Re: WWI: Gallipoli [9.9.15] V39 (p22) [Quenched]

[oaktown]

i thought killer reducers reduced to neutral?

My understanding is that you can either have a killer neutral which reverts to neutral at the beginning of your turn (which would take them out of the game at the beginning of the first round) or you can give them a negative bonus which knocks the value down as low as one.

[cairnswk]

i thought killer reducers reduced to neutral?

My understanding is that you can either have a killer neutral which reverts to neutral at the beginning of your turn (which would take them out of the game at the beginning of the first round) or you can give them a negative bonus which knocks the value down as low as one.

If that's the case, then this map may have to wait until there is an xml update done for that ability.

[oaktown]

My understanding is that you can either have a killer neutral which reverts to neutral at the beginning of your turn (which would take them out of the game at the beginning of the first round) or you can give them a negative bonus which knocks the value down as low as one.

If that's the case, then this map may have to wait until there is an xml update done for that ability.

It's your call, but what I'd rather see you do is put the focus of the map on the land campaign and forget about the ships entirely. If you zoom in on the land you could show the landing craft already beached, and therefor able to attack (and be attacked by) the land territories. In addition, zooming in on the land would give you more space to draw landforms such as trenches and put important land defenses in place - machine gun placements, exposed stretches of beach that bleed armies, German artillery, etc.

I'd also put less emphasis on what you've got going on in the Dardanelles. The reason for the campaign was to knock out the defenses that were making the Dardanelles unrunable, yet on this map you can bounce from ships to mines to the land and completely bypass the mess on the land... if only the ANZAC forces could have done this the battle would have gone much differently!

[Incandenza]

I'm of the opinion that if the choice is between A) waiting for an xml update to make the battleships feasible and B) losing the battleships, I'd go with the latter. I've never been particularly wild about them, they serve an immediate purpose and then pretty much lose all importance, and players can be disproportionally affected by them, especially since they were to start with so many armies.

[cairnswk]

I think the sea mines should be killer nuturals. That makes them more like mines, since forts wouldn't really attack mines.

i like this idea.

[cairnswk]

I'm of the opinion that if the choice is between A) waiting for an xml update to make the battleships feasible and B) losing the battleships, I'd go with the latter. I've never been particularly wild about them, they serve an immediate purpose and then pretty much lose all importance, and players can be disproportionally affected by them, especially since they were to start with so many armies.

OK, so you and oaktown are not infavour of keeping the battleships, nor in some cases the landing craft.
If that is the case, then i can almost say that i will abandon this map if some gameplay can't be concepted for this map.
I don't think Gallipoli should be without landing craft nor battleships, (it might be akin the removing the invasion force from D-day).

To that extent, i'd like to hear from others on this subject.

[captainwalrus]

I think the ships need to stay, the battleships need to be able to be attacked by something, or, there could just be an objective, but that might be throwing too much into the map.
Also, some of the mine sweepers or landing crafts have the dotted line from the bigger ship go right through thm, some have it stop at one end and start at the other, which to me looks better. It is kinda odd to have the line go straight through.

[cairnswk]

I think the ships need to stay, the battleships need to be able to be attacked by something, or, there could just be an objective, but that might be throwing too much into the map.
Also, some of the mine sweepers or landing crafts have the dotted line from the bigger ship go right through thm, some have it stop at one end and start at the other, which to me looks better. It is kinda odd to have the line go straight through.

Thanks captainwalrus. see if this is now better.

I've decided to:
1 keep the battleships
2. but do away with the second tier of landing ships
this enabled me to stretch the real estate to allow better eye space viewing.
3. impassables are not yet marked.

Version 11.


[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V11L.jpg[/bigimg]

[oaktown]

I don't see that you've figured out the battleships situation... ??

I agree that creating a map that is contingent on Lack adding an XML feature is not the best use of your time. There are already two maps that have been languishing for months with no end in site, which in my opinion should be put on vacation and stuck in the bin. I don't think that's what you want to see happen here. Some thoughts on alternative solutions...

