thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?
Landing Craft L1-13
or Mine Sweepers MS1-7
I'm sorry to have to say this, but don't you guys ever read a map?
Moderator: Cartographers
thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?
the.killing.44 wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?
Battleships, I believe. Though cairns should clarify.
I'm not so sure about the squiggly lines, though they are better than nothing
What does the white line going through the center do? I'll wait for the next graphical update to really tear at it
.44
captainwalrus wrote:...Impassibles still need to be made into something.
cairnswk wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?
Landing Craft L1-13
or Mine Sweepers MS1-7
I'm sorry to have to say this, but don't you guys ever read a map?
- (per turn autodeploy) each convoy landing ship held (not marked l# or MS#) +2
thenobodies80 wrote:cairnswk wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:What are ships not marked L# or MS#?
Landing Craft L1-13
or Mine Sweepers MS1-7
I'm sorry to have to say this, but don't you guys ever read a map?
Sorry, i'm still confused.
You're saying :- (per turn autodeploy) each convoy landing ship held (not marked l# or MS#) +2
If i try to search a ship NOT marked L# or MS# there are only BS.(and i don't think you are going to give them a -2 bonus and a +2 bonus in the same time. )
I assure you that i have read the map
cairnswk wrote:...and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.
thenobodies80 wrote:cairnswk wrote:...and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.
i think it's better...
I apologize for having asked for a clarification or interfered in any way to the development of your map.
cairnswk wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:cairnswk wrote:...and i need someone to cut the barbed wire on my tongue also, and then rinse my mouth out with soap.
i think it's better...
I apologize for having asked for a clarification or interfered in any way to the development of your map.
Why are you apologising for asking for clarification on the map?
It is i who have apologised to you for being so nasty and bitter of tongue through being tired.
You have not interferred with the development of the map?
It is I who has been tartdy in my response to your questions.
the.killing.44 wrote:...
Graphics are pretty good, I'm intrigued by your latest PM (cue suspenseā¦)
Let's get a gameplay guy in here
.44
captainwalrus wrote:ooh. I like the new colors, especialy the ocean.
DJ Teflon wrote:Starting positions on land?
OK, I'm gonna need to work this one out - this is the kind of complex gamplay I like.
Tell me more - starting positions? What should I kniw>
In the first post it saysL
"Entente Starting Territories (16)
8 - Battleships
- start with high number and can bombard any marked target. They are killer reducing and should eventually fizzle out to complete neutrals
12 - Invasion Craft
4 invasion craft leading to minesweepers - can be bombarded from Turkish held land positions
Turkish Starting Territories (16)
3 Forts (10 Forts in total - 7 have to be manned/conquered)
13 Land positions"
The big question is what starts neutral (apologies if I'm being stupid here)? I'm guessing everything else is shared out/
As of Version 16....
1. The number of territories currently on the map.
Entente Starting Territories (24)
8 - Battleships
- start with high number and can bombard any marked target. They are killer reducing and should eventually reduce to 1 (at this stage)
13 - Invasion Craft
3 Minesweepers
Turkish Starting Territories (16)
8 terrs on the east side of the Dardanelles (includes 2 Forts - represents the force that had to come from the Capital constantinople after the invasion started).
8 terrs on the western peninsula (includes 3 forts)
Other Territories (59)
3 Mines
3 (M) Mines sweepers
6 Land Terrs east of the Dardanelles (includes 1 landing beach)
44 Peninsula terrs west of the Dardanelles (includes 12 landing beaches)
Total Territories
99.
DJ Teflon wrote:OK - this is just a first impression - without thinking potential moves and tactics in great depth:
I would anticipate that you may get the general comment that the starting positions need to be relatively fair for different numbers of players. You have battleships, landing craft and land starts for 8 players. With a different number of players - wouldn't the unused starts be shared-out amongst the players?
It would be great if the xml enabled different starts to be coded for different numbers of players. Its a change I would like to see + and would help many potential maps.
Correct.Anyway, let's stick with the 8-player scenario, assuming the above can be overcome (or I've got it wrong):
The battleships idea is totally innovative. I'm guessing they cant attack, only bombard. Brilliant.
yes i relaise that, but that is in line with the real battle. I can't really fit 8 in there, it would be too crowded.3 of the landing craft have nightmare scenarios - attack mines and subject to bombardment from the forts.
Similarly, some of the land starts can be bombarded whilst others are safe - I'd suggest all land starts start safe and have an adjacent 'safe' territory to give players an early-game option to start building?
Similarly, in the south of the map, the starts nearest crossing points are more advantageous. There look to be 13 - I'd suggest having 2 or 3 in the southern area - preferably 2 close to the landing points - those on the mainland I would suggest they are spaced apart from each other as much as possible and are relatively similar (i,e. not bombardable and away from the forts).
ONce again, reality with what happened.In general, as well as the battleships gameplay - I like the landing craft idea which is balanced by the land starts being away from the beaches.
I think the first thing to think about would be the landing craft in the straight.
let's hope so!I can feel in my bones that this is gonna be a winner
whitestazn88 wrote:hey cairns, its me here for the preliminary review....i would move this on but there are 2 things that i would change, although you obviously don't have to as the cartographer
-the left side of the map seems a little dim, and the territory names get a little hazy because of that, maybe brighten the territ names or the map overall on that side to make the contrast higher so we can find the names easier
- the beach territories, rather than having a smidgen of sand, should be completely white i think, that would make it really obvious and clear.
otherwise, it looks great. good work on another solid map mate.
C beach, i'll fix that.dolomite13 wrote:What does L9 connect to? ... the line hits the border between B and C.
I've been thinking about that and it will be in the legend that only the terts in front or in close proximity with be bombardable from forts each side of the sea.Can forts bombard all sea territs in both dardanels and narrows? or do some forts bombard one and some bombard the other? how is this defined? on the map?...
dolomite13 wrote:....
Can forts bombard all sea territs in both dardanels and narrows? or do some forts bombard one and some bombard the other? how is this defined? on the map?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users