_Volunteer(s) needed

[cothyso]

Hello mates,

This whole scenario forum section is kind of messy, as no one attempted to do any kind of standardization around.

So, to be short: I need a volunteer, or a group of volunteers, to gather all the user made custom scenarios available and put them in order (using my scenario compilation as a base example). We need this in order to can convert all of them to the new FoG(U) format, so to have them available for everyone in to the new game right from the start.

So, who's willing to make a step forward? I promise the death will be quick and painless

Thank you,
dan

[Micha63]

I"m in to help. But i think stockwellpete is the perfect man for the job if he has time.

[cothyso]

Actually, i'm the perfect man for this job, but I certainly don't have time for it.

So, anyone having time and willing to do it, will have to (learn to) be the best at it

[stockwellpete]

I"m in to help. But i think stockwellpete is the perfect man for the job if he has time.

I am helping with the FOG Digital League and Slitherine Trophy right now so I cannot spend time on this as well. Sorry.

[fogman]

I would appreciate it if you don't include my scenarios in any compilation. They're all prefixed Fm so it is easy to identify and purge them. I prefer people get them from the forum so they have access to the designer's notes and not be ignorant of certain design tricks and historical event flow. I also prefer to make my own changes pertaining to the new FoG version, even if it means starting over again. thanks.

[cothyso]

I would appreciate if you'll understand that designer notes will be included into scenario's description (so people can see them directly into the game), together with links to each scenario's page (if you feel to add even more info in there than in scenario's description), that each scenario has a designer name clearly visible (so the credit is yours and they will know they are yours) and will even have a version number ( so they can be versioned as beta, in order to let people know they are not fogman's official FoG(U) scenarios). I would also appreciate if you will understand that this is made in order to help people easily access the 3rd party content, even if that means more integration work from us. thank you.

[stockwellpete]

Dan, at least two of my own scenarios, Bosworth Field and the Battle of the Standard, were not reproduced in quite the way I had designed them by HexWar. Bosworth had some designer notes missing that included a "trigger mechanism" that could be optionally used to activate the various contingents and the Standard had some English archers missing that rendered the battle slightly unbalanced. Is there any way that I can get these alterations corrected during the beta phase please?

I said earlier that I was very busy with the competitions, which is true, but what sort of time frame are you working to? By Xmas? Or before then? If no-one else comes forward then I would be prepared to help if I can. Sorry, my earlier reply was a bit hasty.

[cothyso]

There are no triggers currently added into the FoG(U) editor.

As I've said before, the first version of FoG(U) will be free, and will be a re-make of the original FoG(RB). Even so, we've added countless modifications, improvements and new features, but can't add everything into a single version. There's no time and no money neither to do it.

The plan is to gradually enhance the game from this initial free launch version by adding new features each time new addons will be released.

PS: Maybe I will have time to add a simple turn trigger (certain BG's can't be moved until turn X), but only if this won't require additional gameplay code (ie if this can be made in the simple way of removing the turn's movement points and without having to modify evading code for example). I'll have a look at this at some point.

[stockwellpete]

Dan, it is just a text "trigger". not anything in the programme itself. All it would need is something written in the designer notes for players to use if they want to. From way back I wrote (and got a reply) . . .

i) stockwellpete wrote: "The version of Bosworth Field 1485 included in the Battlepack was made by me. I also wrote a variation rule for those players who wanted to play a more historically "accurate" version (the exact course of events is still hotly disputed by historians). So the historical variation is as follows . . .

"The two Stanley contingents (Lancastrians) and Northumberland's contingent (Yorkists) do not join the battle unless total break points in the game equal 5-10-15-20-25-30 or 35 at the start of any player turn."

ii) "I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. So if the total breakpoints (I assume this is the sum of the BP lost by both sides) exactly equal a multiple of 5 at the start of a turn then the contingents in question become active? If the actual breakpoint totals at the start of turns actually ended up as 4-8-12-16-24-28-32-36-40, then the contingents would never become active? I guess this would be a way to generate a fairly random time for them to enter if that is your intent."

iii)Yes, that is exactly right, Chris. The idea is to create the uncertainty about the intentions of the various leaders on the day of the battle - there seems to be a lot of historical evidence for taking this approach and it does add excitement to the scenario.

And, yes, it is the sum of the BP lost by both sides that will trigger the three other contingents.

In addition, players may change the multiples of 5 pattern if they wish to (to multiples of 4 maybe, or 6's) and they could also say that once break points reach a certain level at the start of a turn then the other contingents will automatically become active (say 25 BP's or 30BP's). So there is scope for experimentation. In play-tests though, the multiples of 5 worked best really and very occasionally the other contingents did not join the battle at all.

A further historical option is that the battle is over if either Richard III or Henry Tudor are killed ("aargh" sound).

That was my intention and it adds something to the scenario. Off to work now. You mentioned your own scenario compilation - do you have a link for it please? Back this evening.

