Conquer Club

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Suggestion Idea: NON - DEPLOYABLE TERRITORIES


Description: It would be territories that cannot be deployed on at thet beginning or during ones turn

Why It Should Be Considered: Lets say you have an area that is supposed to be defended or separated from the rest of the map by one small area. The defense would be totally useless if people could just deploy in this 'defended' area. You could still fortifiy fi you had a direct line to the territory but you wouldn't be able to dump armies there on your turn. An example of this would be in the Valley of the Kings map where you coulnd't deploy in the after life, only get through through the scarabs.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

yeti_c wrote:

fluffybunnykins wrote:I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)

Yeah scenario risk could be pretty cool...

Imagine scenarios with fog of war... that'd be cool...

On that point I guess Fog of war could go into XML - visiblity length could be defined here - although actually this would be best as an option on game start wouldn't it... please ignore my ramblings! (Shame they're sober ones too!)

C.

So, to condense:

Idea: Assigned starting continents (scenarios)

Description: Certain maps, designed for this purpose, have equal-sized continents awarded in their entirety to a player at beginning of game. Mimics real war, for example, as entire US fights Japan and Pacific Islands (WWII). Probably best used with freestyle play.

Why it should be considered:Like I said, it mimics real war, and could set up fun hypothetical wars ("hot" Cold War). If all continents were created equal, placement would be completely fair. Also, 2-person games would be possible.

Possible maps: (off the top of my head)

North America: US vs. Canada vs. Mexico and Central America.
Pacific Ocean: Japan, Australia, South America, North America, Pacific Islands, Russia? (possible for 6, 3, or 2 person games)
Europe
Other "real" and abstract maps could work as well.

Lack Label (mod use): [No]

I couldn't explain all the good things in my head, but I'm sure you can imagine most of them.

Max Troop Limit
Non-deployable Territories

These all seem to me the same idea/problem/suggestion.

The answer to me comes from the Risk II game.

A territory can add 1 army for itself and 1 army for each adjacent terrirtory. Thus if you own Australia only you can place 3 armies on Indonesia and Eastern Australia and 4 armies on New Guinea and Western Australia. Same goes for after turn deployment. You can move 3 onto Indonesia and up to 4 onto WA/NG.

This solves both problems at once with out imposing a hard cap on the troop levels per territory, which would be impossible in the Foundry anyway to get everyone to agree that these spaces are capped at 20 and these at 12.....

JK

mibi wrote:Suggestion Idea: NON - DEPLOYABLE TERRITORIES


Description: It would be territories that cannot be deployed on at thet beginning or during ones turn

Why It Should Be Considered: Lets say you have an area that is supposed to be defended or separated from the rest of the map by one small area. The defense would be totally useless if people could just deploy in this 'defended' area. You could still fortifiy fi you had a direct line to the territory but you wouldn't be able to dump armies there on your turn. An example of this would be in the Valley of the Kings map where you coulnd't deploy in the after life, only get through through the scarabs.

Lack Label (Mod Use): No-Deploy

i suggest that you could also put in a option that you can only fort to it when you have the whole continent

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

Which might open the door for people to make scenarios for others' maps -- that wouldn't be unwelcome.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

Which might open the door for people to make scenarios for others' maps -- that wouldn't be unwelcome.

Oh yes indeed... set piece scenarios on classic map would be great fun.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

Which might open the door for people to make scenarios for others' maps -- that wouldn't be unwelcome.

Oh yes indeed... set piece scenarios on classic map would be great fun.

C.

you could let everyone start whit one king of the hill

Suggestion : Forced game types

In the XML header section for the map perhaps a setting that allowed/disallowed certain game types on this map.

I.e. for a very small map you could disallow 6 player... for a huge map disallow 2-3 player - etc?

C.

[No]

yeti_c wrote:Suggestion : Forced game types

In the XML header section for the map perhaps a setting that allowed/disallowed certain game types on this map.

I.e. for a very small map you could disallow 6 player... for a huge map disallow 2-3 player - etc?

C.

Why disallow it? If it's no fun that way, people just won't play those settings.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Suggestion : Forced game types

In the XML header section for the map perhaps a setting that allowed/disallowed certain game types on this map.

