XML Modifications and Variations

[benjikat]

On further reflection, it is probably too complicated for it's benefits as it would require at least two new terms in the XML.

I thought for example that it could be used to simply code a complex disincentive along the lines of say Mind etc - but that can be done anyway now.

Also I think that for maps like San Francisco where any of the groupings: Oakland or Oakland/Contra Costa or Oakland/Contra Costa/Marin only have 3 borders, there could instead be a lower bonus when you have all 3. This could open up some design space for the new generation directed gameplay maps that we are sure to see more of with the more complex XML.

There seems to be a sense on this site that once you have over 50% of the armies in a relatively stable board state that it is hard to lose. I'd like the board itself to be able to bite the leader, rather than forcing the other X players to temp truce. I know that with better players it could lead to stagnant board positions and that some players may think it's not fun, which is why it would have to be carefully tested.

BTW in the above example re San Fran - I think it would have the effect I desire if each continent after the first is worth one less than normal.

Again just a thought for the future, but when I come up with a map suggesting it I'm expecting a tough time in the foundry

[Evil DIMwit]

Army Grant Formula - Not too big on this because it messes with basic gameplay instructions. How badly do we really want it?

Now that I come to think of it, anything useful that might come of this can probably be done with the new collections feature, so not really.

I'll try not to mess with the basic formula too much

[Telvannia]

Suggestion Idea:
Being able to fight of large territories using lots of smaller ones.

Description:
In a game being able to attack one territory and to conquor it you would have to take all the smaller ones with in it. For example on the world map when you attacked Britain you would have to win a fight on the British map in order to control it.
Why It Should Be Considered: It has the potential to create more interesting/reaslistic maps and new gameplay options.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[yeti_c]

Army Grant Formula - Not too big on this because it messes with basic gameplay instructions. How badly do we really want it?

Now that I come to think of it, anything useful that might come of this can probably be done with the new collections feature, so not really.

I'll try not to mess with the basic formula too much

Now that X of Y is in the game of course you could add that into your continents and decrease the amount of armies people get for holding territories...

IN fact you could create a map where you didn't get any reinforcements each turn... if you really wanted - of course this wouldn't get through the foundry process!!

C.

[Wisse]

Suggestion Idea:
Being able to fight of large territories using lots of smaller ones.

Description:
In a game being able to attack one territory and to conquor it you would have to take all the smaller ones with in it. For example on the world map when you attacked Britain you would have to win a fight on the British map in order to control it.
Why It Should Be Considered: It has the potential to create more interesting/reaslistic maps and new gameplay options.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

this isn't a xml feature but a game play feature

[fluffybunnykins]

maybe this has been suggested already, but... (I did read up to p8!)
Add on to the 'Final Objective' idea...
Objective must be held for a set number of turns
eg:

Code: Select all

<continent>
...
</continent>
<objective>
  <name>West Coast</name>
  <turns>3</turns>
  <components>
     <component>Burkina Faso</component>
     <component>Benin</component>
     <component>Ghana</component>
     <component>Liberia</component>
     <component>Guinea</component>
     <component>Senegal</component>
     <component>Mauritania</component>
     <component>Western Sahara</component>
     <component>Morocco</component>
  </components>
</objective>
<country>
...
</country>

0 would mean you win the game on conquering the territory(ies)
1 means you win if you still hold the objective by the time your next turn comes round... etc.
Why? it would make the new idea more flexible and make for some exciting 'do or die' episodes near the end of the game.
Lack label:

[yeti_c]

maybe this has been suggested already, but... (I did read up to p8!)
Add on to the 'Final Objective' idea...
Objective must be held for a set number of turns
eg:

Code: Select all

<continent>
...
</continent>
<objective>
  <name>West Coast</name>
  <turns>3</turns>
  <components>
     <component>Burkina Faso</component>
     <component>Benin</component>
     <component>Ghana</component>
     <component>Liberia</component>
     <component>Guinea</component>
     <component>Senegal</component>
     <component>Mauritania</component>
     <component>Western Sahara</component>
     <component>Morocco</component>
  </components>
</objective>
<country>
...
</country>

0 would mean you win the game on conquering the territory(ies)
1 means you win if you still hold the objective by the time your next turn comes round... etc.
Why? it would make the new idea more flexible and make for some exciting 'do or die' episodes near the end of the game.
Lack label:

I like it.

