WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:18 pm

Feedback please?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:03 pm

No one wants to provide feedback???

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:17 pm

Well jeez I'll try and give you some feedback, cairnswk! Forgive me, I'll probably jump around:

The upper left, "On 26..." and "Objective" look kind of dull. Though they do match and correlate with the bottom legend, the text seems to be crying out for a little bit of flare and flash.

I like your legend on the left, though a few of the numbers look off center from each other...I'm not sure if they really are or if it's my eyes.

As for the map interior of the map specifically, I dislike the image style mix... That isn't clear...but let me try to explain! Compare the Cauldron and Gazala image style to say the Tanks, Mortars, Air Fields, the Tents...etc. There is a difference in style...and I think this clashes.

The Air Fields look a little sub-par, and the tanks somewhat also, though to less of a degree. Mortars could be included into that also. Tents look alright,

The contrast between soft and subtle and the some of the harder lines could be worked on, namely the square boxes.

I like the roads and the axis movement lines. The allies blue dots don't sell me, but I'm not sure what else you can really do there...

Lastly, I'd also try to keep flag size on the map consistent, just for the sake of it!

=======

Hope I've been of some help, cairnswk! I like the direction the map is moving.

--Andy

Ogrecrusher · Post by **Ogrecrusher** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:28 pm

The dashed borders around the armies rectangles make it look really pixellated. Torbruk airfield is a good example of this. Is there any reason they are not solid?

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:04 pm

At first glance, it really is kinda confusing. Four different types of attack routes plus bombardments? And can you attack along the lines; eg. can GL5 attack GL4?

Those who like the complex games will love it... I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Pearl. :wink:

benjikat · Post by **benjikat** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:10 pm

As you know I love complex maps, but I think that this one is particularly hard to make out, in particular with regard to what is connected to what.

The bombardments (although it is now clear which territories can be bombarded) also don;t work very well as many of the territories they can bombard they can just attack.

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:22 am

another review!

the bonusses:
Rommel: 13 terr, 7 def, 5 att, 2 cont => 7 (6 is more then well enough)
Panzerarmee: 10 terr, 6 def, 4 att, 3 cont => 6 (make it 5, they are key to holding a large portion fo the map!)
Italians: 7 terr, 6 def, 6 att, 4 cont => 6 (good enough)
Gazala Line: 7 terr, 7 def, 7 att, 5 cont => 7 (7 more then okay)
The Cauldron: 3 terr, 3 def, 3 att, 4 cont => 3 (sure)
British: 8 terr, 7 def, 7 att, 7 cont => 8 (7 is good too, but note there importance if you change anything about them)
S. Afrikans: 5 terr, 5 def, 5 att, 2 cont => 5 (looks good)
Indians: 3 terr, 3 def, 3 att, 5 cont => 3 (sure)
Free French: 1 terr, 1 def, 1 att, 3 cont => 1 (more would be laughable, knowing the french fighting spirits >_>)
Tubruk: 6 terr, 5 def, 5 att, 3 cont => 5 (4 at most, seeing you can keep it with 4 terr in def)
Towns: 5 terr, 5 def, 5 att, 6 cont => 5 (6 maybe, undecided here)

Change all Italian flags to green/white/red please (or they seem ireland, or facing the wrong direction)
Indian 3rd Brigade (right under the Free French) there flag is in a rather strange position

Make Rommel and Panzerarmee Africa (note the "c") perhaps change to a different pic, because we both want it so that Rommel and the other to attack Rotonda (makes better gameplay), I suggest perhaps a kind of camp, lik the British.
SA 3/1 (top most Indian) can attacl GL6?

thats it for now I would say, army numbers can be tackled later

fighterace11 · Post by **fighterace11** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:40 pm

please try to make that a map

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:53 pm

fighterace11 wrote:please try to make that a map

how do you mean fighterace11??
it is a map as it stands, just not in the "classic" form

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:40 am

AndyDufresne wrote:Well jeez I'll try and give you some feedback, cairnswk! Forgive me, I'll probably jump around:

The upper left, "On 26..." and "Objective" look kind of dull. Though they do match and correlate with the bottom legend, the text seems to be crying out for a little bit of flare and flash.

Fixed next version

I like your legend on the left, though a few of the numbers look off center from each other...I'm not sure if they really are or if it's my eyes.

Fixed.

As for the map interior of the map specifically, I dislike the image style mix... That isn't clear...but let me try to explain! Compare the Cauldron and Gazala image style to say the Tanks, Mortars, Air Fields, the Tents...etc. There is a difference in style...and I think this clashes.

