WWII WESTERN FRONT [Quenched]

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:15 pm

Well, I'm saying to axe it just because I'm not a fan of 50 page map topics, and we could argue this tell the next ice age.

I'm open to a way into Britain from the outside via an airport or some other attack if nobody wants to just have the two way and be done with it. If people feel more bombardments would be an alternative I'm open to that as well.

Finding something that everyone would like is going to be tough regardless.

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:21 pm

oaktown

Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 567
Location: it's a small world, after all
Posted: 14 Oct 2007 07:28 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

qwert wrote:
Good point,These can be alternative solution if present solution not working,and i only must change one thing-put arrows from normandy to Marshall Park.I realy want to these idea work,only we must give chance,to se how work.If i put to britain be attacabile,then bombardment option dont need for these map.

Qwert, I really would like to see this work, but don't do it half-assed. You're setting this up to be a failure, because what is going to happen is it will go live, people will complain, and you'll be faced with having to change this because you have said repeatedly that you would.

I think this could be a good idea, but if a player is lucky enough to get dropped there he should have to earn the bonus. Some possible changes you could consider:

1. Add more territories to Britain. This would make it both harder to take over and would allow more players to start there.
2. Decrease the Britain bonus. +3 for holding 3 territories is high for any map, let alone this situation in which there's no threat of invasion by another player... in a way that's zero borders. Italy has six territories and two borders and it only gets +2?
3. Allow more territories to bombard the British territories. Earlier I'd suggested placing airfield or rocket sites across Europe which could bombard. With only three threat countries, all you'd have to do is hold one of them and you're assured to never lose Britain.
4. Allow the sites that can bombard to bombard ALL of the British territories, not just one each. Right now it will take a coordinated attack by potentially three enemies from three different territories in two different continents to knock somebody out of there, since nobody can move in.
5. Lose the star in London. Right now whoever drops there has access to two bonuses that nobody else can get, which is a huge advantage since there's only seven bonuses on the map.

In short, do something to lessen the advantage and you might be able to convince people. Leave it as is and you'll be changing the map a month after it's quenched.

Hmm,i will do research to look from where Germans bombard Britain.Maybe i can find 2 more terittory to bombard Britain,but these will not Decrease Britain bonus,these will give britain biger bonuses,because oponent can attack britain from 5 places and britain only can defend self.
I realy dont se any advantage if you want to hold Britain,now its very dificulty to hold Britain,and if i put new two terittory who can attack Britain,the holding britain(first you must conquer Britain)will be very hard task.You want to create picture that who start to hold britain he win,and these you can not know in these stage of development map.
As concern of bonuses,i do everything proper,first i give people open hands to give me hes opinion and sugestion of bonuses,then people vote for all sugested bonuses option,and even option A have more votes,i put two most voted option in second round,and again option who win in first round have more vote then second option.

4. Allow the sites that can bombard to bombard ALL of the British territories, not just one each. Right now it will take a coordinated attack by potentially three enemies from three different territories in two different continents to knock somebody out of there, since nobody can move in.

These is very wrong,because from one terittory if you attack all 3 british terittory the game is over for britain,and i dont agree with these.

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:04 pm

What you think of these bombardment places, also i redesign Bombardment look.

william18 · Post by **william18** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:35 pm

This would be an awesome map for team games.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:09 pm

i like the movement of the bombardment points, qwert. It shouldn't be too easy for the British player to secure the points from which he can be hit, and this makes it a bit more challenging.

What if instead of writing "TA3" and "LA3" you just put a 3 on the rocket, and a 3 on it's blast point? I'd leave the legend as is for clarity.

Can I make a proposal that might solve the britain star issue: add another star, perhaps in Italy (Milan?), and give the bonus for holding any three stars. That way the bonus would be available to everybody - not just the player who starts in britain - but certainly easier for the british player to obtain because he'll have a star that is not in danger of being occupied by a foreign player?

ps2civxr20 · Post by **ps2civxr20** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:28 pm

i say add the star at milan

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:30 pm

oaktown wrote:i like the movement of the bombardment points, qwert. It shouldn't be too easy for the British player to secure the points from which he can be hit, and this makes it a bit more challenging.

What if instead of writing "TA3" and "LA3" you just put a 3 on the rocket, and a 3 on it's blast point? I'd leave the legend as is for clarity.

Can I make a proposal that might solve the britain star issue: add another star, perhaps in Italy (Milan?), and give the bonus for holding any three stars. That way the bonus would be available to everybody - not just the player who starts in britain - but certainly easier for the british player to obtain because he'll have a star that is not in danger of being occupied by a foreign player?

Yeah, no need to point out Launch (LA) and Target (TA) since the rockets and star do that.

I agree 100% with oaktown's post.

ps2civxr20 · Post by **ps2civxr20** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:36 pm

Also I think that you should get rid of the western task force and add an arrow from munich to milano or treste

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:52 pm

ps2civxr20 wrote:Also I think that you should get rid of the western task force and add an arrow from munich to milano or treste

I think the western task force is brilliant... it gives italy a much needed second border, but one from which he can't strike out. And making the task force a territory in itself rather than an attack route makes it costly for the attacker to house troops there as they provide no defense. I love maps that involve tactical decision making like that - only wish i'd thought of it myself.

