Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[Gilligan]

in the shot loutil posted he had many more than two terts?

[cairnswk]

in the shot loutil posted he had many more than two terts?

sorry Gill, i meant to say doubles version of 1v1

[Gilligan]

I will have to try to duplicate this later on.

I did not have an issue with quads polymorphic, so perhaps that it is only with doubles you get this issue.

[cairnswk]

I will have to try to duplicate this later on.

I did not have an issue with quads polymorphic, so perhaps that it is only with doubles you get this issue.

OK let's do a game...i'll invite u. Game 13488534
well i started this 1v1 doubles poly game with Gill, and i could see all my monarchs from the command ships i held.

[Gilligan]

Small map
La Caridad coordinate is off
The beacon bonus is a bit unclear. The way I read it I should get a bonus for A, B, and Portland, but I don't
Is LB Army Brussell supposed to be a spanish ship?
The ship bonus isn't unclear - but would it be worth while to do +1 for each 9 instead of only for 9?

I haven't started to look at borders yet. Do you have a large map? Also, do you have maps without neutral values on them?

[cairnswk]

Small map
La Caridad coordinate is off

Fixed!

The beacon bonus is a bit unclear. The way I read it I should get a bonus for A, B, and Portland, but I don't

Def: "Consecutive: following each other continuously."
"each consecutive 3: +1"
i think that it imlies for each 3 you get +1, especially when read in conjunction with
"Hold all beacons: +4" there are only 12 beacons afterall.

Is LB Army Brussell supposed to be a spanish ship?

Gill, why would something marked as a land base be a ship?

The ship bonus isn't unclear - but would it be worth while to do +1 for each 9 instead of only for 9?

No, happy with existing

I haven't started to look at borders yet. Do you have a large map? Also, do you have maps without neutral values on them?

Small
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original
Large
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original


Neutrals

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[Faro]

you can also invite me for the testing of polymorh 1 vs 1 if needed.

[Gilligan]

you can also invite me for the testing of polymorh 1 vs 1 if needed.

Yeah, I see the bug now. I've alerted the admins.

Also, cairns, do you have a small map with no neutral values too?

[cairnswk]

...
Also, cairns, do you have a small map with no neutral values too?

Gilligan, it's the 2nd map in the set of 4 above.

[Gilligan]

Cairns,

all of the conditional borders went missing. here's an example

Code: Select all

<territory>
	<name>Capitania Stern</name>
	<borders>
		<border>Girona</border>
		<border>Capitania Bow</border>
		<border>Don Diego Medrano M1</border>
	</borders>
	<bombardments>
		<bombardment>Diana</bombardment>
		<bombardment>Disdain</bombardment>
		<bombardment>Regazona</bombardment>
		<bombardment>Princesa</bombardment>
	</bombardments>
	<coordinates>
		<smallx>54</smallx>
		<smally>493</smally>
		<largex>61</largex>
		<largey>547</largey>
	</coordinates>
	<neutral>4</neutral>
</territory>

Coordinates
Large
La Manuela can be brought down a few pixels
Disdain, Paloma Bianca can be brought to the left a bit
Barnstable up a bit

Small
SS Amor is covering the "r" a bit
Poole LB - a bit left, covering trees
Charles - a bit up

Sao Mateus and Zabra Julia have wrong coordinates, I am going to ignore these in the check until it is fixed, there are wrong bombardments and it's confusing to think about reversing them

Borders
EYSD should not bombard Princesa
SS Bazana should not bombard Santa Marta or Urca Doncella
SS Bazana should not bombard EYSD or Santa Barbara (both ways) and should bombard San Buenaventura (both ways)
EYSD needs to bombard Regazona
Santa Ana Bow should not bombard Urca Doncella
Hope needs to bombard Santa Cruz
Paloma Blanca needs to bombard Dreadnought and should not bombard Manuela
El Gran Grin needs to bombard PTLC
San Juan de Portugal Bow should not bombard San Juan
White Bear and Golden Lion needs to bombard San Juan
San Juan de Portugal Stern should not bombard Santiago
Santiago needs to bombard Golden Lion and San Pedro
San Juan Bautista needs to bombard Santiago
Santiago should not bombard Nuestra Senora, San Cristobal Stern
Santo Andres needs to bombard San Salvador
Sao Mateus should bombard SS Amor (both ways)
FSE needs to bombard San Juan Bautista
Esayas needs to bombard La Caridad
La Caridad needs to bombard San Martinho Stern
Sao Marcos needs to bombard IWA
San Jeronimo should not bombard Tramontana
Army Kales should not bombard Sao Martinho Stern
Sao Filipe needs to bombard El Crucifijo
GLB should not bombard Tiger
GLB should bombard GLD
Antelope needs to bombard FSA
FSA should not bombard Rainbow Stern
Tramontana needs to bombard Bull
Ben, Mary Rose should not bombard Bull
Nonpareil needs to bombard Swiftsure

Ow, my head...I can't promise to you that I got them all. Hopefully we will find more in beta.

