Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[Victor Sullivan]

...
Maybe losing conditions would work here? If you had players start out with more than just the treasury territories, you could set the non-treasury territories as losing conditions (meaning you must hold at least one non-treasury territory or you're eliminated). That way, you need not have something assault the treasury if you decide you don't want anything to.

I knew i needed a good person on the job.
That's a great idea Sully, for not assaulting the treasury, but because at present i have everyone starting on the treasury, doesn't that mean the losing condition comes into play automatically right at the very start of the game when no-one has a non-treasury territory anyway.

I'm afraid you must have each person start out with at least one non-treasury territory if you want to go this route. Otherwise, players will be eliminated right off the bat!...or so I've understood the XML to work. Perhaps a carto could confirm this for me.

Fourthly, I don't understand which squares are single ships.

Top left of legend...although i do need to possibly change that script....perhaps Single Ships (on top to indicate a single square) with Hold 9 for + 2 (underneath)

Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?

In addition, I think the map needs to be much more clear as to which squares are sea territories, and which ones are land. As it stands, you only have the Spanish/English distinction (which, by the way, I'd suggest choosing less similar-looking colors for the white and cream - especially considering it seems you've mixed them up in the legend!).

Next, I'm having difficulty determining what/where Ft. Tilbury is. I see it in the legend as a 2 by 2 block, and I see the "Ft. Tilbury" label on the map, but I see no boundaries or 2 by 2 block that it might be referring to.

Plus, I think the battle bonus areas are going to be rather difficult to conquer and hold... I suggest you increase the bonus of each by +2 or +3.

Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

...
Maybe losing conditions would work here? If you had players start out with more than just the treasury territories, you could set the non-treasury territories as losing conditions (meaning you must hold at least one non-treasury territory or you're eliminated). That way, you need not have something assault the treasury if you decide you don't want anything to.

I knew i needed a good person on the job.
That's a great idea Sully, for not assaulting the treasury, but because at present i have everyone starting on the treasury, doesn't that mean the losing condition comes into play automatically right at the very start of the game when no-one has a non-treasury territory anyway.

I'm afraid you must have each person start out with at least one non-treasury territory if you want to go this route. Otherwise, players will be eliminated right off the bat!...or so I've understood the XML to work. Perhaps a carto could confirm this for me.

OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?
Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?

Fourthly, I don't understand which squares are single ships.

Top left of legend...although i do need to possibly change that script....perhaps Single Ships (on top to indicate a single square) with Hold 9 for + 2 (underneath)

Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?

I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?

In addition, I think the map needs to be much more clear as to which squares are sea territories, and which ones are land. As it stands, you only have the Spanish/English distinction (which, by the way, I'd suggest choosing less similar-looking colors for the white and cream - especially considering it seems you've mixed them up in the legend!).

Colour can be changed...perhaps i need to add that sea territories are those encompassing any part of the non-land region.

Next, I'm having difficulty determining what/where Ft. Tilbury is. I see it in the legend as a 2 by 2 block, and I see the "Ft. Tilbury" label on the map, but I see no boundaries or 2 by 2 block that it might be referring to.

That has been done on this new version i am working on now.

Plus, I think the battle bonus areas are going to be rather difficult to conquer and hold... I suggest you increase the bonus of each by +2 or +3.

OK, i'll increase them by +3...and see what everyone thinks.

Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.

Ah!...you need 25 armies on that corresponding row to get those 5 bonus points at the top row.
The bottom row you need 5 to earn +1
I guess that needs to go into the wording somehow.

[pamoa]

suggestion
what if you start with the first treasury square and the stern of the corresponding command ship
along with the you must have one man on the field or you're dead condition as sullivan suggested

[cairnswk]

... As for the supply ships/land bases - would it be easier to make each treasury correspnd to a command vessel - so P12 could link to Duque Medina Sedonia, and so on...

Actually MrBenn, i've been thinking on that after reading some other threads and recalling Das Schloß..
linking the starting positions to each commander would allow players to work out easily how the best way to win a map from that position is (after many games) and it could become a farming game ( i think that's what you call it)
Like Jamaica where the start positions are ranomly allocated, this is kind of the reverse where the starts are allocated but the assaults can be at the whim of the player. this may cause players to strategise more.

More discussion is needed on this point i beleive.

If we start with 36 positions (as per recent discussion 12 treasury, 24 on the actual map), this would allow that losing condition to be utilised without anyone being eliminated too soon)

Thoughts anyone

[cairnswk]

suggestion
what if you start with the first treasury square and the stern of the corresponding command ship
along with the you must have one man on the field or you're dead condition as sullivan suggested

that is possible pamoa.
others' thoughts please!

