Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[cairnswk]

While i am waiting...i will take this into Illustrator and re-work the text to give it better legibility.

[cairnswk]

While i am waiting...i will take this into Illustrator and re-work the text to give it better legibility.

Done!

Version 35.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[Nola_Lifer]

SS David looks like SS Davio. Not a big deal and the text on the single ships looks a bit light. Other than that looks good.

[cairnswk]

SS David looks like SS Davio. Not a big deal and the text on the single ships looks a bit light. Other than that looks good.

Oh OK, Nola, thanks for that will move it shortly.
That is done...please refresh version above.

[cairnswk]

Here is where i am up to with XML Nolefan5311

[nolefan5311]

Thanks cairns! I will download that to my home computer tonight and try to have complete in a couple of days.

[cairnswk]

Thanks cairns! I will download that to my home computer tonight and try to have complete in a couple of days.

nolefan5311...i have question...
if i am awaiting xml to be written, under the new foundry policy if i don't do a graphics update for a month, does the map still get thrown in the recycling bin?

[nolefan5311]

Thanks cairns! I will download that to my home computer tonight and try to have complete in a couple of days.

nolefan5311...i have question...
if i am awaiting xml to be written, under the new foundry policy if i don't do a graphics update for a month, does the map still get thrown in the recycling bin?

You've already received the graphics stamp, so you don't need to do anymore updates graphically. This is a beast of an xml file, so I imagine some leeway will be given.

[cairnswk]

Thanks cairns! I will download that to my home computer tonight and try to have complete in a couple of days.

nolefan5311...i have question...
if i am awaiting xml to be written, under the new foundry policy if i don't do a graphics update for a month, does the map still get thrown in the recycling bin?

You've already received the graphics stamp, so you don't need to do anymore updates graphically. This is a beast of an xml file, so I imagine some leeway will be given.

OK thanks.

[cairnswk]

Hey,

I was looking at Armada XML and was wondering if the losing condition has changed. Is it now ONLY failing to hold a non-treasury region will get you eliminated.

Yes. you no longer have to hold the Monarch, since that was outside of what the Armada was.
The Monarach and Treasury facilitate the Armamda.
They are not critical to its existance.
And this helps keep the main battle on the geographic section.

[nolefan5311]

Hey cairns. Hope your weekend is going good.

I'm hoping to finish this today and get is posted, but I have a couple questions...

I don't think the map graphically reflects the new losing condition, unless holding a Command Ship AND a Non-Treasury Region is now the condition (which isn't how it's written in the XML). The current XML is just a non-Treasury/Monarch region as the Command Ships are not a separate requirement.

There isn't a territory name on Portland (where the Beacon is).

The battles (Eddystone, Portland, etc) are NOT ship regions, and cannot bombard, correct?

The border between EYS D and Regazona is a little too thin. You might want to make it slightly more pronounced.

Might have a few more coming to you later...

Can you put these in the thread please.

Here you go cairns.

[nolefan5311]

Hey cairns. Hope your weekend is going good.

I'm hoping to finish this today and get is posted, but I have a couple questions...

I don't think the map graphically reflects the new losing condition, unless holding a Command Ship AND a Non-Treasury Region is now the condition (which isn't how it's written in the XML). The current XML is just a non-Treasury/Monarch region as the Command Ships are not a separate requirement.

There isn't a territory name on Portland (where the Beacon is).

The battles (Eddystone, Portland, etc) are NOT ship regions, and cannot bombard, correct?

The border between EYS D and Regazona is a little too thin. You might want to make it slightly more pronounced.

Might have a few more coming to you later...

Can you put these in the thread please.

Here you go cairns.

I should clarify that the XML file you provided to me didn't have the requirement as the map states it. I have written that a player has to hold a non Treasury/Monarch region AND a Command Ship, which based on what's on the map, is the way its supposed to be.

There also might a 4 corner issue at Antelope, FS (B), GL (C), and GL (E).

[cairnswk]

...
I'm hoping to finish this today and get is posted, but I have a couple questions...
There isn't a territory name on Portland (where the Beacon is).

Fixed V36. Sorry about that.

The battles (Eddystone, Portland, etc) are NOT ship regions, and cannot bombard, correct?

No, these are sea regions...therefore ships and can be bombarded and bombard. New instruction placed under those regions on the map.

The border between EYS D and Regazona is a little too thin. You might want to make it slightly more pronounced.

Fixed Should be more prominent now.

There also might a 4 corner issue at Antelope, FS (B), GL (C), and GL (E).

I didn't think it was an issue, but i have made it clearer

I don't think the map graphically reflects the new losing condition, unless holding a Command Ship AND a Non-Treasury Region is now the condition (which isn't how it's written in the XML). The current XML is just a non-Treasury/Monarch region as the Command Ships are not a separate requirement....
I should clarify that the XML file you provided to me didn't have the requirement as the map states it. I have written that a player has to hold a non Treasury/Monarch region AND a Command Ship, which based on what's on the map, is the way its supposed to be.

