XML Modifications and Variations

[yeti_c]

but then high school and collage will get in the way.

That's what they try to teach you all the time it takes you to get there, and then you just discover you slack off even more.

Defs...

C.

[lanyards]

but then high school and collage will get in the way.

That's what they try to teach you all the time it takes you to get there, and then you just discover you slack off even more.

My motto:

Conquerclub before school.

[DiM]

@12 years old:

My motto:

Conquerclub before school.

@32 years old:

My motto:

they no longer make cardrdboard boxes as they used to. this one is very drafty

[lackattack]

How does it fit in the XML?

<neutral respawn="true">5</neutral>

Something like that

=========================================

As for starting positions, If you don't need grouping (e.g. player 1 starts with continent A) I agree, the <start>3</start> seems like the way to go. If there are 8 <start> tags and 3 players, I suppose it should give out 2 starts per player and 2 starts as neutral, then go through the remaining normal territories? What if there are more players than starts? Should all the starts be neutral then?

Would you guys like to see this as the 4th item or something else?

[gimil]

I am totally lost,

i was hopeing for group starting terrs but i thought it would be something simple like this:

Code: Select all

<player start>
  <components>
    <component>Feudal Empire Castle</component>
    <component>Feudal Emirpe 1</component>
  <Components>
</player start>

<player start>
  <components>
    <component>Rebel Territory Castle</component>
    <component>Rebel territory 1</component>
  <Components>
</player start>


At the start of a game te game engine asigns each palyer randomly one of the player starts zones and the rest would be neutral.

all remaining terrs are distriubted as normal unless they have a neutral tag.

[Balsiefen]

I'm afraid my browser didn't show any new posts in this thread so i'm rather late with a reply.

Kingdoms Care to provide an example of how this xml would work, because I can't picture it. [No] (or [Maybe] if we can spec it out).

Kingdom Missions Objectives exist and should do the trick [No]

Kingdoms: take a look at my and tel's Medieval Europe map. What i want is for each player sto start off with one kingdom each at random and nothing else. That way, they can then expand their own kingdom, starting off from a single point. Basicly, its like age of might but the player starts off with four connecting territories instead of only one. Elijah S has suggested the same thing, which he needs for his maps as well

As for xml, i'm a little inexperianced in how this works having only done it once but it should work a bit like continents

Code: Select all

   <starting kingdom>
      <name>England</name>
      <components>
         <component>Wessex</component>
         <component>Northumbria</component>
         <component>Mercia</component>
         <component>Normandy</component>
      </components>
   </starting kingdom>
   <starting kingdom>
      <name>The Republic of Venice</name>
      <components>
         <component>Venice</component>
         <component>Croatia</component>
         <component>Crete</component>
         <component>Cyprus</component>
      </components>
   </starting kingdom>

I'm not sure how you keep players from starting with more than one kingdom but it should be the same way you stop players having more than one castle in 2 plaayer age of might.

Kingdom Missions: this is not nearly as important as i can just have a general objective but i was hoping to have a unique objective for each kingdom [and therefore each player in the game] (for instance, the Holy Roman Empires might be to hold Germany, Genoa and Scandinavia while the objective for The Byzantine Empire may be to hold the Byzantine lands, the venetian republic and The turkish lands.

Both of these ideas have met a large amount of support in my map thread and i feel they could revolutionise gameplay for a new type of map.

[Coleman]

If we get out of your terminology isn't this the same as set starting positions?

[Balsiefen]

If we get out of your terminology isn't this the same as set starting positions?

Oh dear, is it already up? it sounds the same. I looked in the xml tutorial but it wasn't there.

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: One-time Bonus

Description: you receive a one time bonus when you conquer a terit. after that the terit gives no other bonus regardless if somebody else takes the terit.

One-time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

there is demand. i demand it it would add a whole different level of strategy.

Suggestion Idea: Converting Territories

Description: a territory can be converted to another player if certain conditions are met. let's say we have a green territory surrounded by blue. if blue's troops are ten times stronger the green teritory becomes blue with just one army

Converting Territories Surround = conquer is very non risk-like. Not sure if it should be a game option, at the map level or at the territ level. I'd say [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

it should be a xml option free for everybody to use just like bombardments and stuff. i'm sure it will be very popular as it will totally eliminate the dice factor. i have a map based on this concept. please allow it.