[Victor Sullivan]

OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?
Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?

I'll have to think on it, but it may not be a bad idea to code the supply ships as starting positions, since they're pretty well spread out.

Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?

I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?

Not at all

Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.

Ah!...you need 25 armies on that corresponding row to get those 5 bonus points at the top row.
The bottom row you need 5 to earn +1
I guess that needs to go into the wording somehow. [/quote]
Are you saying you need the designated number of troops on the specified square to get the bonus? Because I'm afraid that's not possible... You/I could adjust the neutral count on each to simulate that effect.

-Sully

[cairnswk]

OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?
Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?

I'll have to think on it, but it may not be a bad idea to code the supply ships as starting positions, since they're pretty well spread out.

OK. I'll put some of those starters in the next map i upload so that you and others can see what it looks like.

Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?

I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?

Not at all

Good.

Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.

Ah!...you need 25 armies on that corresponding row to get those 5 bonus points at the top row.
The bottom row you need 5 to earn +1
I guess that needs to go into the wording somehow.

Are you saying you need the designated number of troops on the specified square to get the bonus? Because I'm afraid that's not possible... You/I could adjust the neutral count on each to simulate that effect.
-Sully

OH, i would have thought the required tag would have done the job there, but after checking...no.
So yes to simulate that perhaps starting neutrals is required.
Thanks Sully.

[cairnswk]

Treasury Table.
...new thinking that treasury table should be autodeploy, so that the treasury earns its own interest for money.
In Elizabethan times, interest was limited to 10%, but to advance the treasury amount upwards incrementally to a higher amount you actually need something like 33% each time.
So thus, the armies to hold have been worked on this 10% (with/without rounding)

I've changed the Treasury table to a "higher adds to lower bonuses" setting as I beleive this will give incentive to advance upwards rather than overrides.

Higher adds to lower bonus
Rows:|Min. Hold|Bonus
Top Row| 4 | 5
4th Row| 4 | 4
3rd Row| 4 | 3
2nd Row|3 | 2
1st Row|3 | 1
(goodness i wish we had table code
Of course this is alterable with discussion.

And i must apologise for the fast pace i am trying here, but i only have a few weeks to end July this uni break before major development will probably go on vacation until end Nov.

PS. once the table is developed, then the Min. Hold column could probably be deleted.

[cairnswk]

Here is V5.

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?

-Sully

[cairnswk]

Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?

-Sully

They can be used to attack upwards...."Players can move one-way up only to earn bonuses"
or outwards...."they can assault to any side's Supply ships & Land Bases"
and since they can assault they must border so therefore they can be used to fort outwardly and upwards. Yes. But the fort happens at the end of the turn, not the beginning.
This brings in the concept that the navy must have a treasury in order to assist build it up.

[Victor Sullivan]

Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?

-Sully

They can be used to attack upwards...."Players can move one-way up only to earn bonuses"
or outwards...."they can assault to any side's Supply ships & Land Bases"
and since they can assault they must border so therefore they can be used to fort outwardly and upwards. Yes. But the fort happens at the end of the turn, not the beginning.
This brings in the concept that the navy must have a treasury in order to assist build it up.

Ah! Yes, yes. I understand now.

-Sully

[pamoa]

can you put colour digits on all the starting territories only so we get a clearer picture of the gameplay

[cairnswk]

can you put colour digits on all the starting territories only so we get a clearer picture of the gameplay

Ah, that's what is on the map now. I have starting positions for 8 players laid out.

[pamoa]

then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply ship
I also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

and sorry but I don't understand your Min. Hold legend
if it means you have to be in that row to get the Earn bonus just get rid of it

last minor graphic point
can you put the corresponding shield below each column instead of the P1-12 names

[MrBenn]

then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply ship
I also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

The third (non-commander) territory does seem a bit random. If this was to counter the losing condition thing, then the losing condition can simply be that you need to hold at least 1 non-treasury space

[cairnswk]

thanks pamoa

then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply ship

well, no, not the way i see it. i have simply used the current 8 colours in play to show where these start positions are.
With the current xml, you can't stipulate exact starting positions, they have to be grouped, thus when the map is in play, all starting positions will "start" across the board.

I also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

perhaps that is to prevent players from wiping each other out too early in the game.

and sorry but I don't understand your Min. Hold legend
if it means you have to be in that row to get the Earn bonus just get rid of it

yes, i think it needs deleting also.

last minor graphic point
can you put the corresponding shield below each column instead of the P1-12 names

I see what you're saying on that, but remember what i said about starting positions up above, where i have the starts now may not be where they are in actual play. They will simply be lumped in a group and dealt out randomly by the engine as per below.

