Territory - new XB game in progress

[InfernalKeith]

Just a couple screenshots of a simple Extended BASIC game I'm working on.

 

 

Red and Green try to take over squares on the board and secure them, while digging holes to block their opponent and take over vulnerable squares. You can dig holes anywhere, but can only take over or attack squares adjacent to territory you already have.

 

 

The main game loop is done, I'm working on some play-testing right now and deciding whether to add some additional goals to determine who wins. Also creating some crude AI for each side, so you can play against an offensive or defensive opponent, or let the computer control both players.

 

More shots and possibly a listing tomorrow!

 

Keith

 

[ti99iuc]

Very Interesting !

[+Ksarul]

Looks like this one could be an interesting strategy game. . .

[InfernalKeith]

Well, I built the game loop. It works. No AI yet, mainly because I don't know what the object of the game IS quite yet.

 

I had the idea for how it worked, with only the vaguest idea on how to win. You can only take adjacent squares, you can lock down a square so it can't be modified, you can dig holes (or build walls, I'm still not sure which it is) to block your opponent's path, and you can even expend energy to take over some squares and change them to your color.

 

But... why?

 

I've sat and played with the game for hours now, playing both red and green. I've made patterns, racked up the 'score,' done offensive and defensive postures... with no idea what to make the endgame of the game. I've never designed a game's loop and mechanics without a clear idea of what the point is before. I've found it pretty interesting!

 

 

I think I have it. There will be several ways to win. You'll be able to play red or green, and the AI for each will take a different approach. You'll also be able to set it to zero human players and let the two AI's battle it out.

 

More tomorrow!

[gregallenwarner]

Looks vaguely like the Japanese game Go. The objective of that game is to enclose territory with your color stones. So you could count up the number of white squares that are completely boxed in by a closed circuit of a solid color, and award that color those points. You'd have to define a set halting point though, to decide when further attacks are no longer permitted. In Go, the game ends when both players pass in succession, however, it's kind of a human-intuition thing to judge when further plays are no longer advantageous for you. The trick is modelling that scenario such that it can be evaluated algorithmically.

[InfernalKeith]

I like Go/Othello a lot, but for this game I am thinking more of completing 'circuits' from top to bottom of the playfield. I'm adding an element where every few turns, an object tries to move across your color squares from your side of the board to the other. If it can make it on an uninterrupted path, you win. There'll be some randomness to its travel pattern, so several paths may need to be created, while also sabotaging the same paths your opponent is trying to make across to your side. There may also be a time limit element added. I'm hoping to have some of the new bits finished tonight to test out and see how it plays.

[+Ksarul]

You could even make the traveling bits a bit like the alphabetic data streams from the Matrix--once a set number of streams connect across the screen, you win. . .

[+RXB]

It occurred to me the other day that my game I put out called IN THE DARK could be used to make a GO board using the SAMS.

 

You could make a 8000 x 8000 board of GO (normally a 9x9 or 13x13 board)

 

Now that would be a hell of a GO board to win!

[+RXB]

Well, I built the game loop. It works. No AI yet, mainly because I don't know what the object of the game IS quite yet.

 

I had the idea for how it worked, with only the vaguest idea on how to win. You can only take adjacent squares, you can lock down a square so it can't be modified, you can dig holes (or build walls, I'm still not sure which it is) to block your opponent's path, and you can even expend energy to take over some squares and change them to your color.

 

But... why?

 

I've sat and played with the game for hours now, playing both red and green. I've made patterns, racked up the 'score,' done offensive and defensive postures... with no idea what to make the endgame of the game. I've never designed a game's loop and mechanics without a clear idea of what the point is before. I've found it pretty interesting!

 

 

I think I have it. There will be several ways to win. You'll be able to play red or green, and the AI for each will take a different approach. You'll also be able to set it to zero human players and let the two AI's battle it out.

 

More tomorrow!

How about a NO MANS LAND like a explosion that area like a bomb crater in the board that can no longer be used.

And then add a feature where you might be able to repair that portion and only one side can use?

Winner like GO is the guy with the most color of his side and repairs a different color?

[InfernalKeith]

The black squares are impassible holes in the game board. They can't be repaired, as I have it set up now. And you can 'lock in' squares (the ones of darker color) so that they can't be switched over or modified. Thinking of adding more random board manipulation in addition to what the players do, but I want to see how the 'vehicle' traveling along the color paths works first.

 

If anyone played the game 'Khe Sanh' by Not Polyoptics, there's a similar construct in that game, where your road can be bombed and you have to focus on repairing it, so that resupply trucks don't crash, which takes you away from searching for the enemy.

