Conquer Club

Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

I don't know if that was already asked, but I read the XML tutorials and didn't find it there.

Suggestion Idea: weight for territories

specifics: put a weight on territories, so that, when conquered, some territories would earn more than others in terms of reinforcements AND/OR so that conquering some specific territories (and not the whole map) would be accountable for a victory.

Why It should be considered: some territories could be key places like a Castle, a Fort, a Capital, a Gate, and conquering these places would have more weight on the victory. For instance, this could also be coupled with a heavy fortified neutral territory. Or else, one can devise some maps where a balanced victory could be available. One wouldn't be forced to conquer all the enemy's territories, and for a No Card game it would give a less boring end to play.

Lack Label:

Friskies wrote:I don't know if that was already asked, but I read the XML tutorials and didn't find it there.

Suggestion Idea: weight for territories

specifics: put a weight on territories, so that, when conquered, some territories would earn more than others in terms of reinforcements AND/OR so that conquering some specific territories (and not the whole map) would be accountable for a victory.

Why It should be considered: some territories could be key places like a Castle, a Fort, a Capital, a Gate, and conquering these places would have more weight on the victory. For instance, this could also be coupled with a heavy fortified neutral territory. Or else, one can devise some maps where a balanced victory could be available. One wouldn't be forced to conquer all the enemy's territories, and for a No Card game it would give a less boring end to play.

Lack Label:

Uhh, this was done a long time ago, read the XML tutorial before suggesting something else

When I read that I understood it as, some territs earn more reinforcements like this

12 territs = 4 units

12 territs worth 1 territ
OR
10 territs worth 1
1 territ worth 2

etc. Re-reading I'm wrong but I think that may be a good idea

sam_levi_11 wrote:Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

t-o-m wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

yeah, it would mess up gameplay on the AOR maps, as well as Feudal probabally

blakebowling wrote:

t-o-m wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

yeah, it would mess up gameplay on the AOR maps, as well as Feudal probabally

Assuming that a "shared" bonus would have to be tagged in the XML - otherwise this is a site suggestion not an XML suggestion.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

blakebowling wrote:

t-o-m wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:Suggestion Idea: shared bonus'


Description:
If a team holds a continent then you get the bonus, this excludes first go. So if on classic you controlled europe together, at the start of the turn one of the follwoing things could happen (this would be an option when making game):
1) the first team member chooses how much of the bonus to take, the second gets the rest IF they still hold the cont at his turn
2) they both get the bonus
3) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most armys in the continent
4) the bonus is distributed to the player with the most terits in that continent
5) Any of the first 2 but only to players with terits in that continent.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Bring teamwork into play in a new way, stops the having to fort your armies for them to take the terit. Would build camaradery(sp)

What about maps like aor, one person holds an RP and they split it between them, then they are playing like they have 2 castles.
This would send gameplay WAY out of whack, this would be so unbalanced.

yeah, it would mess up gameplay on the AOR maps, as well as Feudal probabally

Assuming that a "shared" bonus would have to be tagged in the XML - otherwise this is a site suggestion not an XML suggestion.

C.

ooh, that would work, you can only share bonuses that are marked shareable in the xml

Suggestion Idea: Turn this thread into a sub forum

Description: Instead of having a single thread for all the XML suggestions, creat a sub-forum inside the map foundry and make each suggestion a separate thread

Why It Should Be Considered: Are you really expecting that someone will read the 44 pages of this thread before making their own suggestion? I tried to see what people had already suggested, to avoid repeating a suggestion myself, or to comment on the suggestion. But honestly, is not much user friendly.

Lack Label (Mod Use): <To be used at a later date, to determine feasibility>

Oh I see! Thanks Tom. May I suggest placing this list in the first post of this thread?

I still think a sub-forum would be better though, i agree with you.

It wouldnt be good to sticky that topic, as we have too many stickies in here, but the first post would be good.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Suggestion Idea: INCREMENTING NEUTRALS

Description: Neutrals that would increment by x number of units every x number of turns

Why It Should Be Considered: I want to include it in a map. A very important neutral city would get this bonus making it harder to conquer as time goes by and more turns are played.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

If this is going to be implemented, I request that the increment could be negative also. Would allow a key-point neutral on a map to become easier to conquer the longer the game goes for.

lanyards wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Mid-Turn Reinforcements

Description:
If a player were to take a certain territory or a certain group of territories, then they would get a bonus and be able to deploy however many extra armies it was worth right after they take the territory or territories and then continue attacking and finish their turn.

This could lead to abuse problems in Freestyle team games, such as Italy Citta bonus, cross-over province bonuses in Battle for Iraq, and probably some more too.

