Page 7 of 22
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:28 pm
by unriggable
Just make Belgium attack London. No trouble there, eh?
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:09 pm
by DiM
Coleman wrote:DiM wrote:you only need to explain how bombardment works.
I almost want moderator feedback on how we should handle that. If the feature gets used a lot it is kind of a pain to re-explain every time and waste map space doing it.
I'd like to know how Andy or lack perceives us handling this for this map and in the future, or if they want to let the active foundry members argue it out?
i'm up for explaining. 99% of people don't visit the foundry so they have no idea about new xml features.
from time to time i still see topics where people ask why they can't pass mountains or what does the arrow for one way attack indicate.
so at least for the first maps there needs to be some sort of explanation.
remember the numerous reports about the number of neutrals in battle for australia? after the map was quenched cairnswk had to add an explanation on the map for those neutrals.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:13 pm
by Qwert
Coleman
DiM wrote:
you only need to explain how bombardment works.
I almost want moderator feedback on how we should handle that. If the feature gets used a lot it is kind of a pain to re-explain every time and waste map space doing it.
I'd like to know how Andy or lack perceives us handling this for this map and in the future, or if they want to let the active foundry members argue it out?
Well these will be helpful if Moderator give hes opinion.
unriggable
Just make Belgium attack London. No trouble there, eh?
There is no point of these new XTML features if people dont want to put in map,and with these Belgium to Atack London,will be very wrong view on these map,because bombardment option is very good option for britain.
I hope that Andy will explane in how way on legend we must present bombardment option,to people can understand these.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:20 pm
by AndyDufresne
I think any thing that is unique, and deviates from 'traditional standard World Domination', should be documented in the legend or somewhere on the map. Just so the clarification is there.
As for the exact wording, I'm not sure. Perhaps look at Carinswk's Pearl Harbor map.
--Andy
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:42 pm
by DiM
AndyDufresne wrote: 'traditional standard World Domination'
aka Risk
anyway i guess this settles it. just add something short like:
[image of black arrow] - can only attack but not conquer.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:23 pm
by Qwert
OK
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:01 pm
by Qwert
Here like you say Dim
[image of black arrow] - can only attack but not conquer.
I just put Bombardment
.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:26 pm
by Sven Hassel
but the bonus for holding 3 stars is irrelevant now do to the fact that you can't possibly hold all the stars, in the case that you dont have an territory in britain.
Not bad
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:40 pm
by Keredrex
There needs to be a way to get to Britain since so far there is only a one way
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:10 pm
by Qwert
Sven Hassel
but the bonus for holding 3 stars is irrelevant now do to the fact that you can't possibly hold all the stars, in the case that you dont have an territory in britain.
These is extra bonus,and these mean that its dificulty to get these bonus.
Keredrex
There needs to be a way to get to Britain since so far there is only a one way
Point of these is not to conquer Britain,its point to demobilise Britain to not attack France,These is right way.You can not conquer Britain from any part of europe,you just can bombard britain and eliminate these country from play(Acuraty is very importan).
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:42 pm
by tim02
qwert wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the bonus the bonus is if a person holds britain and no one can attack him then he automaticly wins
You wrong,if you have bombardmen option and No bonuses for britain,these no mean that you win. Of course these option can work if You have win condition-hold 37 terittory,do we have these option?
Its easy,when map be quenched,change these if people wining holding britain every time.So you can not know these before you se what will hepend.
actualy yes because you are impossible to eliminate meaning you will eventualy win
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:47 pm
by nagerous
tim02 wrote:qwert wrote:It doesn't matter at all what the bonus the bonus is if a person holds britain and no one can attack him then he automaticly wins
You wrong,if you have bombardmen option and No bonuses for britain,these no mean that you win. Of course these option can work if You have win condition-hold 37 terittory,do we have these option?
Its easy,when map be quenched,change these if people wining holding britain every time.So you can not know these before you se what will hepend.
actualy yes because you are impossible to eliminate meaning you will eventualy win
More to the point, there will be a number of games ending in stalemate.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:57 pm
by unriggable
Britain has to be attackable though, it's idiotic to have it be impenetrable.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:11 pm
by Keredrex
I Agree You need to be able to attack britain since bombadments don't allow you to fort across... I think it is pointless unless bombardment leaves 1 neutral at the end... that could make it interesting but with that twist in game play then you might need to balance out with bonuses
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:39 pm
by KEYOGI
I think the bombardment of Britain option is an interesting twist, but I feel it will inevitably lead to a drawn out game. If it was in the middle of the map, I don't think it would have such a big impact on the game, but the fact is that Britain is on the edge of the map where people will have to go out of their way to attack it.
Anyway, see how discussion goes. You may need to look at other options though if the current Britain situation proves to be unpopular.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:42 pm
by edbeard
unriggable wrote:Britain has to be attackable though, it's idiotic to have it be impenetrable.
Keredrex wrote:I Agree You need to be able to attack britain since bombadments don't allow you to fort across... I think it is pointless unless bombardment leaves 1 neutral at the end... that could make it interesting but with that twist in game play then you might need to balance out with bonuses
this is what bombardments are. you just can't take it over. it'll leave 1 neutral when you "conquer" it
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:27 pm
by AndyDufresne
Qwert, if I could bring up one minor issue...the length of some of your names.
For the game board, they are fine to have, but for the Drop-Down-Menu (the XML), you'll have to abbreviate some of the longer names (and others to keep it all consistent).
For instance:
Marshal Park Defence Group --> Marshal Park D.G.
Marshal Brand Defence Group --> Marshal Brand D.G.
