<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 30 of 49   1  2  Next >>   
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/8/2015 23:16:21

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
I see a lot of proposals here for improving Warlight. Most are unrealistic; some are simple and great ideas. (I recently made one which I think would be easy to implement and fun to play: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/82395-deployment-limits-easy-new-rule-implement.)

So here's a proposal (from the "least used Warlight settings" thread). It's not as realistic or easily implementable, but I think it would be one of the SIMPLEST ways to make Warlight exciting and even more variable.

The idea is this:

* Divorce visibility from adjacency.

In other words, moving from a territory to another and *seeing* from one to another are not always the same. Currently, you can see adjacent territories, and you can attack territories you can see. What if this were not always the case, but designed as connections on a map? Sometimes you can move from territory A to territory B, and sometimes you can see from A to B, but there can be places where you can only do one or the other.

What could you do with this simple change?

You could create a map with a bunker: anyone adjacent to it can attack it, but no one can see how many armies are inside.

You could also create an "observation tower". It's a regular territory in every sense, except that anyone in that territory can see up to 4 territories away (or the whole bonus, perhaps).

A "headquarters" in a security facility could have "security cameras" - anyone in the headquarters can see several key spots on the map.

Controlling this spot now becomes a strategic necessity, even if it's not worth any armies per turn.

This would also make for some fun cards: you could extend your ability to see things (like the current Recon/Surveillance cards, but you can only use them on areas adjacent to your armies), hide certain territories or bonuses from view, and so on.

I can imagine a Light Fog game where you can hide a bonus from view while you take it over, and no one knows what happened until after the bonus appears again.

You could make things like a "canyon" on a map: anyone around can see into the canyon, but troops traveling through the canyon cannot see out - only behind and ahead of them. They can be ambushed "from above".

Imagine a card which can impose a different Fog level on a part of the map, temporarily or permanently.

It would certainly open up some exciting possibilities.

A swamp or asteroid belt, where visibility is nil. Moving through complete fog, allied armies end up attacking each other or bumping into wastelands.

An area of the map which anyone on a higher level of the map can see, even though players in that area can't see who is watching them.

I know it's probably not an easy change to make, but it would be a very simple change which would open up very dramatic possibilities.

What would you do if this was possible?

Edited 6/29/2015 22:40:33
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/8/2015 23:19:14


OnlyThePie
Level 53
Report
Mind = blown

This would require a massive rehaul of maps and warlight, which is why I doubt it will happen, but I'd love to see it.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/8/2015 23:21:45

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Note that you wouldn't need to change anything about existing maps - by default, you can see adjacent territories, and that's all good. You can still play on them 'as is'. (You're right that some kind of overhaul where this was NOT the default case would be ridiculously difficult to manage.)

The idea, though, is that a map-maker could specify places where this is NOT the case on new maps. Much like how you can already make bizarre connections or unusual bonuses (which, for example, combine three territories at opposite corners of the map).

I'm not going to make a Uservoice for this, because it's too crazy an overhaul of the whole system, but, who knows, maybe one of the Warlight people will see this and decide to see if it would be worth the trouble. I don't have any idea whether the code for Warlight could be easily modified this way, or if it would be require some entirely unrealistic re-building from the ground up. For now it's just daydreaming, in any case!

Edited 6/8/2015 23:29:37
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 00:12:51


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
I think this could be coupled with my Rock Paper Scissors army composition. You could create myriad maps from the same map.

I.e. Canyon ambush! Have archers rain death from above!

Combat on hills! Defensive infantry would be significantly stronger!

Riverside battles! Units lose some strength crossing over!

There would be no limits.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 00:19:44


ps 
Level 60
Report
i like the idea of in-game variable fog

http://warlight.uservoice.com/
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 03:43:26


Dublin Warrior 
Level 49
Report
+100
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 08:00:10


knyte 
Level 58
Report
I think the bunker/etc. system is a bit too specific but having more flexibility in fog settings is something I'll get behind. Fog is what makes WL different from shitty-old-regular Risk, and I would like to see more variation in there just for more strategic possibilities.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 09:05:34


Thomas 633
Level 56
Report
Battle of Cannae map time...
+10^100
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 13:32:49


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
The idea sounds cool, the trouble is maps may have to be re-done (or new ones made). You'd have to have a connection between those territories that you could turn off or make one way. So take Medium Earth as a simple example. Sudan and Saudi Arabia are fairly close. Perhaps you want to be able to see from one to another but not move between them. You would need to put a connection there that you could turn off movement for.

