XML Modifications and Variations

Janiv · Post by **Janiv** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:00 pm

The xml changes and added structure look to be done very nicely. I think you've done a good job working them all out efficiently and making them flexible. Nicely done.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:37 pm

lackattack wrote:
Wisse wrote:Suggestion Idea: Starting Neutral Territories shuffle
Wisse, you'll have to chance someone starting off with the continent.

i don't understand what you did say byt,
it has no need for time, but if i do it with the impletments you got now, the neutral country will always be the same and could be boring, but i will just change it when you do make one for this

glee · Post by **glee** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:26 pm

i'm not sure if it's easier to use <overrules> rather than <bestof> but i guess it doesn't really matter which one you use

as i said i'm not good at xml coding but the improvements look good and quite easy to use

good job lack

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:35 pm

Good work Lack. I can't wait to see how some of these new changes are implemented into new maps. It's just a shame I don't have time to make maps myself at the moment since I've had ideas in my head for ages that would turn out nicely with some of the XML changes.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:23 pm

I'm not much of a code-head, so I really can't be debating collection/override/required stuff (it's all greek to me!) but I thought I'd give a little input on what I like and don't like:

Ranged Attacks: I like the idea in general, and it will be great to use as catapult type stuff (would have been good in Siege)... I'm assuming it can only be used from and to certain territories, which is good, but I have a question - Will it allow you to conquer the territory (either with your own troops or as a neutral) or just wear them down to a single soldier (which is sort of how I imagine bombardments to work, as they do in games like Civ and stuff...) I think I would prefer it if you did not conquer the territory, because then there is the chance of being able to deploy there next turn if your opponent doesn't deal with it or has horrid dice. Imagine a bomb being dropped, great, but then 6 soldiers jump out of it a day later... Not too fun really... Conquering the territory also takes away the strategic value of being able to protect another player's last territory in Terminator games to an extent if we go with the 0 neutral thing.

Final Objectives: Great, and I'd go with the remaining points in Terminator games. As for Assassin games, do you not think it makes the game a little pointless? Killing a certain player IS the objective, is it not?

As for the maybes you've looked at, I really would love to see variable XML / Images more than anything. I'd love to play one turn in the summer where I can attack through a mountain pass, but have that border closed off next turn in the winter as it freezes over. Something like that could give a player on the brink of defeat an extra burst of life if he/she has time to play some cards and beat off the powerful neighbour over the pass.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:13 pm

Guiscard, there would be nothing special if you could conquer the territory. I think you wear it down to a single fighter.

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:33 pm

Hold on - I programmed bombardments to kill everyting and leave 1 neutral. Are you saying it should kill everything except for the last soldier?

In other words, should you be able to bust a continent with bombardments?

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:43 pm

I like the one neutral. Its almost like there is no one there but there is a lingering effect of the ash or what ever that might kill off a few of your soldiers

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Tue May 22, 2007 8:08 pm

RANGED ATTACK

Guiscard wrote:I'm not much of a code-head, so I really can't be debating collection/override/required stuff (it's all greek to me!) but I thought I'd give a little input on what I like and don't like:

Ranged Attacks: I like the idea in general, and it will be great to use as catapult type stuff (would have been good in Siege)... I'm assuming it can only be used from and to certain territories, which is good, but I have a question - Will it allow you to conquer the territory (either with your own troops or as a neutral) or just wear them down to a single soldier (which is sort of how I imagine bombardments to work, as they do in games like Civ and stuff...) I think I would prefer it if you did not conquer the territory, because then there is the chance of being able to deploy there next turn if your opponent doesn't deal with it or has horrid dice. Imagine a bomb being dropped, great, but then 6 soldiers jump out of it a day later... Not too fun really... Conquering the territory also takes away the strategic value of being able to protect another player's last territory in Terminator games to an extent if we go with the 0 neutral thing.

