Tank Battle (1v1?), 888s problem

[Oneyed]

I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Instead of top bottom, left right orientation for the map.

[Oneyed]

I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Instead of top bottom, left right orientation for the map.

thanks.

I have new version in my head, just I need to clear up some things with thenobodies.

Oneyed

[thenobodies80]

I was thinking....what if we make the tanks different enough so a player can distinguish them and into a legend you explain the attacks, maybe using images instead of words ?
Or instead, if you don't want to make the tanks different, why don't you create a set of custom army circles and again explain into the legend how the attacks works using them?
I think it could work, afterall all platoons, battalions etc etc have custom symbols and it seems to me you have good knowledge of history, so it won't be hard for you to find something to use that fits the situation. (e.g. look at wwii ardennes map by qwert)

I still strongly suggest to you to make the attacks very clear, preferably with a visual system. I understand you want to create something different, but like I already said to you, the surprise effect (i.e. the first time you play the map you lose the game) can't be used. I know the connection seems clear to you, but you have to look at them with someone else eyes and some of them are not totally clear.
For example What are the possible targets of G2T3 ? or again B2T4 and BPT3 aim to the same direction, so their targets are the same?

Now, if it was for me this map can be moved to gameplay, but i think it's better you find a system to clarify attacks now than later and find yourself in big big problems when you reach graphics.

Nobodies

[Oneyed]

I was thinking....what if we make the tanks different enough so a player can distinguish them and into a legend you explain the attacks, maybe using images instead of words ?

there are too much tanks to make each other different.

Or instead, if you don't want to make the tanks different, why don't you create a set of custom army circles and again explain into the legend how the attacks works using them?

yes the same cloured circles could works. will look at this.

I think it could work, afterall all platoons, battalions etc etc have custom symbols and it seems to me you have good knowledge of history, so it won't be hard for you to find something to use that fits the situation. (e.g. look at wwii ardennes map by qwert)

but here we need extra symbol for each tank. army circles sounds the best way, I have also one idea to use fire perimeters...

I still strongly suggest to you to make the attacks very clear, preferably with a visual system. I understand you want to create something different, but like I already said to you, the surprise effect (i.e. the first time you play the map you lose the game) can't be used. I know the connection seems clear to you, but you have to look at them with someone else eyes and some of them are not totally clear.
For example What are the possible targets of G2T3 ? or again B2T4 and BPT3 aim to the same direction, so their targets are the same?

I understand what you can say. if somebody will play map for the 10th times and somebody for the 1st time he has huge disadvantage. better say low chance to win.

Now, if it was for me this map can be moved to gameplay, but i think it's better you find a system to clarify attacks now than later and find yourself in big big problems when you reach graphics.

Nobodies

will looking for something working.

thanks for help.

Oneyed

[ViperOverLord]

I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Instead of top bottom, left right orientation for the map.

thanks.

I have new version in my head, just I need to clear up some things with thenobodies.

Oneyed

I also omitted 'less.' Less vertigo on the user. Less dizzying, less disorienting if the tanks go left and right (east/west) and not up and down (north/south).

[Oneyed]

I also omitted 'less.' Less vertigo on the user. Less dizzying, less disorienting if the tanks go left and right (east/west) and not up and down (north/south).

I am not sure where will be difference. and I need upper and bottom part for legends. thank you for input

Oneyed

[Oneyed]

new version. the idea was that map should looks as briefing map with Lieutenants notices...

Click image to enlarge.

Oneyed

[g8keepr]

Looks interesting.

Just two remarks at the moment:
- what are the tank barrierrs for? Do they limit the Bombardments to the side (like GFT2 vs BFC2)? Or cant you reinforce between chassis from the same platoon (like B2C1 to B2c4)?
- what mean Platoons (same flag) +3 for each? Or does it mean you get +3 auto deploy (or additional army) if you have the leader of a platoon? you could change the text like leader has two flags and gets +3 autodeploy.

g8k

[Oneyed]

Looks interesting.

thank you.

Just two remarks at the moment:
- what are the tank barrierrs for? Do they limit the Bombardments to the side (like GFT2 vs BFC2)? Or cant you reinforce between chassis from the same platoon (like B2C1 to B2c4)?

yes they limit bombardments. if you look at the upper legend there are shown bombardments. I will mention this in legend. something like: Tank barriers, limit bombardments.

- what mean Platoons (same flag) +3 for each? Or does it mean you get +3 auto deploy (or additional army) if you have the leader of a platoon?

each platoon has 4 tanks with the same coloured flag. so if you hold all platoon you get +3. maybe I will correct legend here too: Platoon, 4 tanks witht he same coloured flag.

you could change the text like leader has two flags and gets +3 autodeploy.

there are not any autodeploys. the leader is only important for using connection via streak of straps.

thanks for your input

Oneyed

[Oneyed]

updated version with more explantations in legend.

