XML Modifications and Variations

[DiM]

ah ok the fact that you get the bonus in the next turn makes it different.

the only resemblance is the fact that you get the bonus in the middle of the turn.

meh in my defence it was 5 am when i posted

now it's 6am and i'm still at work

[Balsiefen]

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.

Thanks, and my map has 14 starting positions so i dont think players > positions will happen.
I'm not entirely sure how the xml for that works but i'll worry about that when the map gets to that stage.
Is this feature up and coming or already implemented?
And i gan just have a general objective. i can see how an objective for each starting position would be hard to code.

[gimil]

ah ok the fact that you get the bonus in the next turn makes it different.

the only resemblance is the fact that you get the bonus in the middle of the turn.

meh in my defence it was 5 am when i posted

now it's 6am and i'm still at work

that no defence since you sleep during the day and wotk at night . . .

[Elijah S]

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.

Lack, thx for directing me to the right thread. You said nothing was set in stone, so here's my bid to see if this is possible...

First, I concur with Balsiefen that this "could revolutionise gameplay for a new type of map."
I know that seems like a lot to back up, but I firmly feel that this would take CC to the next level.
Reasons?
Okay, we (players) spend a lot of the game posturing for continent bonuses.
But with the type of map I'm thinking of (and I believe Balsiefen is too), the board would not provide continent bonuses. Other bonuses would still be up for grabs, (i.e.-owning the capitals, castles, etc.) but the boards would be designed so that on the initial drop a single color already occupies an entire region.
The main thing that would make this type of map a real departure from other maps is that at the onset of the game each player already has an "identity"; Unique objectives could be given, but wouldn't be necessary, as the goal is still board domination.

It's important to say that this probably wouldn't apply to existing maps, as trying to determine what territories to group together, etc., would be a nightmare to figure out, but... speaking solely from my own perspective, I'd very much enjoy beginning a game already owning Patton's army, or the entire Japanese fleet, etc., and I think this would become a very popular board type because it eliminates the many rounds it takes to "group" your armies, hence allowing players to get straight to the task of expanding their territory and obtaining other types of bonuses.

If this is something that is within the spectrum of xml, with the graphic and script writing talents found here in the Foundry, the possibilities are enormous and this would be yet another thing that keeps CC on the cutting edge of Risk-type gaming.

[DiM]

ah ok the fact that you get the bonus in the next turn makes it different.

the only resemblance is the fact that you get the bonus in the middle of the turn.

meh in my defence it was 5 am when i posted

now it's 6am and i'm still at work

that no defence since you sleep during the day and wotk at night . . .

yeah but 5-6am is at the end of my work schedule so i'm entitled to feel sleepy and tired

[Balsiefen]

Lack, thx for directing me to the right thread. You said nothing was set in stone, so here's my bid to see if this is possible...

First, I concur with Balsiefen that this "could revolutionise gameplay for a new type of map."
I know that seems like a lot to back up, but I firmly feel that this would take CC to the next level.
Reasons?
Okay, we (players) spend a lot of the game posturing for continent bonuses.
But with the type of map I'm thinking of (and I believe Balsiefen is too), the board would not provide continent bonuses. Other bonuses would still be up for grabs, (i.e.-owning the capitals, castles, etc.) but the boards would be designed so that on the initial drop a single color already occupies an entire region.
The main thing that would make this type of map a real departure from other maps is that at the onset of the game each player already has an "identity"; Unique objectives could be given, but wouldn't be necessary, as the goal is still board domination.

It's important to say that this probably wouldn't apply to existing maps, as trying to determine what territories to group together, etc., would be a nightmare to figure out, but... speaking solely from my own perspective, I'd very much enjoy beginning a game already owning Patton's army, or the entire Japanese fleet, etc., and I think this would become a very popular board type because it eliminates the many rounds it takes to "group" your armies, hence allowing players to get straight to the task of expanding their territory and obtaining other types of bonuses.

If this is something that is within the spectrum of xml, with the graphic and script writing talents found here in the Foundry, the possibilities are enormous and this would be yet another thing that keeps CC on the cutting edge of Risk-type gaming.

