Conquer Club

Im wating to hear from a few more people before I make my final decision.

by gimil on Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:04 pm

Im wating to hear from a few more people before I make my final decision.

Its not forbiden for you to say yours opinion.

I already gave it, i prefer numbers over names. I still dont like the map due to its cramped nature.

t-o-m wrote:

gimil wrote:What im saying is anyone who wants this map doesnt want it in its current cramped state, and for that reason I wont stamp the map.

one of those people is me. I wouldnt play it as it is now.

I agree... it's very messy, both with names and numbers. And the way the names are unaligned makes this map really hard on the eyes - there are going to be misdeployments and accidental attacks everywhere.

Maybe this one should go in the category of maps that should be on hold until Lack allows larger maps?

by gimil on Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:01 pm

I already gave it, i prefer numbers over names. I still dont like the map due to its cramped nature.

So you all ready decide,that with numbers also not acceptabile for you.

Oaktown
I agree... it's very messy, both with names and numbers. And the way the names are unaligned makes this map really hard on the eyes - there are going to be misdeployments and accidental attacks everywhere.

Maybe this one should go in the category of maps that should be on hold until Lack allows larger maps?

I dont think that is messy with numbers,they have more clear space.Also i all ready tell that i dont belive that LAck work on these,to many fackt say that.
Well its look that Mod squad decide early,that dont allove any option for these map.Even with support from people for number option.

I stated earlier (and I'm not a mod) that I don't like the present iteration, and believe you should simplify the territories on the Western and Eastern fronts (with corresponding bonus changes) so that the map doesn't look so dang cramped. It may be readable, but it's not enjoyably readable. Have WWII Europe, The Small Version worked on now, and when large maps are allowed, roll that out into WWII Europe in its full glory.

qwert wrote:

by lt_oddball on Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:55 pm

1) is it just me , or am i missing smthng; couldn't you turn two opposite red & black one-direction attack arrows into one line "connection between two fronts" ?

2) Please do away with naming provinces with "general this and marshal that front".
It makes no sense in comparison with areas that do have the proper province name, plus it saves you on the abbreviation problems of long names on small locations.
von Leeb wasn't there throughout the 41-45 war..and his area first, becomes Voroshilov area the next..so no sense in using commander names.

3) And Vichy France is attributed an ALLIED bonus ?? hello ?

4) I mentioned it long ago on the separate maps already; I don't understand the logic of some/many of the impassable long borders on one hand and limited passes of it on the other hand (going from west germany to east germany is only possible on ONE location ?? getting from paris to the ruhr you cannot go through the siegfried line ?(Aachen was pretty easy those days) etcetera, etcetera...

Please give it more thought..

I dont know what you not understand,and i belive that these is not yours first post abouth these things,and i belive that i all ready give you answer(some answer is in Eastern,and western front topic,and some is in Europe topic).You just want to bring these discusion again.

That's too simple a reply.
Sort of sticking your fingers in your ears and yell blah-blah-blah.
Couple of above remarks are new (1) and 3) ), one remark hands you a solution that is bugging you particularly on this map (scale and abreviations) (2)) even though it was suggested before, and one is old (4)) , but with this map combination of east and west it is not straight forward to leave the impassable borders intact when you create even more along the center (mid germany).
If the idea is to have a center barrier dividing a left part from a right part of the map (as it disallows lightning expansion of players on one hand of the map to the other side, like in the Waterloo map)...then why upholding FOUR barriers now ? ANd particularly favouring the player that controls germany..
There is simply no gamebalance..

If ever there were impassable barriers such that huge forces were seriously logistically hampered then it is the large natural borders (high mountains (Alps), wide rivers (Rhine), thick forests (Huertgen Forest)..and those are only a handfull in the west. The same goes for a few wide rivers in the east and one marsh (this partizan area in belorussia).
Otherwise any manmade defense (atlantic wall, Siegfriedline, Berlin defense or whatever) was fairly easy to penetrate as the attacking force is able to PREPARE himself with bombardments in concentrated sectors...this as opposed to building a bridge under fire over the rhine when there is no beachhead on the other side, or going through the mountains (Monte Cassino) under scrutiny of arty spotters...


My critique is serious and genuine and supportive , I really would love to see a good playable map. It can't be that map critique is selectively dismissed by the maker without proper constructive reply.
Back then you also didnot constructively replied to my fairly simple to implement suggestions.
The only explanation I can give to your behaviour is laclustre and being more preoccupied with mapcolouring instead of mapbalance/gamedynamics.

Any serious gamemaker should know that gameconcept comes before fancy colours..



ps about the numbers:
That is good if you take an bonus area of say 8 lands call it e.g. Italy and each land is Italy 1 or Italy 8. In the map you only need to print "italy" once in the center and the numbers are on top of each land.
But still delete names such as "marshall Tito" and make it yugoslavia (or in this particular case too long: Serbia..(as Tito's partisans were Serbs!).