Click image to enlarge.

Oneyed

[thenobodies80]

Very nice update, I think we did a good step in the right direction here!
Oh btw, I didn't had an incredible long dinner, just I fell asleep on the couch after having it!

However, the new version makes everything more clear. Now bombardment are in most of cases clear and the legend helps more than the old "the direction of the cannon" system.
A small advice. Looking at your bombardment schema and then at the rest of the map i do not see a tank that can bombard the square next to it, so maybe that indication in the legend can be refined a bit more because actually it sounds like tank can bombard like knights on chess. Specially if you look at G1T4-B1C4. Looking at the schema it seems that G1T4 is able to "circumvent" the barriers, see the spoiler

show

I understand your system...the tank is supposed to "advance" before to fire and so it will have to pass the barrier and it can't, but I bet many will complain because they thought bombardments was possible for the very same reason you can see on the image in the spoiler!

Then, change the font, the current one is small and very hard to read. About platoon flags i suggest you to use more visible colors: red-green-blue-yellow? or at least make the black one more visible.

Top legend, where you say "holding firing tower - impossible to bombard targets from platoon bombardable from this tower"...sorry what does it mean? maybe you mean that the tower can't bombard tanks that are part of the same platoon? So G1T3 can't bombard G1C4 because it's the same platoon?
And in that case you can have not clear situations, like G2T3 - G1C2, it's not the same platoon, but i think you don't want to make possible for the former to bombard the latter, right?
In that case isn't simpler to say that "you can bombard only enemy tanks"? obviously always following the rules explained into the legend.

Then, if all the "attacks" are just bombardments and this will be a 1vs1 map, i think you can hold max 2 platoons, right? In this case where you say +1 every 4 tanks you mean any 4 tanks? so maybe 2 G1 tanks and 2 G2 tanks? or do you mean +1 for 4 tanks of the same platoon? It doesn't change so much considering the total amount of troops you can receive, but it makes a big difference while you're playing, this because it's simpler to hold 4 random tanks than hold an entire platoon.

Finally, where you specify the conditional border, you can easily say that it's "valid only if you hold the platoon leader tank", being the tank made by a tower and a chassis. I think it's more clear than the current phrase.

Now, I seriously think it's time for me to go to sleep (i realized now that it's 3am ) and for this map it's time for a draft stamp and start to focus the discussion on gameplay. But the draft stamp is koontz business so I leave to him the final say on it!

Good work, i really think you're showing yourself as a very good mapmaker
Nobodies

[Oneyed]

Oh btw, I didn't had an incredible long dinner, just I fell asleep on the couch after having it!

it would be world record - 5 hours dinner

A small advice. Looking at your bombardment schema and then at the rest of the map i do not see a tank that can bombard the square next to it, so maybe that indication in the legend can be refined a bit more because actually it sounds like tank can bombard like knights on chess. Specially if you look at G1T4-B1C4. Looking at the schema it seems that G1T4 is able to "circumvent" the barriers, see the spoiler

show

I understand your system...the tank is supposed to "advance" before to fire and so it will have to pass the barrier and it can't, but I bet many will complain because they thought bombardments was possible for the very same reason you can see on the image in the spoiler!

but my idea about bombardments is as you shown in spoiler. so you have this right, only barriers which are dirrect on the tanks side limit bombardments. I have idea how to change this, so tanks will not bombard from side, but again you have it right.

Then, change the font, the current one is small and very hard to read. About platoon flags i suggest you to use more visible colors: red-green-blue-yellow? or at least make the black one more visible.

ok for both.

Top legend, where you say "holding firing tower - impossible to bombard targets from platoon bombardable from this tower"...sorry what does it mean? maybe you mean that the tower can't bombard tanks that are part of the same platoon? So G1T3 can't bombard G1C4 because it's the same platoon?

no. I meant that, hm. example helps more as my poor English: G1T4 bombards B1T1, B1C1 but when you will hold GFT1 you can not bombard B1T1, B1C1 from G1T4.

And in that case you can have not clear situations, like G2T3 - G1C2, it's not the same platoon, but i think you don't want to make possible for the former to bombard the latter, right?

yes. but I can not see problem that this should valids for both versions (1, can not bombard from platoon. 2, can not bombard from former.) everything depends what will be better for gameplay. what do you think?