C.

[AndyDufresne]

I like it also, if it is doable! It helps eliminate the fluke wins!


--Andy

[benjikat]

Unless it's just implemented so that you have to start your turn in control of those objectives - that may be the simplest answer.

[Wisse]

Suggestion Idea: Starting Neutral Territories shuffle

Description: Have a few countries that could have a neutral bonus on the start, but you don't want all, just one or two


Why It Should Be Considered: It would be great for some continents that you don't want let someone have at the start
(i don't mean you would use it on everycontinent)

Lable for lack:

pls lack i need this for my map:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 232#436232

[unriggable]

Idea: Priority Countries

Some countries count as being 2, 3, maybe more territories when it comes to adding up how many territories a person has. This causes people to capture specific territories not because of their overall place on the map or whether or not they belong to a continent but rather because they can make a small bundle of countries get a lot of points. Maybe this could help advance maps that do not use continents.

Mod Use? [No]

[KoolfuZ]

Darn, wish I'd seen this thread sooner...

Suggestion Idea: Chain Bonuses

Description: Bonus for connecting territory X with territory Y (i.e. do a check to see if a chained fortification from X to Y is possible). More generally, bonus for connecting N number of territories from set X with M number of territories from set Y.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would be useful for DiM's Age of Merchants map (if I understand correctly); I also have an idea for a map that would require this (post to come later).

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

[Coleman]

I have a solution for non-deployable territories. When that is all you have left you lose. Period.

Okay, with some conditions:
Team Games Make sure that if you can still deploy for allies you don't lose.
Terminator Make it like running out of turns, you are still there to kill for points
Assassin Just like Terminator, or their assassin could just instantly win.

This might be really hard to code, I'm not sure. But there are some good maps in the works that depend on non-deployable territories, and I think it is worth it.

[Maybe]

[lackattack]

maybe this has been suggested already, but... (I did read up to p8!)
Add on to the 'Final Objective' idea...
Objective must be held for a set number of turns
eg:

Code: Select all

<continent>
...
</continent>
<objective>
  <name>West Coast</name>
  <turns>3</turns>
  <components>
     <component>Burkina Faso</component>
     <component>Benin</component>
     <component>Ghana</component>
     <component>Liberia</component>
     <component>Guinea</component>
     <component>Senegal</component>
     <component>Mauritania</component>
     <component>Western Sahara</component>
     <component>Morocco</component>
  </components>
</objective>
<country>
...
</country>

0 would mean you win the game on conquering the territory(ies)
1 means you win if you still hold the objective by the time your next turn comes round... etc.
Why? it would make the new idea more flexible and make for some exciting 'do or die' episodes near the end of the game.
Lack label:

Okay, I did like this at first but now that I'm programming it I realize that keeping track of the turns gets a bit messy especially with multiple objectives.

Instead I'm thinking of making it always 1 turn (i.e. you have to hold the objective) and finding another way to avoid fluke wins.

Ideas I came up with:
[*] re-initializing the game if someone starts off with an objective
[*] objectives are ignored in round 1

I'm leaning towards the second idea but I thought I'd ask the foundry for some feedback, so please provide if you have any

[DiM]

i vote for this one:

[*] re-initializing the game if someone starts off with an objective

ignoring it in round one is not enough. somebody might start with an objective completed and he might have a good position to defend well and keep it even in round 2.

[dominationnation]

why not have all objectives automaticly neutral

[lackattack]

why not have all objectives automaticly neutral

not good. what if an objective is to hold 3 "normal" continents? let's keep objectives flexible.

i think what i might do is try to avoid dealing out an objective, "re-shuffling" up to say 10 times if necessary. that should drastically reduce fluke wins and avoid any potential infinite loops.

[yeti_c]

why not have all objectives automaticly neutral

not good. what if an objective is to hold 3 "normal" continents? let's keep objectives flexible.

i think what i might do is try to avoid dealing out an objective, "re-shuffling" up to say 10 times if necessary. that should drastically reduce fluke wins and avoid any potential infinite loops.

