XML Modifications and Variations

[bryguy]

Suggestion Idea: Bombarded Players Become Killer Neutrals

Description: Basically for it, the idea is that the territory could start out as a normal player controlled territory, but if bombarded switches to a killer neutral.

Why It Should Be Considered: Cooler maps.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[DiM]

Suggestion Idea: Variable turn limit for objective completition

Description: right now if you hold the objective for 1 turn you win, it would be nice if you could set the exact number of turns you need to hold the objective

Why it should be considered: it will allow a lot of nice gameplay gimmicks

and as a completition to the above suggestion here's another one:

Suggestion Idea: possibility to start by holding an objective

Description: right now getting the objective from the deployment is impossible and it's logical to be so. but if the above suggestion is implemented i don't see why you can't start with the objective.

Why it should be considered: it will allow a lot of nice gameplay gimmicks

[bryguy]

DiM, just to let u know, u need the mod label

[DiM]

DiM, just to let u know, u need the mod label

no i don't, the suggestions were first made via pm and discussed with lack. he said he'll implement them in the next xml update

PS: i actually forgot about the mod label

[TheSupremeCourt]

Suggestion Idea: Combined Attacks

Description: You can attack from more than one country at once. It confers no advantage other than the 2 armies will combine on the conquered territory if successful.

E.g. Alberta (6 red armies) and Britain (4 red armies) attack Colombia (2 blue armies). It is calculated as a 6vs2. Red win, taking no casualties. The 4 armies from Britain are also considered when selecting how many armies advance. Colombo is conquered and now contains 9 red armies, who can go on to further attacks.
The armies do not combine to produce additional dice. I.e. 2 red + 2 red vs 2 blue is still a 2 on 2 for dice, not 3 vs 2.
E.g. Alberta (2 red armies) and Britain (2 red armies) attack Colombia (2 blue armies). The dice rolled is a 2 vs 2, not 3 v 2.

Why It Should Be Considered: New tactical considerations; that historically wonderful "pincer attack".

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[TaCktiX]

Suggestion Idea: Combined Attacks

Description: You can attack from more than one country at once. It confers no advantage other than the 2 armies will combine on the conquered territory if successful.

E.g. Alberta (6 red armies) and Britain (4 red armies) attack Colombia (2 blue armies). It is calculated as a 6vs2. Red win, taking no casualties. The 4 armies from Britain are also considered when selecting how many armies advance. Colombo is conquered and now contains 9 red armies, who can go on to further attacks.
The armies do not combine to produce additional dice. I.e. 2 red + 2 red vs 2 blue is still a 2 on 2 for dice, not 3 vs 2.
E.g. Alberta (2 red armies) and Britain (2 red armies) attack Colombia (2 blue armies). The dice rolled is a 2 vs 2, not 3 v 2.

Why It Should Be Considered: New tactical considerations; that historically wonderful "pincer attack".

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Good suggestion, but this isn't an XML thing bound to maps. It's a game engine change. Put it in Suggestions.

[TheSupremeCourt]

Cheers. It's in Suggestions now

[bryguy]

Neutral Bombard

Description: Kinda like the infected neutrals, except that at the end of everybodys turn it keeps bombarding randomly the areas that its able to until its down to 1 on the territory or all that it can bombard is 1 neutral

Why It Should Be Considered: It would add a cool twist, and if a map had a neutral volcano that could bombard it would seem like the volcano was erupting

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[fireedud]

Suggestion Idea: team objective

Description: As far as I know, the objective can only be held by one person, but it should be possible for a team to hold it.
it could be written like this:

Code: Select all

<objective>
<name>...</name>
<components>...</components>
<team hold>yes</team>
</objective>

Why It Should Be Considered: It would make War/battles maps more realistic.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[bryguy]

hey dud, that gives me an idea

Suggestion Idea: Team Held Bonus

Description: Basically, this would make it so that a team could hold a bonus, and not just one person on that team.
and for the bonus tags (i really have to brush up on my xml) it could have an extra thing added to it that could say

Code: Select all

<team hold>yes</team>

and the person with the most territories in that continent gets the bonus


Why It Should Be Considered: Cooler gameplay

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[yeti_c]

Personally I can't see either of these happening...

Exactly how would you classify a "Held" objective or continent?

The beauty of Continents & Objectives is that every player has a chance to break them before you get the bonus or win...

C.

[fireedud]

Personally I can't see either of these happening...

Exactly how would you classify a "Held" objective or continent?

The beauty of Continents & Objectives is that every player has a chance to break them before you get the bonus or win...

C.

well, I mean that when your turn happens, instead of checking just what you get, it's also checks what your teammates hold, and If you all are holding the objective together, you winn. The other team does have a chance to break it.

[bryguy]

Personally I can't see either of these happening...

Exactly how would you classify a "Held" objective or continent?

The beauty of Continents & Objectives is that every player has a chance to break them before you get the bonus or win...

