TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

by **cairnswk** on Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:43 pm

Yeehah! Thanks tnb80. =D>

by **MrBenn** on Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:25 pm

Good job cairns ;-)

by **DiM** on Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:33 pm

congrats cairns

by **cairnswk** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:07 am

MrBenn wrote:Good job cairns

DiM wrote:congrats cairns

Thanks guys

by **cairnswk** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:11 am

in a 2 player game, i dropped a +4 french weather line bonus on the first round, and could only use it because i had two british terts adjacent...it did me no good because of the no-luck dice

by **Nola_Lifer** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:07 am

cairnswk wrote:in a 2 player game, i dropped a +4 french weather line bonus on the first round, and could only use it because i had two british terts adjacent...it did me no good because of the no-luck dice

We dropped french lee line but don''t go first

by **pamoa** on Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:07 pm

3 1vs1 game and in the 3 one of the player got a line at drop
it seems we have a problem here

edit
4 out of 4

by **General Brock II** on Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:40 am

I've got commemorate cairnswk for this map. My favourite naval battle, man! Congrats! You even nailed the Sovereign's continuous conflict with the Santa Ana. Though you made the Santa Ana smaller, and it was Ignacio Álava y Sáenz de Navarrete's 126 gun flagship. Still, the Trinidad was more important (even though it was only the Rear Admiral's ship), so good show!

by **Count Belisle** on Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:09 am

I don't know who to report this to but I recently played this map in beta , I played as a speed game

Link to Game: Game 9759000

I have the latest FF browser, I also have Greasemonkey, BOB 5.1.5, Conquerstats 1.5.3, clickable maps installed. upon entering this game the map size was huge, only a quarter of it would be displayed, that would literary cover my whole screen, then after 2 rounds the game would start seizing when I would begin my turn. in fact I wouldn't be able to take my turn as soon as I would press the begin my turn button it would seize or get error message that FF not responding, I would close my browser and restart, come back and would have missed my turn, I would start my turn and it would start freezing all over again. this wouldn't happen on any of the other games I have been playing only this one

by **thenobodies80** on Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:57 am

Just to let you know, I've already discussed with Count Belisle about the above post. It seems the problem is not related with the map.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Sep 17, 2011 12:09 pm

cairnswk, just got to say, this map is freaking awesome. In a doubles game with Seamus and it is great fun. =D>

by **cairnswk** on Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:24 pm

Nola_Lifer wrote:
cairnswk wrote:in a 2 player game, i dropped a +4 french weather line bonus on the first round, and could only use it because i had two british terts adjacent...it did me no good because of the no-luck dice

We dropped french lee line but don''t go first

pamoa wrote:3 1vs1 game and in the 3 one of the player got a line at drop
it seems we have a problem here
edit
4 out of 4

In relation to this drop issue, i just did a quick stats on the first 20 games that came up in the find list...
for 1v1, 8 of the 20 games had a drop bonus...i didn't look at how the mix was.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:25 pm

General Brock II wrote:I've got commemorate cairnswk for this map. My favourite naval battle, man! Congrats! You even nailed the Sovereign's continuous conflict with the Santa Ana. Though you made the Santa Ana smaller, and it was Ignacio Álava y Sáenz de Navarrete's 126 gun flagship. Still, the Trinidad was more important (even though it was only the Rear Admiral's ship), so good show!

koontz1973 wrote:cairnswk, just got to say, this map is freaking awesome. In a doubles game with Seamus and it is great fun.

