XML Suggestions and Modifications II

by **max is gr8** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:02 am

@Conditional Borders I suggest a following tweak

If certain territories are owned by another player. I.e. not neutral.

When the guard is owned by a player you cannot cross the bridge. If it is neutral or you own it you can.

@Losing Conditions

Would that count as being eliminated in an assassin game?

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:23 am

captainwalrus wrote:
the.killing.44 wrote:I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.

Seconded!

Thirded

but what about this....

Suggestion Idea: Different Sided Dice

Description:
Allow different types of dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20) for different territories or maps

Game engine just randomizes based on the type od die used.

Why It Should Be Considered:
Territory types and locations can be given more or less bonus but higher die values.
GP tweaks can be made with dice and with bonus structures

Examples:
-Now a tank (d8) will be more powerful than a soldier (d6).
-A mountain fortress receives very little bonus (bad strategic location for new troops to get to)
but get d10 dice due to the very good strategic location.

d6 vs d6 [1-6 vs 1-6] even
d6+3 vs d6 [4-9 vs 1-6] not fair not even
d8 vs d6 [ 1-8 vs 1-6] uneven but fair

by **max is gr8** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:39 am

I like yours best WidowMakers

Though I'd suggest a base figure still.

E.g. Tanks have a fairly consistant power level but soldiers vary a lot more so it could be:

Code: Select all: <territory> <name>Tanks</name> <border>Weak Soldiers</border> <dicemodifiers> <dx>d3 <lowerbound>4 </dicemodifiers> <territory> <name>Weak Soldiers</name> <border>Tanks</border> <dicemodifiers> <dx>d6 <lowerbound>1 </dicemodifiers>

So in the above example the tank can be 4-6.
Soldiers can be 1-6.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:09 pm

max is gr8 wrote:I like yours best WidowMakers

Though I'd suggest a base figure still.

E.g. Tanks have a fairly consistant power level but soldiers vary a lot more so it could be:

show

So in the above example the tank can be 4-6.
Soldiers can be 1-6.

Too complex; it should be one or the other. I do like WM's idea, though.

Another option is to let certain territories have extra dice offensively and/or defensively. You still match the highest two dice on each side, but the player with the advantage has more chances.

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:46 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:Another option is to let certain territories have extra dice offensively and/or defensively. You still match the highest two dice on each side, but the player with the advantage has more chances.

So how about this?

Suggestion Idea: Different Standard Dice Count

Description:
Instead of just 2 defending and 3 attacking, allow more or less for each.
Current
Attack = up to 3 d6
Defend = up to 2 d6

Proposed
Attack = 1-10 d6
Defend = 1-10 d6

Why It Should Be Considered:
GP tweaks can be made with dice and with bonus structures.
Instead of just bonuses to determine territory strength, number of dice rolled can contribute.

Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

by **natty dread** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:35 pm

Suggestion idea: Reinforcement Only Borders

Description: Borders where you can only reinforce through, but you can't attack via these borders.

Why: This would allow better gameplay for battle maps, ie. You have a base, and next to the base, a "reinforcements" territory, which gets an autodeploy each turn. Then you could set reinforcement borders from the "reinforcements" territory to various territories on the battlefield, but these would need to be conquered by other means. Thus, you could have a more accurate representation of a command center calling more reinforcements to battle...

There are probably many other applications for this feature.

by **captainwalrus** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:12 pm

That would be great. One application that comes to mind is in Eastern Hemisphere 1910, naval superiority should be able to reinforce, but not attack.

edit: or in something with artillery, it could bombard but not attack, but also reinforce.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:13 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:48 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:24 am

WidowMakers wrote:
Evil DIMwit wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

by **ender516** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:48 am

Evil DIMwit wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
Evil DIMwit wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:50 am

ender516 wrote:
Evil DIMwit wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
Evil DIMwit wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)

For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.

actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.

My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.

I thought that was the aim... well, it's one or the other then.

by **ender516** on Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:45 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:
ender516 wrote:
Evil DIMwit wrote:My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.

If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.

I thought that was the aim... well, it's one or the other then.

Well, using both could be done, but that could make for unnecessary complication. And it's true, you wouldn't need both, but since dice bonuses can not only shift the odds but also provide qualitative changes, I think they would be more useful. Dice bonuses can, but don't have to, allow invincible forces. Have you read the Dice Bonus/Adjustment topic? There were a lot of good ideas bouncing around in there about how they could provide features like conditional borders, and I suspect some more sharp minds could come up with other original ideas.

by **max is gr8** on Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:44 am

Name: Reinforcement Decay

Description: As units move through certain territories there is a decay in certain spaces.

Code: Select all: <territory> <name>Desert Wasteland</name> <border>Lush Oasis</border> <border>Seaside Town</border> <decaytype=reinforce>1</decay>

Would indicate that if someone fortified from Lush Oasis to Seaside Town they would lose 1 unit.

Why: Generate a sense of realism for certain maps, if units decay when they stay in a place then presumably they should decay if you go through them.

by **Mr_Adams** on Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:50 pm

for conditional borders, perhaps the opposite? a border opened up if you DON't hold a certain territory? this could be set up so that a person could not be held in a bombard only territory. They could move out if they don't own any attacking territories. of corse, there would always have to be alternate routes, so that a person couldn't hide in an unnattackable territory.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:39 am

Mr_Adams wrote:for conditional borders, perhaps the opposite? a border opened up if you DON't hold a certain territory? this could be set up so that a person could not be held in a bombard only territory. They could move out if they don't own any attacking territories. of corse, there would always have to be alternate routes, so that a person couldn't hide in an unnattackable territory.

