Conquer Club

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V63Scd.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V63Lcd.png
XMl: http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/10/26/3214637/_Trafalgar_V63.xml

cairnswk, since you're discussing some details with iancanton, I was wondering if you want that I send these files to lackattack in any case.
Let me know

Nobodies

oooh no thanks tnb80
they still have to be adjusted further

The French ship (Aigle) is mislabeled Achille on the map, though the drop down label works OK

PLAYER57832 wrote:The French ship (Aigle) is mislabeled Achille on the map, though the drop down label works OK

Are u sure, afterall you're the first to mention it in 579 games.

a couple comments i've made in a beta game Game 9988599

just that the opaque dots on the small white ships make distinguishing colors a little tough, which is compounded with neuts or ?'s on them
white on white on white, i'm not a designer but that seems like its working against principles in terms of visibility and ease of use
the attack arrows are a bit too fine as far as i'm concerned too

the opposing team hasn't had any problem, but i think they may also just be taking my comments as though i'm complaining about how the game is proceeding, and not as constructive analysis of the map's playability.

love the map but yellow and neutral troops are hard to tell apart. cheers

Googilibear wrote:love the map but yellow and neutral troops are hard to tell apart. cheers

ah, the neutrals would be the markers with no boats under them i.e. just circles.

why is F1 the only intermediary that starts with 3 neutral when all the others are 1 ?

whakamole wrote:a couple comments i've made in a beta game Game 9988599

just that the opaque dots on the small white ships make distinguishing colors a little tough, which is compounded with neuts or ?'s on them
white on white on white, i'm not a designer but that seems like its working against principles in terms of visibility and ease of use
the attack arrows are a bit too fine as far as i'm concerned too

the opposing team hasn't had any problem, but i think they may also just be taking my comments as though i'm complaining about how the game is proceeding, and not as constructive analysis of the map's playability.

Ah, now that i'm back with the program...well at present you seem to be the only one having issue with army holder circles, yes i know it's not exactly perfect, but i have often found that white it si the best background to see army numbers against.
and then against perhaps it is the way your game is going...are you losing?

greenoaks wrote:why is F1 the only intermediary that starts with 3 neutral when all the others are 1 ?

greenoaks...there hasn't been an update in the last few weeks...so hang in there and that will be attended to

I am finally getting the hang of this map--slowly anyway

I feel there is way too much bonus--when you get a certain amount of territs in one of the Lines you get a huge advantage and the game is over


This is one vs one opinion as you would expect from me

Kind of like the map though

HighlanderAttack wrote:I am finally getting the hang of this map--slowly anyway
I feel there is way too much bonus--when you get a certain amount of territs in one of the Lines you get a huge advantage and the game is over
This is one vs one opinion as you would expect from me
Kind of like the map though

so are you saying the bonuses are too high?

isaiah40 wrote:He should be back the week of the 21st. I'll let him do this as, I can't go back and read the entire thread to get what has been said.

I'm wondering when ian will poke his head in to answer my above question about his bonus requirements????
Just wanting to get on with updating this map.

sorry for the delay, cairns.

cairnswk wrote:so you want
6 BW
6 FW
3 SW
8 BL
6 FL
7 SL
with flagship neutrals to remain as 3.
and neutral 2s on Bellerophon, Orion, San Augustin as the balancing vessels

+5 BW and +5 FW (with the rest as given above) is what i actually have in mind, since both look easier bonuses than +6 FL. however, we can by all means try +6 BW and +6 FW first if u think it more fitting: my main concern here is to equalise the attractiveness of BW against FW, with the FL comparison being secondary because there's less interplay between FL and either BW or FW.

ian.

iancanton wrote:sorry for the delay, cairns.

cairnswk wrote:so you want
6 BW
6 FW
3 SW
8 BL
6 FL
7 SL
with flagship neutrals to remain as 3.
and neutral 2s on Bellerophon, Orion, San Augustin as the balancing vessels

+5 BW and +5 FW (with the rest as given above) is what i actually have in mind, since both look easier bonuses than +6 FL. however, we can by all means try +6 BW and +6 FW first if u think it more fitting: my main concern here is to equalise the attractiveness of BW against FW, with the FL comparison being secondary because there's less interplay between FL and either BW or FW.

ian.

Thanks ian for that confirmation, i have left them as I have above. We'll see how it goes...right now there's not a lot of feedback coming...

Version 64.
Neutrals
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V64Scd_neutral.jpg[/bigimg]

Small
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V64Scd.jpg[/bigimg]

Large
[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V64Lcd.jpg[/bigimg]


Files
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 4Scd-1.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 4Lcd-1.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/10/26 ... ar_V64.xml

Sent to the turtle.

This map is fairly complicated to give back feedback on it so quickly, so far I find it to be a good map, but it is frustrating that there are so many bombardings and mutual bombardings. If makes it extremely frustrating to fort units around and set up kills in an esc card game. Im not sure if maybe 30-50% of the bombards could be upgraded to one way attacks, to allow for some kind of troop movements but this will be a rare map u will ever see the majors+ playing with esc cards on. Now I know most those dorks just stick to classic, but some of us like to venture out on the new, fun stuff, I havent played classic in over a year probably.

Im not sure if others who play 1v1 games have the same concerns about the bombarding on the map, but Id like to know. Maybe its no issue at all for other game styles.

JustCallMeStupid wrote:This map is fairly complicated to give back feedback on it so quickly, so far I find it to be a good map, but it is frustrating that there are so many bombardings and mutual bombardings. If makes it extremely frustrating to fort units around and set up kills in an esc card game. Im not sure if maybe 30-50% of the bombards could be upgraded to one way attacks, to allow for some kind of troop movements but this will be a rare map u will ever see the majors+ playing with esc cards on. Now I know most those dorks just stick to classic, but some of us like to venture out on the new, fun stuff, I havent played classic in over a year probably.

Im not sure if others who play 1v1 games have the same concerns about the bombarding on the map, but Id like to know. Maybe its no issue at all for other game styles.

Thanks for poping in with comments JCMS
I've found that games take a while to get through on this one.
and there hasn't been a lot of feedback i assume because of the complicatedness of the map kind of turns some off it.
but we'll hang in there and see if anyone else has the same sort of feeling about your concerns as outlined.

there is a typo in the xml

2011-12-05 21:05:01 - greenoaks assaulted (B) Bellerophone from (B) Belleisle and conquered it from canona85

that shouldn't have an E on the end

greenoaks wrote:there is a typo in the xml

2011-12-05 21:05:01 - greenoaks assaulted (B) Bellerophone from (B) Belleisle and conquered it from canona85

that shouldn't have an E on the end

thanks for that pickup Greenoaks.
i'll see what can be done to forward the file to lackattack.

Sent to the turtle!

And updated!

thenobodies80 wrote:And updated!

Thanks tnb80 and lackattack.

cairnswk wrote:

greenoaks wrote:there is a typo in the xml

2011-12-05 21:05:01 - greenoaks assaulted (B) Bellerophone from (B) Belleisle and conquered it from canona85

that shouldn't have an E on the end

thanks for that pickup Greenoaks.
i'll see what can be done to forward the file to lackattack.

i expect something in return

so answer me this - on your map cairns metro there is a region called cairnswk. is that a real region of cairns or did you slot yourself in there?

and as for the previous comment by someone re: bombarding. i have found no issue with it in the 1v1 games that i play.

also i have a Best At Beta tournament running on this map - pm the participants for some feedback.