Moderator: Cartographers
...but surely if the losing condition exists in the xml, shouldn't it recognise the condition in that game and auto eliminate him?Gilligan wrote: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.
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.cairnswk wrote:...but surely if the losing condition exists in the xml, shouldn't it recognise the condition in that game and auto eliminate him?Gilligan wrote: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.Gilligan wrote: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.
No, i Tael has taken care of the problem LMS pink is not in the game as Tael assulted him.Jippd wrote: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?
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.cairnswk wrote:puppydog85, how do you mean "at best to help noobs not advance huge stacks to it"puppydog85 wrote: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.
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.
OK, thanks for that suggestion.puppydog85 wrote: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.cairnswk wrote:puppydog85, how do you mean "at best to help noobs not advance huge stacks to it"puppydog85 wrote: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.
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.
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.
Thank-you Gilligan. I hope everyone enjoys it.Gilligan wrote: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.
Gilligan, i get this impression also from one of our games.Gilligan wrote: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.
Thanks isaiah40, after it's updated, is it possible to open the map again?isaiah40 wrote: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.
Yes I'll open the map again!cairnswk wrote:Thanks isaiah40, after it's updated, is it possible to open the map again?isaiah40 wrote: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.
Jippd wrote:If a player does not hold a S or B region they should be eliminated right?
Yes, they need to hold the "one-half" (S or B) of the command ship AND any non-Treasury regionAleena wrote: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..
Likewise, if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.Jippd wrote:If a player does not hold a S or B region they should be eliminated right?
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.Gilligan wrote:if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.
well, no ian. in the legend under Command Ships, it specifically states that Command Ships are not part of the non-treasury region...iancanton wrote: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.Gilligan wrote:if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.
ian.
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.cairnswk wrote:well, no ian. in the legend under Command Ships, it specifically states that Cammond Ships are not part of the non-treasury region...iancanton wrote: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.Gilligan wrote:if they hold ONLY S or B regions, they should also be eliminated.
ian.
