nolefan5311 wrote:So cairns, how do you feel about putting a last call out there for GP input so we can get this stamped and moved up?
Done!iancanton wrote:let santa marta have n2 to prevent ss bazana from being bombarded so easily by doncella.
Fixed!there's a shield on cygnet, but v2 is on frida.
Fixed!the border between tf(a) and tf(b) needs to be made clearer. it's very faint.
Thank-you for the marvellous job you've done on this ian.i've no more gameplay issues.
Done.there's no need, in the upper treasury legend, to say that earnings are cumulative. auto-deploys, by their nature, cannot be non-cumulative. u're better off using that space to say that earnings are auto-deploy, since this fact is hidden away at the bottom.
Done!in the lower treasury legend, each player can move one-way outward (not up) to earn additional auto-deploy bonuses or can assault from any treasury region to same player's command vessel is clearer than what u have. additional because every monarch starts with +1 auto-deploy, a fact which isn't explicitly stated elsewhere.
Done!lose the part in the legend about assaults being 1 in any direction. no map needs to say this, since it's in the rules.
the conditional border text might read a player may use a command vessel region to assault any commander's monarch region, but only if one region of that commander's command vessel is held. i presume that a command vessel can assault any commander's monarch region, including his own.
no hurry your doing greatcairnswk wrote:pamoa...my monitor has gone down and am using a back-up CTX old version...so as soon as i get my new monitor i'll have a look at those things above.
iancanton wrote:everyone's out of gameplay comments, so it's time for this!
Nola_Lifer wrote:Been a month, whats the word
nolefan5311 wrote:cairns, since an update hasn't been posted since Aug 19 and you indicate it could be a couple more months, I'm going to go ahead and move it to the Recycling Box. I hate to see it stall with the amount of progress you've made on it, and I was really looking forward to writing the xml, because I think this could truly be an instant classic.
cairnswk wrote:nolefan5311 wrote:cairns, since an update hasn't been posted since Aug 19 and you indicate it could be a couple more months, I'm going to go ahead and move it to the Recycling Box. I hate to see it stall with the amount of progress you've made on it, and I was really looking forward to writing the xml, because I think this could truly be an instant classic.
I think that's a bit rude moving it or any other map to recycling bin at this point simply because it is time to do it.
The last few months we've had no end of striking and lack being away so there has been no movement in the foundry at all. i am still waiting for maps xml to be checked over and that's been a patient end for some time now.
I would be very peed off is this happens even though it is foundry policy, it was never part of foundry policy to go on strike over someone's politicial issues nor have down time simply because the boss decided to do something and not bother keep the foundry going.
Up until the end of the strike i managed to keep things going with my maps, even though everyone else decided to down tools.
Now because i am busy with RL stuff, i get penalised by having the maps moved again to recycling bin.
I think you're going to have to strike some balance here.
pamoa wrote:as I love nitpicking I noticed some labelling hesitations
3rd bonus label should be "Command Vessel" instead of "Command Ship"
Treasury movement legend says twice "to same player's Command Vessel"
for me there is a contradiction or better to say a duplicate when you explain
in Command Vessels legend "Bow and Stern can assault ... any Commander's Monarch"
and in Conditional Borders "Any Monarch can be assaulted only if holding one region of the same Monarch's Command Vessel"
what I suggest is a fusion
you don't need to say it is a conditional border if your legend explains clearly the conditions
and I would avoid the term region speaking of a part of a Vessel
so here is my proposition
"Bow and Stern can assault each other & adjacent ships"
"Bow or Stern can assault any Monarch's Commander only if holding Bow or Stern of the same Monarch's Commander
and also for the beauty of the text
instead of Losing Condition I would say
"Commander's deposition : any Player failing to hold one non-Treasury region and one Treasury region or Monarch's Commander, will be removed from the game"
Nola_Lifer wrote:Do what you need to do cairns! Just wondering what was up. Not like things are moving at the end here anyways.
isaiah40 wrote:I cannot see any glaring problem graphically with this one, but are you happy with it cairns??
isaiah40 wrote:Ok, So if you don't mind I'll move it into the recycling box until then.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users