XML Modifications and Variations

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sat May 26, 2007 5:46 pm

cairnswk wrote:
lackattack wrote: So I would like to go ahead with these proposals:

Starting Neutral Territories (e.g. Ethiopia starts with 6 neutral armies)
Code: Select all
<country>
<name>Ethiopia</name>
<borders>
  <border>Somalia</border>
  <border>Kenya</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
  <smallx>424</smallx>
  <smally>213</smally>
  <largex>569</largex>
  <largey>277</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>6</neutral>
</country>
.....
Ranged Attacks - I also like this but I can't decide whether the successful attack should (a) leave 1 neutral or (b) 1 of your colour in the bombed territory?
Lackattack...well done...this is the first opportunity I've take to decipher some of these, and the Neutral Starting Territories (to start with) will be a great addition to the WWII - Battle For Australia map, which I am writing the XML for right now.

The Ranged Attacks when that is implemented would be great for Pearl Harbor and the Japanese air force in that one.

Having programmed a shopping cart system in perl/cgi html for a Soul, HipHop, Reggae Record Store http://www.unsound.com.au, i understand the amount of time spent on this programming business, so must say congrats on whatever can be implemented in whatever time you have available...with all the suggestions from the forum, there will be some great games to be had here in the near future.

it is now called bombardaments

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Sun May 27, 2007 5:25 am

lackattack wrote: Collections / X of Y Bonus
Instead of introcuing a new <collections> tag how about adding a "required" (or "quantity"?) tag to <continent>, like this:
Code: Select all
<continent>
	<name>Any 4 Kings</name>
	<bonus>5</bonus>
	<components>
		<component>Red King</component>
		<component>Green King</component>
		<component>Blue King</component>
		<component>Purple King</component>
		<component>Yellow King</component>
	</components>
	<required>4</required>
</continent>
This will require a bit more XML but is more flexible and similar to what we already have. Comments?

Overruling continent bonus
Instead of a <bestof> tag how about a set of <overrule>s, like this:
Code: Select all
<continent>
	<name>Any 4 Kings</name>
	<bonus>5</bonus>
	<components>
		<component>Red King</component>
		<component>Green King</component>
		<component>Blue King</component>
		<component>Purple King</component>
		<component>Yellow King</component>
	</components>
	<required>4</required>
	<overrules>
		<overrule>Any 2 Kings</overrule>
		<overrule>Any 3 Kings</overrule>
	</overrules>
</continent>

Lack a quick question...

The <overrules> tag doesn't need a <required> tag as well does it?

Also I thought of a slight addition that might come in useful - and would've helped me code DiM's AOM map... (I'm not sure on naming yet - but you'll get the gist...)

Code: Select all

<continent>
	<name>Resource to Foreign Market</name>
	<bonus>2</bonus>
	<components>
		<component>Resource 1</component>
		<component>Resource 2</component>
		<component>Foreign Market</component>
	</components>
	<optional_components>
		<option>
			<component>Local Port 1</component>
			<component>Local Port 2</component>
			<required>1</required>
		</option>
		<option>
			<component>Foreign Port 1</component>
			<component>Foreign Port 2</component>
			<required>1</required>
		</option>
	</optional_components>
</continent>

Essentiall the idea is to have "Core" objects of the continent... and then extra objects outside of the core that you can add on at different amounts...

The idea here is the core are the resources and the foreign market...

Then the options are you must have 1 of each a local port and a foreign port...

I don't know how useful this would be for other maps... though...

C.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun May 27, 2007 3:47 pm

So no chance of one of those assault rules where the attacker only gets two dice?

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sun May 27, 2007 4:43 pm

has the nutreal territory been implimented yet?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun May 27, 2007 4:44 pm

gimil wrote:has the nutreal territory been implimented yet?

not yet but soon.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun May 27, 2007 5:31 pm

Suggestion Idea: One-time Bonus

Description: you receive a one time bonus when you conquer a terit. after that the terit gives no other bonus regardless if somebody else takes the terit.

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun May 27, 2007 8:57 pm

Suggestion Idea: Modifiable bonus for number of owned terits

Description: normaly you get 1 for every 3 terits you own (minimum 3 troops if you have less than 12). well, i'd preatty much like to regulate these numbers. for example get +1 for each terit. or +3 for every 2 terits, or why not? get absolutely nothing regardless of the terits you have

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this. i know i keep saying this reason but it's the truth

Lack Label (Mod Use):

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon May 28, 2007 3:11 am

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Modifiable bonus for number of owned terits

Description: normaly you get 1 for every 3 terits you own (minimum 3 troops if you have less than 12). well, i'd preatty much like to regulate these numbers. for example get +1 for each terit. or +3 for every 2 terits, or why not? get absolutely nothing regardless of the terits you have

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this. i know i keep saying this reason but it's the truth

Lack Label (Mod Use):

You can do this with the collections bonuses...

