Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[Gilligan]

I don't think that it's an XML issue with that elimination. I think that losing conditions are settled during attack phases, and it probably just isn't being read. The losing conditions are working, however, cause I did it this morning.

He's probably still alive because the correct XML wasn't loaded when he should have lost by conditions.

[cairnswk]

I don't think that it's an XML issue with that elimination. I think that losing conditions are settled during attack phases, and it probably just isn't being read. The losing conditions are working, however, cause I did it this morning.

He's probably still alive because the correct XML wasn't loaded when he should have lost by conditions.

...but surely if the losing condition exists in the xml, shouldn't it recognise the condition in that game and auto eliminate him?

[Gilligan]

I don't think that it's an XML issue with that elimination. I think that losing conditions are settled during attack phases, and it probably just isn't being read. The losing conditions are working, however, cause I did it this morning.

He's probably still alive because the correct XML wasn't loaded when he should have lost by conditions.

...but surely if the losing condition exists in the xml, shouldn't it recognise the condition in that game and auto eliminate him?

That would make sense, but I'm not sure how the engine reads the XML. It's possible that it only reads it at certain points. It might only check losing conditions when the player in question is being attacked.

[Jippd]

I don't think that it's an XML issue with that elimination. I think that losing conditions are settled during attack phases, and it probably just isn't being read. The losing conditions are working, however, cause I did it this morning.

He's probably still alive because the correct XML wasn't loaded when he should have lost by conditions.

Pink took his turn at 2:30 PM (CST) today. This was after the XML had been switched so you could not view every M from any S or B. I'm not sure if that was a separate upload than the losing condition XML fix or not.

If it is a losing condition the player should be eliminated right away. Think about middle ages if you hold no palaces you die right away. Or All Your Base....as soon as you no longer hold an alien or human you die right away.

Here is the current screen shot I took at the time of this post. You can see with bob that pink has 1 region and that region is visible on the map. I have blocked out non essential areas with boxes to hide information.

[bigimg]http://i42.tinypic.com/dgic8h.jpg[/bigimg]

[Gilligan]

Yeah, I get that, Jippd, but I feel like losing conditions are ONLY checked when the user in question is being attacked because the losing conditions are working elsewhere.

[Jippd]

Should I PM RDS asking what the case is in a situation like this? Or does anyone else know?

Does pink need to lose a territory for it to recognize he meets the losing condition? Or just lose at least one troop?

[cairnswk]

Should I PM RDS asking what the case is in a situation like this? Or does anyone else know?

Does pink need to lose a territory for it to recognize he meets the losing condition? Or just lose at least one troop?

No, i Tael has taken care of the problem LMS pink is not in the game as Tael assulted him.
Onya. Tael.

[puppydog85]

Just my 2 cents, but I think London LB should have an open top beacon. At the very least to let the game flow a little better, at best to help noobs not advance huge stacks to it.

puppydog85, how do you mean "at best to help noobs not advance huge stacks to it"
the london beacon is the end of the line of 3 for that section bonus from Hastings.
are you saying the london beacon should be open top so that you don't get stuck with more than 1 troops on it and have opportunity to fort off it, as long as it is a one-way to London LB.
if that is the case, then it makes sense.

Yes, that is what I mean. The problem is that once you pass TFB Beacon you are stuck with no way to get your troops out. Now you may say that you have to just watch out for it, but in my opinion it would be nice to be able to fort off of London LB Beacon.

and the noob was me, I was merrily clearing out the beacons when I got my 20 stack to the end and realized there was nothing left to do with them. So they sat there until the end of the game.

[cairnswk]

Just my 2 cents, but I think London LB should have an open top beacon. At the very least to let the game flow a little better, at best to help noobs not advance huge stacks to it.

puppydog85, how do you mean "at best to help noobs not advance huge stacks to it"
the london beacon is the end of the line of 3 for that section bonus from Hastings.
are you saying the london beacon should be open top so that you don't get stuck with more than 1 troops on it and have opportunity to fort off it, as long as it is a one-way to London LB.
if that is the case, then it makes sense.

Yes, that is what I mean. The problem is that once you pass TFB Beacon you are stuck with no way to get your troops out. Now you may say that you have to just watch out for it, but in my opinion it would be nice to be able to fort off of London LB Beacon.

and the noob was me, I was merrily clearing out the beacons when I got my 20 stack to the end and realized there was nothing left to do with them. So they sat there until the end of the game.

