Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[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...

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.

Exactly.

[isaiah40]

All files have been sent for uploaded, now we wait on rds! I'll have tnb80 open the map back up once they have been updated.

[Gilligan]

All files have been sent for uploaded, now we wait on rds! I'll have tnb80 open the map back up once they have been updated.

Fantastic!

[cairnswk]

All files have been sent for uploaded, now we wait on rds! I'll have tnb80 open the map back up once they have been updated.

Champion isaiah40. Thank-you

[kizkiz]

Really enjoying this map and can't wait for it to re open.
Not sure adj fog trench is the best setting for learning, but it's proving interesting with reinforcements, as lots of stacks stuck int he treasury

[cairnswk]

Really enjoying this map and can't wait for it to re open.
Not sure adj fog trench is the best setting for learning, but it's proving interesting with reinforcements, as lots of stacks stuck int he treasury

Pleased to hear you're enjoying this one kzikiz
No indeed, adj fog trench is not the best for learning

[cairnswk]

All files have been sent for uploaded, now we wait on rds! I'll have tnb80 open the map back up once they have been updated.

Fantastic!

I wonder how long that will be...movement has returned to snail's pace.

[cairnswk]

map has been updated.
Thanks rdsrds2120 and isaiah40:)

[Gilligan]

great lets play again

[DoomYoshi]

great lets play again

bring it

[thenobodies80]

I've unlocked the map.

[cairnswk]

I've unlocked the map.

Thank-you tnb80

[kizkiz]

The amount of starting troops on the ships could be an issue for assassin games.
Game 13333919

[Jippd]

The amount of starting troops on the ships could be an issue for assassin games.
Game 13333919

With any game really especially without fog a kill is very easy. Perhaps increase starting troops as you say or turn all the n1s into n2s

[kizkiz]

Most assassin games are sunny though.
Even in normal games, just having 2 on there to start makes it quite easy to eliminate someone first turn. Even foggy, just run up there and smash.
It would mess up the bonus, as you start with it, but it's much harder to hit both halves in one turn, so starting with both would help
Perhaps making each boat 3 parts instead of 2, and start with two. Something like bow/stern/captain

[cairnswk]

The amount of starting troops on the ships could be an issue for assassin games.
Game 13333919

Mmm. i see.

The amount of starting troops on the ships could be an issue for assassin games.
Game 13333919

With any game really especially without fog a kill is very easy. Perhaps increase starting troops as you say or turn all the n1s into n2s

From what i understand...I'd be inclined to set the Command Ship neutral to a high value like n8, and lave the start number as is.
that way the smash is much harder.

Most assassin games are sunny though.
Even in normal games, just having 2 on there to start makes it quite easy to eliminate someone first turn. Even foggy, just run up there and smash.
It would mess up the bonus, as you start with it, but it's much harder to hit both halves in one turn, so starting with both would help
Perhaps making each boat 3 parts instead of 2, and start with two. Something like bow/stern/captain

Three parts invovles a complete re-design which i am not in favour of
Once again, i'd be inclined to increase the other section to like n8, and also increase the neutrals between command ships to at least n4 or n5.

[nolefan5311]

I think the issue isn't with the amount of starting troops, but the losing condition. In fact, increasing the troops that people start with only increases the odds of a successful elimination.

i.e., 6v1,1,2 is 40% (what happened in the above game). If we increase the starting troops to 4, that makes the odds 8v1,1,4 - 47%. The odds only get better as we increase the troops.

There appears to be a glitch in the above game too, as slate should have been required to kill both Margate LB and Freda before winning the game, and he didn't. Was that game started prior to the most recent XML upload?

[nolefan5311]

I don't see how increasing the other section of the command ship to n8 will accomplish the primary objective here.

[kizkiz]

Game was started after the update. The losing condition means you have to have at least one half of a command ship or you are eliminated.
Even in the other game I'm playing on it, it was very easy to wander over to the nearest ship and eliminate another player.
Some higher n values on route would help
You could be right about the losing condition being the problem though. Can't see an obvious solution apart from starting with both halves

[cairnswk]

I think the issue isn't with the amount of starting troops, but the losing condition. In fact, increasing the troops that people start with only increases the odds of a successful elimination.

i.e., 6v1,1,2 is 40% (what happened in the above game). If we increase the starting troops to 4, that makes the odds 8v1,1,4 - 47%. The odds only get better as we increase the troops.

Agreed about the increasing starting troops and increasing those odds.

There appears to be a glitch in the above game too, as slate should have been required to kill both Margate LB and Freda before winning the game, and he didn't. Was that game started prior to the most recent XML upload?

This is definitely an issue.
Both Frida and Margate LB are in the Non-Treasury region and that requirement is one.
The losing condition says "Players failing to hold a Non-Treasury Region and either Bow Stern....
So there are two condition parts for that.
If you don't have one, then the player is eliminated anyway.

Perhaps, the losing condition needs to be changed so it reads:
Players failing to hold either a Non-Treasury Region OR Bow (B) and Stern (S) of a Commander's Ship will be eliminated.

That way if the Command Ship goes, then there are still the others to eliminate, yes?

[cairnswk]

...
Some higher n values on route would help
....

I agree on this one though.

[nolefan5311]

The way I read the losing condition is that you need to kill your opponents Bow and Stern of a command ship, AND all their non-treasury regions (Margate LB and Freda). Just losing the Command Ship would not result in an elimination; you would also need to be removed completely from the main part of the board. It might be easier to make the condition read, "players holding only a Monarch/Treasury region". That would really clarify things.

But right now the XML is coded as two parts. Losing one of those parts (in this case, B or S of a Command Ship) results in elimination. That's what happened here, and appears to be where the problem is. I think the wording is correct, I just think I coded it wrong. I should have just included all of the regions into one single part instead of two separate parts.

[cairnswk]

.... It might be easier to make the condition read, "players holding only a Monarch/Treasury region". That would really clarify things.

OK, i see that...but it doesn't explain what the two components are that have to be held.

But right now the XML is coded as two parts. Losing one of those parts (in this case, B or S of a Command Ship) results in elimination. That's what happened here, and appears to be where the problem is.

For the AND statement, yes, i agree, losing one of those parts resulted in elimination.

I think the wording is correct, I just think I coded it wrong. I should have just included all of the regions into one single part instead of two separate parts.

well, no, there was two separate parts and theoretically this should have worked, because...
one part was either B or S of the command ship
and the other part was any non-treasury region as defined by what was in that group.

[Gilligan]

What about increasing neutrals of territories that can bombard ships?

[cairnswk]

What about increasing neutrals of territories that can bombard ships?

you mean the intermediaries...that's fine but i think you need to increase neutrals all aroudn the command vessels.
Also to what degree Gilligan?