It oddbal,reply:
I must say,that i work in research many hours,and find that map must have some barriers to split three fronts.Western Germany,and Eastern Germani is split on elbe river,now you know that Center front only exist in Western Ally plans,and not be operative,but i use these to create down bariers where is last advance of Western Ally(wester ally not capture Austria or Chech)As concerne of Eastern Barriers,these i put Border before Barbarosa operation. Bariers must exist,because it will be very open and dificulty to hold countries,but if you think that its need to remove,then these is easy job.
Number 2,you all ready post in western front topic. And i all ready give you valid reply on that.
3.Also reply on Western Front topic.

4.These is how hepend,what you need to explane,Allies broke germans in Market garden,and first liberate Belgium and holland.

But still delete names such as "marshall Tito" and make it yugoslavia (or in this particular case too long: Serbia..(as Tito's partisans were Serbs!).

Do you know from where i come? Do i need to explane these part of map,i study these part of WWII very long period,and i know almost everything abouth that. Tito partisan is Army of all slavic nations(yes big number is serbian people),but these is not national army,these is whas People liberational army(Croatian have National army,Serbian have rojal army).Marshal tito terittories cover area of Bosnia,Croatia and part of Serbia,and partisan almost all battles fight in these area.General lohr cover Slovenia,and he whas Comander of Army group E who whas last German groupation who whas captured in these area.

The numbers have helped considerably qwert, well done, though i would suggest applying them sequentially or consequtively... what i mean is that each continent, like france, should have the numbers 5 - 10 for example, and england 11 - 13, so that each group can be distinguished by the relative string segment of numbers ... plus, an aid to avoiding further confusion may be to make sure say, 1,2,3,4, are in one corner, and 5,6,7 are away from these.
- i think the suggestion of i.e. ----- 1 - Paris, 2 - Claremont Ferand etc., in the drop down box would be great for the retaining of territory names (and i'm sure we would all soon start remmebering the territories by them anyway)

Qwert, it seems very important to you that each of the east and west portions of the map be reproduced identically and i support you in maintaining this. In fact, this is about the most fundamental feature of this project of qwert's, and it should not require much of an effort from the rest of the community to respect this and thus refrain from compromising his intention.

It seems that the value in the communities imput resides in thier ability to enhance and assist the mapmaker, hopefully not to coerce them, by restrictions on progression, to alter thier project's intention ... i.e., assist but do not bind the necessitating requirements for progression to your own personal tastes beyond what is reasonable for a site and game such as this.

The reductive question here is whether such a project of qwert's resides within the general standard of the site ... and, going by the facts of;
- comparison to some other playable maps
- support from some members
- response to the assistance and guidance from the foundary, as well as others,
i think qwert's efforts certainly do.

Collective ownership is wonderfull, but we must be carefull not to hold on to dearly to another's project ... i think it would be reasonable to say that we would be grossly unfair to suggest that qwert's map is going to reduce the standard's of the site.

Please guys, lets all help the bugger finish this off ... he's been working on the damn thing for almost a year ... we could at least be decent enough to honour that fact (leaving alone how i think that fact alone should warrant flexing on the size issues a little - it not been a life or death situation and all).

Good Luck guys - hope we can work it out.

p.s. - i'm not sure how attached to the sigfried defence inset you are, but, if you are going to be using numbers on the map, then this may not be necessary (though it is a nice touch to the map) ... and thus you could use the space possibly for an explanation of the drop down meny numbering system, and for enlarging/enhancing the legend itself, or maybe something else.

thanks asl for feedback. I only put numbers without any order to people look how they standing on map.
But now is main problem that Gimil also map with numbers not aceptabile for hem, so these mean that third option is to waith new Mod member who these will be aceptabile.
I hope that these will be in close future. These is not mean that i got something against Gimil,but i thinking that some other guys we will have better vision then Gimil for these map(i whas have very good cooperation with Coleman where is whas in charge in Map Idea,and he all ready say that like idea with numbers instead names,and give me sugestion how to these work on XML).I belive that map with numbers is aceptabile,because borders is clear and not messy like map with names.Sometime is very frustrating,when same group of people,stick to each other,and suporting what one guy say,even when in some situation problem not exist.

asl80 wrote:Please guys, lets all help the bugger finish this off ... he's been working on the damn thing for almost a year ... we could at least be decent enough to honour that fact (leaving alone how i think that fact alone should warrant flexing on the size issues a little - it not been a life or death situation and all).

I support that view.. rather than seeing him struggling many more weeks for perfection , having a map to play/test within weeks is to be preferred.
I only felt that the few suggestions of mine (i believe) meant only minor adjustments/easy to implement.

At least be open to adjustments and improvements after a number of matches have been played with it.

Size:

I think some of the areas is a tiny bit to small. Maybe i see things clearer with armynumbers.

Other than that i approve this.

Graphics.

The Red and the yellow in central dont fitt in this map at all. Their to brigt and should be changed to other colours. or be darkned.

The borders line from Easter to central. and Western to Central. is ugly pliss change them.

Great work qwrt=)

(So what is the next try to get this europa map into a World based maP?:Dthen you should wait for size is highned:D)

by Androidz on Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:46 pm

Size:

I think some of the areas is a tiny bit to small. Maybe i see things clearer with armynumbers.

Other than that i approve this.

Graphics.