The Air Fields look a little sub-par, and the tanks somewhat also, though to less of a degree. Mortars could be included into that also. Tents look alright,

The contrast between soft and subtle and the some of the harder lines could be worked on, namely the square boxes.

I understand what you mean...that's going to take a lot of fixing, but i'll see what i can do...may not be in next version though.

I like the roads and the axis movement lines. The allies blue dots don't sell me, but I'm not sure what else you can really do there...

Yes, i'm not quite sold on those also...i'll see what i can come up with.

Lastly, I'd also try to keep flag size on the map consistent, just for the sake of it!

The Panzer and Italian flags are deliberately more squarish than the standard size flag.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:42 am

Ogrecrusher wrote:The dashed borders around the armies rectangles make it look really pixellated. Torbruk airfield is a good example of this. Is there any reason they are not solid?

Yes they were made to look like that deliberately rather than have a solid line border.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:45 am

oaktown wrote:At first glance, it really is kinda confusing. Four different types of attack routes plus bombardments? And can you attack along the lines; eg. can GL5 attack GL4?

Those who like the complex games will love it... I'm still trying to wrap my brain around Pearl.

Mmmm....can't understand why following the lines is so difficult for you oaktown. both PH and this map play follow the lines....

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:47 am

benjikat wrote:As you know I love complex maps, but I think that this one is particularly hard to make out, in particular with regard to what is connected to what.

The bombardments (although it is now clear which territories can be bombarded) also don;t work very well as many of the territories they can bombard they can just attack.

Ah....i thought that was what happened in this campaign in the desert where Rommel attacked the mortar positions that were bombarding him.

Remember 90th Panzer O can attack Indian 7/7th Div. but the Indian 7/7th Div cannot attack 90th Panzer O as this attack route is one way, as per stated in the legend.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:14 am

this one requires some digesting before i comment

initial reaction: could be fairly cool

other instant thoughts: this is going to confuse the living daylights out f people and the writing in places is far too small

will leave better feedback anon.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:07 am

VErsion 11.
I don't know if this has improved things any, but changes are:

* new runways.
* new images behind description
* new panzer attack lines
* new mines along gazala line and the cauldron
* new font for legibility
* some tert names shortened to remove lengthy names

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:27 am

I'm still not liking this, the blue dots completely confuse me. I don't get the pathing over there at all.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:36 pm

Coleman wrote:I'm still not liking this, the blue dots completely confuse me. I don't get the pathing over there at all.

OK what don't u understand...this discourse help to clear it up and encourage me to determine if there is another way to show it.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:37 pm

I guess I can figure it out. The one that really bugs me is Brit, 7th Mortar Bgde to Indian 3rd Brigade because of the overlapping paths.

This definitely doesn't come off as user friendly. I feel it's less confusing then Pearl Harbor, but not by a lot.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:09 pm

Coleman wrote:I guess I can figure it out. The one that really bugs me is Brit, 7th Mortar Bgde to Indian 3rd Brigade because of the overlapping paths.

This definitely doesn't come off as user friendly. I feel it's less confusing then Pearl Harbor, but not by a lot.

I will change that path from Brit to Indian 3rd, so it is clearer and runs horizontal across the tank paths.
Unfortunately, yes i agree it is confusing and will be for many, but i have tried twice to put this map into the classic style and it just doesn't work the same way.
The reason that a lot of paths cross ios because of the way these attacks happened.
The Indians were slaughtered in the 3rd bridgae and had to withdraw to the east twowards Bir el Gobi.
And don't forget, the Allies lost this battle.

Blitzaholic · Post by **Blitzaholic** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:33 am

cairnsk

you got quite a creative mind it appears

nice work

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:09 am

Blitzaholic wrote:cairnsk

you got quite a creative mind it appears

nice work

Thanx Blitzaholic :wink:

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:35 pm

Feedback anyone?

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:33 pm

While it is getting better, it still feels like a big jumble to me.

And to be honest, if it feels that way to me then I can't even imagine how loads of other people will feel.

There's just so many colours and things going on here.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:42 pm

edbeard wrote:
There's just so many colours and things going on here.

As one might expect with any war edberard unfortunately this happens when a map takes in a period of several days warfare....when it is laid out like this.

Below is Version 12.

Changes:
1. villages added
2. Allied attack lines changed to brown single lines rather than blue dots....i think this makes it a lot clearer.
3. Bottom legend changed slightly

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:44 pm

just been looking at this map again and i actually think its not half as complicated as it initially looks I actually think the latest version is good enough to be the finished article.

WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

i love it try to make it a map

Re: i love it try to make it a map