Thanks guys

by **pamoa** on Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:20 am

as I said before
in 5 out 7 1vs1 game I played
one of the player got a line bonus at drop
and worst with the first hand
it seems there really is problem here
because of the very few connection between each bonus zone
its almost impossible to break such a bonus in the first round

by **cairnswk** on Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:26 am

pamoa wrote:as I said before
in 5 out 7 1vs1 game I played
one of the player got a line bonus at drop
and worst with the first hand
it seems there really is problem here
because of the very few connection between each bonus zone
its almost impossible to break such a bonus in the first round

ok...shall i make the Montanes and the Formidable neutrals....they seem to be the ones that don't have too many other neutral connections?

by **DiM** on Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:18 pm

here's a crazy thought. how about removing the neutrals from the intermediary vessels?
if a guy gets a bonus from the start you most likely have to go through an intermediary vessel to get to him and break the bonus which is almost impossible. so what if those were not neutrals at all? the map would be much more open in the first rounds and would make keeping a bonus a lot harder.

unless people play with unlimited forts, in which case such a measure would allow people to create big stacks.

so maybe instead of removing the neutrals simply make the intermediary vessels at 1 neutral. they would not provide much of a barrier...

just thinking out loud so feel free to discuss.

by **pamoa** on Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:55 pm

DiM
I guess your idea is going in the right direction
making the bonus weaker to hold may be a solution

cairnswk
just removing 2 of the 6 possible bonus is not enough
it will remain an unbalanced map

by **koontz1973** on Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:24 am

I much prefer DiMs idea of reducing the neutrals to one over adding more into the map. As a 90+ territ map, no one is going to want to play this much as a 1v1 map anyway so to add more in just to cover that one type of game play seems excessive. As for the big stacks, that will happen only in a smaller type of games (1v1 unlimited) so is not too much of a problem.

by **cairnswk** on Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:04 pm

DiM wrote:here's a crazy thought. how about removing the neutrals from the intermediary vessels?
if a guy gets a bonus from the start you most likely have to go through an intermediary vessel to get to him and break the bonus which is almost impossible. so what if those were not neutrals at all? the map would be much more open in the first rounds and would make keeping a bonus a lot harder.

unless people play with unlimited forts, in which case such a measure would allow people to create big stacks.

so maybe instead of removing the neutrals simply make the intermediary vessels at 1 neutral. they would not provide much of a barrier...

just thinking out loud so feel free to discuss.

pamoa wrote:DiM
I guess your idea is going in the right direction
making the bonus weaker to hold may be a solution

cairnswk
just removing 2 of the 6 possible bonus is not enough
it will remain an unbalanced map

koontz1973 wrote:I much prefer DiMs idea of reducing the neutrals to one over adding more into the map. As a 90+ territ map, no one is going to want to play this much as a 1v1 map anyway so to add more in just to cover that one type of game play seems excessive. As for the big stacks, that will happen only in a smaller type of games (1v1 unlimited) so is not too much of a problem.

OK. i can agree with you all...reduce the intermediarys to 1 neutral so that it it easier to remove an initial bonus.

But is there some way that the ships can be coded as perhaps starting positions or groups of starting positions?
Doing the numbers to see if there is anything there.

Tert counts are:

Weather line:
Britiish - 9
French - 8
Spanish - 5
Total 22

Lee Line:
British - 14
French - 8
Spanish - 8
Total = 30

by **cairnswk** on Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:56 pm

DiM wrote:here's a crazy thought. how about removing the neutrals from the intermediary vessels?
if a guy gets a bonus from the start you most likely have to go through an intermediary vessel to get to him and break the bonus which is almost impossible. so what if those were not neutrals at all? the map would be much more open in the first rounds and would make keeping a bonus a lot harder.

unless people play with unlimited forts, in which case such a measure would allow people to create big stacks.

so maybe instead of removing the neutrals simply make the intermediary vessels at 1 neutral. they would not provide much of a barrier...

just thinking out loud so feel free to discuss.

DiM, i just have to ask about this...
If i reduce the intermediary vessels from 3 to 1 neutrals. won't that also assist the player who gets the drop bonus.

What if we reduced only those interemediaries between the french and spanish and thier direct connections to the next british vessel to one neutral, but leave the british intermediaries at neutral 3.

by **Nola_Lifer** on Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:30 pm

cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:here's a crazy thought. how about removing the neutrals from the intermediary vessels?
if a guy gets a bonus from the start you most likely have to go through an intermediary vessel to get to him and break the bonus which is almost impossible. so what if those were not neutrals at all? the map would be much more open in the first rounds and would make keeping a bonus a lot harder.

unless people play with unlimited forts, in which case such a measure would allow people to create big stacks.

so maybe instead of removing the neutrals simply make the intermediary vessels at 1 neutral. they would not provide much of a barrier...

just thinking out loud so feel free to discuss.

