1982 [Quenched]

[koontz1973]

natty, will look at the bevel and pixels tomorrow. Done the large bonus borders and a couple of other things. Put the glow around the mines in the legend (large map) to match the small map and place a territ glow into the small map that I had missed. Will post tomorrow as soon as I have got the other things done.

[koontz1973]

Added the larger borders between the bonus zones (land only as the sea ones are thicker).
Played around with the border and believe I have gotton the corners the best they will ever get. If there is any more seen, put it down to sloppy British workmanship.
As posted above. Placed in a territ glow that was missed and put in the glow for the large maps legend mines.
[bigimg]http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1218/1982lk.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3006/1982s.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Played around with the border and believe I have gotton the corners the best they will ever get.

Ahem... Let's try to tackle this problem, shall we?

Do you have the frame on top of the monitors, or the other way around? What method do you use to create the bevels? And how exactly did you do the monitor shapes, did you use the rounded rectangle function?

[koontz1973]

Ahem... Let's try to tackle this problem, shall we?

No, lets not, I am all for sub standard graphics and crappy game play as long as my maps get made. If you want to spend 20 hours getting each pixel super perfect, then you can. As for me, I have no problem playing on maps that look like shit.

Will look at it again tonight/tomorrow.

[Flapcake]

Ahem... Let's try to tackle this problem, shall we?

No, lets not, I am all for sub standard graphics and crappy game play as long as my maps get made. If you want to spend 20 hours getting each pixel super perfect, then you can. As for me, I have no problem playing on maps that look like shit.

Will look at it again tonight/tomorrow.

hmm a map that looks like shit ? that could be an interesting consept

[koontz1973]

Darker border.
Large869/833.
[bigimg]http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6751/1982l.png[/bigimg]
Small670/642
[bigimg]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3006/1982s.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Looks good.

On the large version, what's with the white 1px line in the left & upper edges? And the short black line near your sig?

[koontz1973]

No idea. Not on my files. Must be imageshack. They have been having trouble today. Will upload them again tomorrow.

[koontz1973]

Large869/833.
[bigimg]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6751/1982l.png[/bigimg]
Small670/642
[bigimg]http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3006/1982s.png[/bigimg]
Re uploaded. The funny line is now gone thank god.

[AndyDufresne]

Someone has seemed to spill nuclear slime/sludge on the map.

But in all seriousness, I like the radar theme quite a bit.


--Andy

[DoomYoshi]

I can't wait for this map to come out.

In the Rules of Engagement it says:

Enemy - opposing nation not different players

This makes no sense to a casual observer. I am sure it has been addressed somewhere in the thread and I think I know what you mean, but is there a better way to put it. Putting Argentine can only attack British works better. But that doesn't make any sense.
HMS Invincible is too far to bombard enemy ships and so can only attack bordering ships. All bordering ships are in HMS. So... what does the rule of engagement mean?

[koontz1973]

Hi Doom, nice to see you around here and not stick in the tourney threads. Changing the Enemy = opposing players would mean more space. As you said, you understand it so no real need to change.
HMS Brilliant and HMS Invincible cannot bombard the enemy from the British side and ARA Belgrano from the Argentinian side cannot bombard the British.
Rules of Engagement is the normal term used by most forces when in a battle zone. It covers what, when, how, why to fight. It is just the title for that box, the same as the others have British (land forces, Argentine land forces, Naval and Air Forces as theirs. If it causes confusion, I may take it out.

[koontz1973]

Someone has seemed to spill nuclear slime/sludge on the map.

But in all seriousness, I like the radar theme quite a bit.


--Andy

A seal of semi approval from the banana man. That makes me happy.

[DoomYoshi]

Hi Doom, nice to see you around here and not stick in the tourney threads. Changing the Enemy = opposing players would mean more space. As you said, you understand it so no real need to change.
HMS Brilliant and HMS Invincible cannot bombard the enemy from the British side and ARA Belgrano from the Argentinian side cannot bombard the British.
Rules of Engagement is the normal term used by most forces when in a battle zone. It covers what, when, how, why to fight. It is just the title for that box, the same as the others have British (land forces, Argentine land forces, Naval and Air Forces as theirs. If it causes confusion, I may take it out.

I don't understand it though. What is the point of HMS Brilliant and Invincible if they can't attack anything?

[koontz1973]

I don't understand it though. What is the point of HMS Brilliant and Invincible if they can't attack anything?

They can attack each other and the surrounding British ships.
Not every ship in either fleet would be in striking range of the other.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't understand it though. What is the point of HMS Brilliant and Invincible if they can't attack anything?

They can attack each other and the surrounding British ships.
Not every ship in either fleet would be in striking range of the other.

