Battle of Waterloo [Quenched]

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:23 am

this is still a very good map

later review

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:11 pm

mibi wrote:what are the random brown shapes? they are not listed as impassible.

ah...patches of ground that are not occupied by the armies....would be my guess.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:15 pm

cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:what are the random brown shapes? they are not listed as impassible.

ah...patches of ground that are not occupied by the armies....would be my guess.

well they might as well be walls or hedges since they function as impassibles yet arn't listed. Also, they just seem weird, triangular patches and such.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:29 pm

mibi wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:what are the random brown shapes? they are not listed as impassible.

ah...patches of ground that are not occupied by the armies....would be my guess.

well they might as well be walls or hedges since they function as impassibles yet arn't listed. Also, they just seem weird, triangular patches and such.

but
1. does the map have to be filled up 100% - i don't think so.
2. since they represent earth and are clearly such to the extend that you're the only person who has mentioned them, it seems to me that they don't have to be mentioned in the impassables - it is evident that terts don't meet at these places therefore can't be used as borders.
3. wierd triangular peices they might be, but i think they actually fit the map.
4. sometimes i think that overstating/legendising the obvious is a burden on what people have to take in....

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:53 pm

cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:what are the random brown shapes? they are not listed as impassible.

ah...patches of ground that are not occupied by the armies....would be my guess.

well they might as well be walls or hedges since they function as impassibles yet arn't listed. Also, they just seem weird, triangular patches and such.

but
1. does the map have to be filled up 100% - i don't think so.
2. since they represent earth and are clearly such to the extend that you're the only person who has mentioned them, it seems to me that they don't have to be mentioned in the impassables - it is evident that terts don't meet at these places therefore can't be used as borders.
3. wierd triangular peices they might be, but i think they actually fit the map.
4. sometimes i think that overstating/legendising the obvious is a burden on what people have to take in....

alright, well it's no big deal, just seems like an anomaly.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:52 pm

mibi wrote:alright, well it's no big deal, just seems like an anomaly.

Thanks mibi...i don't think its a big deal...and as i said i haven't heard from anyone else about it being a distraction.

Are there any other comments from anyone on anything else (apart from the number of territories and size of gameplay) on this map?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:18 pm

Comments anyone?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:21 am

I have to ask the question...is everyone reasonable happy with this map?

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:16 pm

I like it.

=======

I feel the top text: "On 18 June..." gets a little lost in the top of the map. There isn't much room, but perhaps a division line between it and everything below it would kind of set it off a little.

Also the impassable text (as in "brick walls," "hedge rows," and "Brussels Rd" looks a little faint and faded. I think some of the text on this map feels a little too thin for my eyes.

I'd also see if you can make your signatures a little more legible...if you want people to easily read them.

--Andy

spinwizard · Post by **spinwizard** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:21 pm

Its too complex for me but it looks amazing!

lanyards · Post by **lanyards** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:33 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd also see if you can make your signatures a little more legible...if you want people to easily read them.

I agree, it is a little hard to read the names at the bottom right.

--lanyards

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:49 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:I like it.

=======

I feel the top text: "On 18 June..." gets a little lost in the top of the map. There isn't much room, but perhaps a division line between it and everything below it would kind of set it off a little.

Also the impassable text (as in "brick walls," "hedge rows," and "Brussels Rd" looks a little faint and faded. I think some of the text on this map feels a little too thin for my eyes.

I'd also see if you can make your signatures a little more legible...if you want people to easily read them.

--Andy

Thanks Andy....much appreciated!

spinwizards wrote:Its too complex for me but it looks amazing!

Spinwizard...you'd be surprised how uncomplex it really is when you get in there and do a proper examination.

Anyways....changes as requested above by Andy are in the Version 24 maps below

Small

Large

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:25 pm

I think you might want to include the dirt/brown areas in the impassables list.

Remember that someone asked about the grass on Madness. So, if that can't figure that out, then this probably won't make sense to them either.

I think it's fine without it, but I guess it 'kinda' makes sense. If it's not listed, then there might be a reason.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:20 pm

You know, I really doubt I'll be physically able to play this one.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:58 pm

The changes look superb! I agree with edbeard, if possible...try and list the brown grass areas also.

--Andy

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:15 am

AndyDufresne wrote:The changes look superb! I agree with edbeard, if possible...try and list the brown grass areas also.

--Andy

Of course they look superb...you suggested them...how cynical am i? LOL

As requested another change....VErsion 25

Small

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:30 am

Does Wellington border U01? - if not then could you add a couple of pixels in there to make it more evident?

C.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:24 pm

yeti_c wrote:Does Wellington border U01? - if not then could you add a couple of pixels in there to make it more evident?

C.

Version 26 fixes that Yeti_C

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:52 pm

Perfect.

C.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:21 am

yeti_c wrote:Perfect.

C.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:27 pm

Without being arrogant, if everyone is happy with this map, then i guess final forge isn't far away?

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:43 pm

Without being arrogant, if everyone is happy with this map, then i guess final forge isn't far away?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:07 pm

qwert wrote:
Without being arrogant, if everyone is happy with this map, then i guess final forge isn't far away?

What u laugh at Qwert?

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:45 pm

if you got the XML and its working can we just skip final forge and hit the quench button?

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:42 am

Yep. (Nope.)

--Andy