In that case isn't simpler to say that "you can bombard only enemy tanks"? obviously always following the rules explained into the legend.

it is mentioned in legend that Towers can bombard enemies Towers and Chassis. but the legend is the hardest thing from me, so I will follow all advices here

Then, if all the "attacks" are just bombardments and this will be a 1vs1 map, i think you can hold max 2 platoons, right? In this case where you say +1 every 4 tanks you mean any 4 tanks? so maybe 2 G1 tanks and 2 G2 tanks? or do you mean +1 for 4 tanks of the same platoon? It doesn't change so much considering the total amount of troops you can receive, but it makes a big difference while you're playing, this because it's simpler to hold 4 random tanks than hold an entire platoon.

oops, my bad. there will be two bonuses:
+1 for ANY 4 tanks.
+3 for each Platoon

Finally, where you specify the conditional border, you can easily say that it's "valid only if you hold the platoon leader tank", being the tank made by a tower and a chassis. I think it's more clear than the current phrase.

ok.

Good work, i really think you're showing yourself as a very good mapmaker

thanks, but there is long way infront of me

thanks nobodies.

Oneyed

[thenobodies80]

thenobodies80 wrote:Top legend, where you say "holding firing tower - impossible to bombard targets from platoon bombardable from this tower"...sorry what does it mean? maybe you mean that the tower can't bombard tanks that are part of the same platoon? So G1T3 can't bombard G1C4 because it's the same platoon?

no. I meant that, hm. example helps more as my poor English: G1T4 bombards B1T1, B1C1 but when you will hold GFT1 you can not bombard B1T1, B1C1 from G1T4.

Aaaah, now i got it! My fault here, I didn't noticed the importance of the word, I saw that some towers have the flash on the map, but i thought only to a graphics embellishment. Though, it's not a so clear at glance...
However, your explanation in the legend must be very very clear because this concept is important during the game.
So maybe something like: "If you hold a platoon firing tower, the other towers of the same platoon can no longer bombard the targets that the two towers have in common" or maybe "If you hold the firing tower and any other tower of the same platoon, the targets in common can be bombarded only by the firing tower".

thenobodies80 wrote:And in that case you can have not clear situations, like G2T3 - G1C2, it's not the same platoon, but i think you don't want to make possible for the former to bombard the latter, right?

yes. but I can not see problem that this should valids for both versions (1, can not bombard from platoon. 2, can not bombard from former.) everything depends what will be better for gameplay. what do you think?

I think you should decide how the map must start and play.
This is important because on the map you have only bombardments between platoons and no regular connections (attacks).
So it's clear that where the players will start is very very important. Imo there should be a way for players to move also horizontally on the map, on the contrary if a platoon or two, are bombarded to the death (so reverted to all neutral) you can have a stall problem. Imagine what the players can do if player 1 controls B1 platoon, player 2 controls G2 platton and instead platoon B2 and G1 are bombarded to neutral. They can do nothing and the game can't end!

I assume you want to have player 1 on one side and player 2 to the others, so you will have 2 set of starting position, but also in this case i strongly suggest a way for the players to move from a platoon to another if on the same side (B1<->B2 and G1<->G2)

As said, i think you should start to discuss gameplay, the idea is clear, the draft is certainly a working draft...oh btw a last thing....koontz gave a good suggestion about rotating the battlefield, i think you should do what he said, it's much better that layout to fit the current UI.

Nobodies

[Oneyed]

Aaaah, now i got it! My fault here, I didn't noticed the importance of the word, I saw that some towers have the flash on the map, but i thought only to a graphics embellishment. Though, it's not a so clear at glance...
However, your explanation in the legend must be very very clear because this concept is important during the game.
So maybe something like: "If you hold a platoon firing tower, the other towers of the same platoon can no longer bombard the targets that the two towers have in common" or maybe "If you hold the firing tower and any other tower of the same platoon, the targets in common can be bombarded only by the firing tower".

the problem here, but I hope not big, is that tanks with firing towers are not part of platoons. they would be "moved" tanks from platoon.

I think you should decide how the map must start and play.
This is important because on the map you have only bombardments between platoons and no regular connections (attacks).
So it's clear that where the players will start is very very important. Imo there should be a way for players to move also horizontally on the map, on the contrary if a platoon or two, are bombarded to the death (so reverted to all neutral) you can have a stall problem. Imagine what the players can do if player 1 controls B1 platoon, player 2 controls G2 platton and instead platoon B2 and G1 are bombarded to neutral. They can do nothing and the game can't end!

good point here. so there must be any connection between platoons on the same side. maybe chassis of platoon leader tanks could have connection?

I assume you want to have player 1 on one side and player 2 to the others, so you will have 2 set of starting position, but also in this case i strongly suggest a way for the players to move from a platoon to another if on the same side (B1<->B2 and G1<->G2)

yes each player will start on one side.

oh btw a last thing....koontz gave a good suggestion about rotating the battlefield, i think you should do what he said, it's much better that layout to fit the current UI.

you mean rotate it that tanks will be from right to left?

Oneyed