Ok, but the Rules of Engagement suggests that British forces can only attack Argentinain forces and vice versa. If that is not what it means, then what does it mean? It seems that it means nothing and should be taken away.

[koontz1973]

I don't understand it though. What is the point of HMS Brilliant and Invincible if they can't attack anything?

They can attack each other and the surrounding British ships.
Not every ship in either fleet would be in striking range of the other.

Ok, but the Rules of Engagement suggests that British forces can only attack Argentinain forces and vice versa. If that is not what it means, then what does it mean? It seems that it means nothing and should be taken away.

If you look at other parts of the legend (the word enemy is used a lot), it says that planes can only attack enemy land and sea forces. So a British plane can only attack Argentinian land/sea forces. An Argentinian ship can only bombard a British ship etc. Without the Enemy = phrase, everyone would ask why they could not attack a different player from a certain plane or ship.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't understand it though. What is the point of HMS Brilliant and Invincible if they can't attack anything?

They can attack each other and the surrounding British ships.
Not every ship in either fleet would be in striking range of the other.

Ok, but the Rules of Engagement suggests that British forces can only attack Argentinain forces and vice versa. If that is not what it means, then what does it mean? It seems that it means nothing and should be taken away.

If you look at other parts of the legend (the word enemy is used a lot), it says that planes can only attack enemy land and sea forces. So a British plane can only attack Argentinian land/sea forces. An Argentinian ship can only bombard a British ship etc. Without the Enemy = phrase, everyone would ask why they could not attack a different player from a certain plane or ship.

Oh ok, now I understand, it is just clarifying what enemy means. Thank you. Now that you mention it, I don't think there is a better way to put it.

[koontz1973]

I don't understand it though. What is the point of HMS Brilliant and Invincible if they can't attack anything?

They can attack each other and the surrounding British ships.
Not every ship in either fleet would be in striking range of the other.

Ok, but the Rules of Engagement suggests that British forces can only attack Argentinain forces and vice versa. If that is not what it means, then what does it mean? It seems that it means nothing and should be taken away.

If you look at other parts of the legend (the word enemy is used a lot), it says that planes can only attack enemy land and sea forces. So a British plane can only attack Argentinian land/sea forces. An Argentinian ship can only bombard a British ship etc. Without the Enemy = phrase, everyone would ask why they could not attack a different player from a certain plane or ship.

Oh ok, now I understand, it is just clarifying what enemy means. Thank you. Now that you mention it, I don't think there is a better way to put it.

Glad it helped. Now do not be a stranger in the foundry and keep coming.

[isaiah40]

Last Call

If anyone has any other comments on gameplay, now is the time to speak up! If there are no other concerns within the next couple of days, this map will be moved to the Final Forge!

isaiah40

[koontz1973]

Thanks again.

[koontz1973]

Been cleaning up the images and removing the the dead artefacts.
Large869/833.
[bigimg]http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/6751/1982l.png[/bigimg]
Small670/642
[bigimg]http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9247/1982sd.png[/bigimg]

[gimil]

I know I have left it a bit late but this issue just came to me just now as I was about to stamp this....sorry

The green impassable stuff just doesn't fit with the rest of the map. It's colouring and texture is just all wrong. I think you need something in greyscale that is a little more subtle texture wise.

Sorry to do this, but apart from that I am pretty satisfied.

[koontz1973]

I know I have left it a bit late but this issue just came to me just now as I was about to stamp this....sorry

The green impassable stuff just doesn't fit with the rest of the map. It's colouring and texture is just all wrong. I think you need something in greyscale that is a little more subtle texture wise.

Sorry to do this, but apart from that I am pretty satisfied.

A bit late you call this. Bloody hell gimil.

No problem, I have looked at the green and tried to put them into greyscale but it just does not work. It is the same when I put them into yellow or red - the two other most common radar colours.

The one reason I chose to have them this green was when I looked at the images of radar screens, they all had (depending on the colouring) large luminous splodges (no better word for it) for the higher ground. I tried to copy those types of images a while ago but again they did not work as they could not be recognised. These can be recognised for what they are and keep with the style of the map IMHO.

Therefore I have desaturated the green but not turned it of. There are enough green elements on the map to tie them in.
[bigimg]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6751/1982l.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3006/1982s.png[/bigimg]
Is this because of andys comment about green slime?

[isaiah40]

The one reason I chose to have them this green was when I looked at the images of radar screens, they all had (depending on the colouring) large luminous splodges (no better word for it) for the higher ground.

As someone who has worked on mobile radar systems while in the Air Force, it is called noise/clutter, or concerning ground objects as the case here ground clutter.