Industrial Helix wrote:Another consideration that I am taking is whether the mess in narrows and dardenelles is even necessary. Shouldn't this map focus strictly on the land battle with naval power taking a secondary roll to land maneuvers. Thoughts?
Industrial Helix wrote:Everything is the same save for the battleships scheme, which we are trying to figure out something satisfactory for.
cairnswk wrote:lackattack wrote:cairnswk wrote:Thanks.....
This will be the last, i think, at least for now, until i get re-energised somehow.
I know you are waiting on new images for Stalingrad, so now that my first exams are finished i will get on that later today.
Thanks Cairns! I will try to get some map xml updates done shortly to lure you back into map making.
.....truthfully...the xml update i would like to see occur is the one for the Gallipoli Campaign, that allows the battleships to reduce to neutral over time by decay of -1 from starting numbers of 20 or so if it is not fortified.
Industrial Helix wrote:So ok, let's make that solution number 3. I'd prefer the the third solution, but given the admin's track record with getting XML updates out sooner rather than later, I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not we feel like waiting.
One solution to this would be to use a back up plan, one of the previous ideas I've specified, and if the XML update goes through in the meantime, revert the gameplay to that solution. The benefits of this would be that work can begin on the graphics rather than wait around for XML to be updated and the time waiting won't be put to waste.
Industrial Helix wrote:The losing condition is a brilliant solution and it would solve the whole problem!
This month is a bit crammed full for me with maps though... I could possibly take it up in August.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users