I.e. for a very small map you could disallow 6 player... for a huge map disallow 2-3 player - etc?

C.

Why disallow it? If it's no fun that way, people just won't play those settings.

And besides, some people might enjoy starting with very few territories, like in Indochina.

Suggestion Idea: BLIND

Description: Blind is where... you can only see the country's you are next to. Example: If I don't have a country that borders the Middle East, then I can't see who owns it or how many armies they are hiding there.

Why It Should Be Considered: We use to play this way in the late 90's at mplayer.com Makes for great games. Best risk games I've ever played. I love to see it on all these maps.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]


Snifner

snifner wrote:Suggestion Idea: BLIND

Description: Blind is where... you can only see the country's you are next to. Example: If I don't have a country that borders the Middle East, then I can't see who owns it or how many armies they are hiding there.

Why It Should Be Considered: We use to play this way in the late 90's at mplayer.com Makes for great games. Best risk games I've ever played. I love to see it on all these maps.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


Snifner

already suggested

Wisse wrote:

snifner wrote:Suggestion Idea: BLIND

Description: Blind is where... you can only see the country's you are next to. Example: If I don't have a country that borders the Middle East, then I can't see who owns it or how many armies they are hiding there.

Why It Should Be Considered: We use to play this way in the late 90's at mplayer.com Makes for great games. Best risk games I've ever played. I love to see it on all these maps.

Lack Label (Mod Use):


Snifner

already suggested

And not an XML change...

XML modifications only pertain to characteristics local to the map... not a gameplay wide change for the site.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

Which might open the door for people to make scenarios for others' maps -- that wouldn't be unwelcome.

Oh yes indeed... set piece scenarios on classic map would be great fun.

C.

well once you have set starting positions you would have to figure out which player gets which position. I can only imagine if the play who makes the game gets to choose first, then you will have a lot of games with only one player in them. I think this 'xml change' opens up a huge can of proverbial worms.

mibi wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

Which might open the door for people to make scenarios for others' maps -- that wouldn't be unwelcome.

Oh yes indeed... set piece scenarios on classic map would be great fun.

C.

well once you have set starting positions you would have to figure out which player gets which position. I can only imagine if the play who makes the game gets to choose first, then you will have a lot of games with only one player in them. I think this 'xml change' opens up a huge can of proverbial worms.

It could go something along the lines of turn-based deployment, as you do in normal risk... You get your 3 armies per territory as a total amount. First player deploys 3, second deploys his 3, third deploys his 3 etc. etc.

Only problem is half the game would be spent deploying, and would only really work with real-time.

Guiscard wrote:

mibi wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

mibi wrote:

Coleman wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Set Starting Positions

Description:
Not sure how to explain this but there should be a way to over ride the random placement and code in specific start locations based on player number and game type.

Why It Should Be Considered:
I dunno, it was an idea. I'm pretty sure this can't be done with xml anyway, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

great idea!... would be very good for some situational maps.

On the other hand, I can see how it would get boring playing the same positions over and over.

Could have a set number of different scenarios for different maps...

C.

Which might open the door for people to make scenarios for others' maps -- that wouldn't be unwelcome.

Oh yes indeed... set piece scenarios on classic map would be great fun.

C.

well once you have set starting positions you would have to figure out which player gets which position. I can only imagine if the play who makes the game gets to choose first, then you will have a lot of games with only one player in them. I think this 'xml change' opens up a huge can of proverbial worms.

It could go something along the lines of turn-based deployment, as you do in normal risk... You get your 3 armies per territory as a total amount. First player deploys 3, second deploys his 3, third deploys his 3 etc. etc.

Only problem is half the game would be spent deploying, and would only really work with real-time.

well then they should implement my S.R.I.D © system.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ght=random

Fortifyable but non attackable borders

I would like to see borders that can be fortifyed to but not attacked or can be attacked but not fortifyed to

specifcs:simply borders that would be normal when attacking but cant be foftifyed across or visa-versa

Why its need: to simulate mountain crossings that are to thin to get a succsuesful attack across but can pass troops across.