Suggestion Idea: Visibility of territories

Description: Allow a territory to be visible from another territory, but not have an attack route.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would allow mapmakers to create maps with territories such as lookout posts, scouts, cliff-tops, etc. Would only really have any sort of effect on FoW maps. At the moment, on a map such as Waterloo it is crucial to own cannons in order to have an overview of what's going on. Would be great if there could be territories like that which are important, but cannot necessarily attack the territories that they can see.

Lack Label:

e_i_pi wrote:Suggestion Idea: Visibility of territories

Description: Allow a territory to be visible from another territory, but not have an attack route.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would allow mapmakers to create maps with territories such as lookout posts, scouts, cliff-tops, etc. Would only really have any sort of effect on FoW maps. At the moment, on a map such as Waterloo it is crucial to own cannons in order to have an overview of what's going on. Would be great if there could be territories like that which are important, but cannot necessarily attack the territories that they can see.

Lack Label:

Yeah - this one's been mentioned before - but it doesn't stop it being an awesome idea.

C.

e_i_pi wrote:Suggestion Idea: Visibility of territories

Description: Allow a territory to be visible from another territory, but not have an attack route.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would allow mapmakers to create maps with territories such as lookout posts, scouts, cliff-tops, etc. Would only really have any sort of effect on FoW maps. At the moment, on a map such as Waterloo it is crucial to own cannons in order to have an overview of what's going on. Would be great if there could be territories like that which are important, but cannot necessarily attack the territories that they can see.

Lack Label:

ME like but also like the opposite where mapmakers could put single terretories to be fogged with No fog of war.

Suggestion Idea: Variable length for objectives

Description: Allow an objective to be set for X rounds in order to be completed

Why It Should Be Considered: because it adds strategy and tactical options

Lack Label:

RESURRECT!

This seems the appropriate thread, though I notice it's been dead for over a year...

Is there a list of XML modifications that are planned to be done? I notice there's a thread with suggestions for changes to the XML, and trawling through the many many pages can yield information, but it's very hard to find. I figure if there's planned changes, then somewhere, someone would have a planned changes list, possibly with a loose timeframe of when it may be implemented?

Reason I ask is that some map ideas are dependant upon XML changes. We know the Foundry process takes quite a long time. If an XML feature is going to be implemented in an estimated 4 months, wouldn't it be nice to have maps in the making that could be rolled out at about the same time as the XML is?

Apologies if this should go elsewhere in another thread guys.

There is a summary of this thread somewhere (I'll dig it out in a minute, although I agree that an up to date list of proposals to be implemented would make sense

I do know that lack is busy working on some other stuff at the moment, so XML updates are not at the top of his list, although I can think of a few XML features that a lot of us would really like

Mr B

Here it is: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=54619

I'll add the link to the first post too...

Creators Tag

Description: Add a Tag into the XML of the map creator (Idea from [player]chipv[/player] over here)

<creators>

<creator>chipv</creator>
<creator>yeti_c</creator>

</creators>

Why It Should Be Considered: To allow the display or the map creators easily, either in a current add-on or a new one could be made. It could even be incorporated to display without any plugins. Possibly could be used to create an easy display list of who made what maps so if your looking for help you can find out who has worked on something similar. (Idea from [player]barterer2002[/player] also over here)

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Suggestion Idea:
Gates

Description
Gates are basically the opposite of Bombardment connections. Gate territories are only connected through fortification.
A player who possesses both territories that are Gate connected can move their armies through. Players cannot attack each other through Gate connections.

Why It Should Be Considered:
This function would be key for players that have half of their forces on another side of a map, and as a gimick for certain maps.
This should be easy to create since it is the opposite of Bombardment.

Suggestion Idea:Changable Borders

Description: Allow borders to be changed, depending on certain conditions being met.

For instance, on map that involves breaking into a castle, if a forest territory and a ladder workshop are both owned, a border opens up (possibly only for that player, or that player's team) to the walls, etc.

I do realise that something similar may have been posted previously, but hopefully this will at least add to that suggestion

Why It Should Be Considered: Increases options a lot, also necessary for a map that I am planning (as you may have gathered from discription)
Lack Label (Mod Use):

The Wyvern wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Gates

Description
Gates are basically the opposite of Bombardment connections. Gate territories are only connected through fortification.
A player who possesses both territories that are Gate connected can move their armies through. Players cannot attack each other through Gate connections.

Why It Should Be Considered:
This function would be key for players that have half of their forces on another side of a map, and as a gimick for certain maps.
This should be easy to create since it is the opposite of Bombardment.

That is awesome... I really hope this can be added. It makes a lot of sense, actually.