C.

well, I mean that when your turn happens, instead of checking just what you get, it's also checks what your teammates hold, and If you all are holding the objective together, you winn. The other team does have a chance to break it.

yea but then if it were freestyle, wouldnt that make it that say your teammate took it before you started playing, then they stopped playing, and say an hour later you log in, hit begin turn and your teammate has (say there is 2 needed) 1 needed and u have the other, wouldnt that make you guys win?

[Kaplowitz]

Suggestion Idea: Fixed Territories

Description: Similar to neutral killer, but its not neutral. example: Player A conquers T1. He ends his turn with 2 armies. If the Fixed Territory is set to 10, at the begining of Player A's next turn, T1 will have 10 armies.

Code: Select all

<fixed>10</fixed>

Why It Should Be Considered: It would be interesting

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[t-o-m]

Suggestion Idea: Fixed Territories

Description: Similar to neutral killer, but its not neutral. example: Player A conquers T1. He ends his turn with 2 armies. If the Fixed Territory is set to 10, at the begining of Player A's next turn, T1 will have 10 armies.

BUT
what if Player A had 15armies on there?
would it decay back down to 10 or stay the same or...

and what scenario would this be used in? im guessing to hold and advantage in a kinda 'war' map maybe?

[Kaplowitz]

It would go back to 10. It would be interesting, i didnt have a scenario in mind...but i did have kind of one

Lets say Siam + Indonesia are fixed at 10, and you hold Aussie. You know Player A will make a big attack next turn, and very likely take over aussie. You have a lot of armies to spare, but you have you two choices. stack Siam/Indo and you know you will lose them next turn, or hope he doesnt get good dice, and put spread them throughout aussie.

I dont really have any good examples, i just thought it would be cool

[t-o-m]

aha!

it would be good if you set it to say 1or 2, lets say 1.

set it to one, then if you get an autodeploy on that particular terit then it would almost force you to make a move, which would make great gameplay.

EDIT

or you could use it on an objective map - the objective terit(s) would go down to 2 or 3 maybe?
like DiM had that map idea in the map ideas sub-forum - the tag one, could be used on that

[max is gr8]

Suggestion Idea: Undeployable territories.

Description: You cannot deploy units onto them, excluding the territory bonus.

Why It Should Be Considered: It could be used to allow "travelling territories" to have through passes without any deploys allowed on them

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[TITANESS]

Suggestion Idea: ocean counrties

Description: bodies of water are countries and parts of continents. could possibly be different sorts of armies to only go on water (ships).

Why It Should Be Considered: Navies are a large part of wars and (like most other ideas) it will make the game more interesting

Lack Label (Mod Use): ?

[t-o-m]

Suggestion Idea: ocean counrties

Description: bodies of water are countries and parts of continents. could possibly be different sorts of armies to only go on water (ships).

Why It Should Be Considered: Navies are a large part of wars and (like most other ideas) it will make the game more interesting

Lack Label (Mod Use): ?

you can do that anyway.
just make it a country, nothing different in the XML afterall the XML doesnt know its an ocean, or if land is land, all it knows is what it connects to and where the army numbers go.

[zimmah]

Suggestion Idea: ocean counrties

Description: bodies of water are countries and parts of continents. could possibly be different sorts of armies to only go on water (ships).

Why It Should Be Considered: Navies are a large part of wars and (like most other ideas) it will make the game more interesting

Lack Label (Mod Use): ?

suggestion: if you don't know about how XML work, don't make a suggestion.

[zimmah]

Suggestion Idea: Paratroopers


Description: territories that allow you to attack anywhere on the battle field. You could also have territories with air defense symbol or something like that so you can control the location of paradrops.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would make things extremely interesting and combined with my max troop limit option it could prove to be a good option to have around without being able to be abused or used as a location to mass troops while having no direction. -(see my max troop limit idea to prevent this from being abused)

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

i don't know why this is rated a no, but you can actually do this already anyways.

[zimmah]

Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

Why It Should Be Considered: opens the door to allow seige weapons while keeping them vulnerable to anything outside their attack range.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

same counts for this option.

[TITANESS]

TITANESS wrote:Suggestion Idea: ocean counrties

Description: bodies of water are countries and parts of continents. could possibly be different sorts of armies to only go on water (ships).

Why It Should Be Considered: Navies are a large part of wars and (like most other ideas) it will make the game more interesting

Lack Label (Mod Use): ?

suggestion: if you don't know about how XML work, don't make a suggestion.

Perhaps you didn't understand me
I meant ships that could only go on water

[bryguy]

TITANESS wrote:Suggestion Idea: ocean counrties

Description: bodies of water are countries and parts of continents. could possibly be different sorts of armies to only go on water (ships).

Why It Should Be Considered: Navies are a large part of wars and (like most other ideas) it will make the game more interesting

Lack Label (Mod Use): ?

suggestion: if you don't know about how XML work, don't make a suggestion.

Perhaps you didn't understand me
I meant ships that could only go on water

actually technically you can already do this with the right map. And zimmah, maybe just point that out next time