Moderator: Cartographers
Industrial Helix wrote:I feel like this one belongs over here. Glad to see someone is tryingto translate naval warfare into a CC map. I'll give it a more thorough look tonight.
Industrial Helix wrote:I feel like this one belongs over here. Glad to see someone is tryingto translate naval warfare into a CC map. I'll give it a more thorough look tonight.
MrBenn wrote:Hi cairns, you've made a great start here - reminds me of how I first felt with your early Das Schloss drafts!
...
Please could you put a tiny lighthouse at Beachy Head (you have an empty space at F22 to do so) - just google Beach Head lighthouse to see what it looks like... that would make me very happy
It would be beneficial if there were some small numerals along the bottom edge of the map to correspond to the columns. I don;t think you need to do each one, but perhaps every 5 would be OK.. just to make it easier to find the corresponding grid reference.
pamoa wrote:MrBenn wrote:The treasury starts/bonuses.... I'm not too sure how the "need/earn" bit relates to a bonus? As for the supply ships/land bases - would it be easier to make each treasury correspnd to a command vessel - so P12 could link to Duque Medina Sedonia, and so on.
yes I feel else it would be better pile up and wait for someone stupid enough to spend his armies attacking neutral territories and then wipe him out
second very important point you should be able to kill those starting territories else it is an unendable map like Das Schloss was initially
btw if you go that way of unique starting position also look at King's court they also had a hell of gameplay adjustment to do
go cairns go
DiM wrote:i see you have supply ships even on land. so maybe rename those terits to supply centres?
also i have no idea where ft tilbury is. i mean if i look at the legend i see it is a 4square terit but when i look at the actual map i see the name but no terits are highlighted
cairnswk wrote:pamoa wrote:MrBenn wrote:The treasury starts/bonuses.... I'm not too sure how the "need/earn" bit relates to a bonus? As for the supply ships/land bases - would it be easier to make each treasury correspnd to a command vessel - so P12 could link to Duque Medina Sedonia, and so on.
yes I feel else it would be better pile up and wait for someone stupid enough to spend his armies attacking neutral territories and then wipe him out
second very important point you should be able to kill those starting territories else it is an unendable map like Das Schloss was initially
btw if you go that way of unique starting position also look at King's court they also had a hell of gameplay adjustment to do
go cairns go
Bugger, OK, i get the idea now with what MrBenn is saying about assualting to an individual vessel from the treasury. thanks pamoa for pointing that out to me.
as for killing the treasury....
1. perhaps opposing treasuries could be assaulted by any commander positions
2. t'would be better if those treasury positions were killer neutrals after a number of turns, although i don't know if that capability is in the current xml.
Victor Sullivan wrote:...
Maybe losing conditions would work here? If you had players start out with more than just the treasury territories, you could set the non-treasury territories as losing conditions (meaning you must hold at least one non-treasury territory or you're eliminated). That way, you need not have something assault the treasury if you decide you don't want anything to.
Sadly, point 2 as you described is not possible with the current XML
Along with this, are players able to assault sideways/east-west in the treasuries? I would think not, but I figured I'd ask.
Thirdly, make sure your squares are at least 20 pixels high, as the 88s are around 10 pixels high, and I'll likely have to alternate the coordinates, as you have for the S's and whatnot.
Fourthly, I don't understand which squares are single ships.
cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:...
Maybe losing conditions would work here? If you had players start out with more than just the treasury territories, you could set the non-treasury territories as losing conditions (meaning you must hold at least one non-treasury territory or you're eliminated). That way, you need not have something assault the treasury if you decide you don't want anything to.
I knew i needed a good person on the job.
That's a great idea Sully, for not assaulting the treasury, but because at present i have everyone starting on the treasury, doesn't that mean the losing condition comes into play automatically right at the very start of the game when no-one has a non-treasury territory anyway.
cairnswk wrote:Fourthly, I don't understand which squares are single ships.
Top left of legend...although i do need to possibly change that script....perhaps Single Ships (on top to indicate a single square) with Hold 9 for + 2 (underneath)
Victor Sullivan wrote:cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:...
Maybe losing conditions would work here? If you had players start out with more than just the treasury territories, you could set the non-treasury territories as losing conditions (meaning you must hold at least one non-treasury territory or you're eliminated). That way, you need not have something assault the treasury if you decide you don't want anything to.
I knew i needed a good person on the job.
That's a great idea Sully, for not assaulting the treasury, but because at present i have everyone starting on the treasury, doesn't that mean the losing condition comes into play automatically right at the very start of the game when no-one has a non-treasury territory anyway.
I'm afraid you must have each person start out with at least one non-treasury territory if you want to go this route. Otherwise, players will be eliminated right off the bat!...or so I've understood the XML to work. Perhaps a carto could confirm this for me.
cairnswk wrote:Fourthly, I don't understand which squares are single ships.
Top left of legend...although i do need to possibly change that script....perhaps Single Ships (on top to indicate a single square) with Hold 9 for + 2 (underneath)
Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?
In addition, I think the map needs to be much more clear as to which squares are sea territories, and which ones are land. As it stands, you only have the Spanish/English distinction (which, by the way, I'd suggest choosing less similar-looking colors for the white and cream - especially considering it seems you've mixed them up in the legend!).
Next, I'm having difficulty determining what/where Ft. Tilbury is. I see it in the legend as a 2 by 2 block, and I see the "Ft. Tilbury" label on the map, but I see no boundaries or 2 by 2 block that it might be referring to.
Plus, I think the battle bonus areas are going to be rather difficult to conquer and hold... I suggest you increase the bonus of each by +2 or +3.
Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.
MrBenn wrote:... As for the supply ships/land bases - would it be easier to make each treasury correspnd to a command vessel - so P12 could link to Duque Medina Sedonia, and so on...
pamoa wrote:suggestion
what if you start with the first treasury square and the stern of the corresponding command ship
along with the you must have one man on the field or you're dead condition as sullivan suggested
cairnswk wrote:OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?
Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?
cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?
I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?
Victor Sullivan wrote:Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.
Victor Sullivan wrote:cairnswk wrote:OK, i thought that might be what would happen...where do you think that territory should be?
Next to a supply ship or land base, or out in the middle of the mire?
I'll have to think on it, but it may not be a bad idea to code the supply ships as starting positions, since they're pretty well spread out.
Good.cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Yes, that would be much better, thanks. Also, can I safely assume you need 9 of 1 kind of ship for the bonus?
I'll add any to that, but will that be too many overrides to code?
Not at all
Victor Sullivan wrote:Last, I'm still not sure what you mean by Earn/Need in the treasury sections.
Ah!...you need 25 armies on that corresponding row to get those 5 bonus points at the top row.
The bottom row you need 5 to earn +1
I guess that needs to go into the wording somehow.
Are you saying you need the designated number of troops on the specified square to get the bonus? Because I'm afraid that's not possible... You/I could adjust the neutral count on each to simulate that effect.
-Sully
Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?
-Sully
cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, but if you use auto-deploys instead of deployable bonuses, where can they be fortified to?
-Sully
They can be used to attack upwards...."Players can move one-way up only to earn bonuses"
or outwards...."they can assault to any side's Supply ships & Land Bases"
and since they can assault they must border so therefore they can be used to fort outwardly and upwards. Yes. But the fort happens at the end of the turn, not the beginning.
This brings in the concept that the navy must have a treasury in order to assist build it up.
pamoa wrote:can you put colour digits on all the starting territories only so we get a clearer picture of the gameplay
Users browsing this forum: No registered users