As for a northern route into italy, it should only be added if it works historically.

insomniacdude · Post by **insomniacdude** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:37 pm

While I'm against the Britain bombardment al together the movement of the bombardment points does balance the map more. Good call :wink:

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:49 pm

a few small things.

1. on the small map there is a dash bellow 2007 that's not present on the big map
2. the helmets look good but there's a lot of pixelization especially in the bottom part of the french helmets.
3. mountains still don't look good to me especially on the large map. they have an unnatural feel to them and on the small map they are very pixelated.
4. arrows are pixelated
5. make the bridge in france a bit more bold. the lines are too thin.
6. anybody thought how the drop down menu will react to the very long names on this map? will there be a problem? i hope not.

other that the above things the map looks great and the gameplay is great.

btw i know some things have been mentioned before (like the mountains or the bombard arrows but i still see them pixalated that's why i mentioned it again)

Aerial Attack · Post by **Aerial Attack** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:48 pm

That's definitely an interesting issue (drop down box length). I know that BOB resizes the drop downs to fit the full name + army count on said territory [attack from] and [attack to - unless attack from is switched].

ps2civxr20 · Post by **ps2civxr20** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:04 pm

oaktown wrote:
ps2civxr20 wrote:Also I think that you should get rid of the western task force and add an arrow from munich to milano or treste

I think the western task force is brilliant... it gives italy a much needed second border, but one from which he can't strike out. And making the task force a territory in itself rather than an attack route makes it costly for the attacker to house troops there as they provide no defense. I love maps that involve tactical decision making like that - only wish i'd thought of it myself.

As for a northern route into italy, it should only be added if it works historically.

It does, in the last days of the war allied troops met up in the brenner pass which is in that area

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:10 pm

DiM Posted: 17 Oct 2007 02:49 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a few small things.

1. on the small map there is a dash bellow 2007 that's not present on the big map
2. the helmets look good but there's a lot of pixelization especially in the bottom part of the french helmets.
3. mountains still don't look good to me especially on the large map. they have an unnatural feel to them and on the small map they are very pixelated.
4. arrows are pixelated
5. make the bridge in france a bit more bold. the lines are too thin.
6. anybody thought how the drop down menu will react to the very long names on this map? will there be a problem? i hope not.

other that the above things the map looks great and the gameplay is great.

btw i know some things have been mentioned before (like the mountains or the bombard arrows but i still see them pixalated that's why i mentioned it again)

1.I explane these when Cairnswick ask me ,these mean 2007-(2007-200 some years)
2.Well i can put to be like Germans helmets.
3.Mountain i will change to defence barriers like some people sugested.
4.Its easy to say that Arrows or some thing on map is pixelated,if you can create better arrows please send me pictures of these arrows or show here how to create better arrows.
5.Ok these not problem.
6.Also these will be solve in XML with short names like Marshal Park D.G.

oaktown Posted: 17 Oct 2007 01:09 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i like the movement of the bombardment points, qwert. It shouldn't be too easy for the British player to secure the points from which he can be hit, and this makes it a bit more challenging.

What if instead of writing "TA3" and "LA3" you just put a 3 on the rocket, and a 3 on it's blast point? I'd leave the legend as is for clarity.

Can I make a proposal that might solve the britain star issue: add another star, perhaps in Italy (Milan?), and give the bonus for holding any three stars. That way the bonus would be available to everybody - not just the player who starts in britain - but certainly easier for the british player to obtain because he'll have a star that is not in danger of being occupied by a foreign player?

If i understand you want to tell that people understand from Legend bombardment option and i can only put numbers(1 for 1,2 for 2,3 for 3)
If you think that is better to put MIlan insted London,then ok.

ps2civxr20 Posted: 17 Oct 2007 01:36 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also I think that you should get rid of the western task force and add an arrow from munich to milano or treste

oaktown Posted

I think the western task force is brilliant... it gives italy a much needed second border, but one from which he can't strike out. And making the task force a territory in itself rather than an attack route makes it costly for the attacker to house troops there as they provide no defense. I love maps that involve tactical decision making like that - only wish i'd thought of it myself.

As for a northern route into italy, it should only be added if it works historically.

I have two reason why i put Western task force.
-Historicaly acurate(i think Anzio operation)
-Solving Italy issue

ps2civxr20 · Post by **ps2civxr20** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:33 pm

i think you should make london a diffrent color star and make it so if you have london plus the other3 stars then you get an even biger bonus. (or not because it is lkly that if you have got all 4 then you have already pritty much won the game)

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:43 pm

qwert wrote:If you think that is better to put MIlan insted London,then ok.

No, qwert, I didn't say to put the star on Milan instead of London, but to put both and give a bonus for holding three of the four stars. That way the bonus is still available to players who don't have a UK drop, but the UK player can get the bonus without having to go all the way down to Italy. This preserves the potential UK advantage without excluding unlucky players from the capitals bonus.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:09 pm

What you propose, oaktown, hm...I almost like it. Maybe I do...