DiM, i just have to ask about this...
If i reduce the intermediary vessels from 3 to 1 neutrals. won't that also assist the player who gets the drop bonus.

What if we reduced only those interemediaries between the french and spanish and thier direct connections to the next british vessel to one neutral, but leave the british intermediaries at neutral 3.

I have to agree with both. Try it out.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:52 am

I PMed Dim about this...

DiM wrote:
cairnswk wrote:DiM, i just have to ask about this...
If i reduce the intermediary vessels from 3 to 1 neutrals. won't that also assist the player who gets the drop bonus.

fair point.

cairnswk wrote:What if we reduced only those interemediaries between the french and spanish and thier direct connections to the next british vessel to one neutral, but leave the british intermediaries at neutral 3.

i agree this could be a solution.

by **MarshalNey** on Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:05 am

Love the map really even with the neutral 3s but I agree that neutral 1s would make the play flow better/faster.

Anyway, I have one major clarity request, as I had similar trouble to my partner in the game that I'm playing in identifying which ships are Lee ships and which ships are Weather ships. I mentioned some time back but I'm not sure that the suggestion was noticed...

Is it possible to label the Weather side and the Lee side directly on the map itself? There's a lot of legend space devoted to the attack routes and bombardments which are actually pretty intuitive, but the only clue to the Weather and Lee sides is in the bonus listing, and it's easy for someone to dismiss the dashed line there as having no direct connection with the dashed line on the map itself but rather present simply as a dividing punctuation for the legend.

In other words, the dashed line is a standard method of dividing things, and does not distinctly connect its respective representation in the legend to its representation in the map (in my mind, anyway, nor in my partner's).

-- Marshal Ney

by **cairnswk** on Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:43 pm

MarshalNey wrote:Love the map really even with the neutral 3s but I agree that neutral 1s would make the play flow better/faster.

Question MarshalNey....
Are you in favour of neutral 1s on all intermediary vessels, or only on those in french and spanish areas.

Anyway, I have one major clarity request, as I had similar trouble to my partner in the game that I'm playing in identifying which ships are Lee ships and which ships are Weather ships. I mentioned some time back but I'm not sure that the suggestion was noticed...

Is it possible to label the Weather side and the Lee side directly on the map itself? There's a lot of legend space devoted to the attack routes and bombardments which are actually pretty intuitive, but the only clue to the Weather and Lee sides is in the bonus listing, and it's easy for someone to dismiss the dashed line there as having no direct connection with the dashed line on the map itself but rather present simply as a dividing punctuation for the legend.

In other words, the dashed line is a standard method of dividing things, and does not distinctly connect its respective representation in the legend to its representation in the map (in my mind, anyway, nor in my partner's).

-- Marshal Ney

I'm sorry if i missed this, but i can do something about that on the left side of the map.

by **MarshalNey** on Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:01 am

Well, reducing any of the intermediaries or even all of them would speed the game flow, but personally I think the opposite of what you were suggesting- to make the British intermediaries 1s and not the French or Spanish- because the British bonuses are harder to get in the first place. In other words, by making the French & Spanish intermedaries 1s, you'd simply be making the already quicker bonuses easier still to acquire. This would make the British ships more of a neglected part of the game, I feel. Whereas 1s for the British areas would make these somewhat unattractive bonuses more reasonable, and thus open up other avenues rather than favoring one over another... does that make sense?

cairnswk wrote:I'm sorry if i missed this, but i can do something about that on the left side of the map.

Oh no problem I figured it got missed, and I wasn't going to press the issue until I had outside confirmation that I wasn't the only dense legend reader... sometimes I really can miss the obvious

-- Marshal Ney

TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

Re: TRAFALGAR [7 Aug 2011] V61 Beta

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Re: TRAFALGAR [14 Sep 2011] BETA (V61)

Who is online