Pete

[cothyso]

text modifying is something trivial, no problem with that.

so, you mean that if the total break points number equals 5 x turn number only then those contingents would be available? and it's turn (after each player involved done his round), or rather round (at then end of each player's round)? to make it clear, a MP game between 2 players has 2 rounds (one for each player) each turn of the game.

[stockwellpete]

text modifying is something trivial, no problem with that.

so, you mean that if the total break points number equals 5 x turn number only then those contingents would be available? and it's turn (after each player involved done his round), or rather round (at then end of each player's round)? to make it clear, a MP game between 2 players has 2 rounds (one for each player) each turn of the game.

Dan, the key text to be added is . . .

"The two Stanley contingents (Lancastrians) and Northumberland's contingent (Yorkists) do not join the battle unless total break points in the game equal 5-10-15-20-25-30 or 35 at the start of any player turn."

The actual turn number is irrelevant - it is at the beginning of each "round" (or "player turn") that the total break points need to be checked to see if they equal multiples of 5 (or whatever else has been agreed).

For the Battle of the Standard scenario the English side needs two more archer units added to their army in the centre, if that is possible.

[fogman]

I would appreciate if you'll understand that designer notes will be included into scenario's description (so people can see them directly into the game), together with links to each scenario's page (if you feel to add even more info in there than in scenario's description), that each scenario has a designer name clearly visible (so the credit is yours and they will know they are yours) and will even have a version number ( so they can be versioned as beta, in order to let people know they are not fogman's official FoG(U) scenarios). I would also appreciate if you will understand that this is made in order to help people easily access the 3rd party content, even if that means more integration work from us. thank you.

I cannot give my consent at present for any of my scenarios in any form to be included in any complilation. I intend to look at the dynamics of the new game version first, retool or completely rewrite all my scenarios as will be necessary, and then I may agree to them being included in a future add-on. As it is now, between stockwellpete, zeabed, alzado, kilroy and a few others who haven't been heard from for a couple of years, you have easily 150 custom scenarios, covering every battle I would have covered. Just consider mine redundant and too unconventional. It is no concern of mine that my scenarios be made accessible to as many people as possible. I do the artisan niche thing. If players want something different, a different design philosophy, a different kind of historical research, they will find me if they care to look.

[Micha63]

After having a deeper look on this Standartisationproject i must confess this goes over my head and free time.
But hosting the collected scenarios and bring the number up to date from time to time is ok.

[kilroy1]

I cannot give my consent at present for any of my scenarios in any form to be included in any complilation. I intend to look at the dynamics of the new game version first, retool or completely rewrite all my scenarios as will be necessary, and then I may agree to them being included in a future add-on.

I'm with fogman on this. I do not want any of my scenarios to be included in a future add-on other than the ones that have already been accepted and published by Slitherine. I would like to see the changes the new version of FOG will bring and then modify the scenarios as necessary. We all want the next version of the game to be the very best, and giving us the time to update our scenarios I believe can only help that.

kilroy

[cothyso]

Both of you should calm down a little bit and re-read my posts above: there's NO inclusion in FoG(U) or any future addons of FoG(U) of any of your scenarios, excepting the ones already present in FoG(RB) and FoG(RB) addons. We never included anything before reaching an agreement with the involved scenario designers. And also, considering your attitude, I can almost guarantee you they will never be!

I am just gathering all the old FoG(RB)'s scenarios together to put an order in the mess around here, ease user's finding of the scenarios (as many links are expired), and converting them into FoG(U) format (for testing the scenario converter from FoG(RB) to FoG(U) and for the open betatest of custom scenarios code).

[fogman]

Both of you should calm down a little bit and re-read my posts above: there's NO inclusion in FoG(U) or any future addons of FoG(U) of any of your scenarios, excepting the ones already present in FoG(RB) and FoG(RB) addons. We never included anything before reaching an agreement with the involved scenario designers. And also, considering your attitude, I can almost guarantee you they will never be!.

And to think it has been a dream of mine to be included in the official glorious slitherine software! i'm devastated. all that labour for naught.

Now let's make it clear one last time: none of my scenarios should be in any compilation or LIST in any form ANYWHERE. I certainly do not wish to be part of any standardization process. I do my own thing and wish to be left alone.

I am just gathering all the old FoG(RB)'s scenarios together to put an order in the mess around here, ease user's finding of the scenarios (as many links are expired), and converting them into FoG(U) format (for testing the scenario converter from FoG(RB) to FoG(U) and for the open betatest of custom scenarios code).

you can clean any mess you want. i take good care of my scenarios and have no need for intermediaries. i'm sure you have good intentions but you remind me of a jehovah's witness woman who comes to my door from time to time. thanks for caring but no thanks.

[cothyso]

I'm not the one who started this, and I'm not the one shouting or demanding. I was just giving some of my time cleaning up. as for the woman thing, grab a mirror and take a good hard look into it.

and this "debate" end here. you made clear your position, and we've took note of it. any other disrespectful posts will be treated as so from now on.

Also, I've gathered everything up by myself, there's no need for any volunteering anymore.