Suggestion Idea: Variable Attack Range

Description: we have ranged attacks but those are predefined ranged attacks and can only be applied to set territories. i want those attacks to be variable. so you have a catapult in territory A and it can attack at a certain range (let's say 3 territories in any direction) but in time that catapult becomes a cannon and thus it should be able to attack at a longer range.
or perhaps you get a certain territory that while it is held it provides a boost in catapult range and if you lose it you return to normal range.

Variable Attack Range This is actually 2 ideas. Since you can mimic attack range by listing a bunch of bombardments, this isn't priority. The variable part is just a subset of the dynamic xml idea. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

please please allow it. yes it's part of the dynamic xml. put that in.

Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

NOT ANSWERED

Suggestion Idea: Win condition - number of armies

Description: can a specific number of armies be added as a wining condition? let's say you must have terit x & y but also have 100 armies in those terits.

Win condition - number of armies [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand)

it would be nice

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Description: some terits are not attackable but more players can move into the same terit.
let's say we have terit A -> B <- C
with the arrows being one way moving. not attacking just moving. green is in terit A and he moves his troops to B. he selects attack but no dice are rolled he just moves. then red has terit C and also moves into terit B. now both red and green have their armies in the same terit. it's multiple ownership. since the teit is move only there's not the problem of someone attacking it to see who defends and such

NOT ANSWERED

Suggestion Idea: Random assigned xml features

Description: let's say i have a map where some terits give bonuses. i want those terits to be random every time a new game starts

Random assigned xml features This doesn't seem to be worth the cost. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

man you put the demand thing on everything
what do you consider enough demand?

Suggestion Idea: Motion detectors

Description: i want triggers in the xml for certain actions done by the players. let's say a players moves from terita A to B. if he moves 10 troops it's ok but if he moves 100 troops a motion detector is triggered and a xml feature is applied (like an impassable border or decay or something)

Motion detectors Forting / advancing could be a trigger for dynamic xml. [Maybe]

i want dynamic xml

Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour

Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered
so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:

Code: Select all

if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral)
if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral)
......


Starting positions by color The order of joining the game should not affect gameplay. Do we really need starting positions considering we already have DiM's technique? [No]

nope. this one is great for team games but also for singles. imagine playing the civil war map on quad teams. you could put one team in north and 1 in south. or the battle for australia, same thing.

at this moment what i do in aor has no influence from the color. i can't choose where a certain team will start. i can simply put people in a signle terit. with this new feature it would be possible to have all the map available with no neutrals and each color gets it's own starting positions. each player will get several terits.

[yeti_c]

OK then - it looks like at least 3 people want the complex version of starting positions similar tooo

Code: Select all

<position>
  <components>
    <component>A</component>
  </components>
</position>


So Lack - is that OK with you?

Carto's... you will need to be very careful about the usage of this... perhaps we (foundry) need to discuss balance of starting locations and a possible formula to determine it?

C.

[yeti_c]

i think this is a 6months old quote and i still didn't get an answer

Yes you did...

C.

I caught up on the suggestions because it's time for another round of xml extensions. I want to keep this batch smallish to stay on target for a January forum upgrade. Here is my feedback on the new suggestions:

Note: Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

EDIT: nothing is set in stone, please feel free to debate my decision tags

Converting Territories Surround = conquer is very non risk-like. Not sure if it should be a game option, at the map level or at the territ level. I'd say [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Variable Attack Range This is actually 2 ideas. Since you can mimic attack range by listing a bunch of bombardments, this isn't priority. The variable part is just a subset of the dynamic xml idea. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

One-time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Multiple X/Y coordinates even though I don't understand it, [No]

Win condition - number of armies [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand)

Random assigned xml features This doesn't seem to be worth the cost. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Motion detectors Forting / advancing could be a trigger for dynamic xml. [Maybe]

Starting positions by color The order of joining the game should not affect gameplay. Do we really need starting positions considering we already have DiM's technique? [No]


Territory Hold Time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

SENTRY TERRITORIES

Code: Select all

<visibles>
  <visible>territory</visible>
</visibles>

Cool idea but quite a bit of work when you can have something similar using borders or bombardments. [Maybe]

Continent Bonus Applied to a Territory [Maybe]

Preferred Neutrals Not fun to program [No]

So in summary, I'd like to go ahead with the 3 "yes" items listed above. I might be able to include a 4th, which would be from the maybes here or the yeses/maybes from the previous batch that didn't make it.