--Andy

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:37 pm

qwert wrote:
DiM Posted: 17 Oct 2007 02:49 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a few small things.

1. on the small map there is a dash bellow 2007 that's not present on the big map
2. the helmets look good but there's a lot of pixelization especially in the bottom part of the french helmets.
3. mountains still don't look good to me especially on the large map. they have an unnatural feel to them and on the small map they are very pixelated.
4. arrows are pixelated
5. make the bridge in france a bit more bold. the lines are too thin.
6. anybody thought how the drop down menu will react to the very long names on this map? will there be a problem? i hope not.

other that the above things the map looks great and the gameplay is great.

btw i know some things have been mentioned before (like the mountains or the bombard arrows but i still see them pixalated that's why i mentioned it again)

1.I explane these when Cairnswick ask me ,these mean 2007-(2007-200 some years)
2.Well i can put to be like Germans helmets.
3.Mountain i will change to defence barriers like some people sugested.
4.Its easy to say that Arrows or some thing on map is pixelated,if you can create better arrows please send me pictures of these arrows or show here how to create better arrows.
5.Ok these not problem.
6.Also these will be solve in XML with short names like Marshal Park D.G.

1. so it will be 200-2008 if it gets quenched next year? kinda silly.
2. the german helmets look good. if you can make the french helmets at the same quality then perfect.
3. good.
4. create them as you created the ones you have now but do them 10 times larger then decrease the size to what you need. they will be less pixely. this is a generic advice appliable to any software you use. if i knew what you use perhaps i could provide a better solution.
5. ok.
6. short names are good but be careful to make them easily recognizable.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:00 pm

oaktown wrote:
qwert wrote:If you think that is better to put MIlan insted London,then ok.

No, qwert, I didn't say to put the star on Milan instead of London, but to put both and give a bonus for holding three of the four stars. That way the bonus is still available to players who don't have a UK drop, but the UK player can get the bonus without having to go all the way down to Italy. This preserves the potential UK advantage without excluding unlucky players from the capitals bonus.

I'd like to add that this does not mean you need to put a bigger bonus for all four. In fact I'd advise against it.

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:56 pm

Coleman Posted: 18 Oct 2007 04:00 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oaktown wrote:
qwert wrote:

If you think that is better to put MIlan insted London,then ok.

No, qwert, I didn't say to put the star on Milan instead of London, but to put both and give a bonus for holding three of the four stars. That way the bonus is still available to players who don't have a UK drop, but the UK player can get the bonus without having to go all the way down to Italy. This preserves the potential UK advantage without excluding unlucky players from the capitals bonus.
I'd like to add that this does not mean you need to put a bigger bonus for all four. In fact I'd advise against it.

Well bonus can stay 3,because you need 3 of 4,and i think with 4 stars its stay very hard to hold 3.

Dim
1. so it will be 200-2008 if it gets quenched next year? kinda silly.
2. the german helmets look good. if you can make the french helmets at the same quality then perfect.
3. good.
4. create them as you created the ones you have now but do them 10 times larger then decrease the size to what you need. they will be less pixely. this is a generic advice appliable to any software you use. if i knew what you use perhaps i could provide a better solution.
5. ok.
6. short names are good but be careful to make them easily recognizable.

1.No it will be 2007-2008(look WWII EASTERN FRONT map)
2.ok
4.I do these for smaler arrows,do you mean that larger arrows is pihelated or all arrows is pihelated?

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:22 pm

I do next things:
1.Put stone barriers betwen Ligurian army-Lyon(replace Mountain)
2.Put bridge bold
3.Put Star to Milano terittory
4.Fix Arrows(i hope that now look better)
5.Insted LA1,LA2,LA3,TA1,TA2 and TA3 put only numbers(like people sugested)
6.Fix helmets(USA and Britain)

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:31 pm

Very nice qwert.

To do:
fix the text on the Milano territory to resemble the other capitals.

And I was just wondering for the first time whether or not it would be good to have some sort of link territory (or even a line) between Germany and Italy... perhaps something to do with Austria, since Germany and Italy were really one block in the war. I'm not sure about this though as to whether it could harm gameplay... I'm simply putting the idea out to see what the rest of you think. (Sorry if this has been mentioned before)

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:05 pm

Robin,these mentioned so many time ,and i realy dont want to explane again(move back several pages and you will find explanation)
Milano-text?

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:59 pm

For Milano, I think RobinJ means change the text to white and all capital, similar to LONDON, PARIS, and OB West.

Also Qwert, since the right legend is getting more and more packed, I'd consider maybe seeing how your signature looks on the left bottom side (in Spain).

--Andy

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:59 pm

I like the changes... I think the UK situation is becoming more and more tolerable.

One legend suggestion: the script within a game uses "annihilate" rather than "destroy," and saying "only... but not" is redundant. Might be better to read:

BOMBARDMENT
Can annihilate
but not conquer