The Red and the yellow in central dont fitt in this map at all. Their to brigt and should be changed to other colours. or be darkned.

The borders line from Easter to central. and Western to Central. is ugly pliss change them.

Great work qwrt=)

(So what is the next try to get this europa map into a World based maP?:Dthen you should wait for size is highned:D)

For now major problem is these map aceptabile now with numbrs instead names,all other can be change like i say to reply odball(border betwen front can be remove or change),Colour of some central front terittories also is not problem,these is all minor issue. I can change these thing,but still major problem is size to be aceptabile for Gimil.

qwert wrote:

by Androidz on Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:46 pm

Size:

I think some of the areas is a tiny bit to small. Maybe i see things clearer with armynumbers.

Other than that i approve this.

Graphics.

The Red and the yellow in central dont fitt in this map at all. Their to brigt and should be changed to other colours. or be darkned.

The borders line from Easter to central. and Western to Central. is ugly pliss change them.

Great work qwrt=)

(So what is the next try to get this europa map into a World based maP?:Dthen you should wait for size is highned:D)

For now major problem is these map aceptabile now with numbrs instead names,all other can be change like i say to reply odball(border betwen front can be remove or change),Colour of some central front terittories also is not problem,these is all minor issue. I can change these thing,but still major problem is size to be aceptabile for Gimil.

Yup and there is around 4-5 terretories i dont think will fitt that requierment. But could you try adding numbers just to show us?? you know that will give the final concludion. If you fix those terretories im surely Gimil will approve. I dont got time to point out which terretories this is right now. But you might see them.

Yup and there is around 4-5 terretories i dont think will fitt that requierment. But could you try adding numbers just to show us?? you know that will give the final concludion. If you fix those terretories im surely Gimil will approve. I dont got time to point out which terretories this is right now. But you might see them.

I need help with that,what terittories you mean?

i give you names later gtg

Danzig.
Halbe P.
Gen. Hoxxback
Odern-nalane? (make name better visibple.
Paris.
Gen Devers (Move the name a bit)
Normandy
SAREMA.
karelia.
Leiprig.
Brest For.
Gen. Dietrich.
Ob. West.
Milano (Move name a bit.

Fix theese and i think its should be allright. Atleast i didint find anymore atm.

I got a question qwert.

Sorry if this has already been said, but have you thought about making a WWII Central Front as a map alone?

Androidz wrote:Danzig.
Halbe P.
Gen. Hoxxback
Odern-nalane? (make name better visibple.
Paris.
Gen Devers (Move the name a bit)
Normandy
SAREMA.
karelia.
Leiprig.
Brest For.
Gen. Dietrich.
Ob. West.
Milano (Move name a bit.

Fix theese and i think its should be allright. Atleast i didint find anymore atm.

Sorry qwrt i think im lost in diraction can you post newest small image and big??

by Androidz on Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:55 pm

Danzig.
Halbe P.
Gen. Hoxxback
Odern-nalane? (make name better visibple.
Paris.
Gen Devers (Move the name a bit)
Normandy
SAREMA.
karelia.
Leiprig.
Brest For.
Gen. Dietrich.
Ob. West.
Milano (Move name a bit.

Fix theese and i think its should be allright. Atleast i didint find anymore atm.

Maybe you dont see,but mine attempt is to create map with numbers instead names of terittories,do you not notice these map?

by Gilligan on Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:32 pm

I got a question qwert.

Sorry if this has already been said, but have you thought about making a WWII Central Front as a map alone?

Well Central front exist only in Allies plans. I dont have in plan to make these map.

qwert wrote:

by Androidz on Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:55 pm

Danzig.
Halbe P.
Gen. Hoxxback
Odern-nalane? (make name better visibple.
Paris.
Gen Devers (Move the name a bit)
Normandy
SAREMA.
karelia.
Leiprig.
Brest For.
Gen. Dietrich.
Ob. West.
Milano (Move name a bit.

Fix theese and i think its should be allright. Atleast i didint find anymore atm.

Maybe you dont see,but mine attempt is to create map with numbers instead names of terittories,do you not notice these map?

by Gilligan on Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:32 pm

I got a question qwert.

Sorry if this has already been said, but have you thought about making a WWII Central Front as a map alone?

Well Central front exist only in Allies plans. I dont have in plan to make these map.

Hmm, didint notice the last one. sorry.

no problem Androidz
here map with numbers,for example i only put numbers in western front
[bigimg]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188/Maqerdan/originalne2kartedim630sabrojevimame.png[/bigimg]

qwert wrote:no problem Androidz
here map with numbers,for example i only put numbers in western front
[bigimg]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188/Maqerdan/originalne2kartedim630sabrojevimame.png[/bigimg]

This is the small one right?? it will have names in larger version??

Anyway, The purple continent need to be done bigger.

regarding the numbers:

Trouble is always to find back from the game log where "the hell" was "number 5 bombarded number 47"..

A small but essential improvement : add alphabet letters as a combination:
Per zone an alphabet letter and within the zone a collection of numbers..you won't go over number 9 for sure:

A1 attacks B2 etc..
Perhaps if each bonuszone name starts with a unique letter, you can take that letter..