Moderator: Cartographers
koontz1973 wrote:Do not know,
koontz1973 wrote:have you PMed nobodies for permission as per 1v1 map rules?
thenobodies80 wrote:@koontz, if you're holding this map into melting pot because you waited a response from me, then feel free to move it into the drafting room.
thenobodies80 wrote:You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.
thenobodies80 wrote:Another weak concept is "targets are indicated by direction of cannons". I understand what you're trying to do, but listen to me...it will be a big big issue. It's not a clear system, not understandable at glance. You need to find a better system to explain the attack system, otherwise the only way to learn how it works will be play the map. And you know that the player should be able to understand how the map works only reading the instructions, so before playing.
thenobodies80 wrote:Legend. I suggest you to not use the word attack where you explain the connection between tower and chassis of the same tank or again when you say that chassis of the same platoon connetc. In theory it's stupid if you attack your own tank or a tank of your platoon. I would explain the concept saying something like: You can move from the tower to the chassis (and viceversa) of the same tank, and your troops can move from a tank chassis to another of the same platoon.
thenobodies80 wrote:Where do you use blockers?
thenobodies80 wrote:What do you mean with the situation on the battlefield can change, depending what you hold. This is a very cryptic concept.
thenobodies80 wrote:To move tanks? you can't move the tanks! Maybe you mean to move your troops from a tank to another? and in this case if you need to hold the leader...it doesn't work with the fact you can move from chassis to chassis of the same platoon.
thenobodies80 wrote:These are my initial thoughts
thenobodies80 wrote:Said that I like the map and I'm looking forward your next update
thenobodies80 wrote:[*]You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.
thenobodies80 wrote:[*]Legend. I suggest you to not use the word attack where you explain the connection between tower and chassis of the same tank or again when you say that chassis of the same platoon connetc. In theory it's stupid if you attack your own tank or a tank of your platoon. I would explain the concept saying something like: You can move from the tower to the chassis (and viceversa) of the same tank, and your troops can move from a tank chassis to another of the same platoon.
thenobodies80 wrote:[*]Where do you use blockers?
thenobodies80 wrote:[*]What do you mean with the situation on the battlefield can change, depending what you hold. This is a very cryptic concept.
thenobodies80 wrote:[*]To move tanks? you can't move the tanks! Maybe you mean to move your troops from a tank to another? and in this case if you need to hold the leader...it doesn't work with the fact you can move from chassis to chassis of the same platoon.
thenobodies80 wrote:[*]Another weak concept is "targets are indicated by direction of cannons". I understand what you're trying to do, but listen to me...it will be a big big issue. It's not a clear system, not understandable at glance. You need to find a better system to explain the attack system, otherwise the only way to learn how it works will be play the map. And you know that the player should be able to understand how the map works only reading the instructions, so before playing.
Oneyed wrote: thenobodies80 wrote:[*]You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.
the targets will be invisible to the time when player conquer Tower of tank, because only from Tower is possible bombard. and player will see only targets which are possible to bombard from Tower X. because there is normal border.
Oneyed wrote:1, if blockers must be mentioned in legend or if blockers could be as little surprise for players?
Oneyed wrote:player ofcourse will see targets when he holds Tower, but not before. so how to explain that cannon "shows" direction of fire? and that there are more targets?
thenobodies80 wrote:No wait, if you say "invisible" I think about the question mark we have on fog of war games. In that case it's not because of the map, but the game settings.
thenobodies80 wrote:The fact you can bormbard/attack a territory or not is not directly related with being visible or invisible. Or better they are, but not because the map. So I assume you mean "not accessible / attackable/ bombardable" because the opposite it's not possible if the game is not a fog of war one.
thenobodies80 wrote:No surprises. Certainly you don't have to list all the blockers, but you have to write somewhere how the game mechanism wrote. Players must be all on the same page when it comes to instructions.
thenobodies80 wrote:Targets can be explained with some icons/colors/etc etc...there're various ways.
thenobodies80 wrote:But again or i read your sentences in the wrong way or what you say it's not possible to do.
thenobodies80 wrote:I mean targets not visible to players.
I understand now. so in sunny games will player see all opponents regions or neutral ones. baseless if he holds tower or not...
why? I know what you are trying to say that players must know how game works. when you look at picture I think it is almost clear each direction of each cannon.
koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed, when you look at the cannon, they face this way or that, but some players will say, this cannon faces to the top or bottom of the map.
koontz1973 wrote:An idea for you, you have the tanks lined up like cannon. Tanks being mobile drove all around the battle field and never sat stationary.
koontz1973 wrote:Mix the tanks up a bit. Give the map some feel that the battle is being fought. A couple of burnt out husks would not go amiss as well.
ViperOverLord wrote:I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.
Oneyed wrote:ViperOverLord wrote: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 wrote:Oneyed wrote:ViperOverLord wrote: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.
thenobodies80 wrote: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 ?
thenobodies80 wrote: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?
thenobodies80 wrote: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)
thenobodies80 wrote: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?
thenobodies80 wrote: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 wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed wrote:ViperOverLord wrote: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
ViperOverLord wrote: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).
g8keepr wrote:Looks interesting.
g8keepr wrote: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)?
g8keepr wrote:- 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?
g8keepr wrote:you could change the text like leader has two flags and gets +3 autodeploy.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users