Edited 6/9/2015 17:08:26
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 16:52:12

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Are you talking as someone who is familiar with the Warlight code?

If it would require existing maps to be redone, it would, of course, be completely ridiculous. But if it's possible to enable it as a feature in future maps, that could actually be feasible.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 17:08:08


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
I am not familiar with the code (however I am a developer).

The easiest way IMO would be to allow for connections to have 2 properties:

1) visible (can see across connection) - Left/Right/All/none
2) navigable (can move armies across connection) - Left/Right/All/none

I am using left/right here because the database would want that. In the GUI, it would know which way is left/right (by territory) and passes the left/right to the code.

By default, you set all connections to All & All

Then you allow a user to alter the connections in the template setup GUI (this probably requires the most coding).

This would allow combinations such as these:

-visible = ALL, Navigable = Left (can see both directions, but only move armies 'left'). So this would be a case where you have a trench that you can go down into but not up, but can see in both directions. The other side of the trench would be visible = ALL, navigable = Right

-visible = Left, navigable = none (can see one direction, no moves). Perhaps a watch tower where you can see down, they cannot see on top of tower. Cannot move either direction

-visible = none, navigable = ALL (cannot see either direction, can move normal). This would allow you do have dense fog on a single connection. Perhaps you have a wall of mist (waterfall) restricting sight but not movement.

Edited 6/9/2015 17:09:48
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 17:28:19

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Yes, that's exactly the idea.

Is there a reason, though, why you couldn't add a bit of code which "translates" existing maps into "All/All" for all connections? Then you wouldn't need to redesign any existing maps. Some kind of exception-based solution, so the code is always interpreted as "All/All" except when a certain line is present.

Edited 6/9/2015 17:32:09
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 19:10:11


Epicular
Level 46
Report
Like knyte said- fog is a major feature in Warlight that isn't available in standard Risk. And it should be expanded upon.

Not sure which of the ideas I like the most, but I definitely know that flexible fog settings in general are a good idea.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 19:18:42


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
Is there a reason, though, why you couldn't add a bit of code which "translates" existing maps into "All/All" for all connections? Then you wouldn't need to redesign any existing maps. Some kind of exception-based solution, so the code is always interpreted as "All/All" except when a certain line is present.


You wouldn't need to. You'd set every connection to All/All by default. So all existing maps would have those values.

But, what I am saying is the older maps would not take advantage of the new options in all the places they could. Those maps would need to have new connections added (if applicable). You could still use the new feature on existing connections though.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/9/2015 19:31:07

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Well, then, it sounds fairly feasible.

Even without the "left/right" feature, a good deal of the ideas I came up with would be possible, and I'm sure clever players and designers would come up with lots more.


When it comes to Fog settings:

Does anyone know how the code for Surveillance cards works? It seems like that code could be repurposed. If the code for the cards interacts with the Fog in specific ways, it might be possible to modify it. For example, a card which turns a certain bonus into Complete Fog for X turns, or a card which allows you to make an area visible for everyone playing for a limited time.

(It occurs to me that Recon/Surveillance/Spy cards all have modifiable durations. So you could set up a game where each player starts the game with one Surveillance card, which allows them to see one bonus on the map, with an indefinite duration. So each player can choose a bonus on the map which they can ALWAYS see. Pick carefully! Could have fun consequences.)
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/10/2015 02:29:16


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
I wouldn't do battle of cannae before anything, thomas. The terrain was rather dull.

If you wanted to do something in regards to Hannibal, trebia and trasimene offer much more diverse terrain.

Battle of Telamon would be great too.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/15/2015 21:57:18

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Does anyone know the answer to my question about the cards? That could lead to some interesting new options.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/22/2015 20:51:10

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Just checking in. Does anyone know more about the coding of the cards?

Is it possible to make a "reverse Reconnaissance" card?
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/24/2015 17:08:18


Matt431
Level 60
Report
I'm afraid I have nothing to add on the coding question, but just wanted to say I think it's a really cool idea!

Good luck in exploring it.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/24/2015 21:00:08


Sergeant Hannibal
Level 51
Report
They just want a change in how maps are made
Mind = blown

This would require a massive rehaul of maps and warlight, which is why I doubt it will happen, but I'd love to see it.

also, they are changingthegameto http://warzone.com
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 6/29/2015 22:40:07

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Does anyone know if the change from Warlight to Warzone also means a redesign of the game, or just a change of name?
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/7/2015 01:40:10

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Hmmmm. Still no takers on the card coding issue? It could be an interesting angle of attack...
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/14/2015 18:57:09

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Recently, Fizzer made a post about the possibility of "one-way" connections in Warlight (a very similar issue):

It sounds like this kind of modification is not something he feels is right for Warlight.