OK, thanks for that suggestion.
i think it is a totally valild point, and yes it was not considered in development, so it will be done in the next update.
Good pick-up!

[Gilligan]

Cairns, I must say, this map is growing on me. When I was checking the XML I thought I wouldn't like it because it's so damned crazy, but it's actually quite enjoyable.

[cairnswk]

Cairns, I must say, this map is growing on me. When I was checking the XML I thought I wouldn't like it because it's so damned crazy, but it's actually quite enjoyable.

Thank-you Gilligan. I hope everyone enjoys it.

[cairnswk]

post deleted

[nolefan5311]

I've edited the XML to change the wording of the losing condition. The previous wording resulted in: "nolefan5311 no longer holds to hold a Non-Treasury Region and either a Bow (B) or Stern (S) of a Commander's Ship". See game Game 13101598. It sounded silly, so I've changed it. This is the only change from cairns' file above.

[cairnswk]

Version 41 with V9 XML

...with London Beacon update.



[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/Armada/spanish_armada_v41L.png~original[/bigimg]

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original

isaiah40, this is now ready for upload, after Nolefan's edit

[cairnswk]

Yeah, I get that, Jippd, but I feel like losing conditions are ONLY checked when the user in question is being attacked because the losing conditions are working elsewhere.

Gilligan, i get this impression also from one of our games.
The losing condition appeared not to work because ViperOverLord held T regions only.
But as soon as he was attacked by another player and lost one of his T regions
the engine seems to have recognised teh losing condition and VOL was eleiminated.
So my question going forward, does this need adjustment in the game engine.

[isaiah40]

IMHO, I think this happened because the xml was updated AFTER he lost all of his non-treasury regions. So yes the game engine didn't "see: it until he was attacked. Just how I see it.

On a different note, I will get everything sent out later today.

[cairnswk]

IMHO, I think this happened because the xml was updated AFTER he lost all of his non-treasury regions. So yes the game engine didn't "see: it until he was attacked. Just how I see it.

On a different note, I will get everything sent out later today.

Thanks isaiah40, after it's updated, is it possible to open the map again?

[isaiah40]

IMHO, I think this happened because the xml was updated AFTER he lost all of his non-treasury regions. So yes the game engine didn't "see: it until he was attacked. Just how I see it.

On a different note, I will get everything sent out later today.

Thanks isaiah40, after it's updated, is it possible to open the map again?

Yes I'll open the map again!

[Jippd]

If a player does not hold a S or B region they should be eliminated right?

[Aleena]

Ya I think they need to control at least 1/2 of one of those major command ships or else they have lost the game..

[cairnswk]

If a player does not hold a S or B region they should be eliminated right?

Ya I think they need to control at least 1/2 of one of those major command ships or else they have lost the game..

Yes, they need to hold the "one-half" (S or B) of the command ship AND any non-Treasury region
...in order to stay in the game

[Gilligan]

If a player does not hold a S or B region they should be eliminated right?

Likewise, if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.

[iancanton]

if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.

this interpretation of the current xml is correct, but the legend says otherwise. the requirement in the legend is a non-treasury region and either a bow (B) or stern (S). if u hold a B and an S but nothing else, then u hold a both a B, which is a non-treasury region, and a stern (S), therefore u satisfy the requirement to stay alive as given in the legend. however, the losing condition in the current xml will eliminate u.

ian.

[cairnswk]

if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.

this interpretation of the current xml is correct, but the legend says otherwise. the requirement in the legend is a non-treasury region and either a bow (B) or stern (S). if u hold a B and an S but nothing else, then u hold a both a B, which is a non-treasury region, and a stern (S), therefore u satisfy the requirement to stay alive as given in the legend. however, the losing condition in the current xml will eliminate u.

ian.

well, no ian. in the legend under Command Ships, it specifically states that Command Ships are not part of the non-treasury region...

[Gilligan]

if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.

this interpretation of the current xml is correct, but the legend says otherwise. the requirement in the legend is a non-treasury region and either a bow (B) or stern (S). if u hold a B and an S but nothing else, then u hold a both a B, which is a non-treasury region, and a stern (S), therefore u satisfy the requirement to stay alive as given in the legend. however, the losing condition in the current xml will eliminate u.

ian.

well, no ian. in the legend under Command Ships, it specifically states that Cammond Ships are not part of the non-treasury region...

Yeah, I agree with the wording. The ships count as the bow OR the stern, that's all. Having a bow/stern is only half of the requirement to stay in the game.