Nice, this could be included in the conditional borders code.

Btw this is how I would suggest conditional borders to be done:

Code: Select all: <Territory> <Name>Front hall</Name> <Borders> <Conditional> <Required>Key1</Required> <Required not>Blahblah</Required> <Border>Locked door1</Border> </Conditional> <Border>Open door</Border> </Borders> <coordinates>.....</coordinates> </Territory>

by **potiusmori** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:39 pm

Suggestion Idea: Conditional (Shifting) Bonus [round #]

Description: A bonus you can set to iterate through a specific sequence based upon the number of turns played, preferably in either a small cycle [i.e. up to 5 or 10 stages] or continuous ascent/descent fashion.

Why It Should Be Considered: I have an idea for a map that's sitting on my brain, but I don't believe it possible or plausible. I want to be able to code into the map a specific series of shifting bonuses. I believe it could add a different dynamic to the strategies involved in CC, if used in a small & straightforward fashion. Possible detractors may be that it provides a disadvantage to newer players, who are unaware of the variation.

Code: Select all: E.G. [iteration of 4, in a loop] Round 1: Continent A is worth +3 Round 2: Continent A is worth -1 Round 3: Continent A is worth +1 Round 4: Continent A is worth 0 Round 5: [repeat] Continent A is worth +3 Round 6: [repeat] Continent A is worth -1... (And so on)

Alternate Example, less interesting but possibly easier to communicate on the map itself.

Code: Select all: Round 1: Continent is worth +1 Round 2: Continent is worth +2 Round 3: Continent is worth +3...

by **Mr_Adams** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:13 pm

new addition to strat aswell. You would have to take a look at when it would be most worth while to seize a bonus. In a small map, it would be well worth waiting to grab a bonus if you were to get +5 instead of +3, when taking attention drawn to one's self into account.

by **dolomite13** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:23 pm

Suggestion Idea: Elimination Zone

Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as an elimination zone. An elimination zone would be the only territories that count towards eliminating a player. When they were eliminated from this zone the game would be over for them, all of their forces outside of the zone would become an equal number of neutral armies.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow maps such as Research & Conquer to create two separate army zones independent of one another. You could create a tech tree that granted bonuses but could not be accessed by military forces.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Suggestion Idea: Deployment Zone

Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as a deployment zone. A deployment zone would be the only territories that you could deploy forces to.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to limit where bonuses could be deployed but still allow the players a choice. For instance if you has a tech tree you could limit it so no forces except autodeployed ones could be deployed there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

by **Evil DIMwit** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:47 pm

dolomite13 wrote:Suggestion Idea: Elimination Zone

Identical to "Losing Conditions" that I suggested earlier, though I'm glad to see you think it's a good idea.

by **Mr_Adams** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:27 pm

dolomite13 wrote:Suggestion Idea: Deployment Zone

Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as a deployment zone. A deployment zone would be the only territories that you could deploy forces to.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to limit where bonuses could be deployed but still allow the players a choice. For instance if you has a tech tree you could limit it so no forces except autodeployed ones could be deployed there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Sounds alot like a suggestion I saw once, and liked alot, where armies could only be deployed on territories of a related bonus. ie. Ociania bonus armies can't be deployed in Asia, but can be forted in. I like your concept here though. similar, but different enough to be appreciated independently. =D>

Pretty good ideas for a cook

*poke

by **Mr_Adams** on Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:54 pm

Perhaps bonuses which change throughout the game by a random.com link. eg. hypothetical monopoly based map, "chance card gives bonus of -3 - +5" or something like that.

by **yeti_c** on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:28 pm

dolomite13 wrote:Suggestion Idea: Elimination Zone

Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as an elimination zone. An elimination zone would be the only territories that count towards eliminating a player. When they were eliminated from this zone the game would be over for them, all of their forces outside of the zone would become an equal number of neutral armies.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow maps such as Research & Conquer to create two separate army zones independent of one another. You could create a tech tree that granted bonuses but could not be accessed by military forces.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Suggestion Idea: Deployment Zone

Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as a deployment zone. A deployment zone would be the only territories that you could deploy forces to.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to limit where bonuses could be deployed but still allow the players a choice. For instance if you has a tech tree you could limit it so no forces except autodeployed ones could be deployed there.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Love both of these suggestions.

C.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:38 am

Suggestion Idea: Minimum Neutrals

Description: Let a single XML tag for the map specify that at least N territories in the map start neutral. May be extended so that more specific groups of territories can be listed, each with its own minimum neutral value.

Why It Should Be Considered: Means that mapmakers no longer have to set specific territories to start as neutrals in order to get a fair number of initial territories. Suppose you have 48 starting territories; you might set the minimum neutral value to be 4. That way, players are divided at total of 44 territories (a proper number), but the neutral territories are different each time.
The extended version, if implemented, can be used to limit the possibility of a player starting with an entire continent or bonus collection.

by **yeti_c** on Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:29 am

Also like this.

C.

XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Re: XML Suggestions and Modifications II

Who is online