Clandemonium [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

[ManBungalow]

I meant to post these a while back...

Click image to enlarge.

Obviously I havn't finished yet, but when I sort the coordinates out it'll be ready to go.

[Chariot of Fire]

My post about portal proximity to THOTA & LoW Homelands didn't raise any eyebrows then?

[Blitzaholic]

My post about portal proximity to THOTA & LoW Homelands didn't raise any eyebrows then?

There was some discussion about this and a couple other places, where there may be neutrals of 3 on a few lands, while the rest would remain at 2 for some balance. I am not sure what we finalized, I would need to chat with Kab.

[Kabanellas]

There was some discussion about this and a couple other places, where there may be neutrals of 3 on a few lands, while the rest would remain at 2 for some balance. I am not sure what we finalized, I would need to chat with Kab.

The neutral troops chart (posted below to keep those numbers in context) covers a different aspect than the one Chariot is talking about, I think.

Blitz never intended for this map to be symmetrical, which is great to me. On that perspective you can find that some starting points will not be exactly like others.

This is nothing new here in CC anyway; you can find it in a largely accentuated form in the New World map and its starting positions; or in Feudal War (or Epic) where Castles don’t distance equally from each other or from villages; or even in Age of Realms.

Back to Clandemonium, I don’t see any problem with that extra region that sometimes appear between Portals and Landing Points. It will not put gameplay in question, in my opinion.

Neutral starters chart – for XML purposes

Click image to enlarge.

Neutral troop positions
All neutral starters are 2, unless stated otherwise - Deep Portals start with 7

Click image to enlarge.

[thenobodies80]

It's your turn ManBungalow

[Kabanellas]

Great! We've been stamped!!!!!

[natty dread]

Congrats on the stamp guys

[Blitzaholic]

There was some discussion about this and a couple other places, where there may be neutrals of 3 on a few lands, while the rest would remain at 2 for some balance. I am not sure what we finalized, I would need to chat with Kab.

The neutral troops chart (posted below to keep those numbers in context) covers a different aspect than the one Chariot is talking about, I think.

Blitz never intended for this map to be symmetrical, which is great to me. On that perspective you can find that some starting points will not be exactly like others.

This is nothing new here in CC anyway; you can find it in a largely accentuated form in the New World map and its starting positions; or in Feudal War (or Epic) where Castles don’t distance equally from each other or from villages; or even in Age of Realms.

Back to Clandemonium, I don’t see any problem with that extra region that sometimes appear between Portals and Landing Points. It will not put gameplay in question, in my opinion.

Neutral starters chart – for XML purposes

Click image to enlarge.

Neutral troop positions
All neutral starters are 2, unless stated otherwise - Deep Portals start with 7

Click image to enlarge.

thank you Kab, well said, you read my mind.

[Blitzaholic]

It's your turn ManBungalow

awesome, thx nobodies


let's go Bunga and we can rock this out.

[ManBungalow]

Here's what I've got in terms of neutral positioning.

Click image to enlarge.

It's just as Kabanellas suggested (minus the two on BSS7 - which I'll fix now).

I've resolved to use the full region names now, so there are no abbreviations.
Each drop-point is named as "The Legion (drop point)", so the longest single region name on the board is "The Horsemen of the Apocalypse (drop point)".
The brown regions are simply "Deep Land 1,2,3..." and the pinnacle is "The Pinnacle" (so poetic).

Any last calls on this before I put it all together to be checked?

[Kabanellas]

Great work there Bungalow!!

Just 2 things:

-use 'Landing Points' instead of 'Drop Points', to match the legend.

-and don't forget the starting armies (before initial drops and autodeploy bonus) for each different Clan as posted in the chart: Angels of Death should start with 7; Imperial Dragoons starts with 6... and so on...


Also, I don't know if this was previously discussed, but with how many neutral troops should a non-attributed 'Landing Point' start? With 7...as Clan Grounds or a little less, 6 or 5? I'd go for 6.

[Blitzaholic]

terrific work Bunga

[MrBenn]

If you're using numbers in the XML, then I'd suggest using 01, 02, 03 etc, just to ensure they stay in the right order in the drop down boxes

[Blitzaholic]

Great work there Bungalow!!

