Allows more than one type of unit in a game and assigns them point values for Attack and Defend.
Example:
We use one type for our games, infantry. Say infantry has a 2pv Attack Skill and a 2pv Defend Skil.
By allowing MUT you can included different units, with different values. Artillery, for instance, would have a more powerful 3pv Attack Skill, but because they are vulnerable their Defend pv would only be 1. Cavalry which is lightly armed would have a 1pv Attack Skill and because of their mobility and ability to disengage their Defend Skill would be 1pv.
This is far-fetched and ten years away but I wanted to put it out there. It would also require units to have hit points, which would be another five years away. Still, I wanted to post it anyway and see if there's any feedback.
Allows more than one type of unit in a game and assigns them point values for Attack and Defend.
Example:
We use one type for our games, infantry. Say infantry has a 2pv Attack Skill and a 2pv Defend Skil.
By allowing MUT you can included different units, with different values. Artillery, for instance, would have a more powerful 3pv Attack Skill, but because they are vulnerable their Defend pv would only be 1. Cavalry which is lightly armed would have a 1pv Attack Skill and because of their mobility and ability to disengage their Defend Skill would be 1pv.
This is far-fetched and ten years away but I wanted to put it out there. It would also require units to have hit points, which would be another five years away. Still, I wanted to post it anyway and see if there's any feedback.
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.
Well, with the current system I see lack designing a lot of stuff people may never use. And maybe we could redirect those pms to a different person who could then send the decent ones to lack.
DiM wrote:anybody knows if and when will be the next batch of updates?
DiM wrote: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.
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
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
DiM wrote: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.
DiM wrote: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?
DiM wrote: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.
DiM wrote: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
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea:Random assigned xml features
Description: let's say i have a map where some terits give bonuses. i want those terits to be random every time a new game starts
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea:Motion detectors
Description: i want triggers in the xml for certain actions done by the players. let's say a players moves from terita A to B. if he moves 10 troops it's ok but if he moves 100 troops a motion detector is triggered and a xml feature is applied (like an impassable border or decay or something)
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour
Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:
if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral) if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral) ......
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
KEYOGI wrote:In all honesty DiM, all those ideas are shocking!
my projects are on a standstill because i lack the above xml features
i'd like to at least know if they are ever going to be implemented
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
I understand your frustration. Perhaps Lack wants to see how often the newest XML updates are implemented before investing more time in further updates? If a feature is only going to be used once or twice, it's hardly worth the effort.
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
I could do that with the current xml using the new override and collection bonuses. Although it would be nice to have something simple in the header to do it faster.
Description: Certain Territories that always start together (for instance in qwert's eastern front map, one team could start with territories on the far east and the other on the far west (although, not a full continent)
Why It Should Be Considered: This would be good for maps based on wars and battles whare the sides wern't spread around randomly but origionated from one point, you could still have most territories random but keep a power base for each player
Lack Label (Mod Use):
Suggestion Idea:Capital Territories
Description: Best used with default territories these territories would increace the number of arimes on them by one each turn. Only one would be given to each player (the rest could be neutral)
Why It Should Be Considered: Would be very good for maps like the roman empire whare it was based around capitals, this natural increace in troops Would make these territories very valuble as the troops could be forted out later to where they are needed
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
I could do that with the current xml using the new override and collection bonuses. Although it would be nice to have something simple in the header to do it faster.
yep i know yeti_c told me but as you said it would be nice to have a simpler method.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
KEYOGI wrote:I understand your frustration. Perhaps Lack wants to see how often the newest XML updates are implemented before investing more time in further updates? If a feature is only going to be used once or twice, it's hardly worth the effort.
almost all of the maps that are now in final forge and some that have been quenched are using the new features.
also many of the maps in production are using them so i think they are a real success and should be followed by more features.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Is there a list of what is in and how it is implemented somewhere? If so, could we make it easier to find? Sticky perhaps? If not could we make one and then sticky it. Or make a current sticky link to it, or something???
Description: Certain Territories that always start together (for instance in qwert's eastern front map, one team could start with territories on the far east and the other on the far west (although, not a full continent)
Why It Should Be Considered: This would be good for maps based on wars and battles whare the sides wern't spread around randomly but origionated from one point, you could still have most territories random but keep a power base for each player
Yes these very interesting,you can put in all front from north to south neutral numbers,but problem will be bonuses for extra terittory(Moscow Stalingrad,leningrad)
Description: In the xml if I want to make a new continent that I know contains two smaller ones it would be nice if I could just put the continent name instead of all the countries.
Why It Should Be Considered: This would save a lot of space on larger maps which may use it. Also if I then used this as a selection group it would be a really easy to say if someone holds two of these five continents then they get this extra bonus (or negative bonus). Which actually would not be possible with the countries, or it would take a lot of work.
A Slightly less powerful substitute might be creating multiple territories in the same place. Think of it like a house: one player can occupy the top level, another the ground floor, and a third the basement. Each might have doors to the outside, and possibly stairs up or down.
Also, on a side note, maybe if the script was open source, other people could help implement game changes?
oldbenjamin wrote:A Slightly less powerful substitute might be creating multiple territories in the same place. Think of it like a house: one player can occupy the top level, another the ground floor, and a third the basement. Each might have doors to the outside, and possibly stairs up or down.
Also, on a side note, maybe if the script was open source, other people could help implement game changes?
i already suggested this but nothing yet
DiM wrote: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
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
DiM wrote:anybody knows if and when will be the next batch of updates?
DiM wrote: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.
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
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
DiM wrote: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.
DiM wrote: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?
DiM wrote: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.
DiM wrote: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
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea:Random assigned xml features
Description: let's say i have a map where some terits give bonuses. i want those terits to be random every time a new game starts
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea:Motion detectors
Description: i want triggers in the xml for certain actions done by the players. let's say a players moves from terita A to B. if he moves 10 troops it's ok but if he moves 100 troops a motion detector is triggered and a xml feature is applied (like an impassable border or decay or something)
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour
Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:
if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral) if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral) ......
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour
Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:
if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral) if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral) ......
I'm starting to see the need for this one myself. I'm not sure if the rest neutral is the right way of saying it, that can be designated if desired by neutral values in the actual territories. What I would like from this is being able to designate some territories to a specific player depending on total player count and leaving the rest randomly assigned.
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour
Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:
if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral) if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral) ......
I'm starting to see the need for this one myself. I'm not sure if the rest neutral is the right way of saying it, that can be designated if desired by neutral values in the actual territories. What I would like from this is being able to designate some territories to a specific player depending on total player count and leaving the rest randomly assigned.
Apologies for the poor example - but you get the idea...
So you have 6 "Starting positions" in mind... so each player gets 1 - the rest are neutral... in fact thinking about it... following the above code to it's logical conclusion - all you need is this...