[DiM]

Yes you did...

C.

oops missed that with all the mumbo jumbo technical stuff you guys wrote.

edit// actually not all my requests were answered. i'll edit post above

[lackattack]

So it looks like starting positions is a [Yes]

You can specify a group this way:

Code: Select all

<position>
  <components>
    <component start="6">A</component>
  </components>
</position>

game initialization would work like this:
1. if players > positions, positions are ignored. otherwise, positions are divided amongst players, any remaining positions are neutral. starting armies for each position compenent is 3 by default.
2. neutral territories are made neutral.
3. remaining non-position and non-neutral territs are are assigned as usual.


@Balsiefen

I think starting positions would suffice for kingdoms. As for "kingdom missions" i.e. different objectives per player, that would be tougher to code because I'd have to keep track of which mission belongs to which player. With starting positions I can randomly assign them during initialization and forget about it which is easier. You might get a similar effect to "kingdom missions" with Assassin gametype.

@DiM:

Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

NOT ANSWERED

I made a blanket statement about dynamic xml in my post:

Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Description: some terits are not attackable but more players can move into the same terit.
let's say we have terit A -> B <- C
with the arrows being one way moving. not attacking just moving. green is in terit A and he moves his troops to B. he selects attack but no dice are rolled he just moves. then red has terit C and also moves into terit B. now both red and green have their armies in the same terit. it's multiple ownership. since the teit is move only there's not the problem of someone attacking it to see who defends and such

NOT ANSWERED

This would be the biggest pain to code. The assumption of 1 player per territory is all over the game engine code. [No]

[DiM]

@DiM:

Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

NOT ANSWERED

I made a blanket statement about dynamic xml in my post:

Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

and by this you mean it's a no or a maybe? will it at least be possible in the future. please tell me it will.

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Description: some terits are not attackable but more players can move into the same terit.
let's say we have terit A -> B <- C
with the arrows being one way moving. not attacking just moving. green is in terit A and he moves his troops to B. he selects attack but no dice are rolled he just moves. then red has terit C and also moves into terit B. now both red and green have their armies in the same terit. it's multiple ownership. since the teit is move only there's not the problem of someone attacking it to see who defends and such

NOT ANSWERED

This would be the biggest pain to code. The assumption of 1 player per territory is all over the game engine code. [No]

not even in the distant future?
i understand that it is hard to code but i have some really really really cool ideas about this.


btw thanks for answering even if i got mostly no's

[lackattack]

Anything about dynamic xml (trigger events and xml parts that can change) is [Maybe]

[DiM]

Anything about dynamic xml (trigger events and xml parts that can change) is [Maybe]

there is still HOPE

[fireedud]

Dim, can't you get around mult. ownership by doing this:

Code: Select all

<territory>x</territory>
       <borders>
            <territory>y</territory>
            <territory>z</territory>
       </borders>
       <coordinates>

<Territory>a</territory>
        <borders>
             <Territory>y</territory>
             <territory>z</territory>
        </borders>
        <coordinates>


[DiM]

Dim, can't you get around mult. ownership by doing this:

Code: Select all

<territory>x</territory>
       <borders>
            <territory>y</territory>
            <territory>z</territory>
       </borders>
       <coordinates>

<Territory>a</territory>
        <borders>
             <Territory>y</territory>
             <territory>z</territory>
        </borders>
        <coordinates>


nope sorry. i need 1 terit with multiple ownership not 2 separate terits. because the multiownership also acts like a safety zone.

[Coleman]

Anything about dynamic xml (trigger events and xml parts that can change) is [Maybe]

there is still HOPE

turning bombardments or auto-deploys / decays on and off for other territories from a territory that isn't them would be swell. But I can live without it.

[lanyards]

Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

Description:
If a player were to take a certain territory or a certain group of territories, then they would get a bonus and be able to deploy however many extra armies it was worth right after they take the territory or territories and then continue attacking and finish their turn.

