Moderator: Cartographers
Yeah, it's enjoyable. I'm playing another game on it now. I think you should go back to the single divider line that you say you had in a previous version. Something about a double dashed line makes it seem like it's supposed to be a path to me. Also the crosshatch thing that is oriented vertically and intersects the dashed line looks like it is supposed to indicate that the two seas border each other "under" this "bridge."Seamus76 wrote:The lines are dividing lines for the two Dea Sea terts, and show which terts on each side attack which of those, or both. I had originally used 1 single divider line, but changed it in v10 on 2012-12-04. So for the last over 8 months there has not been a mention of such confusion. I'm not saying it's not there, but once we get the map back up, and some more games played, we'll have a better idea as to the whether or not this is a problem, or just a case of an XML error giving the wrong impression from the beginning. i.e. Would you have had a problem if the border had been closed the first time you played the map, as it was intended.agentcom wrote:Then you should take out the little pathway there that makes it look like they're connected. I don't see the point of that little path if the regions aren't going to be connected.Seamus76 wrote:Actually the Dibon/Ein-gedi border was not supposed to be there, except through the Dead Sea killer neutrals. That xml error for that has been fixed, which you noticed, but now the army numbers are messed up. We may have to temporarily go back to an older version, which may also have the incorrect Dibon/Ein-gedi border. But again, the map is not supposed to have that border, and the final map will not.agentcom wrote:Dibon lost its connection over that bridge thing to Ein-Gedi sometime in the last week or so ... almost screwed me up in a turn I just took.
Other than that I hope you're enjoying it.
That was the Red Sea, the Dead sea was never parted.agentcom wrote:It might also be confusing historically, since the Dead Sea was parted by Moses according to Judeo-Christian faiths. That little path looks sort of like a footpath that's maybe meant to show this.
LOL ... I'm an idiot. Man the Foundry is making me feel really dumb today.isaiah40 wrote:That was the Red Sea, the Dead sea was never parted.agentcom wrote:It might also be confusing historically, since the Dead Sea was parted by Moses according to Judeo-Christian faiths. That little path looks sort of like a footpath that's maybe meant to show this.
This has/is one of my things as well. With the line now being single, the swords hold no relevance and could confuse. Best to remove them completely. Also, how about making the line the same as the ones on the land?agentcom wrote:LOL ... I'm an idiot. Man the Foundry is making me feel really dumb today.isaiah40 wrote:That was the Red Sea, the Dead sea was never parted.agentcom wrote:It might also be confusing historically, since the Dead Sea was parted by Moses according to Judeo-Christian faiths. That little path looks sort of like a footpath that's maybe meant to show this.
I still stand by my comments on the graphical reasons that this is/was confusing. I see that the new version has a single dashed line, which I think is a great improvement. I'm still not a big fan of the cross hatches that go across it, though. Is there a reason why you like those so much Seamus? To me, it would be much clearer without them.

Here's what it would look like without the arrows. I think it should be pretty clear now, and I'd like to keep the blue line on the water, which I think goes better than the brown lines I have on the land. If there is still a need to fix it I can try making the blue dashes the same size as the brown, and although they would be different colors they would be more "uniform". That is if the posted example doesn't work, which I think it does.koontz1973 wrote:This has/is one of my things as well. With the line now being single, the swords hold no relevance and could confuse. Best to remove them completely. Also, how about making the line the same as the ones on the land?agentcom wrote:LOL ... I'm an idiot. Man the Foundry is making me feel really dumb today.isaiah40 wrote:That was the Red Sea, the Dead sea was never parted.agentcom wrote:It might also be confusing historically, since the Dead Sea was parted by Moses according to Judeo-Christian faiths. That little path looks sort of like a footpath that's maybe meant to show this.
I still stand by my comments on the graphical reasons that this is/was confusing. I see that the new version has a single dashed line, which I think is a great improvement. I'm still not a big fan of the cross hatches that go across it, though. Is there a reason why you like those so much Seamus? To me, it would be much clearer without them.

I just closed the map, just in case.sundance123 wrote:Just joined another game on this map 1v1. Last started with with 14 territories.
Now it starts with 33!

That was quick. here is the offending gameGilligan wrote:I just closed the map, just in case.sundance123 wrote:Just joined another game on this map 1v1. Last started with with 14 territories.
Now it starts with 33!
Seamus must have updated an old XML on it, I'll take a look.
Thank you for your report, the issue was fixed. Somehow the max positions got removed between updates.sundance123 wrote:That was quick. here is the offending gameGilligan wrote:I just closed the map, just in case.sundance123 wrote:Just joined another game on this map 1v1. Last started with with 14 territories.
Now it starts with 33!
Seamus must have updated an old XML on it, I'll take a look.
Game 14121596




Thanks!!Gilligan wrote:---The Beta period has concluded for the Tribal War - Ancient Israel Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.
- Quenching
Congratulations Seamus76 and V.J., your shiny new medals are well-earned
Conquer Club, enjoy!Gilligan