Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[cairnswk]

This change on the winning condition makes the game much more interesting and gave some different strategic possibilities to the fight
Congratz on making it better

Yes, it is a vastly different map now

[EricPhail]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

[cairnswk]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

Eric, thanks for the pick-up...
I've altered it in the attached xml, but will not sent it forward until we see if there are other alterations that have to made.

[FreeFalling123]

Am I the only one who has played a 1v1 and noticed that La Lavia cannot attack San Juan Del Portugals bow? I think I have found a glitch but perhaps its just a picky border my eye is missing, on BOB it shows it connects as well and quite frankly I think it should? I'm just taking shit over in this Game 13586242. Honestly, all my praise goes to this map, awesome job cairns. From my perspective these extra neutral barriers are a little strong to surpass and make it kind of a joke game, but with superior strategy who cares more in the favor of my game play than a noobs!! I'd put this map on a level 8 of 10 for difficulty, maybe more of a 9 !!

[Vid_FISO]

This probably won't go down well but - horrid looking map with far too many words.

[EricPhail]

Freefalling just looked carefully at that border in BOB and by eye, for some reason it appears to have been coded as a one way: San Juan de Portugal assaults La Lavia but the reverse is apparently not true, (I would expect that this is a glitch and will be corrected with the next update).

Furthur observation suggests that there may be a glitch 1 way from Santa Ana S to Urca Donchella also (this one shouldn't be an assault just a mutual bombardment)

[Gilligan]

Freefalling just looked carefully at that border in BOB and by eye, for some reason it appears to have been coded as a one way: San Juan de Portugal assaults La Lavia but the reverse is apparently not true, (I would expect that this is a glitch and will be corrected with the next update).

Furthur observation suggests that there may be a glitch 1 way from Santa Ana S to Urca Donchella also (this one shouldn't be an assault just a mutual bombardment)

Good catch. These are both true.

(for you cairns)
--Urca Doncella needs to be changed from border to bombardment on Santa Ana Stern
--La Lavia needs to border San Juan Bow

[cairnswk]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

Eric, thanks for the pick-up...
I've altered it in the attached xml, but will not sent it forward until we see if there are other alterations that have to made.

^^ further corrections, thank-you guys.
adjustements in the attached xml.

[cairnswk]

This probably won't go down well but - horrid looking map with far too many words.

Everyone has an relevant opinion for themselves. this is fair comment

[cairnswk]

... Honestly, all my praise goes to this map, awesome job cairns. From my perspective these extra neutral barriers are a little strong to surpass and make it kind of a joke game, but with superior strategy who cares more in the favor of my game play than a noobs!! I'd put this map on a level 8 of 10 for difficulty, maybe more of a 9 !!

The extra neutral barriers are strong yes, but it was worthwhile trying to make the map applicable to "most" gameplays.
It's when someone has done the hard work on conquering them, that they come into their own with 1 or 2s.
Yes it is a difficult map.

[cairnswk]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

Eric, thanks for the pick-up...
I've altered it in the attached xml, but will not sent it forward until we see if there are other alterations that have to made.

^^ further corrections, thank-you guys.
adjustements in the attached xml.

Adjustments have been uploaded
Thanks BigWham

[cairnswk]

Just discovered...Hope and Nonpareil have NIL mutual bombardment....
adjusted in xml below.

[cairnswk]

Just discovered...Hope and Nonpareil have NIL mutual bombardment....
adjusted in xml below.

Changes uploaded, thanks BigWham

[EricPhail]

Few more dodgy borders:
Mutual Bombardment between San Juan de Portugal Bow and San Salvador (shouldn't exist it's out of range)
Santa Anna Stern Bombards San Buena Ventura (again it's out of range and should exist)
PTL(A) bombarding Ark Royal Stern (as above)
TF(A) bombarding Margate (again out of range)

PTL (A) - White Bear Should be Mutual Bombardment
Tiger - GL (A) should be mutual
York - Margate LB should be mutual

Achatae should bombard plymouth

That's all I can see at the moment (could still be others)

[cairnswk]

Few more dodgy borders:
Mutual Bombardment between San Juan de Portugal Bow and San Salvador (shouldn't exist it's out of range)
Santa Anna Stern Bombards San Buena Ventura (again it's out of range and should exist)
PTL(A) bombarding Ark Royal Stern (as above)
TF(A) bombarding Margate (again out of range)

PTL (A) - White Bear Should be Mutual Bombardment
Tiger - GL (A) should be mutual
York - Margate LB should be mutual

Achatae should bombard plymouth

That's all I can see at the moment (could still be others)

Eric, thanks for those...i'll fix in the file...

[jonofperu]

Question on one bonus: "Hold Monarch's Commander's Flag-Ship & corresponding Treasury +3"
Does that mean you have to hold both sides of the Flag Ship (also gaining +1)
AND the whole treasury all the way to +5? (I'm assuming that's the way it works)
Or does the +3 bonus kick in if you hold the Flag Ship & the first Treasury (+1) spot?
P.S. The one-way arrows are slightly off on the Spanish side - covering part of the T letters.

[Gilligan]

Question on one bonus: "Hold Monarch's Commander's Flag-Ship & corresponding Treasury +3"
Does that mean you have to hold both sides of the Flag Ship (also gaining +1)
AND the whole treasury all the way to +5? (I'm assuming that's the way it works)
Or does the +3 bonus kick in if you hold the Flag Ship & the first Treasury (+1) spot?
P.S. The one-way arrows are slightly off on the Spanish side - covering part of the T letters.

It means the whole treasury, yeah. The +3 refers to the bonus, not the +3 auto in the treasury. And yeah, you need both sides of the ship as well.