Field Marshal Montgomery --> F.M. Montgomery
Field Marshal Model --> F.M. Model
General Bradley --> Gen. Bradley
General Devers --> Gen. Devers
General Brandenberger --> Gen. Brandenberger
General Dietrich --> Gen. Dietrich
General Blaskowitz --> Gen. Blaskowitz
General Vietinghoff --> Gen. Vietinghoff
Western Task Force --> W. Task Force
I think that might be all, but I may have missed a few.
--Andy
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:05 am
by Qwert
AndyDufresne Posted
Qwert, if I could bring up one minor issue...the length of some of your names.
For the game board, they are fine to have, but for the Drop-Down-Menu (the XML), you'll have to abbreviate some of the longer names (and others to keep it all consistent).
For instance:
Quote:
Marshal Park Defence Group --> Marshal Park D.G.
Marshal Brand Defence Group --> Marshal Brand D.G.
Field Marshal Montgomery --> F.M. Montgomery
Field Marshal Model --> F.M. Model
General Bradley --> Gen. Bradley
General Devers --> Gen. Devers
General Brandenberger --> Gen. Brandenberger
General Dietrich --> Gen. Dietrich
General Blaskowitz --> Gen. Blaskowitz
General Vietinghoff --> Gen. Vietinghoff
Western Task Force --> W. Task Force
I think that might be all, but I may have missed a few.
--Andy
These is for XML?Or you want me to change in map?
Keredrex
I Agree You need to be able to attack britain since bombadments don't allow you to fort across... I think it is pointless unless bombardment leaves 1 neutral at the end... that could make it interesting but with that twist in game play then you might need to balance out with bonuses
unriggable
Britain has to be attackable though, it's idiotic to have it be impenetrable.
Britain is not Impenetrable,because you can attack all 3 terittory of britain(Bombardment)and insted of conquer you leave 1 neutral army,so if you want to hold britain you must build on all 3 terittory army.
KEYOGI Posted: 08 Aug 2007 23:39 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the bombardment of Britain option is an interesting twist, but I feel it will inevitably lead to a drawn out game. If it was in the middle of the map, I don't think it would have such a big impact on the game, but the fact is that Britain is on the edge of the map where people will have to go out of their way to attack it.
Anyway, see how discussion goes. You may need to look at other options though if the current Britain situation proves to be unpopular.
Like i say before,what is point have new XML option if people dont like these option, and for these map is very need these option(bombardment)
I hope that people will agree to give chance to these option,and if is not work in game i will change,we must leave to se how these option work,i dont ask to much.
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:49 am
by unriggable
qwert wrote:There is no point of these new XTML features if people dont want to put in map,and with these Belgium to Atack London,will be very wrong view on these map,because bombardment option is very good option for britain.
So the reason you want to make Britain unconquerable is because you want to make use of the new XML? I think you can have Britain be part of the map and still make use of the bombarding rules.
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:24 pm
by AndyDufresne
The names are Fine for the Game Board, but for the XML perhaps use the suggested changes (or some other short variation if you think it works better).
Then you can keep the drop down menu from being so long horizontally.
--Andy
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:41 pm
by Qwert
unriggable
qwert wrote:
There is no point of these new XTML features if people dont want to put in map,and with these Belgium to Atack London,will be very wrong view on these map,because bombardment option is very good option for britain.
So the reason you want to make Britain unconquerable is because you want to make use of the new XML? I think you can have Britain be part of the map and still make use of the bombarding rules.
Before i start work in these map,i have a problem how to put Britain on map,because german dont conquer britain,but when i se these new XML features-bombardment,i se solution,and these is only reason why i want to implement these new XML option.In these moment with 3 way bombardment Britain,i solve all gameplay problem(Assasin,Terminate and all others).
Britain can not be conquer,but also who hold Britain can not be winner in easy way,because all 3 terittory is open for game,and you must fortress all 3 terittory.
AndyDufresne
The names are Fine for the Game Board, but for the XML perhaps use the suggested changes (or some other short variation if you think it works better).
Then you can keep the drop down menu from being so long horizontally.
Ok,now im understand,i will put these short name in XML(when i start writing)
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:09 pm
by unriggable
But see qwert the map isnt supposed to be an accurate representation of the war. It's so we can see how the war could have turned out. And I'm 99% sure the Germans were going to take over Britain eventually.
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:08 am
by Ruben Cassar
I think the thick black borders separating the countries are a bit too thick. They look ugly especially in Switzerland. Can you make them half the thickness? I think it would look better visually.
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:10 am
by Ruben Cassar
unriggable wrote:But see qwert the map isnt supposed to be an accurate representation of the war. It's so we can see how the war could have turned out. And I'm 99% sure the Germans were going to take over Britain eventually.
Not in 1944. Germany could have conquered Britain in 1940 maybe, but in 1944 it could barely defend itself...it was all downhill for the Germans from around mid 1942.
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:55 am
by unriggable
Ruben Cassar wrote:unriggable wrote:But see qwert the map isnt supposed to be an accurate representation of the war. It's so we can see how the war could have turned out. And I'm 99% sure the Germans were going to take over Britain eventually.
Not in 1944. Germany could have conquered Britain in 1940 maybe, but in 1944 it could barely defend itself...it was all downhill for the Germans from around mid 1942.
But this is a reconstruction of the war, the western theater starting in say 1940. It's not based around 'this is what happened'. Otherwise world 2.1 would be seriously screwed.
Besides then we'd need the same thing done to stalingrad in eastern europe as it was never taken either.