• Allow the battleships to at least be bombardable by each other. No, it isn't true to the spirit of what happened in the battle, but neither are many other aspects of this map - the battleships are already going to be controlled by players opposing each other (unlike the historical campaign) so why not? Of course, allowing the battleships to hit knock each other out doesn't entirely solve the problem, since you'll have at least one battleship left in the end.
• Was there any artillery that was able to hit the battleships? I'm guessing there wasn't.
• The idea of creating victory conditions is a solid one. The victory condition could simply be to hold all land territories... since the ships are going to be killer reducers (see below) by the time somebody controls all of the land the ships will be at 1 and pretty much helpless in trying to break somebody's control of the land. If this is going to happen I think you may want to consider 1) how the landing craft are attacked by land (which still seems odd to me) and perhaps 2) reducing the number of land territories that can be hit by the battleships, since you don't want the end of the game to be drawn out forever because the leader keeps getting one territory after another picked off from a ship.

Battleship starts: was the plan to start them with high values? I hope so, because otherwise he -2 starts them out at 1, making them useless throughout.

Dardanelles bombardments still seem a bit vague... are L4 and L5 in the Dardanelles?

I still don't like the fast movement along roads on land... seems appropriate that the Turks can move along the roads, but not the allies who were lucky if they could advance out of their trench on any given day. What about making the road movement one-way?

[captainwalrus]

Holding all the land territories would be a good objective, or holding all the land territories around the Dardanelles would be good too. This would allow you to keep the battleships which I think are really great, and makes it so most of the land territories are volnerable and hard to hold.

[cairnswk]

I don't see that you've figured out the battleships situation... ??

I agree that creating a map that is contingent on Lack adding an XML feature is not the best use of your time. There are already two maps that have been languishing for months with no end in site, which in my opinion should be put on vacation and stuck in the bin. I don't think that's what you want to see happen here. Some thoughts on alternative solutions...

• Allow the battleships to at least be bombardable by each other. No, it isn't true to the spirit of what happened in the battle, but neither are many other aspects of this map - the battleships are already going to be controlled by players opposing each other (unlike the historical campaign) so why not? Of course, allowing the battleships to hit knock each other out doesn't entirely solve the problem, since you'll have at least one battleship left in the end.
• Was there any artillery that was able to hit the battleships? I'm guessing there wasn't.
• The idea of creating victory conditions is a solid one. The victory condition could simply be to hold all land territories... since the ships are going to be killer reducers (see below) by the time somebody controls all of the land the ships will be at 1 and pretty much helpless in trying to break somebody's control of the land. If this is going to happen I think you may want to consider 1) how the landing craft are attacked by land (which still seems odd to me) and perhaps 2) reducing the number of land territories that can be hit by the battleships, since you don't want the end of the game to be drawn out forever because the leader keeps getting one territory after another picked off from a ship.

Battleship starts: was the plan to start them with high values? I hope so, because otherwise he -2 starts them out at 1, making them useless throughout.

Dardanelles bombardments still seem a bit vague... are L4 and L5 in the Dardanelles?

I still don't like the fast movement along roads on land... seems appropriate that the Turks can move along the roads, but not the allies who were lucky if they could advance out of their trench on any given day. What about making the road movement one-way?

1. Battleships : yes they start with high values 18 as per indicated in the map!

2. L4 and L5 are landing craft and are heading for the beaches, not into the Dardanelles therefore i don't think they be able to bombarded by the forts, but rather might come under beach fire.

3. I think the roads would have been important for the Turkish troops to move their several divisions around behind those ridges. The invasion force might have been able to to use them also if they had been successful. Also, i don't think making them one-way would be helpful to whomever holds those territories. Therefore i'd like to keep them.

4. I have added some one-way bombardment arrows, and put the impassables on.

5. Since we won't have the facility in xml to eradicate the battleships from play, i agree that the objective being all the land components would be a good alternative and works well with what actually occurred.

VErsion 12.


[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V12L.jpg[/bigimg]

[cairnswk]

Holding all the land territories would be a good objective, or holding all the land territories around the Dardanelles would be good too. This would allow you to keep the battleships which I think are really great, and makes it so most of the land territories are volnerable and hard to hold.

Yes the territory objective would be good.
And yes i'd also like to keep the battleships.

[cairnswk]

What do you think about the impassables? Are they too difficult?

[captainwalrus]

What do you think about the impassables? Are they too difficult?

Everyone is in the same boat, so they can't really be too difficult. I like maps that are hard to navigate. Mabey make them look more like trenches or barbed wire or something, rather than just brownish smudges.

[neanderpaul14]

What do you think about the impassables? Are they too difficult?

Everyone is in the same boat, so they can't really be too difficult. I like maps that are hard to navigate. Mabey make them look more like trenches or barbed wire or something, rather than just brownish smudges.

WW 1 = Miles and miles of barbed wire. I think that would make an excellent impassable for this map.