I think it should be a single neutral army. It allows an attacker to cripple a defender by taking away his bonus. A bombardment should leave 1 neutral army!

FINAL OBJECTIVES

Guiscard wrote:Final Objectives: Great, and I'd go with the remaining points in Terminator games. As for Assassin games, do you not think it makes the game a little pointless? Killing a certain player IS the objective, is it not?

I agree. For assassin the objective is to kill a specific person. I think that all other XML objective should be overridden for all assassin games. No other objectives for assassin except kill your assigned player!

REQUIRES/OVERRULES
As for the requires/overrules XML. It is going to be much easier that trying to figure out all of the combinations of the territories. For King of the Mountains. I has 26 different "continent" bonuses. 10 for every pair. 10 for every group of 3. 5 for every group of 4. And 1 for all of them.
With this system I would have had 4 requires sections. The XML for the 3-5 grouping would contain the overrule portion.
I love this addition and I know other cartographers will like it even more. I might even start doing mu own XML again.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue May 22, 2007 9:29 pm

Bombardments should definately leave a neutral 1. It makes the most sense.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed May 23, 2007 3:23 am

WidowMakers wrote: Ranged Attacks:
A bombardment should leave 1 neutral army!

I agree

WidowMakers wrote: FINAL OBJECTIVES
No other objectives for assassin except kill your assigned player!

I agree - although could extend to Termy too?

WidowMakers wrote: REQUIRES/OVERRULES
As for the requires/overrules XML. It is going to be much easier that trying to figure out all of the combinations of the territories. For King of the Mountains. I has 26 different "continent" bonuses. 10 for every pair. 10 for every group of 3. 5 for every group of 4. And 1 for all of them.
With this system I would have had 4 requires sections. The XML for the 3-5 grouping would contain the overrule portion.
I love this addition and I know other cartographers will like it even more.

Yeah I like it like this - it's much more flexible than having one lot, as in previous examples, and it fits the existing Schema...

WidowMakers wrote:I might even start doing mu own XML again.

And where would that leave us Coding guru's who are crap at art?!

Lack - Once you have all your coding done and the ideas finalised... let me know and I can extend that schema .xsd file I sent you if you like.

C.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed May 23, 2007 9:16 am

lackattack wrote:Hold on - I programmed bombardments to kill everyting and leave 1 neutral. Are you saying it should kill everything except for the last soldier?

In other words, should you be able to bust a continent with bombardments?

Yeh this was my question really... I am mainly worried about it removing the strategic ability to protect other people in Assassin games, but on further consideration I think the 1 neutral soldier is probably a better way to deal with it. Sorry, don't mind me

(But get on top of variable XML / Images... I really can't wait for that, even if we do have to wait for a future update)

Evil DIMwit · Post by **Evil DIMwit** » Wed May 23, 2007 11:12 am

yeti_c wrote: Yeah I like it like this - it's much more flexible than having one lot, as in previous examples, and it fits the existing Schema...

I hate to seem like a pain, but it still escapes me what this scheme can do that collections can't. Can you give an example?

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed May 23, 2007 11:38 am

Evil DIMwit wrote:
yeti_c wrote: Yeah I like it like this - it's much more flexible than having one lot, as in previous examples, and it fits the existing Schema...
I hate to seem like a pain, but it still escapes me what this scheme can do that collections can't. Can you give an example?

You can have a different name for each stage of the collection for starters...

In the kings example...

5 kings, 4 Kings, 3 Kings etc...

I also suspect that it's easier for Lack to code...

XML parsing is actually a bit of a pain in the arse as it's very long winded... (old school methods of file parsing would be comma delimited and stuff - which are real quick - as long as everything is in the right place!!)

To keep all "bonus" related stuff inside things called <continent>

is probably easier than having to search for <continent> and <collection>

C.