[InfernalKeith]

And an 8000x8000 Go board is mind-boggling to think about!

[+RXB]

And an 8000x8000 Go board is mind-boggling to think about!

Well to show a MINI MAP of the entire board would be 8*8*768=49152 as one character is a 8*8 and 768 places on screen for 49152 pixels to show GO positions so that would be a 24576 by 24576 GO board.

Using 4 colors, background, empty color, Black and White. The empty color is only needed as the size of the board is so large it needs to show empty unusable sections.

 

Memory wise this could be done in a 32K, but with the SAMS you could blow up that map to 2 screens per 8K for a full map in SAMS of 2949120 x 2949120 game of GO. (960K of SAMS used)

 

That would be insane as the game would take you years to get to the end of the game.

 

You game looks much simpler to play and looks interesting.

[Willsy]

And you can 'lock in' squares (the ones of darker color) so that they can't be switched over or modified.

 

How about if you 'lock in' a square, you pay a penalty: You cannot control your man for a length of time (just miss out the keyboard scanning for that man for n loops of the main-loop)

[InfernalKeith]

It's a turn-based, dice roll game, but there's a similar penalty. It takes three "turns" to take over an opponent's square or dig a hole, as opposed to merely one turn to annex an empty space.

 

Keeping and clearing a path open is proving to be quite tricky. The balance between building your own 'bridge' across the board, and sabotaging your opponent's, will make or break whether the game is actually any fun or not. Looking good so far, I'm pleased with it. More later.

[InfernalKeith]

Just bumping this because I finally got to work on it more over this weekend. I even managed to hit FCTN = in emulator and erase a bunch of unsaved code, just like in the old days!! (apparently I never learn any life lessons whatsoever...)

 

I have the basic AI for the 'bomber' that drives across your terrain, looking for a path from your side to the enemy's. I've also reduced the amount of territory you control at the start.

 

It's almost to the point of being playable by two players. Then the last challenge will be to create AI for each side of the board. (The "AI" to control the bomber that crosses the screen is much more limited, and independent of any game strategy).

 

I feel a little silly pottering around in XB given some of the fantastic developments going on around here of late, but I'm enjoying the programming time regardless, and hopefully a good game will come of it.

[TheMole]

I feel a little silly pottering around in XB given some of the fantastic developments going on around here of late, but I'm enjoying the programming time regardless, and hopefully a good game will come of it.

 

Don't. There's a bit of a stigma associated with XB, but given the new tools (XB256, XB compiler, PC-side editing tools, structured XB programming, ...) the environment has become so much more powerful that I wish there were more people like yourself creating cool stuff with it. Either way, looking forward to the end result of this!

[Vorticon]

 

Don't. There's a bit of a stigma associated with XB, but given the new tools (XB256, XB compiler, PC-side editing tools, structured XB programming, ...) the environment has become so much more powerful that I wish there were more people like yourself creating cool stuff with it. Either way, looking forward to the end result of this!

 

There is nothing wrong with XB. It is actually a very powerful language, albeit unstructured, and is perfectly well suited for strategy games in particular. I have calculated 5600 decimals of PI, written a very detailed naval combat simulator, developed a detailed model rocket simulator, simulated artificial life, and am now completing a tank warfare game, all in plain XB. I think you should take a look at Matthew180's TidBit XB translator. It will really enhance your programming and give you a lot of flexibility.

While other languages each have their own strength and weaknesses, nothing to date beats the simplicity of XB programming.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Vorticon

[+OLD CS1]

 

There is nothing wrong with XB. It is actually a very powerful language, albeit unstructured, and is perfectly well suited for strategy games in particular. I have calculated 5600 decimals of PI, written a very detailed naval combat simulator, developed a detailed model rocket simulator, simulated artificial life, and am now completing a tank warfare game, all in plain XB. I think you should take a look at Matthew180's TidBit XB translator. It will really enhance your programming and give you a lot of flexibility.

While other languages each have their own strength and weaknesses, nothing to date beats the simplicity of XB programming.

 

With the ability to compile native XB programs, it is a VERY tempting language for development, and difficult to break away. I believe its only limitation is its speed, dependence upon graphics mode, and the available character sets. Even though it uses line numbers it is possible to semi-structure, though you are not going to get object-oriented with it. And there are plenty of extensions for XB now which help out quite a lot.

 

For that matter, ISTR there are a litany of commercial programs and games written and released in XB. So, yeah, no one should have an inferiority complex or feel apologetic for using it.