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

[RedBaron0]

As a personal preference, I'd change, "Land Batteries" to "Coastal Batteries" it just sounds better to me, but I leave it to you.

Otherwise I see no real graphical concern, (other the remaining requirements of tests and large version) however I worry that this map is smaller/losing condition version of Stalingrad which gives 95% of the site reason to cringe, but that's my opinion, plenty of niche maps out there!

[cairnswk]

As a personal preference, I'd change, "Land Batteries" to "Coastal Batteries" it just sounds better to me, but I leave it to you.

Otherwise I see no real graphical concern, (other the remaining requirements of tests and large version) however I worry that this map is smaller/losing condition version of Stalingrad which gives 95% of the site reason to cringe, but that's my opinion, plenty of niche maps out there!

OK, thanks RB0, Coastal Batteries it is.
I've made some small changes to the legend to "tidy".

Yes there are plenty of niche maps, but i'm not sneezing at 90 Stalingrads currently in play

Version 37
Small


Large
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L.png~original[/bigimg]

This is a rough 888 for small


...and rough for large
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L_888s.jpg~original[/bigimg]

[RedBaron0]

Last call on this one guys, any remaining concerns, lets hear them.

[Bruceswar]

Is it me or are 8's not lined up? Looks good otherwise.

[isaiah40]

Is it me or are 8's not lined up? Looks good otherwise.

The 8's aren't lined up, but all we need is to make sure that they don't overlap other 888's, region names etc. The lining up will be in the xml stage.

[RedBaron0]

With the tides of change come additional requirements. Since this map began its journey under the assumption that 8 being the maximum amount of player, I won't ask the map be totally reworked to accommodate this, however, please note that a player cap may need to be imposed should it be discovered and/or deemed that the map can't handle player amounts over 8.

Also note that there are 5 new army colors, 4 totally new and a different shade of green for player #2. Please take this into account when doing graphics testing. All HEX codes are as follows:

Red: FF0000
Green: 006400
Blue: 0000FF
Yellow: FFFF00
Pink: FF00FF
Cyan: 00FFFF
Orange: FF9922
Silver: C0C0C0
Purple: 9400D3
Lime: 00FF00
Amber: CD5C5C
Olive: 688E23

[cairnswk]

with those sorts of colours now army circles may have to become more prominent.

[cairnswk]

OK this is a (somewhat) centered 88 version for V37.
What i want to know, is are the new colours on the current army circle background acceptable.



and here is the CB version of that.

[RedBaron0]

Of course... Gilly gave me the wrong HEX code for the new green, sorry cairns the green is #006400

[cairnswk]

Of course... Gilly gave me the wrong HEX code for the new green, sorry cairns the green is #006400

RB0, those armies were generated from the xml tool, where green is 009a04, so i am not sure if that is a correction that needs to be made in the xml tool or not.

[RedBaron0]

yeah it likely does, we're working behind the scenes on the tools

[cairnswk]

Version 37. with all.

Small


Large
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L.png~original[/bigimg]

Starts


[spoiler=Centered 88s]

[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L_88s.jpg~original[/bigimg][/spoiler]

[spoiler=Centered 888s]

[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L_888s.jpg~original[/bigimg][/spoiler]

[RedBaron0]

Okay kiddo, up you go!

[cairnswk]

Okay kiddo, up you go!

Thank-you RB0
I've adjusted a couple of those borders to better show the mountains impassables.
when doing the xml, it was hard to determine them so...

[cairnswk]

Version 37 for xml chekcing

Small


Large
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L.png~original[/bigimg]

Starts

[Gilligan]

Cairns,

I do not see anything on the map that lets battleships bombard Gaba Tepe, Serafim, Krithia, or F8. They don't have the fire marking on it.

Chunnuk Bair should not border Bigali

Should MS1, MS2, MS3 also get autodeploy? Seems unfair for some players to get 2 territs with +2 auto and some with 1 +2 auto.

L1-13 and MS1-3 need underlying neutrals for games with less than 8 players.

Why do BS territs have autodeploy of 0?

[Gilligan]

Few other points,

all of the starting positions need underlying neutrals.

Beach Y needs 3 neutral not 2.

[cairnswk]

Cairns,

I do not see anything on the map that lets battleships bombard Gaba Tepe, Serafim, Krithia, or F8. They don't have the fire marking on it.

Chunnuk Bair should not border Bigali

Should MS1, MS2, MS3 also get autodeploy? Seems unfair for some players to get 2 territs with +2 auto and some with 1 +2 auto.

L1-13 and MS1-3 need underlying neutrals for games with less than 8 players.

Why do BS territs have autodeploy of 0?

Few other points,

all of the starting positions need underlying neutrals.

Beach Y needs 3 neutral not 2.

All of this being looked at Gilligan.



[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V37L.png~original[/bigimg]

[cairnswk]

Cairns,

I do not see anything on the map that lets battleships bombard Gaba Tepe, Serafim, Krithia, or F8. They don't have the fire marking on it.

Fixed. Somehow they got deleted between V26 & v27

Chunnuk Bair should not border Bigali

Done

Should MS1, MS2, MS3 also get autodeploy? Seems unfair for some players to get 2 territs with +2 auto and some with 1 +2 auto.

Grouped in with landing craft on the map bonuses

L1-13 and MS1-3 need underlying neutrals for games with less than 8 players.

Done.

Why do BS territs have autodeploy of 0?

No reason, prolly a hang-over from something else.

Few other points,

all of the starting positions need underlying neutrals.

Beach Y needs 3 neutral not 2.

Done.
New xml V2 added below






[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/gallipoli/gallipoli_V38L.png~original[/bigimg]

V38 Large and Small 88s
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original

v38 Large and Small 888s
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... g~original

[Gilligan]

Should MS1, MS2, MS3 also get autodeploy? Seems unfair for some players to get 2 territs with +2 auto and some with 1 +2 auto.

Grouped in with landing craft on the map bonuses

Sorry I don't see a reference to this either

[cairnswk]

Should MS1, MS2, MS3 also get autodeploy? Seems unfair for some players to get 2 territs with +2 auto and some with 1 +2 auto.

Grouped in with landing craft on the map bonuses

Sorry I don't see a reference to this either

Where don't you see a reference.
The map shows one.
The xml has autodeploys.
I don't understand

[Gilligan]

Should MS1, MS2, MS3 also get autodeploy? Seems unfair for some players to get 2 territs with +2 auto and some with 1 +2 auto.

Grouped in with landing craft on the map bonuses

Sorry I don't see a reference to this either

Where don't you see a reference.
The map shows one.
The xml has autodeploys.
I don't understand

Oh, the auto bonus wasn't there in the XML I checked. Sorry.

I was looking at a map reference, not an XML reference.

[cairnswk]

...
Oh, the auto bonus wasn't there in the XML I checked. Sorry.
I was looking at a map reference, not an XML reference.

So, what is missing?

[Gilligan]

The Bigali/Chunuk Bair border is still there (on the Bigali side)

I still see that BS can bombard those 4 territories i mentioned above (Gaba Tepe, F8, Serafim, Krithia)

[cairnswk]

The Bigali/Chunuk Bair border is still there (on the Bigali side)

Fixed.

I still see that BS can bombard those 4 territories i mentioned above (Gaba Tepe, F8, Serafim, Krithia)

Yeh? so as stated above, they should be there...the fire images were accidentally deleted in previous version.
So you think they shouldn't be there and what is your evidence if so?