The XML might look something like this:

Code: Select all

.....
   <continent>
      <name>Africa</name>
      <bonus>3</bonus>
      <components>
         <component>North Africa</component>
         <component>Egypt</component>
         <component>East Africa</component>
         <component>Congo</component>
         <component>South Africa</component>
         <component>Madagascar</component>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <reinforcement continent>
      <name>South America</name>
      <bonus>2</bonus>
      <components>
         <component>Venezuela</component>
         <component>Peru</component>
         <component>Argentina</component>
         <component>Brazil</component>
      </components>
   </reinforcement continent>
   
   <reinforcement continent>
      <name>Oceania</name>
      <bonus>2</bonus>
      <components>
         <component>Indonesia</component>
         <component>New Guinea</component>
         <component>Western Australia</component>
         <component>Eastern Australia</component>
      </components>
   </reinforcement continent>
.....

And the game log could look like this:

lanyards receives 3 armies for 6 territories
lanyards deployed 3 armies on Peru
lanyards attacked Argentina from Peru and conquered it from pepperonibread
lanyards attacked Brazil from Peru and conquered it from oaktown
lanyards receives 2 armies for controlling South America
lanyards deployed 2 armies on Brazil
lanyards attacked North Africa from Brazil and conquered it from pepperonibread
lanyards fortified North Africa with 4 armies from Venezuela
lanyards gets a card

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

Anything about dynamic xml (trigger events and xml parts that can change) is [Maybe]

there is still HOPE

turning bombardments or auto-deploys / decays on and off for other territories from a territory that isn't them would be swell. But I can live without it.

it would be wonderfull. imagine having to own the amo depot to be able to use the bunkers in d-day.

[lanyards]

Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

Description:
If a player were to take a certain territory or a certain group of territories, then they would get a bonus and be able to deploy however many extra armies it was worth right after they take the territory or territories and then continue attacking and finish their turn.

The XML might look something like this:

Code: Select all

.....
   <continent>
      <name>Africa</name>
      <bonus>3</bonus>
      <components>
         <component>North Africa</component>
         <component>Egypt</component>
         <component>East Africa</component>
         <component>Congo</component>
         <component>South Africa</component>
         <component>Madagascar</component>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <reinforcement continent>
      <name>South America</name>
      <bonus>2</bonus>
      <components>
         <component>Venezuela</component>
         <component>Peru</component>
         <component>Argentina</component>
         <component>Brazil</component>
      </components>
   </reinforcement continent>
   
   <reinforcement continent>
      <name>Oceania</name>
      <bonus>2</bonus>
      <components>
         <component>Indonesia</component>
         <component>New Guinea</component>
         <component>Western Australia</component>
         <component>Eastern Australia</component>
      </components>
   </reinforcement continent>
.....

And the game log could look like this:

lanyards receives 3 armies for 6 territories
lanyards deployed 3 armies on Peru
lanyards attacked Argentina from Peru and conquered it from pepperonibread
lanyards attacked Brazil from Peru and conquered it from oaktown
lanyards receives 2 armies for controlling South America
lanyards deployed 2 armies on Brazil
lanyards attacked North Africa from Brazil and conquered it from pepperonibread
lanyards fortified North Africa with 4 armies from Venezuela
lanyards gets a card

Lack Label (Mod Use):


--lanyards

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

i think you're talking about the one time bonus i requested. check previous page.

lack said it's a maybe if more people ask for it.

[pepperonibread]

Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

i think you're talking about the one time bonus i requested. check previous page.

lack said it's a maybe if more people ask for it.

I think it's a little different. With lanyard's idea, you would get the bonus immediately after getting the last territory needed, like when you eliminate a player and get to cash in. Then, I'd assume you'd keep getting the bonus as normal every turn until you lost it.

[lanyards]

Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

i think you're talking about the one time bonus i requested. check previous page.

lack said it's a maybe if more people ask for it.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. On mine, it is basically if you get conrol of a continent mid-turn, then get the bonus mid-turn. If you hold the continent and start with it next turn, then you get the regular bonus for holding it and no reinforcements unless someone else takes a territory from the continent and you take it back. Then you get to deploy the reinforcements when you get the territory back. Is this understandable?

--lanyards