I'd go for re-init.

OK agree about having to hold the objective to win... I know the GM scripts (BOB) will probs do this - but also perhaps a message saying "Objective almost won" or "Objective held by Red" or "Objective held by player name" or something if someone has it (in this example the red player!!?!?

C.

[lackattack]

Nice idea yeti, but I might leave that to the GM scripts to save time as I need to get this in quickly.

I was just testing objectives on the test site and I realized that I've programmed it to end the game with no points on terminator games.

What should happen when you reach a map objective in a Terminator or Assassin game? Full points or no points???

[yeti_c]

Nice idea yeti, but I might leave that to the GM scripts to save time as I need to get this in quickly.

I was just testing objectives on the test site and I realized that I've programmed it to end the game with no points on terminator games.

What should happen when you reach a map objective in a Terminator or Assassin game? Full points or no points???

How about nothing - it doesn't end the game at all...

It's null and void for Termy and Assassin.

Out of curiousity... for Team - is it team held objective or single player?

C.

[lackattack]

Here's the latest on XML extension:

Ranged attacks
They are going to be called "bombardments". The dice will function as normal but there is no advancing or fortifying.

Code: Select all

<country>
   <name>Yellow King</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Y2</border>
   </borders>
   <bombardments>
      <bombardment>Red King</bombardment>
   </bombardments>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>184</smallx>
      <smally>283</smally>
      <largex>219</largex>
      <largey>332</largey>
   </coordinates>
</country>

2007-05-22 09:04:01 - lackattack bombarded Red King from Yellow King and annihilated BeerMeNow's armies

Final Objectives
The game will re-initialize if someone is dealt an objective (up to 50x which should never happen ) In team games an individual player must hold the entire objective, just like a continent. Holding an objective in Assassin gives full points. I propose this for Terminator: Holding the objective ends the game and gives you points for all non-terminated and non-deadbeat opponents. Comments?

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

Overruling continent bonus
Instead of a <bestof> tag how about a set of <overrule>s, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
   <overrules>
      <overrule>Any 2 Kings</overrule>
      <overrule>Any 3 Kings</overrule>
   </overrules>
</continent>

Comments?

Last-Minute Proposals
I appreciate the ideas, but it's too late. I have to wrap up my short list so that I can get the next update done before I leave town again. We'll do this exercise again in a few months and I'll re-consider all the ideas that didn't make it in.

Suggestion Idea: Starting Neutral Territories shuffle

Wisse, you'll have to chance someone starting off with the continent.

I have a solution for non-deployable territories. When that is all you have left you lose. Period.

Interesting, but it will have to wait for next time...

[yeti_c]

<required> and <overrules>

Are a brilliant idea... That will be perfect and work well...

So basically if you have 4 kings - you just don't get any bonus from 3 or 2.

Yeah that works - and sounds pretty easy for you... means you can label each continent up differently easily...

I have a solution for non-deployable territories. When that is all you have left you lose. Period.

Interesting, but it will have to wait for next time...

Yeah I agree with this - if you can't deploy - you're dead... works for me.

Can't wait for that to come around...

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

It's not clear to me in what way this is more flexible than the current collection system. It seems to me like more of a hassle to put every bonus separately.

[yeti_c]

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

It's not clear to me in what way this is more flexible than the current collection system. It seems to me like more of a hassle to put every bonus separately.

It has to be taken into consideration with the <overrules> bit as well I reckon.

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Any 4 Kings</name>
   <bonus>5</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>Red King</component>
      <component>Green King</component>
      <component>Blue King</component>
      <component>Purple King</component>
      <component>Yellow King</component>
   </components>
   <required>4</required>
</continent>

This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

It's not clear to me in what way this is more flexible than the current collection system. It seems to me like more of a hassle to put every bonus separately.

It has to be taken into consideration with the <overrules> bit as well I reckon.

C.

I am, but I still can't see what requires/overrules can do that collections can't do more easily (especially if collections are allowed to overrule other things as well).

Come to think of it, a regular continent seems to me just a collection with a single bonus level for as many items as are in the collection, the difference being that that a collection can give bonuses for part of its members and a continent can't.

Unless I completely misunderstand how collections work.