Just 2 things:

-use 'Landing Points' instead of 'Drop Points', to match the legend.

-and don't forget the starting armies (before initial drops and autodeploy bonus) for each different Clan as posted in the chart: Angels of Death should start with 7; Imperial Dragoons starts with 6... and so on...


Also, I don't know if this was previously discussed, but with how many neutral troops should a non-attributed 'Landing Point' start? With 7...as Clan Grounds or a little less, 6 or 5? I'd go for 6.

Clan Grounds were 7, why 6? Does it make that much of a difference?

[Kabanellas]

Clan Grounds will start with 7 neutral troops.

I'm talking about the non-assigned Landing Points. In a 8 players game you'll have 2 non-assigned landing Points. I was suggesting they start with 6 neutral troops in them.

[Blitzaholic]

Clan Grounds will start with 7 neutral troops.

I'm talking about the non-assigned Landing Points. In a 8 players game you'll have 2 non-assigned landing Points. I was suggesting they start with 6 neutral troops in them.

oh, I see, ok, that seems to work.

[Blitzaholic]

If you're using numbers in the XML, then I'd suggest using 01, 02, 03 etc, just to ensure they stay in the right order in the drop down boxes

agreed.

[Blitzaholic]

we all set here?

[Kabanellas]

.........eager to try this...........

[grifftron]

.........eager to try this...........

same... !!!!

[Kabanellas]

Bungalow............................................

[ManBungalow]

I ran into an issue based on the starting troop numbers.
I used the 'Proposed starting troops' Kab listed here:

Click image to enlarge.

So that when a player holds 'The Legion', they will have a ready-made stack of 4 troops.
And when a player begins with 'Empire', they will have 3 troops ready before auto-deployments.
And so on...

That's all great, and I trust Kab's calculations on the matter, but it doesn't work out as it should.
I think that's because the game engine tries to set each player up with equal numbers of troops.
In a game with 5 or fewer players, each will have more than one landing-point, so the extra troops will be compensated there, creating apparently random divisions of troops..

This means that each landing-point should have an equal and defined number of troops deployed on it. I was thinking of 6 (and that's before the +3 auto-deployment), so that players are able to make some attacks on the first turn. I just need the go-ahead from Kab/Blitz here..

In other news, all regions are now numbered 01, 02, 03...etc.

[MrBenn]

It is possible to have uneven starts in terms of army numbers - the game engine only looks at distributing an even number of territories per player.

If you specify that Territory X starts with 5 armies, then it will always have 5, even in Manual deployment (although you can drop more onto it if necessary). Any territory that is not contained within a starting position (and set with a different number of armies) will start with 3. In theory, you could contain 2 terrs that start with 2 armies, and 2 that start with 10; the game engine could feasibly assign both 10-army terrs to the same player, as it looks at the number of terrs rather than the size of the army.

Does that make sense?

[Kabanellas]

yes it is Benn. Bungalow can continue with the initial planning for the starting positions.

[ManBungalow]

Okay, maybe I'm doing something wrong...

I've defined the number of troops each landing point starts with as so:

Code: Select all

<positions>
<position>
<territory start="3">The Spanking Monkeys (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="5">The Odd Fellows Union (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="4">Immortal Assassins (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="6">Imperial Dragoons (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="7">Angels of Death (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="4">The Legion (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="6">Legends of War (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="4">The Horsemen of the Apocalypse (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="3">Empire (landing point)</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory start="5">Black Sheep Squadron (landing point)</territory>
</position>
</positions>

When not held by a player, a landing point should have 6 neutrals on it. I've defined that here:

Code: Select all

<territory>
<name>Black Sheep Squadron (landing point)</name>
<neutral>6</neutral>
</territory>

<territory>
<name>The Legion (landing point)</name>
<neutral>6</neutral>
</territory>

etc...


When I plug all this into the XML Wizard and try to play a test game, it comes out looking as such:

Click image to enlarge.

Notice how the player positions don't match the code..
The interesting thing is, every time I set up a new test game using the wizard, the numbers seem to change -
IE. sometimes Empire will have 3 troops, sometimes 4, 6 or 7...

This could be my fault (programming error), an issue with the XML Wizard or a difficulty posed by the game engine...and I'm at a loss.