KING of the MOUNTAINS MAP [Quenched]

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:21 am

Gilligan wrote:Apparently the XML is only done for the large map?

No. The KOTH18 XML has the info for both the small and large maps.

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:24 am

looks good to me :thumbup:

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:29 am

G7 is noticeably out on the large map, the rest of them look ok on both maps though.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:36 am

KEYOGI wrote:G7 is noticeably out on the large map, the rest of them look ok on both maps though.

This is what I am talking about. I just moved G7 to the left from the right. Some people think it is OK here while others will complain if I put it back.

????

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:16 am

KEYOGI wrote:When working with your coordinates, are you turning the effects of your army circles off? If effects are turned off and all your circles are the same size then it makes no sense why they all can't be based off the same point!?!

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:40 am

WidowMakers wrote:
KEYOGI wrote:G7 is noticeably out on the large map, the rest of them look ok on both maps though.
This is what I am talking about. I just moved G7 to the left from the right. Some people think it is OK here while others will complain if I put it back.

????

lol, i dont particularily care if the numbers are perfectly centered or not, i never have. i only mentioned those cuz i knew someone else would neway.
move it back if you want- you wont hear any complaints from me.

i love the map- it looks done to me- but it doesnt really matter if we think its done...andy's the one to convince

MonRepos · Post by **MonRepos** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:59 am

It is ok as it is. No point arguing about a number being a pixel to the right or to the left, so stop arguing and start playing!

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:46 pm

G7 was fine on the top of page 23. Move it how it was there, and I think we might be dandy.

--Andy

Jack0827 · Post by **Jack0827** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:01 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:G7 was fine on the top of page 23. Move it how it was there, and I think we might be dandy.

--Andy

Krueger · Post by **Krueger** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:57 pm

I think that you need to put the kids back in, LOL....JK
This looks like it is done to me.
Good work!

Jack0827 · Post by **Jack0827** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:45 pm

finnish up and lets play

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:19 pm

OK. I moved the G7 back to the right 1 pixel and here are the new army pics and the links to the maps and XML.

Map Large
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/KOTM/KOTM_19.L.jpg
Map Small
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/KOTM/KOTM_19.S.jpg
Final XML
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/KOTM/KOTM_FINAL.xml
Maps and XML above used to make these pictures with armies

I think that should do it. Based on what Andy had posted I think this might be over. WOOHOO

Thanks for all the help and suggestions everyone. Keep your fingers crossed.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:27 pm

i was just wonderintg. in a 3 player game what are the odds of someone starting with all 5 kings?? :roll:

Captain Crash · Post by **Captain Crash** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:00 am

DiM wrote:i was just wonderintg[sic]. in a 3 player game what are the odds of someone starting with all 5 kings??

At a guess I'd say around about the same as some-one in a 3 player classic map game starting with Africa...maybe slightly better, or starting with Oz or SthAm in a four player game.

Maybe some probability guru could answer that for you with more accuracy

But the chances are exactly the same as someone starting with all of purple mountain!

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:37 am

Needless to say - the probability of starting with Yellow Mountain is even lower!!!

C.

45 territories...
Divide by players /3 = 15
Divide by players /4 = 11 (1 neutral)

Chance of getting one territory as a colour would be 1/3...

5 territorries would be 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3? (Approx technically the odds change once each territory has been allocated - That would depend on how the code is written of course!)

= 0.0041152263374485596707818930041152

So 0.4%?

Is that all? Hmmm... methinks I've fuckted that up!

C.

Captain Crash · Post by **Captain Crash** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:20 am

yeti_c wrote:Needless to say - the probability of starting with Yellow Mountain is even lower!!!

Probability is even higher maybe?

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:21 am

Captain Crash wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Needless to say - the probability of starting with Yellow Mountain is even lower!!!

Probability is even higher maybe?

Arse!!! DOH!

C.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:28 am

deployment can make or brake a game.

i have 2 recent examples in games i'm playing now.
game 1. classic map unlimited fortif. i start with most of my troops connected and quickly gain control of africa while the others are scattered. then it's easy as pie to get south america and in this turn i just got europe. at this point the game is pretty much won as i'm the only one to have continents and there are no cards.
game 2. middle earth game. i have 7 initial territories scattered around on 6 continents none of them connected. i'm pretty much screwed. unfortunately this is also a no cards game. so laying low attacking for cards and hoping for the best does not work. so it's almost game over for me

i trully hope lack implements the option to deploy wherever you want.

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:49 am

DiM wrote:i trully hope lack implements the option to deploy wherever you want.

that would rock but as it would have to be sequential it could take days to start a game unless it is rt.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:53 am

T3 P3 and S4 looks strange with the cordinates

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:54 am

Guilty_Biscuit wrote:
DiM wrote:i trully hope lack implements the option to deploy wherever you want.

that would rock but as it would have to be sequential it could take days to start a game unless it is rt.

actually there's a very simple solution. we get random territories like now but instead of having 3 troops in each we get only one. the rest we can deploy whereever we want (as long as it is in one of our territories) and the first round will be about deployment but you won't be able to see where others deployed until the round is finished.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:56 am

Wisse wrote:T3 P3 and S4 looks strange with the cordinates

it's the same problem as G7 (see previous page). the solution is to move half a pixel but that's not possible. :wink:

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:39 am

Conection G2-R3 and T3-P2, put to be like R1-B2

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:43 am

qwert wrote:Conection G2-R3 and T3-P2, put to be like R1-B2

That wouldn't look right on the 3D representation.

C.

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 pm

Yeti is right, and there are a lot of the connections that attach to the "back" of the territory, (C4, C1, S4, S1) so it seem pointless to change some, but leave the others alone.