Edward Nygma wrote:

Should we use color to indicate player allocation?  Make Neutral Grey and have a standard Player Color order so you know which player has which territory.  Especially if we want to talk about team factories.

One problem with color is color blindness. I'm not against it, but it would nice to avoid it.

Also, for people that do quick sketches - scan 'em and post - it's not very feasible.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Should we use color to indicate player allocation?  Make Neutral Grey and have a standard Player Color order so you know which player has which territory.  Especially if we want to talk about team factories.

+1

Ozyman wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Should we use color to indicate player allocation?  Make Neutral Grey and have a standard Player Color order so you know which player has which territory.  Especially if we want to talk about team factories.

+1

What's wrong with P1 P2  or T1 for Team 1?

@Ed - it would be great if you could model Tracking and Spawning - I was unable to understand it from your post a while back.

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Should we use color to indicate player allocation?  Make Neutral Grey and have a standard Player Color order so you know which player has which territory.  Especially if we want to talk about team factories.

+1

What's wrong with P1 P2  or T1 for Team 1?

That works ok too.  I figure there is already a lot of text on their, so using color to represent something would reduce the clutter a bit.  Not really critical though.

No doubt, a number of Territory Attributes (and particularly ones that trump global settings) will accumulate over time..

• Territory Minimums/Maximums
• Player Allocation
• Placement Enabled
• Token
• Capitals
• Movement Count (I just had to sneak it in there)
• Others..

Our choices of how to deal with them are limited to things like size, shape, borders type.

Color of the border, Color of the text, and even the color of the territory itself may force its way into the picture.   I tend to agree that if Color is to (or is to ever) be included, Player makes the most sense.

In the end, it'll be up to the discretion of the person who's modeling when it comes to work on individual boards.

It may be acceptable to "allow" both color and text designation - and see where it goes.

Ozyman wrote:

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

Edward Nygma wrote:

Should we use color to indicate player allocation?  Make Neutral Grey and have a standard Player Color order so you know which player has which territory.  Especially if we want to talk about team factories.

+1

What's wrong with P1 P2  or T1 for Team 1?

That works ok too.  I figure there is already a lot of text on their, so using color to represent something would reduce the clutter a bit.  Not really critical though.

ROYGBIV

When I get home from work, I'll try to read this a little more closely, so I can model some of my functions.

Edward Nygma wrote:

When I get home from work, I'll try to read this a little more closely, so I can model some of my functions.

The Factories aren't the problem.  Things becomes difficult when there are a lot of overlapping or disparate members.

Either some kind of shorthand needs to be used or..

I suppose that we're not modeling real maps - just ideas  - so territories can be organized creatively  - still it can be tricky.

B represents each individual territory in the board space.

T is tracker, it is showing you how many units you have.  If you have 3 B's, all 3 T's will be on(on=1 off=0).  If you have 2 B's, only 2 T's will be on.  This is because of your C.

C is Capital, it is subtracting units from your T's to make each tracker have a limit.  T1 will turn on if you own any B's at all.  T2 will turn on when you have 2 or more B's.  T3 will turn on if you have 3 or more B's (as T(n) increases, the bonus from C decreses -1).  This allows you to track.

On the right, the T's are the same from the left, just separated for a separate structure to show spawning.

S is the spawn point.  All S's are also contained in B.  The net unit produced in S = (#max units you want the player to own) - (1 unit * number of units the player owns).  In this case, 3 - (either 0,1,2, or 3).  

You could adjust the maximum number of units for S, so you can only spawn 1 per turn, or up to a quantity.  If you have S with a max of more than 1, do not include it in B, and remove it from the board, so people can't break the count.

I'm not sure yet, but, I think it can also be a "Combination" finder..

Given a continent (B1 B2 B3 B4 B5) and you want a bonus of 1 if the player owns any three.

Reverse the 'polarity' of the figure on the right and make it so that C subtracts 2 and T1 T2 T3 all add 1.

Does that work?

I am pretty sure that would work.  I think the tracking system works in a lot of ways.  You can have each T, copy to an identical set of T's, so T1new is a +1 to T1old etc.  So you can have last turn's information to us also.

Neat! I have seen other posts of yours about this Ed, but IMO, the diagram makes it much clearer. 

I think C does not necessarily need to be a capital.  In my new board I have a territory for each player that gets assigned to them in startup, and they always own it, so that I can use it for tricks like this, but it is not the capital.  Maybe there is a good term for that type of territory.  I was going to call it P1, P2, etc. on my diagrams.

Ozyman wrote:

Neat! I have seen other posts of yours about this Ed, but IMO, the diagram makes it much clearer. 

I think C does not necessarily need to be a capital.  In my new board I have a territory for each player that gets assigned to them in startup, and they always own it, so that I can use it for tricks like this, but it is not the capital.  Maybe there is a good term for that type of territory.  I was going to call it P1, P2, etc. on my diagrams.

They don't have to be capitals - but then there needs to be capitals at some point to end the game, so you might as well make them capitals, right? The exception would be when Tom gets Victory conditions up and running.

EDIT: Never mind. I hadn't read through all the posts yet when I commented. Carry on...

M57 wrote:

Ozyman wrote:

Neat! I have seen other posts of yours about this Ed, but IMO, the diagram makes it much clearer. 

I think C does not necessarily need to be a capital.  In my new board I have a territory for each player that gets assigned to them in startup, and they always own it, so that I can use it for tricks like this, but it is not the capital.  Maybe there is a good term for that type of territory.  I was going to call it P1, P2, etc. on my diagrams.

They don't have to be capitals - but then there needs to be capitals at some point to end the game, so you might as well make them capitals, right? The exception would be when Tom gets Victory conditions up and running.

I think it depends on the map.  In my case, players don't start with any capitals, but take them as they move onto the main board, so I need a territory that they will always own, but it can't be a capital, or else they wouldn't get eliminated when they are removed from the main board, because they'd still have this one capital they started with.  Here's the board in question if it helps to look at it:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/5141

Ozyman wrote:

In my case, players don't start with any capitals, but take them as they move onto the main board, so I need a territory that they will always own, but it can't be a capital, or else they wouldn't get eliminated when they are removed from the main board, because they'd still have this one capital they started with.  Here's the board in question if it helps to look at it:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/5141

So in theory the game could never end if someone refused to move onto the main board? However, from what I can tell, you have to move onto the main board to even play AND every territory on the main board is a capital. So if you start to play, you can lose. I suppose if you're worried about someone just ending turn every round and keeping the game going forever, you could make a timer for each non-capital territory that destroys it (via negative factories) iff the player controls no capitals.

C does not need to be a capital, but for elimination and to guarantee player ownership, I generally make it a capital.  I wanted to distinguish it from the Bs also.

Oh, This is Nygma on my phone/account to test boards.

I think for purposes of a Wiki tutorial or explanation, it doesn't hurt to imply, or even flat out state, that a capital is necessary.  That way, anyone who breaks the "rule" is likely to know what they are doing.

I've been working a Wiki image for a Factory Counter that can be used for finding combinations ..and I have capitals on it.  I suppose a footnote at the bottom of the page could suggest that there may be ways around the need for using capitals.

NygmaBot needs a haircut.