls only
Bonus 2 option Add 1 Die to attacking rolls only
Bonus 3 option Add 1 Die to both attacking and defending (as stated in original idea)
Bonus 4 option Add "X" value to defending die roll (Add a preset value instead of a roll from 1 to 6)
Bonus 5 option Add "X" value to attacking die roll (Add a preset value instead of a roll from 1 to 6)
Bonus 6 option Add "X" value to both
Bonus 7 option Autodeploy "X" units on commander (a mobile autodeploy - might be good for Zombie game, or see as commander recruiting)
Bonus 8 option All units with commander in Fog (A clocked commander) maybe good for espionage maps where a player could have a spy that can move around not showing his strength or his loyalty.. So when attacking players do not know which player just attacked them.
Bonus 9 Commander For with hidden Trail (Same as above, except, when commander leaves a space - it turns to Neutral 1 behind them, to lot leave evidence of what player/nation controls it)
Bonus10 Ranged Commander - Allows what ever space it is in to be able to bombard a location 2 spaces away from what ever space it is currently on. So the commander can melee attack the adjacent space, or bombard the space beyond the adjacent space.

Just a few ideas...

[Aleena]

Probably asked for before...

Suggestion Idea: Commanders

Description: If assigned during setup a player could be given a number of commanders that need to be placed with troops (or set up randomly). These would be represented by an asterisk (*) after the unit number in a location. For example c88*. A territory could only ever have one commander in it. When they are in a territory that is conquered they are eliminated. Territories with commanders would roll an additional die on both offense and defense. When assaulting with a commander you would be asked if you want to move the commander when you conquer a territory. Additionally you would be given an opportunity to move commanders during reinforcements following normal rules (one move for regular games, unlimited in unlimited, trench is one space etc...)

Again I know this would be considerable engine work on top of just xml. But could be fun for map makers and players alike.

=D13=

Like this idea of commander...
But the bonus the commander would give should be also assigned...
Bonus 1 option: Add 1 Die to defensive rolls only
Bonus 2 option Add 1 Die to attacking rolls only
Bonus 3 option Add 1 Die to both attacking and defending (as stated in original idea)
Bonus 4 option Add "X" value to defending die roll (Add a preset value instead of a roll from 1 to 6)
Bonus 5 option Add "X" value to attacking die roll (Add a preset value instead of a roll from 1 to 6)
Bonus 6 option Add "X" value to both
Bonus 7 option Autodeploy "X" units on commander (a mobile autodeploy - might be good for Zombie game, or see as commander recruiting)
Bonus 8 option All units with commander in Fog (A clocked commander) maybe good for espionage maps where a player could have a spy that can move around not showing his strength or his loyalty.. So when attacking players do not know which player just attacked them.
Bonus 9 Commander For with hidden Trail (Same as above, except, when commander leaves a space - it turns to Neutral 1 behind them, to lot leave evidence of what player/nation controls it)
Bonus10 Ranged Commander - Allows what ever space it is in to be able to bombard a location 2 spaces away from what ever space it is currently on. So the commander can melee attack the adjacent space, or bombard the space beyond the adjacent space.

Just a few ideas...

I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.

Seconded!

Thirded

but what about this....

Suggestion Idea: Different Sided Dice

Description:
Allow different types of dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20) for different territories or maps

Game engine just randomizes based on the type od die used.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Territory types and locations can be given more or less bonus but higher die values.
GP tweaks can be made with dice and with bonus structures

Examples:
-Now a tank (d8) will be more powerful than a soldier (d6).
-A mountain fortress receives very little bonus (bad strategic location for new troops to get to)
but get d10 dice due to the very good strategic location.

d6 vs d6 [1-6 vs 1-6] even
d6+3 vs d6 [4-9 vs 1-6] not fair not even
d8 vs d6 [ 1-8 vs 1-6] uneven but fair

With both of these ideas - we can make Commander's TAG as an designer's option as well and create multi-type units on a board...

Example:
Commander1
BonusType10 - Ranged Attack Optiom
Tag="A"
Die = 1d4 + 2

This will display on screen as " 88A" instead of 88* because the Tag "A" was assigned to it...
So this stack of units - could be known as Archers while another commander on the same game could be

Commander2
BonusType2 - Bonus Die for attack only
Tag="S"
Die = 1d8

This commander stack can not bombard, but is a little stronger and could be known as a Swordsmen

So combining these two suggestions and adding a one letter Tag next to the unit Qty will allow us to have a verity of different type of units and abilities...

Though it would also be cool to give them the option to have a set trailling unit count...
So maybe you can say each of these examples have a 1 unit trailling count - which means (The unit can not attack or move unless has 2 or more units on it and) as the stack moves - it can only leave a max of 1 (non-commander) unit in the previous space it was just in - which would decay that one from the stack of unit's that are held with the commander.



Sorry for all the posts - first time I saw this thread...

[DearCyrus]

Lol. Sounds alot like the use of commanders in my variation, aleena...

[Aleena]

oh, sorry if i stated something all ready done....

[DearCyrus]

No, no... That link I posted the other day. It is still new here as far as I know.