Losing Condtions: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commnder Ship (B&S) will be eliminated

Regardless of what was written in the previous xml i handed back to you (which i had not changed any regarding the losing condition, even though i had changed it on the map)
the above states clearly...
are you able to do that in the xml?

I am in the middle of reviewing some of the text instructions at the bottom...will post the updated version later this evening.

[nolefan5311]

I can do it in the XML, that both players are to hold both regions of a Commander's Ship, and a non-Treasury region (including the Monarch). Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

[cairnswk]

I can do it in the XML, that both players are to hold both regions of a Commander's Ship, and a non-Treasury region (including the Monarch). Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

Noooooo!
The Monarch position M is part of the Treasury....the instructions clearly state that...

That's correct, players are not distributed to both regions on the Command ship at start.

here is the new version 36 with adjusted instructions on it....i hope they are clearer.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[nolefan5311]

Thanks cairns. I will have the code posted in a couple days.

[iancanton]

Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

That's correct, players are not distributed to both regions on the Command ship at start.

will both bow and stern be part of each start position, or do u intend that, to avoid losing on turn 1, player 1 must conquer the one he doesn't hold already?

ian.

[cairnswk]

Based on the V32 neutral start map in the OP, players aren't distributed both regions of a Commander's Ship at the start, so I will change that in the code.

That's correct, players are not distributed to both regions on the Command ship at start.

will both bow and stern be part of each start position, or do u intend that, to avoid losing on turn 1, player 1 must conquer the one he doesn't hold already?

ian.

ian, as per front page....starting positions....players start with one-half of a command ship.
therefore they have to conquer the other half to earn the bonus.

as for the losing condition....player 1 would not lose on first turn (and i think my thinking on this is correct) because the losing condition is an "and" condition meaning that both conditions must be satisfied (as opposed to an "or" condition) for the player to be tossed out.
since the other half of the losing condition is any non-treasury region, and player 1 starts with one of those as the SS (or LB) region they would still be in the game.
But if they didn't fort that command ship early on, then yes, in perhaps ro-und 2/3 they stand to be evicted by the losing condition.
Does that make sense or clearer?

[iancanton]

what u say makes sense, but it isn't what the legend says, which is players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any commander ship will be eliminated.

the losing condition is therefore currently players failing to hold this and that will be eliminated. the way i read it, u have to hold this and that to stay alive, where this is any non-treasury region and that is any commander ship.

ian.

[cairnswk]

what u say makes sense, but it isn't what the legend says, which is players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any commander ship will be eliminated.

the losing condition is therefore currently players failing to hold this and that will be eliminated. the way i read it, u have to hold this and that to stay alive, where this is any non-treasury region and that is any commander ship.

ian.

Duh! me so stupid sometimes

OK what if we change it to....

Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and either bow or stern of a command ship will be eliminated.

[iancanton]

if a player holds the bow of two command ships and nothing else, then is that all right, since the bows are all non-treasury regions?

ian.

[cairnswk]

if a player holds the bow of two command ships and nothing else, then is that all right, since the bows are all non-treasury regions?

ian.

Mmmm. new wording for Command Ships:
♦ are not part of the non-treasury region
♦ are not part of the “Single Ships of same Nation” bonus
♦ consist of Bow & Stern which border each other ♦ Bow & Stern separately border adjacent Ships
♦ non-white sections are impassable ♦ are a “Conditional Border” as stated below

[iancanton]

that clarifies things a bit.

SS Paxat La Isabela ought to be SS Paxat la Isabela, with a lower case l.

this still hasn't been fixed.

for some reason, san cristobal has turned into san cristobel. is that a mistake?

ian.

[cairnswk]

that clarifies things a bit.

Good.

SS Paxat La Isabela ought to be SS Paxat la Isabela, with a lower case l.

this still hasn't been fixed.

Ah i think it has otherwise the "l" would have a foot _ ...or shoudl it be Isabela, with 1 x "l"...my list tells me so.

for some reason, san cristobal has turned into san cristobel. is that a mistake?
ian.

Mmm. don't remember why that happened...anyway, fixed to "a"

Version 37 Small


Version 37 Large

Click image to enlarge.

[nolefan5311]

Attached is the completed XML to reflect the above changes. 6200 lines lol.

cairns, I thought we previously discussed this, but I couldn't find it in the thread; did we agree to put a maximum of 2 on the starting positions, to keep players in 1v1 from getting 6 starting positions (3 player games would also go from 4 to 2 per player, and 4 player games would go from 3 to 2). The attached file does not have the maximum, but that's a quick fix, so let me know one way or the other.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/5/13/3303803/ArmadaV4.xml