[Vacation - valid until Sept 2013] WWI: Gallipoli

[koontz1973]

From the names I checked into:

• Suffren - Iéna class
• Majestic - Majestic-class
• Swiftsure - Swiftsure-class
• Goliath - Canopus-class
• Vengeance - Canopus-class

all where pre dreadnought class battleships. Due to the fact that the dreadnought was not the same class of ship, the dreadnought was still a battleship. Keeping the BS for battleship is more than OK as one of the ships I checked is even French.

As for Dukasaur saying about the newspapers, papers would of inflated the facts (unheard of today ) for propaganda reasons.

[Oneyed]

yes not all ships were (in Gallipoli campaign) dreadnoughts. I have nothing against term battle ship, just dreadnought fits better with time period.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

yes not all ships were (in Gallipoli campaign) dreadnoughts. I have nothing against term battle ship, just dreadnought fits better with time period.

Oneyed

Oneyed...a battleship is a class of naval vessel. a Dreadnought is a class of battleship. For me, battleship fits better.
Now please, enough of this to and froing over a minor point. I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.
Discuss something in the gameplay tactics for goodness sake.

[Oneyed]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

who is JC?

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

who is JC?

Oneyed

the one whose birthday is supposedly in 4 days time.
It' s an Ozzie expression.

[Oneyed]

the one whose birthday is supposedly in 4 days time.

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.


cairns, story, you have 25 Arp, should this not be 25 Apr?
Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games? The position that you have as Gabi Tepe and Saraijik can even be eliminated first go as a battleship can bombard Gabi Tepe and FS + Sari can attack the other territ in land. This is going to be very bad for some games, including 1v1. I prefer the wording you have on the SP map. Not holding a non battleship territ. This seems to me far more balanced and stops all problems with starts. As I said, if my assumption is wrong, then so be it, disregard. Quick question, why have a losing condition?

[cairnswk]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.

koontzz, there is no need to give my secrets away.

cairns, story, you have 25 Arp, should this not be 25 Apr?

that was a trick...not.

Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games?

Unfortunately, i cannot give the xml a distribution layout so that it distributes every starting position to the best benefit....so i guess this will have the same sort of starts that Salem does, and we can best group these so that everyone is evenly spread.
In real war, and particularly in this battle, there were some immediate casualties, and likely those who "jump in" will bombard the crap out of everything with their Battleships to eliminate opponents, and yes that is also what happened in this battle. It would be wrong not to have some positions on the map as "Turkish" defence positions, and if you get one of those, then you're likely to come under fire from battleships.
However, like all maps, there will be a strategy developed to ensure your survival, and if that means a couple of games have to be played with team mates and lady luck, then so be it.

The position that you have as Gabi Tepe and Saraijik can even be eliminated first go as a battleship can bombard Gabi Tepe and FS + Sari can attack the other territ in land. This is going to be very bad for some games, including 1v1.

Indeed.
I have moved Dumbrek start to Halil-eli,
and Saraijik to Kehlia Beach.

..Battleships.....Starts......Neutrals
......8.....N.....32....N.....60
P.2... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.3... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.4... 2.....0.....8.....0.....60
P.5... 1.....3.....6.....2.....65
P.6... 1.....2.....5.....2.....64
P.7... 1.....1.....4.....4.....65
P.8... 1.....0.....4.....0.....60

I think this will be the drop for each game if you can understand it.

I prefer the wording you have on the SP map. Not holding a non battleship territ. This seems to me far more balanced and stops all problems with starts. As I said, if my assumption is wrong, then so be it, disregard. Quick question, why have a losing condition?

Well, yes i did also until i thought much more about it.
BY only having the land territories as the requirement will take the Minesweepers and all landing craft out of the requirement picture also which is really advantageous, since these can be also be bombarded...the objective of the invasion was to land troops and move forward inland, which didn't occur.
So having the land territories really means you have to hold onto your land....battleship targets have been removed from start positions.

Version 27 with starts

[Oneyed]

I swear you'd have it out with JC himself.

but still do not understand this sentence...

Oneyed

He means you like arguing over silly things just for the sake of arguing.

koontzz, there is no need to give my secrets away.

I am not (upon any terms ).

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

...
..Battleships.....Starts......Neutrals
......8.....N.....32....N.....60
P.2... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.3... 3.....2.....10....2....64
P.4... 2.....0.....8.....0.....60
P.5... 1.....3.....6.....2.....65
P.6... 1.....2.....5.....2.....64
P.7... 1.....1.....4.....4.....65
P.8... 1.....0.....4.....0.....60
....

Anyone got gampeplay comments on this.

[cairnswk]

koontz. i've had another look at what can be done for the land terts in team games.

...
Losing condition - a lot of the starting positions are next to each other, each SP has two territs on the land. So in a team game, players will get eliminated before a go happens. Am I correct in this assumption? If so, does this not strike you as bad for all team games?

1. one of green SP needed moving from Gelibolu III Corp to Tertchten Keui....too close to Bigali (grey)
2. postiions between all these start terts have been increased to 6N...this will make it slightly harder to conquer anyone in any game 1st round.
If this is not enough they can be increased further.

Quick question, why have a losing condition?

In the real battle, the Allies failed to gain hold of land and eventually had to withdraw.
The losing condition simulates this.

Version 28 SP and neutrals...

[Oneyed]

you have 2 yellow land batteries. does both bombard all regions with yellow targets? did you think to make them sepparate, so one of yellow land battery will have its clour and targets?

looking forward to play this one.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

you have 2 yellow land batteries. does both bombard all regions with yellow targets? did you think to make them sepparate, so one of yellow land battery will have its clour and targets?
looking forward to play this one.
Oneyed

Yes, that is why they are both yellow.
No, they all had the same targets for yellow. There is no need for a different colour.
Glad to hear you're looking forward to it, but i'm afraid it will be a while at the foundry pace.

[cairnswk]

I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

[cairnswk]

I hate to be pushy here again, but is this ready for gameplay stamp?

I have same question here, under the new foundry policy, if i am awaiting gameplay comment and don't do a graphics update for a month, does this map also get thrown in the recycling bin?