Once you fix those, I will check the Zabra Julia/Sao Mateus territories

[cairnswk]

Cairns,

all of the conditional borders went missing. here's an example

Code: Select all

<territory>
	<name>Capitania Stern</name>
	<borders>
		<border>Girona</border>
		<border>Capitania Bow</border>
		<border>Don Diego Medrano M1</border>
	</borders>
	<bombardments>
		<bombardment>Diana</bombardment>
		<bombardment>Disdain</bombardment>
		<bombardment>Regazona</bombardment>
		<bombardment>Princesa</bombardment>
	</bombardments>
	<coordinates>
		<smallx>54</smallx>
		<smally>493</smally>
		<largex>61</largex>
		<largey>547</largey>
	</coordinates>
	<neutral>4</neutral>
</territory>

I think these got deleted when i used the XML Wizard, and obvisouly i didn't check they were still there...sorry!

Army Kales should not bombard Sao Martinho Stern

I think this needs to occur.

Once you fix those, I will check the Zabra Julia/Sao Mateus territories

I've fixed those regions for you.
They should be good now, but after i thought i'd got everything before please check.

New V12 xml attached.

[iancanton]

The beacon bonus is a bit unclear. The way I read it I should get a bonus for A, B, and Portland, but I don't

Def: "Consecutive: following each other continuously."
"each consecutive 3: +1"
i think that it imlies for each 3 you get +1, especially when read in conjunction with
"Hold all beacons: +4" there are only 12 beacons afterall.

i read each consecutive 3: +1 to mean any non-overlapping consecutive 3: +1. however, the xml gives +1 for only 4 specific consecutive 3s. if the latter result is intended, then it will be much clearer if u differentiate each bonus-earning consecutive 3 by colour or letter to make it obvious that, for example, beacon plymouth A can never combine with beacon plymouth B and portland to earn +1.

the xml has Nuestra Señora Del Barrio, while the map has Nuestra Señora del Barrio. the map is correct.

i didn't notice at first that, when barnstable LB appeared (which is good), so did barnstable, which is unnecessarily confusing (being the only normal land region that has a similarly-named LB). keep barnstable LB as is, change barnstable to plymouth and the current plymouth to either dartmouth or exeter, which are a better match location-wise? alternatively, if u insist that plymouth is staying put, then barnstable can become falmouth instead (less accurate than plymouth, but fewer beacons to rename).

the treasury movement part of the legend still reads same commander's ship instead of same commander's flag-ship.

the losing condition seems to be clearer and fairer now. it means that player 1, on his first turn in a quads game, needs to conquer or annihilate both the flag-ship and supply ship of player 2 to kill player 2.

the holder of the rainbow and london lb start position has the advantage of being vastly more secure from elimination that virtually anyone else because of the remoteness of london lb from all other positions other than margate lb. alter the neutrals to york n8, cure n2, tf(a) n2, tf(b) n6, hastings n6, eastbourne n4, mary rose n4, tramontana n4, bonavolia n4 and tiger n8? the purpose is to make london lb more accessible to someone coming from the south.

ian.

[cairnswk]

The beacon bonus is a bit unclear. The way I read it I should get a bonus for A, B, and Portland, but I don't

Def: "Consecutive: following each other continuously."
"each consecutive 3: +1"
i think that it imlies for each 3 you get +1, especially when read in conjunction with
"Hold all beacons: +4" there are only 12 beacons afterall.

i read each consecutive 3: +1 to mean any non-overlapping consecutive 3: +1. however, the xml gives +1 for only 4 specific consecutive 3s. if the latter result is intended, then it will be much clearer if u differentiate each bonus-earning consecutive 3 by colour or letter to make it obvious that, for example, beacon plymouth A can never combine with beacon plymouth B and portland to earn +1.

Does not the new diagram make any different to how you read this?
It clearly shows a group of three beacons with the first one begin open-topped with fire.
And since we've had no feedback on how this works, i guess everyone is realively happy with it...even the current one in play seems to be understood.

the xml has Nuestra Señora Del Barrio, while the map has Nuestra Señora del Barrio. the map is correct.

Done!

i didn't notice at first that, when barnstable LB appeared (which is good), so did barnstable, which is unnecessarily confusing (being the only normal land region that has a similarly-named LB). keep barnstable LB as is, change barnstable to plymouth and the current plymouth to either dartmouth or exeter, which are a better match location-wise? alternatively, if u insist that plymouth is staying put, then barnstable can become falmouth instead (less accurate than plymouth, but fewer beacons to rename).

ian, i really don't think this is a totally necessary change. it is clear that beacon names take the name of the land of the land they occupy, and the land bases are adequateyl named.

the treasury movement part of the legend still reads same commander's ship instead of same commander's flag-ship.