I'm not sure but it seems the "kingdoms" idea is called "starting positions" and it's already been a confirmed yes. Missions are apparently too hard to code (although i might work a bit more on that one)

[yeti_c]

Lets get starting positions in first - and see how hard it is to balance that - then the next step would be to look at start specific missions.

C.

[Herakilla]

starting missions is actually possible.

just make multiple objectives. currently for your england map you can make an objective that includes the castles. so each player has an objective to work on. one player's objective is to hold their castle and take some1 else's maybe but you know what i mean. the only thing is it would be possible to complete an objective that isnt yours to start with

[Coleman]

Herakilla is right.

I am 90% sure that lack is already working on all the yes xml and will do as many maybes as he can before the deadline he set for himself.

[DiM]

actually hera is indeed right but that doesn't help us at all. yes multiple objectives can be set but that's useless because anybody can complete any objective. you can't restrict objectives based on starting locations and stuff like that.

for example i'd like a medieval europe where the papal states would have as objective a crusade to capture a certain pagan city. but in the current xml the guy that starts with that certain city will win despite not having any business with the crusade objective.

[yeti_c]

starting missions is actually possible.

just make multiple objectives. currently for your england map you can make an objective that includes the castles. so each player has an objective to work on. one player's objective is to hold their castle and take some1 else's maybe but you know what i mean. the only thing is it would be possible to complete an objective that isnt yours to start with

Wouldn't quite work - because someone else could take both castles and win with what is supposed to be "your" mission... unless of course you have 1 starting territory that is impossible to take.

C.

[Herakilla]

starting missions is actually possible.

just make multiple objectives. currently for your england map you can make an objective that includes the castles. so each player has an objective to work on. one player's objective is to hold their castle and take some1 else's maybe but you know what i mean. the only thing is it would be possible to complete an objective that isnt yours to start with

Wouldn't quite work - because someone else could take both castles and win with what is supposed to be "your" mission... unless of course you have 1 starting territory that is impossible to take.

C.

ya i said that and you could do that second thing lol, maybe make a territory that isnt on the board! coords -1, -1 lol

[Elijah S]

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.

I'm kindof unclear as to whether or not we're able to start the game with a single player owning each continent?
If so, and if the above script is how to do it, can someone elaborate on the script a little more?

[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.

I'm kindof unclear as to whether or not we're able to start the game with a single player owning each continent?
If so, and if the above script is how to do it, can someone elaborate on the script a little more?

At present we cannot - but soon we might be able too...

Lack is doing the XML updates this month - so end of January will bring us news...

C.

[Coleman]

I think you'd have to be really creative for everyone starting with a continent to be balanced and interesting.

All I want start positions for is making sure everyone has at least one of a key territory.

[lackattack]

For nested continents, I prefer to have different tag names:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Maghreb</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<components>
<territory>Algiers</territory>
<territory>Tunisia</territory>
<territory>Algeria</territory>
<continent>Subcontinent A</continent>
<continent>Subcontinent B</continent>
</components>
<required>3</required>
</continent>

I realized that the <required> tag is ambiguous in such a case. Would it apply to territories or both territories and continents? What if you want separate <required> e.g. Maghreb requires 2/3 territs and 1/2 continents? Something like this would do the trick:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Maghreb</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<territories required="2">
<territory>Algiers</territory>
<territory>Tunisia</territory>
<territory>Algeria</territory>
</territories>
<continents required="1">
<continent>Subcontinent A</continent>
<continent>Subcontinent B</continent>
</continents>
</continent>

I would take care of updating existing maps and "required" would be optional. What do you guys think about this xml?

[Coleman]

I like it.

[Elijah S]

I think you'd have to be really creative for everyone starting with a continent to be balanced and interesting.

All I want start positions for is making sure everyone has at least one of a key territory.

To make it fair at the start the map would really need to be designed with this type of gameplay in mind... but I think it would be relatively simple to make the map balanced.
7 regions, 6 territories each, and each region having the same number of borders with adjacent regions.

