Page 3 of 23

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:12 pm
by owenshooter
i like it, cool idea... is sacajwea going to be her own bonus territory?-0

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:13 pm
by gimil
Coleman wrote:I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.

I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.

Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.

We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. :? Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.

I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.

EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.


I rather keep it even. Give me a number of neutrals and ill rework the terrs so that there is a minimum number of neutrals between any two homelands

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:14 pm
by Lone.prophet
uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:15 pm
by gimil
Lone.prophet wrote:uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear


I plan on redoing these at some point since i personally dont like there blandness atm :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:35 pm
by yeti_c
Loving this - not quite sure about the brown - but it might grow on me!!!

C.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:41 pm
by Chirondom
In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:45 pm
by gimil
Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?


Not likely, with a high number of neutrals to go through. There a few placement unbalanced ive going to fix in the next update.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:46 pm
by Coleman
Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:13 pm
by tim02
gimil wrote:
Coleman wrote:First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.


there was lots of kissing . . .

(im not gay either, although coleman was rather tender)


:shock:

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:49 pm
by Coleman
Still not gay, Version 6

Image

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:58 pm
by gimil
Coleman wrote:Still not gay


No one said you where . . .

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:58 pm
by oaktown
As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:01 pm
by Coleman
oaktown wrote:As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(
Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?

Back to the cut off, not sure what to do there, gimil level response required again.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:06 pm
by gimil
oaktown wrote:there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.


This is an issue ill look into.

oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(


This is a concern, are you confused with all of them oaktown? Or is there jsut paticular one that confuse you?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:28 pm
by Chirondom
Coleman wrote:
Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).
Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:30 pm
by gimil
Chirondom wrote:
Coleman wrote:
Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).
Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?


nope, i however havent incuded this in legends as of yet

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:06 pm
by oaktown
Coleman wrote:
oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(
Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?

My bad, I didn't even put them together. I see there's no Spanish watermark, but that's the easiest color to distinguish.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:09 pm
by gimil
oaktown wrote:
Coleman wrote:
oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(
Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?

My bad, I didn't even put them together. I see there's no Spanish watermark, but that's the easiest color to distinguish.


thats becasue theres no room to wwatermark spain :P

But id like to know which colors concern you visually (without taking watermarks into consideration)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:34 pm
by yeti_c
Hmmm - "Landing Zone" is a bit tricky to work out - perhaps some symbols in the territories might work better?

Also "home town" I dislike too - again perhaps some symbols? Like a temple, a teepee etc?

C.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:47 pm
by gimil
yeti_c wrote:Hmmm - "Landing Zone" is a bit tricky to work out - perhaps some symbols in the territories might work better?

Also "home town" I dislike too - again perhaps some symbols? Like a temple, a teepee etc?

C.


Home land not home town lol

but symbol might work, under the assumption that i get a hold of/draw from scratch desent ones.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:49 pm
by Kaplowitz
6 pages in one day? wow!

Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:53 pm
by gimil
Kaplowitz wrote:6 pages in one day? wow!

Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.


Legends is far from finalised :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:57 pm
by lanyards
The text inside the box with Europe that says "The Home Land's of Europe", isn't that incorrect puncuation? Shouldn't it say "The Homelands of Europe"? I don't see why the ' is need in homelands, and I think homelands is one word.

Also, I don't like the equador line too much. It sorta divides the lower part of the map, but it doesn't really matter because it is real faint.

I like the idea, and it seems this map will move through the stages quickly.

--lanyards

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:58 pm
by gimil
lanyards wrote:The text inside the box with Europe that says "The Home Land's of Europe", isn't that incorrect puncuation? Shouldn't it say "The Homelands of Europe"? I don't see why the ' is need in homelands, and I think homelands is one word.

Also, I don't like the equador line too much. It sorta divides the lower part of the map, but it doesn't really matter because it is real faint.

I like the idea, and it seems this map will move through the stages quickly.

--lanyards


Acctuall the equator line feels a little intrusive, ill dull it some more :)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:59 pm
by Coleman
Kaplowitz wrote:6 pages in one day? wow!

Its a pretty cool concept, i like how you are putting these conquest gameplay ideas into actual history. One thing i see is, the legend is hard to read.
Well, actual history is a stretch as I'm sure Unit_2 or qwert would be quick to point out but thank you.