Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[DoomYoshi]

Why are there neutral 2s in the southern regions?

[cairnswk]

Why are there neutral 2s in the southern regions?

Ah Doom....this is the balancing aspect of the gamplay...to make it a little harder to conquer these terts as an attack line to opponents command vessels
iancanton has done superb work in this regard

Version 26 with neutrals

[DoomYoshi]

The 2 on La Manuela does not achieve this.
The other ones do make sense, I will go back and look at his reasons for that.

EDIT:So it slows yellow from taking Paxat San Estobel as easily, but it doesn't stop teal from taking Santa Ana so easily.

Triumph and Revenge have no such block between them.

I realize Gameplay is closed, I just want to look at these last things.

Iancanton, do you have a comment?

[cairnswk]

The 2 on La Manuela does not achieve this.
The other ones do make sense, I will go back and look at his reasons for that.

EDIT:So it slows yellow from taking Paxat San Estobel as easily, but it doesn't stop teal from taking Santa Ana so easily.

Triumph and Revenge have no such block between them.

I realize Gameplay is closed, I just want to look at these last things.

Iancanton, do you have a comment?

Doom...gameplay is not really closed until quench
I have added some neutrals and sea impassables between smoe more vessels that puts at least 3 in the path of any opponent from capturing CVs.

[cairnswk]

...
How's this going cairns?

Can you give it going over isaiah40 please, i'd like to get on with the large.

[isaiah40]

...
How's this going cairns?

Can you give it going over isaiah40 please, i'd like to get on with the large.

Doing that now as I type this!

[cairnswk]

I'd like to see some graphic input on this one from the blue boys...I've got the XML almost done, except for the small coordinates, and think once we get this graphically stamped we can push it through FF pretty quickly.

nolefan5311, i have asked for isaiah40's input. as soon as that is done i will produce the large.
sorry for the re-arrangment of the treasury and general enlargement, but i beleive it is much better now with a little more eyespace in the english vessel area.

[isaiah40]

A few things, small, but needed for extra clarity.

1. In the top legend: Can you increase the text spacing on (PTL)?
2. Battle of Gravelines: The outline of the area can be made a tad smaller, or, moved so that the tail on the "G" isn't covered.
3. The story, the text looks blurry. It looks like you have a shadow on it like the title.
4. Does TF(A) and TF(B) connect? If so then I suggest that the rive be shortened to make it clearer.
5. Under the Impassables legend: The Spanish command ship, the bottom yellow triangle can not be seen. Maybe (if possible) outline both yellow areas to make them clearer.
6. I'm a little concerned that the 888's will be too close together in the Monarch Treasury regions. Can you place some 888's so I can look at it please. My initial observation is that we might have to go a little wider to make sure they fit in properly.

Other than these few things this is really close!! Great work cairns!

[cairnswk]

A few things, small, but needed for extra clarity.

1. In the top legend: Can you increase the text spacing on (PTL)?

Done. i have increased the kerning on all of those abbreviations to 10 for consistency across the legend

2. Battle of Gravelines: The outline of the area can be made a tad smaller, or, moved so that the tail on the "G" isn't covered.

Done

3. The story, the text looks blurry. It looks like you have a shadow on it like the title.

Fixed.

4. Does TF(A) and TF(B) connect? If so then I suggest that the rive be shortened to make it clearer.

Yes they connect and fixed.

5. Under the Impassables legend: The Spanish command ship, the bottom yellow triangle can not be seen. Maybe (if possible) outline both yellow areas to make them clearer.

Done and all impassables increased in size slightly

6. I'm a little concerned that the 888's will be too close together in the Monarch Treasury regions. Can you place some 888's so I can look at it please. My initial observation is that we might have to go a little wider to make sure they fit in properly.

The squares are 27x27. as you can see from the brit side i have done, there is plenty of room for 888s in there. i paid considerable attention in design to ensure these were wide/high enough to pass over each other, but unless someone gets into the 1000s that shouldn't be a prob. I have also tested these spaces on a dummy xml and they fit perfectly

Other than these few things this is really close!! Great work cairns!

Cool. and thank-you for promptness.
Posting Version 28...



I have also done this Version 28 with 88s generated from the xml and posted it on front page under a spoiler

[cairnswk]

This is version 28 no numbers...
I've moved Penzance around a little and added some flame to the Lit beacons, mainly spacing and clarity...

[cairnswk]

Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

[isaiah40]

Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

Hmmm .... I think something like Sir Francis Drake Treasury 1, 2 etc. This would mean that you would have to add the numbers on the map as well T1 T2 etc.

The Beacon naming as you suggested is good IMHO.

[cairnswk]

Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

Hmmm .... I think something like Sir Francis Drake Treasury 1, 2 etc. This would mean that you would have to add the numbers on the map as well T1 T2 etc.

The Beacon naming as you suggested is good IMHO.

I'd rather not add any more to the map re numbers...so i suggest simply using what is there

Sir Francis Drake M+1
Sir Francis Drake T+1
Sir Francis Drake T+3
Sir Francis Drake T+4
Sir Francis Drake T+5
Would that suffice?...or even leave out the + sign.
Sir Francis Drake M1
Sir Francis Drake T1
Sir Francis Drake T3
Sir Francis Drake T4
Sir Francis Drake T5

And would that have to be clarified on the map amywhere?