From the xml Tutorial
"Start Positions...
... When the game begins these start positions will be split up randomly amongst the players. If there is a remainder, the territories of those start positions are dealt out in the same way as other territories (unless of course they are coded as neutral)."
End tutorial
That's the same as positions like Timms and Yves in Das Schloß. The other start positions i.e. N2 & O6 are coded in the xml as normal territories without neutral starts.

thanks MrBenn

then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply ship
I also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

The third (non-commander) territory does seem a bit random. If this was to counter the losing condition thing, then the losing condition can simply be that you need to hold at least 1 non-treasury space

i had thought on this, and like i stated to pamoa above, it stops anyone from being eliminated too early in the game since there is the losing condition. Having two "losing condition" armies is better that one, isn't it.

[MrBenn]

From the xml Tutorial
"Start Positions...
... When the game begins these start positions will be split up randomly amongst the players. If there is a remainder, the territories of those start positions are dealt out in the same way as other territories (unless of course they are coded as neutral)."
End tutorial
That's the same as positions like Timms and Yves in Das Schloß. The other start positions i.e. N2 & O6 are coded in the xml as normal territories without neutral starts.

thanks MrBenn

then you have a problem with seymour and hawkins devoted supply ship
I also don't get why you have a third whatever ship as starting position

The third (non-commander) territory does seem a bit random. If this was to counter the losing condition thing, then the losing condition can simply be that you need to hold at least 1 non-treasury space

i had thought on this, and like i stated to pamoa above, it stops anyone from being eliminated too early in the game since there is the losing condition. Having two "losing condition" armies is better that one, isn't it.

It depends on how many armies you start on them, and how many territories/neutrals lie between. I think it makes more sense to only have the Commander and if you're desperate to make it 2, perhaps one adjacent instead of one a little way off.

As an aside, the squares will need to be big enough for 3-digit armies

[cairnswk]

thanks MrBenn

...^^^...
It depends on how many armies you start on them, and how many territories/neutrals lie between. I think it makes more sense to only have the Commander and if you're desperate to make it 2, perhaps one adjacent instead of one a little way off.

Can you expand on this reasoning for me please. I'd like to understand why you are saying that, and then it might convince me more.

As an aside, the squares will need to be big enough for 3-digit armies

V5: Each square is 24 pixels wide, and then the grid adds 1 pixel to this. Same for height.
The top row of digits is 24 pixels wide, the bottom row is 25 pixels wide.
So i've increased the squares to 26 pixels wide for the small map.
On the large map, this won't be an issue since there will be plenty of space, if it is increased to 1400 wide then each square is 35 pixels wide, but i guess we won't need all that space.
On V6, which i will upload today, you will see in the middle of the map the three digits and how they will lay.
Let me know what you think.

[Industrial Helix]

I'm liking this map, but I'm wondering if you can fit 888s on those squares. That's he only thing holding this one up.

Also, Please post the date of the latest update in the thread title.

[cairnswk]

thanks IH.

...Also, Please post the date of the latest update in the thread title.

Oh, why is this needed now? I see it hasn't been asked of other mapmakers. Is this something new the foundry has just brought in?
PS. I can see some back versions but certainly not dates.

[DiM]

...Also, Please post the date of the latest update in the thread title.

Oh, why is this needed now? I see it hasn't been asked of other mapmakers. Is this something new the foundry has just brought in?

your social security number is also needed in your signature plus we'll require your height, weight and shoe size.

[cairnswk]

your social security number is also needed in your signature plus we'll require your height, weight and shoe size.

cheeky...

[DiM]

actually i think helix is just trying to make his life easier and spot what maps have been lacking constant updates. i saw he requested the date in the title to other maps in the drafting room.
but i think a simple page number would be enough. just like i do: "SteamWorks - V12 p1&11" this way the CA knows where to look for the most recent update, plus he sees the date and all the update details.

[cairnswk]

thanks DiM

actually i think helix is just trying to make his life easier and spot what maps have been lacking constant updates. i saw he requested the date in the title to other maps in the drafting room.
but i think a simple page number would be enough. just like i do: "SteamWorks - V12 p1&11" this way the CA knows where to look for the most recent update, plus he sees the date and all the update details.

Yes, i can understand IH wanting to make his life easier and to that extent i agree with him, but i also think it should be applied consistently across the board...that why i ask if this is something new.
However, it has been done on front page.