ManBungalow wrote:I suggest an adjustment to the reinforcement setup. As it stands, Clandemonium uses the standard 3 troop deployment with +1 for every 3 over 12 regions. This could be changed to 1 troop with +1 for every 2 regions (or anything similar of your fancy really)
If Ender's suggestion doesn't help. I'm ok with that Bunga. We would scrap the green region bonus and keep the standard region number bonus, adjusting it. If so, could we take the usual 12 region number down?
Making it like : 3 troops for owning 6 (or less) regions and +1 for every 2 regions above 6
<continent> <name>2 Green Regions</name> <bonus>1</bonus> <components> &GreenRegions; </components> <required>2</required> </continent>
<continent> <name>4 Green Regions</name> <bonus>2</bonus> <components> &GreenRegions; </components> <required>4</required> <overrides> <override>2 Green Regions</override> </overrides> </continent>
. . .
I would feel more comfortable with this suggestion if the map XML still contained the <?xml ... ?>, so I would know where an internal entity could be defined.
If this doesn't work out, changing the standard troop deployment to +1 for every two regions would be a good start. The specific effect of not awarding these troops for non-green regions could probably be done with a smaller set of continents with negative bonuses.
Fantastic idea!
There is nothing stopping you having the first xml tag at the top before the doctype. The only problem might be with the XML parser being used in the server script but it really ought to be one that handles entities in XML so this is definitely an experiment worth trying as other mapmakers could really use this too.
It'll be dependant on whether or not the XML parser allows the use of entities; I was under the impression that it didn't, but we'll have to wait until lack returns from his wanderings before getting an official answer.
PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
The fact remains that this is an extraordinarily large number of continents, which may bog down add-ons like BOB and Clicky Maps, regardless of the way those continents are defined, so my suggestion may not get us out of the woods.
Kabanellas wrote:We would scrap the green region bonus and keep the standard region number bonus, adjusting it. If so, could we take the usual 12 region number down?
Making it like : 3 troops for owning 6 (or less) regions and +1 for every 2 regions above 6
Kabanellas wrote:In that case, if Blitz agrees, I'm ok with this:
Kabanellas wrote:We would scrap the green region bonus and keep the standard region number bonus, adjusting it. If so, could we take the usual 12 region number down?
Making it like : 3 troops for owning 6 (or less) regions and +1 for every 2 regions above 6
If that will fix the issue and make it playable, I agree with Kab.
Very nearly finished the coordinates - I'm going through the document and adjusting each one manually, as there were just so many dodgy placements in the previous attempt.
When I've done this, I'll send two versions to MrBenn for upload -
One with the continent override chain as initially planned, largely for coordinate testing and such. One with the entity suggestion made by ender516 in place, possibly so lackattack can confirm its practicality.
Apologies for the latest delay, I've been out of town.
ManBungalow wrote:Very nearly finished the coordinates - I'm going through the document and adjusting each one manually, as there were just so many dodgy placements in the previous attempt.
When I've done this, I'll send two versions to MrBenn for upload -
One with the continent override chain as initially planned, largely for coordinate testing and such. One with the entity suggestion made by ender516 in place, possibly so lackattack can confirm its practicality.
Apologies for the latest delay, I've been out of town.
MrBenn wrote:It'll be dependant on whether or not the XML parser allows the use of entities; I was under the impression that it didn't, but we'll have to wait until lack returns from his wanderings before getting an official answer.
I tried this on the test site and it didn't work. Unfortunately our parser (SimpleXML) does not support defining entities
MrBenn wrote:It'll be dependant on whether or not the XML parser allows the use of entities; I was under the impression that it didn't, but we'll have to wait until lack returns from his wanderings before getting an official answer.
I tried this on the test site and it didn't work. Unfortunately our parser (SimpleXML) does not support defining entities
That's a real shame. I was afraid that this might be the case, but in any event, it is good to know before I spend any time using them in any other XML that I might be working on.
Kabanellas but really ManBungalow wrote:We would scrap the green region bonus and keep the standard region number bonus, adjusting it. If so, could we take the usual 12 region number down?
Making it like : 3 troops for owning 6 (or less) regions and +1 for every 2 regions above 6
Every other aspect of the gameplay can remain as it is. Do I have the go-ahead?
ManBungalow wrote:BLITZERHOLIC, YOUR ATTENTION IS REQUIRED.
I suggest this:
Kabanellas but really ManBungalow wrote:We would scrap the green region bonus and keep the standard region number bonus, adjusting it. If so, could we take the usual 12 region number down?
Making it like : 3 troops for owning 6 (or less) regions and +1 for every 2 regions above 6
Every other aspect of the gameplay can remain as it is. Do I have the go-ahead?
I would like to get Kab's feedback first, if he agrees, then I would be ok with this. If not, then we would need to rethink another option.
ManBungalow wrote:when a player begins with 'Empire', they will have 3 troops ready before auto-deployments.
is it in order to have the empire landing point start with 4 or 5 troops rather than 3 (5 appears to be the average)? i regard empire as having the weakest position of all clans, especially in those games where it starts after black sheep squadron, since it's not possible to build on 2 or 3 regions to block off a chunk of the home neighbourhood that both includes the landing point and keeps contact with either clan portals or clans' grounds. this disadvantage is unique to empire.
People will complain if the number of armies given out at the start is uneven, regardless of whether it is planned that way to even out any slight imbalance (it happened with Third Crusade, and had to be adjusted to make the starts even).
PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
MrBenn wrote:People will complain if the number of armies given out at the start is uneven, regardless of whether it is planned that way to even out any slight imbalance (it happened with Third Crusade, and had to be adjusted to make the starts even).
but in order to balance all these starting points - that have unique characteristics between themselves - we need to adjust some values. Just as studied in the chart below:
While I have nothing against your reasoning for wanting to vary the troop numbers, you have to think about more than just distances. In card games (in fact any game, really), the player with more troops has an easier chance of picking up cards and expanding territory.
Sadly, the way that CCers like to complain, I can guarantee that there will be an almighty backlash for those who start with 3 armies, if an opponent starts with 7. I can see the complaints and screenshots showing the "unfairness" now. This first impression might put people off playing the map again.
As for "walls of neutrals", you only need to look at the thought DiM put into spreading neutrals around on the Age of Realms maps to see that you don;t need a wall, but some carefully thought out variation.
PB: 2661 | He's blue...If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
..but Ben, remember that this slight difference of 3 troops, will be critical in the first 2 rounds of the game, but will quickly be diluted in the next rounds....
I respect your viewpoint here Kab, but, I am leaning on MrBenn's thoughts and there could be a lot of loud distaste for some starting with 3 and others 5, etc., we certainly do not want this map to be a flop, especially after putting in almost 10 months worth of work.
I think it would be best if all started out with the same amount, and we can slightly tweak spreading neutrals around the map creatively to offer some balance. This would solve the issue in my view.
Kab, if you agree, maybe you could do some screenshots of some different variations so all can see this and we could collaborate together on some skillful balance.