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Wed May 23, 2007 1:12 pm

^^^ exactly what i was going to say

Evil DIMwit · Post by **Evil DIMwit** » Wed May 23, 2007 2:17 pm

Lovely. Thank you.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu May 24, 2007 6:27 am

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

Why It Should Be Considered: i have a project that needs this

no, seriously it could bring very nice tactical options.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

and another one

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.

Why It Should Be Considered: more options more fun.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Thu May 24, 2007 9:32 am

A big thanks to everyone who posted here. This excersise was very successful. We now have the tools in place to let cartographers develop a new generation of maps with interesting twists to their gameplay. We also have a bunch of ideas to work with during the next round of XML enstensions, which should happen in a few months.

To summarize, there are the changes that have been made:
1. Neutral Territories
2. Territorial Bonus
3. Bombardments
4. Final Objectives
5. Partially Held Continents (i.e. <required> tag)
6. Continent Overrides (use overrides> instead of <overrules>)

A note about objectives: In the end I went with my instincts and programmed a held objective to end the game in both Assassin and Terminator. Furthermore in Terminator points are earned from all opponents who haven't been terminated. I know, in those game types the goal is to assassinate and terminate, but in standard game the goal is to conquer the world and that goes out the window too. In other words, I feel this is the most consistent behaviour. Ignoring the objective would make the map legend lie. If you want a true Assassin experience, don't play it on a capture the flag map!

We are now going to work on documenting the map XML, so stay tuned folks!

Oh, and yeti_c - please do send me that schema .xsd file when you have time. It's a shame the file you already sent me is just sitting there collecting dust but now I can schedule it's inclusion into the mapmaker page for the week on June 10.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu May 24, 2007 9:59 am

lackattack wrote: Oh, and yeti_c - please do send me that schema .xsd file when you have time. It's a shame the file you already sent me is just sitting there collecting dust but now I can schedule it's inclusion into the mapmaker page for the week on June 10.

I'll get the new funky additions coded in and will send it over...

Nice work...

Lets get the new maps rolling... I'm especially looking forward to the Pirates map... Yargh!

C.

PS Lack - can we have a Pirate smiley?

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Thu May 24, 2007 10:59 am

its a sad day for non-deployable territories.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu May 24, 2007 11:01 am

one question.

can a feature be conditioned by something?

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?

if not, could this be implemented? it would add a great deal of realism and a whole new level of tactics.

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Thu May 24, 2007 1:26 pm

Maybe. I need to focus on the next update now because I have a May 29 deadline

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu May 24, 2007 1:31 pm

lackattack wrote:Maybe. I need to focus on the next update now because I have a May 29 deadline

ok. thanks so i take it it is not possible now but it might be in the next update.

thanks

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:46 pm

mibi wrote:its a sad day for non-deployable territories.

Yeah these are required for Troy to work.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat May 26, 2007 3:50 pm

lackattack wrote: So I would like to go ahead with these proposals:

Starting Neutral Territories (e.g. Ethiopia starts with 6 neutral armies)
Code: Select all
<country>
<name>Ethiopia</name>
<borders>
  <border>Somalia</border>
  <border>Kenya</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
  <smallx>424</smallx>
  <smally>213</smally>
  <largex>569</largex>
  <largey>277</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>6</neutral>
</country>
.....
Ranged Attacks - I also like this but I can't decide whether the successful attack should (a) leave 1 neutral or (b) 1 of your colour in the bombed territory?

Lackattack...well done...this is the first opportunity I've take to decipher some of these, and the Neutral Starting Territories (to start with) will be a great addition to the WWII - Battle For Australia map, which I am writing the XML for right now.

The Ranged Attacks when that is implemented would be great for Pearl Harbor and the Japanese air force in that one.

Having programmed a shopping cart system in perl/cgi html for a Soul, HipHop, Reggae Record Store http://www.unsound.com.au, i understand the amount of time spent on this programming business, so must say congrats on whatever can be implemented in whatever time you have available...with all the suggestions from the forum, there will be some great games to be had here in the near future.

XML Modifications and Variations

XML Changes