Conquer Club

Does this still have the always neutral territories?

game play is asowme!!

The Bismarks says 4 but gives 6 is this a bug?

Nc_Hunt3r wrote:The Bismarks says 4 but gives 6 is this a bug?

yes Nc_Hunt3r...you got lucky this round....a fix has been sent to lackattack. Thanks for your post.

Coleman wrote:Does this still have the always neutral territories?

yes coleman...those neutrals are fixed...for now!

dominationnation wrote:game play is asowme!!

WOW dominationnation...that's excellent feedback so soon.

Nice map, and I checked the XML. No mistakes I found, so the map can really be played as it should be now.

cairnswk wrote:

Nc_Hunt3r wrote:The Bismarks says 4 but gives 6 is this a bug?

yes Nc_Hunt3r...you got lucky this round....a fix has been sent to lackattack. Thanks for your post.

lol I didnt get lucky I was on the bad end of someone with bismarcks hehe. Great map though looks good.. Thanks for your hard work

Forza AZ wrote:Nice map, and I checked the XML. No mistakes I found, so the map can really be played as it should be now.

Thanks Forza AZ. Appreciate you checking.

Nc_Hunt3r wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Nc_Hunt3r wrote:The Bismarks says 4 but gives 6 is this a bug?

yes Nc_Hunt3r...you got lucky this round....a fix has been sent to lackattack. Thanks for your post.

lol I didnt get lucky I was on the bad end of someone with bismarcks hehe. Great map though looks good.. Thanks for your hard work

Oh I'm sorry Mmmmm I don't know....maybe it'll all come out in the wash! you know Karma!

I like the map, but having all the neutrals in the middle could give someone a distinct advantage. Was it a fluke that our game has neutrals in just the middle band of territories? (548042) If there's going to be neutrals, they should be mixed up.

Night Strike wrote:I like the map, but having all the neutrals in the middle could give someone a distinct advantage. Was it a fluke that our game has neutrals in just the middle band of territories? (548042) If there's going to be neutrals, they should be mixed up.

Thanks Night Strike for your comments...those neutrals in the middle are deliberate...this whole concept is meant to represent the attack from the north by the Japanese and the holding of the south by the Allies...the neutrals in the middle are territories that were conquered by both side in order to destroy the Japanese advance on Australia. Regardless of this fact, if you play the map like a normal map, there are definite chalenges in there to overcome, and eveyone can still enjoy it.

so its normal in a 4 player game for each player to have 12 countries and neutral to start with 18?

nmhunate wrote:so its normal in a 4 player game for each player to have 12 countries and neutral to start with 18?

Yes, that correct nmhunate!

V32 Small
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av032S.jpg



V32 Large
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av032L.jpg

I started a battle for Australia game, you are more then welcome to join in

good work cairnswk, it's a nice map. a couple of things though..

birdam cames up as birdim in the xml.

the other thing is that the neutrals make this map very difficult to play as a 2 player game. i know you designed it for more than that, but i didn't realise until i started a game. and i'm losing i'll know for the future though!

t.e.c wrote:good work cairnswk, it's a nice map. a couple of things though..

birdam cames up as birdim in the xml.

the other thing is that the neutrals make this map very difficult to play as a 2 player game. i know you designed it for more than that, but i didn't realise until i started a game. and i'm losing i'll know for the future though!

t.e.c. sorry to hear you losing...i have had same reports from others for 2 player game...thanks for this pickup....its a good one.


Andy and Lackattack

There is an error on Birdam.....should be Birdum.
So below is both large and small image fixes and link to corrected xml.

Small map

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av033S.jpg



Large

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av033L.jpg



Corrected XML
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l7b0jb

Thanks.

Nvm I didn't read the previous post.

<Subject>: Changing the name of the map Battle for Australia

* Change the name of the map to Operation Watchtower or the Guandalcanal Campaign


<Body>:

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation. Would look better and sound better than Battle for Australia. Also battle for Australia only refers to Australia when the map actually focuses on Guinea.

misher wrote:<Subject>: Changing the name of the map Battle for Australia

* Change the name of the map to Operation Watchtower or the Guandalcanal Campaign


<Body>:

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation. Would look better and sound better than Battle for Australia. Also battle for Australia only refers to Australia when the map actually focuses on Guinea.

Misher...thanks for your comments.
You will notice on the map that this area also concetrates on Darwin and Eastern Australia.
During WWII, these areas were attacked by the Japanese as well as Papua, the Solomons, The Bismarks, Northern Areas of New Guinea, and the islands of the East Indies. Guadalcalan and Operation Watchtower, were NOT the only battles fought in this area, as the Battle of the Coral Sea was fought from Australia and Allied Cariiers, in fact Mareeba was one of the main airbases for the Allied airattacks fighting these battles in conjunction with land troops.
Indeed, many Australia and Allied troops lost lives in many battles in these areas to defend Australia from the perceived takeover by the Japanese. I think the the scope of this map is justifiably named the Battle For Australia For that very reason. I don't mean to be offensive but calling the map Guadalcanal or similar would be in my view absurd.
I you wish please do up a map of the Solomons and have an Opration Watchtower map...there is nothing to stop you.! This map will remain however as the Battle for Australia.
Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Australia in Wikipedia if you have any further doubts.

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation.

Cairns - I love the map but think misher is has a good point- the name is misleading. "Battle for Papua" would be more appropriate or "Hard Work up North" or something.
I know there was a bit of hysteria at the time about the Japanese invading Oz but they never had planned for it and wouldn't have had the ability anyway. They planned on isolating and neutralizing the continent but only got around to a few bombing raids.
Papua and the coral sea was where the pointy end came to rest and in the words of the Hoodoo Gurus "Tojo never made it to Darwin". But - in the end - you have done the hard work and produced a great map so what you feel happy with.

gerard wrote:

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation.

Cairns - I love the map but think misher is has a good point- the name is misleading. "Battle for Papua" would be more appropriate or "Hard Work up North" or something.
I know there was a bit of hysteria at the time about the Japanese invading Oz but they never had planned for it and wouldn't have had the ability anyway. They planned on isolating and neutralizing the continent but only got around to a few bombing raids.
Papua and the coral sea was where the pointy end came to rest and in the words of the Hoodoo Gurus "Tojo never made it to Darwin". But - in the end - you have done the hard work and produced a great map so what you feel happy with.

Thanks Gerard for your comments. I am happy with the map and the title. Had we not stopped them at Kokada and Milne Bay, then I would hate to think what might have been. I still believe regardless of what historians say that the Japanese had every intention of invading Australia for its resources.

Hm, as we seem to receive a number of bug reports regarding the large neutral deployment, would it be possible to perhaps add an asterisk somewhere on the map that could explain there will be a large neutral deployment? Perhaps this is a precedent we'll have to set with future maps that use the neutral deployments (large numbers at least).

As I am going to be of town for the next week, I'd speak with either Keyogi or Lack, or wait til I get back.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, as we seem to receive a number of bug reports regarding the large neutral deployment, would it be possible to perhaps add an asterisk somewhere on the map that could explain there will be a large neutral deployment? Perhaps this is a precedent we'll have to set with future maps that use the neutral deployments (large numbers at least).

As I am going to be of town for the next week, I'd speak with either Keyogi or Lack, or wait til I get back.


--Andy

Sure Andy.
Please advise if this is suitable below....