C.

fireedud · Post by **fireedud** » Mon May 28, 2007 8:05 am

Suggestion Idea: Multiple X/Y coordinates

Description: Youu could add two or more sets of X and Y cooordinates for both the small map and the large map.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would be possible for 3-d maps, that have multiple images (with overlapping to tell where to attack), and your army number appears twice (in the same territory, but a different place).

Lack Label (Mod Use):

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 9:15 am

yeti_c wrote:
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Modifiable bonus for number of owned terits

Description: normaly you get 1 for every 3 terits you own (minimum 3 troops if you have less than 12). well, i'd preatty much like to regulate these numbers. for example get +1 for each terit. or +3 for every 2 terits, or why not? get absolutely nothing regardless of the terits you have

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this. i know i keep saying this reason but it's the truth

Lack Label (Mod Use):
You can do this with the collections bonuses...

C.

perfect. thanks yeti_c

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 9:17 am

i posted this before but no response on it so i'm posting it again to avoid being forgotten.

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Converting Territories

Description: a territory can be converted to another player if certain conditions are met. let's say we have a green territory surrounded by blue. if blue's troops are ten times stronger the green teritory becomes blue with just one army

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this no, seriously it could bring very nice tactical options.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

and another one

Suggestion Idea: Variable Attack Range

Description: we have ranged attacks but those are predefined ranged attacks and can only be applied to set territories. i want those attacks to be variable. so you have a catapult in territory A and it can attack at a certain range (let's say 3 territories in any direction) but in time that catapult becomes a cannon and thus it should be able to attack at a longer range.

or perhaps you get a certain territory that while it is held it provides a boost in catapult range and if you lose it you return to normal range.

Why It Should Be Considered: more options more fun.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 9:20 am

this was posted before but nt using the form. since lack said it's not possible yet i've completed the suggestion form because i really need this.

Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this plus it would add a whole new dimension to tactics and realism.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 5:16 pm

Suggestion Idea: Win condition - number of armies

Description: can a specific number of armies be added as a wining condition? let's say you must have terit x & y but also have 100 armies in those terits.

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 5:27 pm

Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Description: some terits are not attackable but more players can move into the same terit.
let's say we have terit A -> B <- C
with the arrows being one way moving. not attacking just moving. green is in terit A and he moves his troops to B. he selects attack but no dice are rolled he just moves. then red has terit C and also moves into terit B. now both red and green have their armies in the same terit. it's multiple ownership. since the teit is move only there's not the problem of someone attacking it to see who defends and such

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Mon May 28, 2007 6:11 pm

Dim and his damned projects...

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 6:16 pm

unriggable wrote:Dim and his damned projects...

what can i do?
i got lots of ideas

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon May 28, 2007 9:11 pm

I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

wcaclimbing · Post by **wcaclimbing** » Mon May 28, 2007 9:21 pm

Coleman wrote:I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

but reading the list of new things could give you a good idea for a map.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 28, 2007 9:21 pm

Coleman wrote:I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

actually this thread is not just about gathering ideas but also about improving them.
and not to forget making them known to the whole community.

i'm kinda upset i know nothing about programming so basically all my requests are just shots in the dark as i have no idea if they are even remotely possible

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue May 29, 2007 3:09 am

Everything is possible in the code...

XML, despite what a lot of people think, isn't code... it's merely data.

C.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue May 29, 2007 6:48 am

yeti_c wrote:Everything is possible in the code...

XML, despite what a lot of people think, isn't code... it's merely data.

C.

so what i wrote above is possible?

wonderful. all i have to do is convince lack to implement them

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Tue May 29, 2007 7:36 am

yeti_c wrote:Everything is possible in the code...

XML, despite what a lot of people think, isn't code... it's merely data.

C.

xml is one of the only internet "langluages (^sp)" that uses cordinates

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue May 29, 2007 7:44 am

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Is this really so different to continents sharing a border? I'm interested to see in what context it would be used as I don't really see much point to it from what you have said.

Coleman wrote:I think map makers should just attempt whatever they dream up and then pm lack for a way to do what they are wanting to in the xml. It seems better to handle requests as they are needed then this pre-emptive system at this point.

Could you imagine the amount of PM's poor Lack would have to go through if this was the case. I'm sure he's got enough of them already without adding to them. Then there's the fact the same idea would be put foward over and over again by different people... and then, there would need to be an announcement thread anyway so everyone was kept up to date. I think the system in place works really well.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue May 29, 2007 7:57 am

KEYOGI wrote:
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit
Is this really so different to continents sharing a border? I'm interested to see in what context it would be used as I don't really see much point to it from what you have said.

it is totally different. here's a pic to help.

as you can see we have red army and blue army in the eyes.

now they decide to MOVE (not attack but move) towards the mouth.
in the mouth both armies can coexist in a multiple ownership. multiple ownership means there are more players on the same terit at the same time.

in sharing terits (like space map) there can be only one army in a terit at any given time.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue May 29, 2007 8:05 am

I guess that would work for team games, but it seems kind of a useless feature for single player games. I dunno, just my opinion... perhaps you can convince me otherwise.