[Herakilla]

I think you'd have to be really creative for everyone starting with a continent to be balanced and interesting.

All I want start positions for is making sure everyone has at least one of a key territory.

To make it fair at the start the map would really need to be designed with this type of gameplay in mind... but I think it would be relatively simple to make the map balanced.
7 regions, 6 territories each, and each region having the same number of borders with adjacent regions.

the problem is that that is a symmetrical map!

[oaktown]

nice catch on the "required" tag on the nested continents, lack.

It won't be a problem then having a "continent" line with a "continent" entry? I know it'll make for some confusing XML checking (all you coleman)!

[Balsiefen]

starting missions is actually possible.

just make multiple objectives. currently for your england map you can make an objective that includes the castles. so each player has an objective to work on. one player's objective is to hold their castle and take some1 else's maybe but you know what i mean. the only thing is it would be possible to complete an objective that isnt yours to start with

Wouldn't quite work - because someone else could take both castles and win with what is supposed to be "your" mission... unless of course you have 1 starting territory that is impossible to take.

C.

Although kingdom specific would still be ideal, if i am careful with the objectives, i may be able to just pull it off, maybe by having objectives which are more general which it doesn't matter if it is completed by one of the other factions in that aria.

It will require a bit more thaught but seeing has i havn't got the basic gameplay totally finnished, hteres plenty of time for lack updates before i need to seriously decide.

[Balsiefen]

I think you'd have to be really creative for everyone starting with a continent to be balanced and interesting.

All I want start positions for is making sure everyone has at least one of a key territory.

To make it fair at the start the map would really need to be designed with this type of gameplay in mind... but I think it would be relatively simple to make the map balanced.
7 regions, 6 territories each, and each region having the same number of borders with adjacent regions.

the problem is that that is a symmetrical map!

I think it wouldn't be entirely essential to have the same number of borders ect each. With a few fdiffernces, you could make each faction have its own reccomended style and tactics without having to make it symetrical.

[yeti_c]

For nested continents, I prefer to have different tag names:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Maghreb</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<components>
<territory>Algiers</territory>
<territory>Tunisia</territory>
<territory>Algeria</territory>
<continent>Subcontinent A</continent>
<continent>Subcontinent B</continent>
</components>
<required>3</required>
</continent>

I realized that the <required> tag is ambiguous in such a case. Would it apply to territories or both territories and continents? What if you want separate <required> e.g. Maghreb requires 2/3 territs and 1/2 continents? Something like this would do the trick:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Maghreb</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<territories required="2">
<territory>Algiers</territory>
<territory>Tunisia</territory>
<territory>Algeria</territory>
</territories>
<continents required="1">
<continent>Subcontinent A</continent>
<continent>Subcontinent B</continent>
</continents>
</continent>

I would take care of updating existing maps and "required" would be optional. What do you guys think about this xml?

I don't think it's necessary?

If you want required components - you simply define them in the continent underneath... that's the beauty of nesting them...

The <required> only works on the current level.

So Your example would be

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>Maghreb</name>
<bonus>5</bonus>
<components>
  <continent>territories</continent>
  <continent>continents</continent>
</component>
</continent>

<continent>
  <name>territories</name>
  <components>
    <territory>Algiers</territory>
    <territory>Tunisia</territory>
    <territory>Algeria</territory>
  </components>
  <required>2</required>
</continent>

<continent>
  <name>territories</name>
  <components>
    <continent>subContinent A</continent>
    <continent>subContinent B</continent>
  </components>
  <required>1</required>
</continent>


OK - techincally you have more XML to write - but this is a fairly extreme case... and could probably be coded better given the full rules...

But the flow of this is much more obvious and I would've thought easier for you to code...

It will be much easier to code for BOB too...

C.

[Lone.prophet]

is it possible to say,

if you have these 3 countries autodeplay X armies on this country?

so you have to hold more than 1 for the autodeploy

[Coleman]

nice catch on the "required" tag on the nested continents, lack.

It won't be a problem then having a "continent" line with a "continent" entry? I know it'll make for some confusing XML checking (all you coleman)!

No worries, I love recursive stuff.