WWI Rwanda V8.1

[sailorseal]

Thanks Tack, now I have work to do

[Bones2484]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't Zaire to the west of Rwanda, not Congo? Congo is on the coast.

[sailorseal]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't Zaire to the west of Rwanda, not Congo? Congo is on the coast.

That will be changed thanks

[sailorseal]

An interesting idea with some potential. Here's what I'm seeing:

Gameplay
- The explanation for Danger Zones is very confusing, and overall, bad gameplay. In a 1v1, a player could end up with some nasty deploys if he drops with merely one. Instead of it being -1 per 1 held and +0 per 2 held, why not a decay of -1 and the original +1 per 3 bonus be preserved? It would be better gameplay and easier to understand.
- German Side and Belgian Side...can we have better terms? They seem so generic. How about use the German term for the country in the right, and the Belgian term for it in the left? Actually, I did some research, and the use of German and Belgian isn't accurate, as Belgium and Britain fully took over the colony in the wake of WWI. Going with simply Belgian Holdings and British Holdings would be more accurate to the time period, and a better set of terms in general.
It says in 1916 it is accurate

Graphics:
- BelgIUm in the introduction text.
- PLEASE increase the quality of your output JPEGs. Size is a non-issue in the Foundry (unless it's too big pixel-wise), and the compression is killing the color quality something awful. Pixelation is baed.
- The assumption of reading across with the Zone bonus is easy to confuse. Stick it in a nice cut-apart with maybe a nice graphical cue like +2 per 3 held being the same blue as Safe Zones.
Can you explain?

[sailorseal]

V6

[captainwalrus]

Several things.

1 It is hard to tell between nutural zones and safty zones.
2 It is a lot harder to hold belgium side. It has more teritories and danger zones.
3 Is the center impassible? Also, the shadow is slightly off at parts of that center line.
4 If you have 3 danger zones do you still get -1?
5 The safty zones of one side should be able to somehow bombard danger zones of the other side. It will make things more interesting.

I like it. IT is a lotbetter than when it looked like you did the whole thing on a crumpled up piece of paper you found in your pocket.

[sailorseal]

Several things.

1 It is hard to tell between nutural zones and safty zones.
2 It is a lot harder to hold belgium side. It has more teritories and danger zones.
3 Is the center impassible? Also, the shadow is slightly off at parts of that center line.
4 If you have 3 danger zones do you still get -1?
5 The safty zones of one side should be able to somehow bombard danger zones of the other side. It will make things more interesting.

I like it. IT is a lotbetter than when it looked like you did the whole thing on a crumpled up piece of paper you found in your pocket.

Thanks I will get to work on that

[sailorseal]

Several things.

1 It is hard to tell between nutural zones and safty zones.
Darkened blue a shade
2 It is a lot harder to hold belgium side. It has more teritories and danger zones.
I don't see that as being to much of a worry
3 Is the center impassible? Also, the shadow is slightly off at parts of that center line.
I fixed the shadow and brightened it to make it look less like an impassible
4 If you have 3 danger zones do you still get -1?
Fixed grammar now it is clear
5 The safty zones of one side should be able to somehow bombard danger zones of the other side. It will make things more interesting.
I will look into that

I like it. IT is a lotbetter than when it looked like you did the whole thing on a crumpled up piece of paper you found in your pocket.
Thanks Kill was a big help

New version:

[Incandenza]

Well, it's still a genocide map with the word "colonial" slapped on it, and it's wildly inaccurate to boot, so good luck with that.

I'm not trying to be a hater, but I simply don't think you've thought this through (tho the fact that early in the thread you tried to shove responsibility for the initial idea off onto killing.44 tells me that you may have reservations).

I implore you to drop this and find another project. War maps are one thing, Battle for Iraq is something else, but all this map evokes is the butchery of hundreds of thousands of people with machetes and one of the great moral failures of humanity.

[sailorseal]

Well, it's still a genocide map with the word "colonial" slapped on it, and it's wildly inaccurate to boot, so good luck with that.