[jonofperu]

Another thing I just noticed. I saw a player trying out this map say in chat that he tried to take a territ from another player to get him under 12 before his first turn. Seeing there are no other indications (that I can see) 12 territs should give +4 deploy. But the map says "Maximum Starting Regions: 9" and since you actually start with 12 and only get +3 deploy, does that mean the Monarch Commander spots don't count? Seems a bit confusing, but I'd hate to add more text to the map.

[Gilligan]

Another thing I just noticed. I saw a player trying out this map say in chat that he tried to take a territ from another player to get him under 12 before his first turn. Seeing there are no other indications (that I can see) 12 territs should give +4 deploy. But the map says "Maximum Starting Regions: 9" and since you actually start with 12 and only get +3 deploy, does that mean the Monarch Commander spots don't count? Seems a bit confusing, but I'd hate to add more text to the map.

This is a good point. Perhaps it's supposed to read "maximum starting troops: 9"?

For the most part, regions are divided by 8.

<reinforcements>
<reinforcement>
<lower>1</lower>
<upper>48</upper>
<divisor>8</divisor>
</reinforcement>
</reinforcements>

What I don't understand, though, is why in Game 13644393 6 for 125...maybe cairns can clear this up.

But, going back to your point, with 12 regions he'll get only 3.

[jonofperu]

Yeah, I've seen other examples of odd base deploy numbers on this map like the one you mention. It's a mystery. With nothing specified my understanding is that base deploy should be 1 per 3 minimum 3.

[cairnswk]

good work on the neutrals! ....

the maximum starting positions is 3 (3 positions of 3 regions each); the maximum starting regions is 9.
...
ian.

Another thing I just noticed. I saw a player trying out this map say in chat that he tried to take a territ from another player to get him under 12 before his first turn. Seeing there are no other indications (that I can see) 12 territs should give +4 deploy. But the map says "Maximum Starting Regions: 9" and since you actually start with 12 and only get +3 deploy, does that mean the Monarch Commander spots don't count? Seems a bit confusing, but I'd hate to add more text to the map.

This is a good point. Perhaps it's supposed to read "maximum starting troops: 9"?

Gilligan, above is part of a conversation with ian where it was suggested how to word this.



Let's examine the start of Game 13644393

2013-11-25 17:54:36 - i_Cypher got bonus of 1 troops added to Don Diego Medrano M1
2013-11-25 17:54:36 - i_Cypher got bonus of 1 troops added to Hugo de Moncada M1
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher got bonus of 1 troops added to Sir Martin Frobisher M1
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher got bonus of 1 troops added to Sir John Hawkins M1
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher got bonus of 1 troops added to Ld Henry Seymour M1
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher got bonus of 1 troops added to Sir William Winter M1

i_Cypher appears to have recevied 6 starting groups, and should not have...because if there are 12 groups, then the way the drop engine should have worked is 12/3=4...so i_Cypher should have only got 4 start groups not 6.

The same seems to have occured for his opponent receiving 6 start groups.

I know from exmaination of 3 player games that the game engine is allocating 4 start groups in these games, so that appears correct.

Question: given that there is no <positions max="4"> in the xml, then is the game engine working correctly...has it been adjusted from 8 player to 12 player?

For action: to overcome this shortfall insert <positions max="4"> into the xml.

2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 1 troops for holding SS Bazana
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 1 troops for holding SS Sáo Luis
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 1 troops for holding Penzance LB
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 1 troops for holding Brighton LB
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 1 troops for holding London LB
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 1 troops for holding Margate LB
2013-11-25 17:54:37 - i_Cypher received 3 troops for 24 regions

Following on...

... regions are divided by 8.
<reinforcements>
<reinforcement>
<lower>1</lower>
<upper>48</upper>
<divisor>8</divisor>
</reinforcement>
</reinforcements>

in the above, i_Cypher recevied +1 auto drop on each of 6 Monarchs and reinforcement of +1 for supply ships and land bases (6 in total)...so that appears to work corrcetly.

i_Cypher at that point had 24 territories (6x4 start positions) which, if working according to the reinforcement rules (1=lower and 48=upper), would appear correct...(24/8 divisor =3)...3 troops for 24 regions as reinformcements.

2013-11-25 17:55:10 - i_Cypher deployed 7 troops on Vanguard Bow
2013-11-25 17:55:13 - i_Cypher deployed 2 troops on Sir William Winter M1

i_Cypher thus had a total of 9 troops to deploy (but this appears to have had nothing to do with what that wording stated on the map).

What I don't understand, though, is why in Game 13644393 6 for 125...maybe cairns can clear this up.

Same as above applies here. The upper limit is 48...anything above that (49-125) appears to be discarded, so the max reinforcements is 6 (48/8=6)

This was done, so that no player in a 1v1 game particularly at start would have too many troops to overwhelm an opponent so easily with a reinfrocement drop.

So given that..."positions max="4" " needs implementing, this will bring the current start reinforcements of 9 down to...

SSs and LBs > 4
+
start territories (16/8) 2
= 6

Do players want this?
or
Do players want to leave the current 1v1 split at 6 groups each? (meaning the current start drop of 9 remains)

If this analysis is correct above...then i'd be happy to re-word the "Starting Regions..." to "Max. Start Reinforcements 1v1: 6 or 9"

[jonofperu]

"Hugo de Moncado" shows up in spoils as "Hugo de Moncada"
Not sure which is right, although I do know people with the last name Moncada.

[jonofperu]

Santa Cruz incorrect mutual bombardment with Santa Ana Stern (as well as San Buenaventura as previously pointed out)

[tec805]

Would it be possible to make the text a little sharper? Hurts my eyes reading soft small fonts (I'm running 2560x1600, so everything is a little small, but I don't have eye-strain issues with any other maps I play).