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

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Does anyone know the answer to my question about the cards? That could lead to some interesting new options.

Just checking in. Does anyone know more about the coding of the cards?

Is it possible to make a "reverse Reconnaissance" card?

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.

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

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