Does anyone know if the change from Warlight to Warzone also means a redesign of the game, or just a change of name?

Hmmmm. Still no takers on the card coding issue? It could be an interesting angle of attack...

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.)

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.

I might program my own "Warlight 2.0" just for the fun of it.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

This still seems more like a map design issue than a visual interface issue to me. (Again, take a look at connections in Ursa:Luna which are absolutely not "marked" in any systematic sense, like the tunnels under the cliffs and the teleportation pads.)

But a mockup of a better idea than that would be really fun to see, as well.

Perhaps make it so that only some maps have bunkers watchtowers etc.

And that these maps are only avalible to higher level players (like custom scenarios) or, that bunkers and watchtowers can be turned on/ off (like fog can).

that would help with the new player problem MERCER.

I don't think it would be too hard to indicate bunkers and watchtowers in a legend next to the map.

e.g.

"This map has watchtowers. They are indicate by the graphic [which looks like this]. From a watchtower, you can see all the territories in the bonus."

Much like how the Jerusalem map has a legend which describes the cities visually.

https://www.warlight.net/Map/9359-Fall-Jerusalem-Crusades

Of course, it would be up to the individual map designers to use this feature in clever ways, and to make it clear. But that's already the case with all Warlight maps - anyone could, in theory, include weird and bizarre connections on a map without making them clear. (As happens sometimes by accident, when a mapmaker includes extra connections by accident, or missed a few.)

Edited 7/19/2015 16:53:25

Another example is the recent Earthsea map:

https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=45676

I think it would be quite fine to leave this aspect up the designers of a given map.

The only necessary change in terms of how Warlight works would be to be able to indicate when you can move to a territory but not see what's in it. However, that already happens with Complete Fog, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Another good example is the Ursa:Luna map.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/31547-new-map-ursaluna

You could alter the cliffs and ladders system so that the troops "up top" can see down, but the armies at the bottom cannot "see" up the ladder. They must attack blindly and hope for the best. (I could see doing the same thing with the teleporters and maybe even the tunnels.)

I wonder if anyone has knowledge of how the Recon/Surveillance cards work?

Is it possible to use the same code to selectively apply Fog settings to parts of the map?

A card which shrouds an entire bonus in Complete Fog for a turn or two could be very interesting.

Recon / Survey / Spy cards are loosely balanced between each other. There's instances where one is better than the other.

Recon is good for when you want a tactical view for an area you plan on expanding or exploring.

Surveillance is good for scanning bonuses to check for enemy interference. Otherwise, it's not much better than recon, if not worse.

Spy card is perhaps the strongest and sometimes useless. Depending on settings, it can scan all neutrals. Otherwise, it helps to know your opponents' every move. The fewer players in a game,the stronger it is.

Genghis, I wasn't asking about their *use* in games. I'm asking about how the code for the cards works. Did you read the thread?

I think it's an interesting avenue to explore: selective and variable use of Fog settings in maps. It could create a lot of variety in Warlight strategies and/or maps.

I've reviewed the usevoice for "one-way connections", and Fizzer has made the following comment:

"I can certainly see the appeal of one-way connections. However, honestly, I think they create more complexity than we want. WarLight, at its core, is a simple strategy game and we want to keep it simple for newcomers to learn.

Therefore, it’s unlikely this will get added unless it receives a ton of demand."

How realistic is a "ton of demand"? Is this interesting enough to consider?

I agree with Fizzer that it may be an unneeded complication. Having said that, it would be a very simple (likely) modification which would allow users to then create all kinds of maps which take Warlight into new territory (without the need for any other changes to the game).

I'd also still like to hear about the coding behind the various "Reconnaissance cards".

Is it possible to repurpose that code to make selective fog? It seems like it should be, but I can't know for sure.

A card which "fogs out" an entire area would be a pretty interesting device.

Bumping this one more time:

Does anyone know how the coding for Recon cards, etc, works?

Can it be feasibly repurposed for selective Fog? (After all, it adjusts existing Fog settings.)

An anti-Reconnaissance card (which Fogs out an area) would be very interesting.