Lack label: [Maybe]

yeti_c wrote:

fluffybunnykins wrote:I like the set starting positions idea that a few people have mentioned. It would make the historical battle maps more realistic & would open up scenario possibilities, such as exploring/conquering new lands (every player starts with just one territory & the rest of the map is neutral)

Yeah scenario risk could be pretty cool...

Imagine scenarios with fog of war... that'd be cool...

On that point I guess Fog of war could go into XML - visiblity length could be defined here - although actually this would be best as an option on game start wouldn't it... please ignore my ramblings! (Shame they're sober ones too!)

C.

I have a map, not very good yet, but it covers this...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18248

JK

CONTINENT BONUS TRIGGERS OTHER XML STUFF

Description: I would like to see some of these other ideas like non-deployable territories or decaying territories or ever regular bonuses, have the option to be dependant on holding an area or continent. Like if you hold territory, x, y, z then territory A becomes one way, or territory B increases its bonuses to 5 or something.

Why It Should Be Considered: this would just open up the game play exponentially when other tweaks are added.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Maybe]

JupitersKing wrote:Max Troop Limit
Non-deployable Territories

These all seem to me the same idea/problem/suggestion.

The answer to me comes from the Risk II game.

A territory can add 1 army for itself and 1 army for each adjacent terrirtory. Thus if you own Australia only you can place 3 armies on Indonesia and Eastern Australia and 4 armies on New Guinea and Western Australia. Same goes for after turn deployment. You can move 3 onto Indonesia and up to 4 onto WA/NG.

This solves both problems at once with out imposing a hard cap on the troop levels per territory, which would be impossible in the Foundry anyway to get everyone to agree that these spaces are capped at 20 and these at 12.....

JK

Nice idea, but what happens when you cash in a set of 25 armies and have just been owned so you have one country?

dominationnation wrote:Fortifyable but non attackable borders

I would like to see borders that can be fortifyed to but not attacked or can be attacked but not fortifyed to

specifcs:simply borders that would be normal when attacking but cant be foftifyed across or visa-versa

Why its need: to simulate mountain crossings that are to thin to get a succsuesful attack across but can pass troops across.

Lack label:

already been suggested

I haven't looked really well, but this may have already been suggested. Indeed if it hasn't, I'll be surprised.

Suggestion Idea: Different Army Number Font Styles and Sizes

Description: Map makers will be able to specify from a list of available fonts for their maps within the XML files. Example: This probably isn't how you would do it, but it shouldn't have to be any more complicated than that.

Why It Should Be Considered: The army number pixel font we use now just doesn't fit a lot of the maps. It's also very limiting on what size territories can be created. The army numbers could easily be about half their current size and still be readable. They could also be something completely different (Comic Sans, Arial, Times New Roman, Console, whatever fits). I'm not sure what format the current numbers are, either text or image (possibly for the different colors and black outline), but either way, this shouldn't really be too hard to implement. If you use text, you just have to make sure you have them in your system. If you use images for the numbers, drawing them would be the only part that may take some time but I'm sure many people would be happy to spend a few minutes and add more fonts to your cache.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

ericwdhs wrote:I haven't looked really well, but this may have already been suggested. Indeed if it hasn't, I'll be surprised.

Suggestion Idea: Different Army Number Font Styles and Sizes

Description: Map makers will be able to specify from a list of available fonts for their maps within the XML files. Example:

Code: Select all

<numbers><font size="7" color="blue" face="Times New Roman"></numbers>

This probably isn't how you would do it, but it shouldn't have to be any more complicated than that.

Why It Should Be Considered: The army number pixel font we use now just doesn't fit a lot of the maps. It's also very limiting on what size territories can be created. The army numbers could easily be about half their current size and still be readable. They could also be something completely different (Comic Sans, Arial, Times New Roman, Console, whatever fits). I'm not sure what format the current numbers are, either text or image (possibly for the different colors and black outline), but either way, this shouldn't really be too hard to implement. If you use text, you just have to make sure you have them in your system. If you use images for the numbers, drawing them would be the only part that may take some time but I'm sure many people would be happy to spend a few minutes and add more fonts to your cache.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

actualy i'm not too fond of this idea. i think the army fonts should be the same as they might cause confusion for new players.