http://www.wargear.net/games/view/5288

I used different colored territories and it let me select them as different territories but when someone takes over a territory it turns everything either to my color or it turns everything to the neutral's color.

Am I just trying to get it to do too much or is there someway this can work?

P.S.  Sorry

Oh, but the territories stay owned by whoever owns them, it just changes the color of everything on the map

I'd say it's just your fill boundaries not being delineated properly? Or am I missing something? What happens when you test fill the territories?

The background here is that when Risky found out that territory-fill would fill any color out to its boundary, not just FFFFFF, he surmised that boundary delineation was in fact no longer necessary.

For example, instead of something like
['W' being white pixels and 'B' being black pixels]
WWWBWWW
WWWBWWW
WWWBWWW
WWWBWWW

being necessary to create a border, the white areas being territory-filled and the black showing up as a border between them, one could now draw territories in the designer like
['R' being red pixels and 'Y' being yellow pixels]
RRRRRYYYYY
RRRRRYYYYY
RRRRRYYYYY

such that there would be NO visible delineation between them, and that when a player with color Blue (for instance) conquered them both, the designer logic would fill the Red with Blue and the Yellow with Blue, thus showing up in the Player like a continuous blue-filled area.

I take it from his experimentation with Risky Cycles that this doesn't in fact work as expected.

The background is transparent except for the bright blue lines to form the grid. Whenever you use Fill All with transparency it turns the transparent sections all white. That's been my experience so far.

As far as what asm says, I don't understand what he said but I think he's explained it.
In the designer, one part of the line is red seperated from another red section of line by a black thing. When I fill them and make the teritories it all works and fill all does exactly what I want it too (except filling the transparency) but in the game is does something else.
If this little trick doesn't work, that's fine. I'll have to rethink the map a little and it would not be as cool.

Ok got it thanks guys.

Yes, that's not going to work - there has to be an actual delineation between the territories. It's possible this could be worked around but right now I can't think of a way to do it.

No problem. I'll just make it a circle map

LLOL <3 you Risky

Sorry tom but I did it again. This time it is in Greyhawk.
http://www.wargear.net/games/view/5313

The Shield territories have a max of 50 but at the start I overload them with 100 units. Toaster tried to transfer back to a shield that had 91 in it and instead of saying "You can't" it transferred 41 armies to the territory he was trying to transfer from (which is funny because that territory has a max of 10).
Anyways, sorry but could you take a look when you get a chance and please don't tell my I can't overload neutrals in maximum unit territories. That would make me sad.

What part of the word maximum don't you understand?

IRoll11s wrote: What part of the word maximum don't you understand?

I see where you're coming from, 11's, but being able to start a position out with more than allowed, and simply never allowing it to receive more armies until that threshold is passed downwards allows for some fun gameplay options. It is especially useful in situations where you want a territory to act as a wall: overstock it with 100 neutral units, and after it has been smashed down to 10, then it acts as a typical 10 limit space like all the rest, as if the wall is destroyed. That's one, but there are others. And, the loophole actually seems like it could be easier to work with than an actual hard rule.

IRoll11s wrote: What part of the word maximum don't you understand?

Wow, who's the grumpy one now? Still catching up on sleep from last week?

I took it as 11's kidding and I thought it was very funny when I read.
I appreciate somebody else on this site not having his sarcasm understood.

RiskyBack wrote: I took it as 11's kidding and I thought it was very funny when I read.

Lol me too :P

I did too, but he's been ragging on me lately for being grouchy. Good for the gander, I always say.

I think a race to the bottom of the asshole pile is in order... starting NOW:

I've already lost in this game of chicken to see who wins the role of resident asshole. I'll be taking my character over to the writers to see if they can come up with something else for me.

Really, the joke works much better when Sean Connery is actually saying it.

RiskyBack wrote: Really, the joke works much better when Sean Connery is actually saying it.

also, "mother" instead of "mom" has so much more impact.

Fair enough will add support for overloading maxes Risky.