Moderator: Cartographers
yeti_c wrote:Mission Cards aren't XML features...
Kingdoms would be - but would be covered by "pre assigned starting locations" or similar...
Map and Starting location specific missions could work - but need to get them in first!!
C.
Balsiefen wrote:yeti_c wrote:Mission Cards aren't XML features...
Kingdoms would be - but would be covered by "pre assigned starting locations" or similar...
Map and Starting location specific missions could work - but need to get them in first!!
C.
To get them in what?
Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses
Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies
Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.
Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]
hecter wrote:Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses
Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies
Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.
Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]
I see a yes label on this... When will it be coming out? It certainly would help with ConquerMan, a map a like but can't play because of the greasemonkey lag (I know I can just turn it off, but I'm useless without my monkey! )
yeti_c wrote:This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...
C.
<continent>
<name>NAME</name>
<bonus>##</bonus>
<components>
<component>A</component>
<component>B</component>
<component>C</component>
<component>D</component>
<required>2
<bonus>##</bonus>
</required>
<required>3
<bonus>##</bonus>
</required>
</components>
</continent>
The good news is you'll still have all the current maps, many of which don't deviate from risk a whole lot.wrightfan123 wrote:I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.
-W123
wrightfan123 wrote:I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.
-W123
hecter wrote:yeti_c wrote:This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...
C.
Then why on earth is the code so long? You'd think it would be shorter, but I guess not...
Well then, how about a play on that idea?
Suggestion Idea: Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set
Description: Right now, you can only have one required per territory set, correct? Why can't we have more? It could work like this:
- Code: Select all
<continent>
<name>NAME</name>
<bonus>##</bonus>
<components>
<component>A</component>
<component>B</component>
<component>C</component>
<component>D</component>
<required>2
<bonus>##</bonus>
</required>
<required>3
<bonus>##</bonus>
</required>
</components>
</continent>
Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow for quicker and easier coding, and would allow addons to run faster.
Lack Label (Mod Use):
<Bonus Adjustment>
<matrix>
<lower>1</lower>
<upper>30</upper>
<count>3</count>
</matrix>
<continent>
<name>A</name>
<components>
<component type="territory">B</component>
<component type="continent">C</component>
</components>
<bonus>0</bonus>
</continent>
<visibles>
<visible>territory</visible>
</visibles>
lackattack wrote: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.
I disagree with this one sort of.lackattack wrote: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]
<positions>
<position>
<components>
<component>territ 1</component>
<component>territ 2</component>
<component>territ 3</component>
</components>
</position>
<position>
<components>
<component>territ 4</component>
<component>territ 5</component>
<component>territ 6</component>
</components>
</position>
</positions>
lack wrote:RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]
<components>
<component type="territory">B</component>
<component type="continent">C</component>
</components>
<positions>
<position>
<territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
</position>
</positions>
lackattack wrote:By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.
If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:
- Code: Select all
<positions>
<position>
<territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
</position>
<position>
<territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
<territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
</position>
</positions>
yeti_c wrote:lack wrote:RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]
How do you plan on this one?
yeti_c wrote:Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!
yeti_c wrote:Coleman? Do we want to group them?
lackattack wrote:yeti_c wrote:lack wrote:RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]
How do you plan on this one?
Your territories will respawn when you click begin turn. If you get eliminated, it will handled the same as auto-kick.
lackattack wrote:yeti_c wrote:Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!
Read my post again carefully
Users browsing this forum: No registered users