[captainwalrus]

The labeled landing beaches are kinda odd. Why do some people have to land in a territory that has -1 killer reducers but some there are normal territories.
What is a convoy landing ship, it says not L# or MS#?

[thenobodies80]

Impassables are good
The map now is no more an happy place to land.

All territories with numbers are starting positions?
I think that start in F3 or F7 could be give a little advantage, battleship aren't abel to bambard these territories.
Saying that , i'm with oak about this:

reducing the number of land territories that can be hit by the battleships, since you don't want the end of the game to be drawn out forever because the leader keeps getting one territory after another picked off from a ship.

I also think you have to leave the road as it is now (no one way)...i like the idea to have a quick way to move troops

As other pointed out, you have to update the legend

[cairnswk]

So, i'll get around to answering those commentors above, but this map will now become an objective map....the objective will be to hold all land territories for one round.

[JJM]

It is always good to have more maps.

[the.killing.44]

It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

[cairnswk]

It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

Perhaps, yes that is true, but remember this is a way around not having the xml ability at present to prevent the map from going into development vacation. It does give players something to aim for.

If you have more expanded thoughts on this, i be pleased to hear them.

[the.killing.44]

Hmm, well of course it does give people to aim for, the thing is I believe that the only two times it will be even thought of as an option are: when one's opponent only has battleships remaining, and someone wants an easy win (like the castles on Feudal … in fact this is what I'd really compare it to); secondly when someone is in a casual freestyle someone wishes to double turn (in this case like the City Mogul objective). I guess it isn't that bad to have the option, as long as there is the ability to eliminate the opponent(s), but I just don't see it being executed.

On another note, I'm just going to go down the legend:
BATTLESHIPS
[spoiler=current]

Battleships
* killer reducers
* -2 per round
* bombard any
position marked

Ø

[/spoiler]
I suggest:

Battleships
- lose two
troops per round
- can bombard
any position
marked by: Ø

Changes * to -, puts the first two lines into one and the last line with "can" and the symbol immediately following a colon.

LANDING BEACHES
[spoiler=current]

Landing Beaches
S, V, W, X, Y, Z
A, B, C & others
* killer reducers
* -1 per round
* can bombard respective landing craft

[/spoiler]
I suggest:

Landing Beaches
(A,B,C,S,V,W,X,Y,Z
& others marked by yellow*)
- lose 1 troop
per round
- can bombard
respectively named
landing craft

* you should make "yellow" have the same effect on it as the title/territories themselves
Changes list to alphabetical, gets rid of spaces in between letters, adds parentheses, * to -, condenses first two lines, adds "named" to craft note.

FORTS
[spoiler=current]

Forts: normal
land attack,
or sea bombard
in the Dardanelles
and the Narrows

[/spoiler]
I suggest:

Forts: normal
land attack
and can bombard
sea terts in
the Dardanelles
and the Narrows*

*have to specify what the Narrows are?
Changes "sea bombard". also note I'm not sure what we can or cannot use as the word for terts

SEAMINES
[spoiler=current]

Seamines:
killer neutrals
per turn

[/spoiler]
I suggest:

Seamines:
turn neutral
per turn

CROSSING PTS are good

~ for those above I think you need some way to separate the blocks of text, whether by a line or just extra spacing ~

All land territories for each position held (per turn autodeploy)

Not quite sure what each position is in the first place, and where is the auto-deploy put?

All convoy landing ships (not L#
or MS#) for each ship held (per
turn autodeploy)

Once again, where is the auto-deploy placed? If it's on each individual convoy landing ship, I'd think:

Auto-deploy on each convoy landing ship
(ships not shown as L# or MS#) per each ship held

Another graphical note, maybe you could give the impassables some depth?

Looks sweet,
.44

[JJM]

It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

look about half the people in that poll wanted it. So why not have it.

[the.killing.44]

It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

look about half the people in that poll wanted it. So why not have it.

Sorry for spamming cairns

[cairnswk]

It is always good to have more maps.

Only from Jim.

Cairns, don't you think that objective won't really come into play until after the game is really, really decided?

.44

look about half the people in that poll wanted it. So why not have it.

Sorry for spamming cairns

.44. you are not spaming. there is nothing to be sorry for. I didn't quite understand what the "only for Jim" comment was about, so let's move on from this eh?...
you have provided excellent feedback above and i am in the process of respsonding to that with the next version of the map.

EDIT: with such a comment drought on at the present that i have never seen the likes of, i am appreciative of any positive/questioning comments such as yours.