I'm not trying to be a hater, but I simply don't think you've thought this through (tho the fact that early in the thread you tried to shove responsibility for the initial idea off onto killing.44 tells me that you may have reservations).

I implore you to drop this and find another project. War maps are one thing, Battle for Iraq is something else, but all this map evokes is the butchery of hundreds of thousands of people with machetes and one of the great moral failures of humanity.

Try reading up on 1916 Rwanda

[TaCktiX]

Try reading up on 1916 Rwanda

His point is that all people think about when they hear Rwanda PERIOD is the mutual genocide of two different people: Hutus and Tutsis. I do agree with him in that aspect, and if you recast it as generic territory conquering with lots of time period-appropriate doodads and fluff, this map wouldn't evoke that genocidal look so much. As it is, that's all everyone will think about.

[sailorseal]

Try reading up on 1916 Rwanda

His point is that all people think about when they hear Rwanda PERIOD is the mutual genocide of two different people: Hutus and Tutsis. I do agree with him in that aspect, and if you recast it as generic territory conquering with lots of time period-appropriate doodads and fluff, this map wouldn't evoke that genocidal look so much. As it is, that's all everyone will think about.

Any kind of fluff you would like to see?

[sailorseal]

7.1
Graphical Touch-Ups

[AndyDufresne]

This idea has really yet to win me over.


--Andy

[alster]

Try reading up on 1916 Rwanda

So, exactly what aspect of 1916 Rwanda makes "safe", "neutral" and "danger" zones to be an appropriate feature of this historical map. And what historical coincidence makes those zones be placed the same way your 1990's genocidal "safe", "neutral" and "danger" zones were placed? I see no compelling arguments for such a zone feature on this supposed 1916 map.

And why, on earth, are Britain excluded from the map if supposed to depict 1916?

And why, seriously, is today’s Rwanda the setting for part of the German holdings in the area that were fought over back during WWI?

It simply doesn’t make sense as it is now.

[sailorseal]

Try reading up on 1916 Rwanda

So, exactly what aspect of 1916 Rwanda makes "safe", "neutral" and "danger" zones to be an appropriate feature of this historical map. And what historical coincidence makes those zones be placed the same way your 1990's genocidal "safe", "neutral" and "danger" zones were placed? I see no compelling arguments for such a zone feature on this supposed 1916 map.
They are partially political and partially war zone related
And why, on earth, are Britain excluded from the map if supposed to depict 1916?
This is separate from WWI
And why, seriously, is today’s Rwanda the setting for part of the German holdings in the area that were fought over back during WWI?
This is separate from WWI
It simply doesn’t make sense as it is now.

[bryguy]

And why, seriously, is today’s Rwanda the setting for part of the German holdings in the area that were fought over back during WWI?
This is separate from WWI
No, actually, this is WWI, as currently you have it set up for the fight over the German holdings in Rwanda, which took place during WWI

[sailorseal]

And why, seriously, is today’s Rwanda the setting for part of the German holdings in the area that were fought over back during WWI?
This is separate from WWI
No, actually, this is WWI, as currently you have it set up for the fight over the German holdings in Rwanda, which took place during WWI
[color=#FF0000]Right your are! Now how can I play to it being WWI?[/color]

[sailorseal]

I am planning on doing some graphical changes, so no need to comment on some of those spots

[sailorseal]

I had to touch it up a little

[AndyDufresne]

If you are now switching to WWI...I'd rather see this map expanded from just Rwanda, to perhaps a larger theatre.

Heck, the Eastern African Campaign in WWI sounds like an interesting map...

show

Even a simplistic version of this could be awesome.


--Andy

[sailorseal]

I'll play with that idea, thanks

[tlane]

If you are now switching to WWI...I'd rather see this map expanded from just Rwanda, to perhaps a larger theatre.

Heck, the Eastern African Campaign in WWI sounds like an interesting map...

show

Even a simplistic version of this could be awesome.


--Andy

this idea looks like a very good one, you should definitely try it out!

tlane

[sailorseal]

You know, bin this I have another idea

[TaCktiX]

That East African theater map looks like a good plan. Go forward with that in a separate topic.