I'm not entirely surprised, but it does mean that we won't be seeing any of these features in this game.

I still maintain, however, that if you wanted to make "Warlight 2.0", this would be one of the EASIEST and SIMPLEST ways to allow the players to transform the game and take into all kinds of new places. (i.e. It's the least work involved for the designers; who would just have to enable the possibility, and then allow the players to innovate using those features.)
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/14/2015 19:17:04


kubaziki
Level 47
Report
Game RISK is imitation of real war and in real war you don't have opportunity to see how many armies has your opponent in him territories. Despite the fact that the idea is very difficult to change the entire Warlight systems.
It's my opinion.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/14/2015 20:10:32


Epicular
Level 46
Report
I might program my own "Warlight 2.0" just for the fun of it.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/14/2015 21:20:38


Mercer 
Level 34
Report
I like the concept. Yes, technically possible. I admit it would be fun to play with.

I have a question. Can anyone design the UI mock-up of how connections on the map would look? Would each border now have a symbol on it? I would like to see what a user would see if this was real. Please post mock-up drawings.

Obligatory warning: Just because we think it is interested doesn't mean it will happen, but you never know. Never hurts to looking into it. My biggest concern is clutter on the UI and new users not understanding the symbols.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/14/2015 21:27:47

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
Well, while I hope someone can come up with something better, I think the "default" way would exactly how Warlight works already:

You can only explore connections by a) entering the "examine map" screen, which lights up adjacent territories (perhaps a colour code could distinguish "see only" from "move only"), b) entering the territory (which reveals to you adjacent territories), or c) clicking on a territory and looking through the list of "adjacent territories".

The only change I would make would be to come up with a symbol or colour for a territory which can be entered but not seen "into".

But even that is not necessary; simply clicking on any territory during the "attack" phase displays all possible moves as orders.

(I'm playing the "Realistic Sudoku" map right now, where there is a similar concern, and, while it takes some thought, it's not exactly unplayable.)

Exploring the map and finding all these little quirky places would presumably become part of the game: careful exploration pays off.

Edited 7/14/2015 21:28:43
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/15/2015 06:20:34


Mercer 
Level 34
Report
If this feature will have any legs... Exploring the map is a bad experience for new players. The connection would need to be visible without exploring.

That is why I am curious to see if someone can mockup an example map.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/15/2015 07:08:59

M. Poireau
Level 55
Report
In my imagination, it would be used in a few rare occasions, with some kind of visual marker and a legend.

For instance:

"This map features canyons. (They are indicated by the brown borders) [Or some other art]. You cannot see out of them, but enemies bordering the canyon can attack from above."

I still disagree that it would have to be always shown. There are a number of existing Warlight maps where connections cannot be seen, but are indicated in some other ways (for instance, the teleport pads in Ursa:Luna, and the cliff territory connections, which you can just infer from the art), or are very hard to see (river connections in Breaking Green), and yet the maps are totally playable.

Just as with current maps, it would be up to the individual designer to choose the presentation.

That said, I wouldn't mind to see some mockups either! Maybe there will be some clever ideas on this front.
Taking Warlight to the Next Level: 7/15/2015 21:55:02


ChrisCMU 
Level 60
Report
Well, from a coding standpoint, I would think the issue would be you'd need to have arrows drawn from the center points. There is no other way to automatically show them because many maps have connections shown as something other than just a line that could be colored (like I know some have ships with dashed lines that are separate objects). So coloring existing connections is out. It has to use the current center point. The issue there is overlap with armies (would cover it up). You'd need to be able to toggle on connections, and of course you would not want to toggle on ALL connections, just the one way connections.

Perhaps it would help to do some buffer on the connection. Like only show the arrow for %80 of the connection length (between center points). This way you would hopefully overlap the army totals a lot less often and could actually play with the connections toggled on (or maybe even eliminate the need for a toggle if the toggle is too hard to code).

I would hope maps would have connections shown via terrain, but you can't put a feature in that ignores current maps either.

I can mock something up tomorrow probably. I think you'd need to play with the % buffer to find the right amount too.

Edited 7/15/2015 21:57:11
Posts 1 - 30 of 49   1  2  Next >>