[Nola_Lifer]

Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

Hmmm .... I think something like Sir Francis Drake Treasury 1, 2 etc. This would mean that you would have to add the numbers on the map as well T1 T2 etc.

The Beacon naming as you suggested is good IMHO.

I'd rather not add any more to the map re numbers...so i suggest simply using what is there

Sir Francis Drake M+1
Sir Francis Drake T+1
Sir Francis Drake T+3
Sir Francis Drake T+4
Sir Francis Drake T+5
Would that suffice?...or even leave out the + sign.
Sir Francis Drake M1
Sir Francis Drake T1
Sir Francis Drake T3
Sir Francis Drake T4
Sir Francis Drake T5

And would that have to be clarified on the map amywhere?

Without the + and should be obvious. Also, can you darken the names of the Commanders' Treasury that are highlighted in gray. Bit hard to see.

[cairnswk]

...
Without the + and should be obvious. Also, can you darken the names of the Commanders' Treasury that are highlighted in gray. Bit hard to see.

Ah. just checked...as i suspected the gray was overlaying the texts. nice pick-up.. thank-you
i'll adjust the image above...check shortly <- adjusted now

[cairnswk]

I have posted the following on the front page above Gameplay
Nomeclature
Beacons -> Beacon Penzance, Beacon Eddystone, Beacon Plymouth etc....
Treasury -> Sir Martin Frobisher M1, Sir Martin Frobisher T1, Sir Martin Frobisher T3, Sir Martin Frobisher T4, Sir Martin Frobisher T5
Command Vessels -> Santa Ana Stern, Santa Ana Bow
Land Bases -> Truro LB, Penzance LB, etc, with exception of LB Army Brussel
Supply Ships -> SS Banzana, SS David etc.

[cairnswk]

I am ready to take this map into the large version - 10% larger only.
I would ask anyone wanting to have a say in any further graphics before i do so, to step forward now and examine this map to give their input, or forever hold your peace.
I will not, and i repeat, after having put this call out, i will not attend to any suggestions after the graphics process has ended, (unless it applies to a change in gameplay in BETA) regardless of the conditions of the foundry.
This map has been in development for near 18 months and i consider this to be quite ample time for anyone to put their suggestions forward.
I do not want a repeat of some similar ocassions from the past where major adjustments have been requested in an untimely manner - like several months after graphics stamp.
Think what you will of me for being harsh on this one, but ...

[cairnswk]

For consideration towards the end (reminder):
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.

I am not in favour of this workding as it is too lengthy.

[thenobodies80]

The only concerns I have are the dotted arrows. Why the first one is darker than the others? (sorry if it's explained somewhere)
Moreover the dark one is much better: more clear and clean.
I think that arrows can be improved a bit, for example teh one between Portland and Poole LB has a dot that is darker because it overlap the border between the two regions and there's also a dot that is visible under the arrowhead.

That's all. Everything else looks fine, but give me the time to sleep and take a second look tomorrow with less tired eyes, just to be sure to not miss something.

[cairnswk]

The only concerns I have are the dotted arrows. Why the first one is darker than the others? (sorry if it's explained somewhere)
Moreover the dark one is much better: more clear and clean.
I think that arrows can be improved a bit, for example teh one between Portland and Poole LB has a dot that is darker because it overlap the border between the two regions and there's also a dot that is visible under the arrowhead.

That's all. Everything else looks fine, but give me the time to sleep and take a second look tomorrow with less tired eyes, just to be sure to not miss something.

Version 29 fixes those dotted lines.

[thenobodies80]

Perfect!

[isaiah40]

Perfect!

+1

[iancanton]

Why are there neutral 2s in the southern regions?

Ah Doom....this is the balancing aspect of the gamplay...to make it a little harder to conquer these terts as an attack line to opponents command vessels

The 2 on La Manuela does not achieve this.
The other ones do make sense, I will go back and look at his reasons for that.

EDIT:So it slows yellow from taking Paxat San Estobel as easily, but it doesn't stop teal from taking Santa Ana so easily.

Triumph and Revenge have no such block between them.

I realize Gameplay is closed, I just want to look at these last things.

Iancanton, do you have a comment?

sorry for the delayed response, doom. the n2 on la manuela prevents paxat san estaban (the correct spelling is actually paxat san esteban) from bombarding the ss paxat la isabela auto-deploy from the start. the intention is to prevent all cases of player 1 using his first turn advantage to conquer a single, then immediately bombard an opposing bonus before anyone else has played. ordinary starting ships do not necessarily have this protection.

in the main legend, command ship is used, while the conditional borders text has vessel. perhaps flagship can be used in both places to avoid confusion?

ian.

[cairnswk]

...
sorry for the delayed response, doom. the n2 on la manuela prevents paxat san estaban (the correct spelling is actually paxat san esteban) from bombarding the ss paxat la isabela auto-deploy from the start. the intention is to prevent all cases of player 1 using his first turn advantage to conquer a single, then immediately bombard an opposing bonus before anyone else has played. ordinary starting ships do not necessarily have this protection.

in the main legend, command ship is used, while the conditional borders text has vessel. perhaps flagship can be used in both places to avoid confusion?

ian.

ian, esteban is fixed...
i'd prefer to not use flagship, rather i simply changed vessel to ship.
please refresh for changes as above.

ian. can i ask are you all done now? so i can move this to large

[cairnswk]

I have updated the front page with the starting numbers for each player.