Fixed.

the losing condition seems to be clearer and fairer now. it means that player 1, on his first turn in a quads game, needs to conquer or annihilate both the flag-ship and supply ship of player 2 to kill player 2.

I guess you're syaing this is good.

the holder of the rainbow and london lb start position has the advantage of being vastly more secure from elimination that virtually anyone else because of the remoteness of london lb from all other positions other than margate lb. alter the neutrals to york n8, cure n2, tf(a) n2, tf(b) n6, hastings n6, eastbourne n4, mary rose n4, tramontana n4, bonavolia n4 and tiger n8? the purpose is to make london lb more accessible to someone coming from the south.
ian.

I'll have to think on this one some more...i don't beleive your solution is the best way forward.

[cairnswk]

Click image to enlarge.

[Gilligan]

Alright cairns, we are getting there.

Army Ieper needs to bombard Sao Mateus
Army Ieper should not bombard Zabra Julia
Sao Mateus needs to bombad Florencia
Didn't notice this one before, but I think the Esayas on small map coordinate can go a tad left to prevent overlap on border. San Juan on large can be brought down a px or two
Sao Marcos needs to bombard Zabra Julia
SS Bazana needs to bombard San Buenaventura
EYSD should not bombard SS Bazana
Santa Ana Bow should not bombard La Manuela
San Pedro should not bombard San Juan de Portugal Bow
San Juan de Portugal Bow needs to bombard San Salvador

Now onto checking neutral values...wanted to post this first though.

EDIT: neutral values look good!

[cairnswk]

Alright cairns, we are getting there.

Army Ieper needs to bombard Sao Mateus
Army Ieper should not bombard Zabra Julia
Sao Mateus needs to bombad Florencia
Didn't notice this one before, but I think the Esayas on small map coordinate can go a tad left to prevent overlap on border. San Juan on large can be brought down a px or two
Sao Marcos needs to bombard Zabra Julia
SS Bazana needs to bombard San Buenaventura
EYSD should not bombard SS Bazana
Santa Ana Bow should not bombard La Manuela
San Pedro should not bombard San Juan de Portugal Bow
San Juan de Portugal Bow needs to bombard San Salvador

Now onto checking neutral values...wanted to post this first though.

EDIT: neutral values look good!

OK Gilligan. changes are made to the new xml files as attached to maps above.
See what you think of those.

[Armandolas]

If you go to game finder select the map and try to go to map "Discussion topic" , link is not working

Loosing condition legend should modified. It gives the impression that u should have either part of the ship AND any non treasury region, but in fact you loose if u fail to hold ONE of those

[cairnswk]

If you go to game finder select the map and try to go to map "Discussion topic" , link is not working

Loosing condition legend should modified. It gives the impression that u should have either part of the ship AND any non treasury region, but in fact you loose if u fail to hold ONE of those

It amazes me that players don't bother to read recent posts in the thread before commenting.
If they did they wo-uld find out tht the adjusted xml is in the process of being changed.
Therefore it makes logical sense that the new conditions as posted in the thread posts above, have not yet been implemented.
So yes, Armandolas, i am well aware of what it happening wiht this map and the fact that it hasn't been updated yet to change the losing condition.
I'm doing all i can, and so is Gilligan, maybe you should do all you can and have some patience since the map is in beta, and i am sure you can read.

[Armandolas]

Im posting in a informative way, not complaining.I understand the issues about beta maps.
And yes, i couldnt bother or have time to read the last 3,5 or 10 pages out of 41.
So a simple " it is being adressed, thanks" would be enough for me.

[Gilligan]

If you go to game finder select the map and try to go to map "Discussion topic" , link is not working

Loosing condition legend should modified. It gives the impression that u should have either part of the ship AND any non treasury region, but in fact you loose if u fail to hold ONE of those

this should be working now.

[EricPhail]

I'll be honest wrt the beacons: I always expected them to behave like ornaments on the christmas map
perhaps the legend should be worded as each group of 3 rather than consecutive 3

[Gilligan]

Alright, cairns...let's go live with this.

[cairnswk]

I'll be honest wrt the beacons: I always expected them to behave like ornaments on the christmas map
perhaps the legend should be worded as each group of 3 rather than consecutive 3

Eric, thanks for the suggestion, it is noted, but let's see if there are any others who feedback similar again.

[cairnswk]

Alright, cairns...let's go live with this.

OK Gilligan, here 'tis

Click image to enlarge.

[Armandolas]

Things that u might want to look at: Capitania name is not centered to pentagon
Portuguese "flag" is distorted and pixelized.
That is also not the right flag in 1588(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:F ... (1616).svg), and portuguese ships sailed under the burgundy flag.

Another thing, there is a possibility that you were lead to a mistake. Are u sure Capitania was a ship?From what i know São Martinho was the "capitania", wich means, the leader of the fleet.
It might be worth a 2nd look

cheers