Conquer Club

some of our number are germans though,....

Wisse wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then

... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.

i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus

well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.

so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.

Option 2 really gives me a head ache just to look at it. I prefer option 3 over anything.

option 3 is the most, lets say, down to earth look. option 3 will be better for design apperence. it look better with the ships pointed down and the beach upwards.

great job with the legend

Well if we assumed everyone who voted for 1 would vote for 3 if 1 wasn't an option then we have a tie right now. I can't believe it looks like what I want is going to lose again, after the flagets won in Great Lakes I'm not sure how much more I can take.

Coleman wrote:Well if we assumed everyone who voted for 1 would vote for 3 if 1 wasn't an option then we have a tie right now. I can't believe it looks like what I want is going to lose again, after the flagets won in Great Lakes I'm not sure how much more I can take.

don't worry, I never heed the polls anyway (as in siege), ... it just gives the foundry members something extra to click on.

i cant believe number 2 is winning

hulmey wrote:i cant believe number 2 is winning

i know, when i look at number too I just imagine those germans clutching to the bunkers for deal life, fearing they might fall out the bottom and off the map.

Well i must say that if you go historical corect no2, then i must say that if Germans have 3 division only in omaha beaches, then nobody, or very small number of ally soldier will survive in these beaches, and they have no chance to go in land.

qwert wrote:Well i must say that if you go historical corect no2, then i must say that if Germans have 3 division only in omaha beaches, then nobody, or very small number of ally soldier will survive in these beaches, and they have no chance to go in land.

all the territories are the same in the 3 maps, one is just upside down. but if the germans have all the divions, then yeah, it will be impossible to take the beach.

#2

mibi wrote:

Wisse wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then

... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.

i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus

well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.

so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.

well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum
"i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"

but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not

Wisse wrote:

mibi wrote:

Wisse wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then

... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.

i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus

well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.

so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.

well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum
"i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"

but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not

maybe they will think they get a +4 for the little ships too.. and so a +40 for all 'ships'!

mibi wrote:

Wisse wrote:

mibi wrote:

Wisse wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then

... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.

i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus

well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.

so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.

well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum
"i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"

but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not

maybe they will think they get a +4 for the little ships too.. and so a +40 for all 'ships'!

whahahahahhaaha

i think you need to look at the legend its as confusing as they come...Not one of your strong points mibi

mibi wrote:Option 2 really gives me a head ache just to look at it. I prefer option 3 over anything.

you know why? becouse of some wrong shades (they are the wrong way

for me, the biggest concern is west/east. since you use names like west/east in territory names, I think the west should be on the left side and the east on the right side. Since there are no North/South names, I don't care which way is north or south.

Or, scrap the east/west names for the divisions and the flyovers and put something else. then you don't have to worry so much about all of this.

It should be about easing confusion while making sure it looks good at the same time.

edbeard wrote:for me, the biggest concern is west/east. since you use names like west/east in territory names, I think the west should be on the left side and the east on the right side. Since there are no North/South names, I don't care which way is north or south.

Or, scrap the east/west names for the divisions and the flyovers and put something else. then you don't have to worry so much about all of this.

It should be about easing confusion while making sure it looks good at the same time.

yeah im taking suggestions for names instead of east, west. I could give the german divisions names like 352nd Infantry Division , 916th Grenadier Regiment. I dunno about the fly overs tho.

mibi wrote:

Wisse wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then

... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.

i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus

well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.

so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.

When I first looked at the map I didn't realize the little ships where a part of the ship continent. I was going to comment about the bonuses for ships being too high since they had so few countries.

Anyway, I think a simple solution would be to say "+7 for each group of ships" instead of "+7 for each ship". After all, there really are multiple ships for each bonus.

Am I the only one that sees it is +4 per ship and +7 additional for all 3? Why is everyone saying +7 per each ship?

Also I thought it was obvious that there are 3 ships and the little boats are a part of the ship by the way each ship is labeled... I guess not.

Coleman wrote:Am I the only one that sees it is +4 per ship and +7 additional for all 3? Why is everyone saying +7 per each ship?

Also I thought it was obvious that there are 3 ships and the little boats are a part of the ship by the way each ship is labeled... I guess not.

you'd think those dashed lines and sequential numbers would clue people in... perhaps not tho...

since your able to shoot in any direction why not introduce an AA gun somewhere in the central division which can attack all 4 corners of the map?

ok, i voted 2 mainly because north is up, i can agree that #3 is visually better

so i guess you can count my vote as a number three instead

great work with the map, the graphics are great as many before me have said

gimil wrote:since your able to shoot in any direction why not introduce an AA gun somewhere in the central division which can attack all 4 corners of the map?

like the idea

glee wrote:ok, i voted 2 mainly because north is up, i can agree that #3 is visually better

so i guess you can count my vote as a number three instead

great work with the map, the graphics are great as many before me have said

I think there is a lot of this happening, it might have been better to just put the numbers in the poll so people would have to look at the pictures.