Since we can already target terts to start as neutral with the <neutral> tag, cannot this same part of the xml engine be modified to target a terts as starting with Player 1 and another tert starting as Player 2 etc.
Why: It would allow a group of terts on a map to start with one of each player.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
Since we can already target terts to start as neutral with the <neutral> tag, cannot this same part of the xml engine be modified to target a terts as starting with Player 1 and another tert starting as Player 2 etc.
Why: It would allow a group of terts on a map to start with one of each player.
I would LOVE this
It would open up so many of the ideas ive thought about
i think it's been almost 3 monthas since i asked for these and still no response
DiM wrote:
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: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
i like the 2nd to last one, dont know about the rest, didnt read them
but for the second to last one it could like be (if its crossing water) something like "Bridge Collapsed, you lost 10 armies" for a bridge, or if by port then "Ship Sinks, you lost 15 armies"
Or for by land "Winter hit, you lost 20 armies" or "No water, you lost 25 armies from dehydration"
DiM, lack has noted all the suggestions that have been made, but haven't commented on yet. (He's also noted the ones he originally rejected in the first XML update). He'll get to these after the next site-wide update most likely.
AndyDufresne wrote:DiM, lack has noted all the suggestions that have been made, but haven't commented on yet. (He's also noted the ones he originally rejected in the first XML update). He'll get to these after the next site-wide update most likely.
--Andy
Can we ask when that will be Andy?
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
AndyDufresne wrote:DiM, lack has noted all the suggestions that have been made, but haven't commented on yet. (He's also noted the ones he originally rejected in the first XML update). He'll get to these after the next site-wide update most likely.
--Andy
Can we ask when that will be Andy?
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but you can always ask.
Description: Just like a territory bonus that is auto assigned to a specific territory, except it would apply to continent bonuses. So, for example, if you hold Africa on Classic, the three army bonus would get applied directly to North Africa.
Why: It was brought up in the Thermonuclear War! map idea thread. It just seems like a good, sensible idea. With all the abstract/outside of the box type maps we have coming through, it could be quite a good asset to the foundry community.
edbeard wrote:Continent Bonus Applied to a Territory
Description: Just like a territory bonus that is auto assigned to a specific territory, except it would apply to continent bonuses. So, for example, if you hold Africa on Classic, the three army bonus would get applied directly to North Africa.
Why: It was brought up in the Thermonuclear War! map idea thread. It just seems like a good, sensible idea. With all the abstract/outside of the box type maps we have coming through, it could be quite a good asset to the foundry community.
Description: With this feature, the map can be "reset" every round. Special territories or attack routes can be occupied but when a turn is started they revert back to neutral and block army movement until defeated again.
Why: It will allow features such as locking doors, enemy monsters or creatures that once defeated, resurrect to require killing again. Since the <neutral respawn> would override all of the players armies on that territory, it would also act as a trap door or poison territory.
Description: With this feature, a map could adjust the number of territories it takes to receive 1 bonus army. Currently the game gives 1 army per 3 territories occupied with a minimum of 3.
<Bonus Adjustment> <!--Territory Matrix--> <Territory occupied>1-30</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>3</Tert per Bonus> <Territory occupied>31-60</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>4</Tert per Bonus> <Territory occupied>61-94</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>5</Tert per Bonus> </Bonus Adjustment>
Why: It will allow a map maker to adjust gameplay. If a map is very large a person who gets a good drop and goes first might be able to quickly hurt the other players.
Currently: The more you have the more you get.
This would change to: The more you have the more you get (but not quite as much as you used to)
Conquer Man has over 12,000 lines of code to do this very thing. With this feature the XML would probably bu under 1,000. It is not a glamorous feature but it is efficient when needed.
Mod Use:
Coleman wrote:I haven't discussed this with Andy yet, but would anyone be mad if I went through this topic and deleted everything that wasn't an xml suggestion?
I'd also delete repeat suggestions.
Or maybe I could copy them into a new topic and lock this one?
It's a lot to go through with all our random chatter mixed in.
Nope. So you can delete this response to a post that is not a suggestion as well.
Coleman wrote:I haven't discussed this with Andy yet, but would anyone be mad if I went through this topic and deleted everything that wasn't an xml suggestion?
I'd also delete repeat suggestions.
Or maybe I could copy them into a new topic and lock this one?
It's a lot to go through with all our random chatter mixed in.
Not a bad idea - ensure my suggestions get left in though - they may not be in the correct format!!!
<Bonus Adjustment> <!--Territory Matrix--> <Territory occupied>1-30</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>3</Tert per Bonus> <Territory occupied>31-60</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>4</Tert per Bonus> <Territory occupied>61-94</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>5</Tert per Bonus> </Bonus Adjustment>
<Bonus Adjustment> <!--Territory Matrix--> <Territory occupied>1-30</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>3</Tert per Bonus> <Territory occupied>31-60</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>4</Tert per Bonus> <Territory occupied>61-94</Territory occupied> <Tert per Bonus>5</Tert per Bonus> </Bonus Adjustment>
Description: Specify territories that would be preferred neutrals, when the number of available territories is not divisible by the number of players.
Why It Should Be Considered: To allow the designation of neutral spaces when neutrals have to be deployed.
Possible scenarios where this may be useful:
In a 2 player Classic-type game, you could specify that Australia/South America equivalent continents would be preferred neutral.
If you have a 42-terr map, you could specify 2 preferred neutral terrs for 4/5 player games; to out-of-the-way locations, or somewhere important...
This is subtley different from the Designate Neutral that now exists, and from the much-suggested Player Starting Positions, but perhaps an option that complements the two?
