t.e.c wrote:good work cairnswk, it's a nice map. a couple of things though..
birdam cames up as birdim in the xml.
the other thing is that the neutrals make this map very difficult to play as a 2 player game. i know you designed it for more than that, but i didn't realise until i started a game. and i'm losing i'll know for the future though!
misher wrote:<Subject>: Changing the name of the map Battle for Australia
* Change the name of the map to Operation Watchtower or the Guandalcanal Campaign
Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation. Would look better and sound better than Battle for Australia. Also battle for Australia only refers to Australia when the map actually focuses on Guinea.
Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation.
gerard wrote:Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation.
Cairns - I love the map but think misher is has a good point- the name is misleading. "Battle for Papua" would be more appropriate or "Hard Work up North" or something.
I know there was a bit of hysteria at the time about the Japanese invading Oz but they never had planned for it and wouldn't have had the ability anyway. They planned on isolating and neutralizing the continent but only got around to a few bombing raids.
Papua and the coral sea was where the pointy end came to rest and in the words of the Hoodoo Gurus "Tojo never made it to Darwin". But - in the end - you have done the hard work and produced a great map so what you feel happy with.
AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, as we seem to receive a number of bug reports regarding the large neutral deployment, would it be possible to perhaps add an asterisk somewhere on the map that could explain there will be a large neutral deployment? Perhaps this is a precedent we'll have to set with future maps that use the neutral deployments (large numbers at least).
As I am going to be of town for the next week, I'd speak with either Keyogi or Lack, or wait til I get back.
fireedud wrote:I don't what you should change it to, but I think it would be better to change it to fit the map.
Teya wrote:would it be better to put something shorter? like "18 neutral will be deployed"
Short and simple usually works well.
Teya wrote:You have different explanations on small & large map.. I also dont think you need to put the "on this map" part, but thats just me.
lackattack wrote:18 neutral territories are deployed sounds off to me.
how about 18 territories are initially neutral on this map?
Heimdall wrote:I just started two 6 player games on this map and i swear the the neutrals are in the exact same spot in both games? Am i dreaming?
DiM wrote:Heimdall wrote:I just started two 6 player games on this map and i swear the the neutrals are in the exact same spot in both games? Am i dreaming?
this map has 18 teritories that start as neutral in each game. they are the same every time.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users