Conquer Club

MrBenn wrote:n = number of sweeps
a = angle
d = delay between sweeps

n = 8
a = 20
d = 10ms

angle traversed = n*a = 8*20 = 160
angle missing (m) = 360 - (n*a) = 200
missing sweeps = m/a = 200/20 = 10
additional time (t) = (m/a)*d = 10*10 = 100ms

Using my revised calculations, you need to change the initial delay from 3 secs to 100ms

Again, my maths is probably way out - please feel free to correct it!

The math looks good. The only problem I see now is that the animation will be much faster now. Going from 3000ms (3 sec) to 100 ms is a big jump.

I would recommend maybe making more intervals (10 degs @ 15 ms) and that would allow the offscreen sweep to take longer and not be so "flashy"

WM

WidowMakers wrote:

MrBenn wrote:n = number of sweeps
a = angle
d = delay between sweeps

n = 8
a = 20
d = 10ms

angle traversed = n*a = 8*20 = 160
angle missing (m) = 360 - (n*a) = 200
missing sweeps = m/a = 200/20 = 10
additional time (t) = (m/a)*d = 10*10 = 100ms

Using my revised calculations, you need to change the initial delay from 3 secs to 100ms

Again, my maths is probably way out - please feel free to correct it!

The math looks good. The only problem I see now is that the animation will be much faster now. Going from 3000ms (3 sec) to 100 ms is a big jump.

I would recommend maybe making more intervals (10 degs @ 15 ms) and that would allow the offscreen sweep to take longer and not be so "flashy"

WM

well the animation wil be slower by adding more frames, doubling the frames will double the time.

Now that we seem to have a handle on what everyone wants for the animation and how to do it well with smaller files sizes (Thanks mibi), can we get back to the other issues?

-Bonuses
-Layout
-Territory names
-territory connections

But if there are no suggestions or objections, I can make the changes listed on these last pages from a graphical perspective and we are ready for XML, mibi to do a final animated gif (large and small) and QUENCHING!!
Thanks

WM

yeti_c wrote:
Actually - if you're gonna name the spies... then you need to put the American Spies - in Russia and vice versa...

Or you can have 1 in each - and that could create a link?

C.

This is my only other idea...

C.

OK here is version 5.

I swapped the spies so the USSR spies are in USA and vice versa.
I added the mushroom cloud for the missile launch.

If you switch back to the radar being animated the mushroom clouds could be animated too. pep did a good one in his map as a joke earlier on.

I think he might have actually snaked that animation from civilization 3...

I don't really see the need for animation. The radar sweep is one thing, but an animated mushroom cloud seems a touch gratuitous...

The radar sweep would be alright if it only does te one sweep, but the explosion i agree may over do it.

Incandenza wrote:I think he might have actually snaked that animation from civilization 3...

I don't really see the need for animation. The radar sweep is one thing, but an animated mushroom cloud seems a touch gratuitous...

I agree. I will not be animating that.

WM

what about making a spy and an anti-spy agency on each side

you would put the spies on their own country since they need to travel to the other country, hit something and immediatly retreat to prevent being discovered, this explains bombardment. and the anti-spy agencies can bombard the other countries spy.

ive got the flu so i aint thinking straight but i think the US has the CIA and the USSR had the KGB (am i right for anti-spy agencies?)

and i still think that bond should be a spy since he got famous in america !

i was wondering is we could see the unrainum symbols in a yellow gloe like the map? I dont know but i think it could work

more maps seem to becoming complex




no one likes to keep it simple any more?

I think one of the reasons that this map has received 10x more graphic comments than gameplay ones is that it's really difficult (at least for me anyway) to envision just how this map is going to play.... and if we've learned anything from AoR, it's that complex maps rarely play exactly to form...

This map would seem tailor-map for playtesting, but in the absence of such, you guys may need to make some on-the-fly adjustments when it goes live, like dim did with AoR...

Incandenza wrote:I think one of the reasons that this map has received 10x more graphic comments than gameplay ones is that it's really difficult (at least for me anyway) to envision just how this map is going to play.... and if we've learned anything from AoR, it's that complex maps rarely play exactly to form...

This map would seem tailor-map for playtesting, but in the absence of such, you guys may need to make some on-the-fly adjustments when it goes live, like dim did with AoR...

I dont think its that difficult conceptually. The bottom line, most likely, is that all players will be eliminated except for two on opposing sides. Then the arms race begins. That is how i envisioned it, and how I think it will play out. I dont really see any other scenarios being very likely. Although its possible one player gets control of the whole country before another player gets control of the other... and someone will get a head start on the arms race... but thats life.. and what the spies are for.

All I'm saying is that there's an element of uncertainty with directed-play maps. Mostly it was just a wish for a new map sandbox.

I might be confusing myself, but it says that armies on the misile launch will be reset to 1.

How will that work in XML, unless you mean 1 neutral. If the latter is the case, it can easily be avioded by fort out of it.

fireedud wrote:I might be confusing myself, but it says that armies on the misile launch will be reset to 1.

How will that work in XML, unless you mean 1 neutral. If the latter is the case, it can easily be avioded by fort out of it.

simple put a -1000 decay (auto deploy tag) on that terr.

gimil wrote:

fireedud wrote:I might be confusing myself, but it says that armies on the misile launch will be reset to 1.

How will that work in XML, unless you mean 1 neutral. If the latter is the case, it can easily be avioded by fort out of it.

simple put a -1000 decay (auto deploy tag) on that terr.

Again, that can be avoided by fort out, so you only lose one army, then attacking again against the one neutral.

fireedud wrote:

gimil wrote:

fireedud wrote:I might be confusing myself, but it says that armies on the misile launch will be reset to 1.

How will that work in XML, unless you mean 1 neutral. If the latter is the case, it can easily be avioded by fort out of it.

simple put a -1000 decay (auto deploy tag) on that terr.

Again, that can be avoided by fort out, so you only lose one army, then attacking again against the one neutral.

It's a 1 way border up the missile...

Use em or lose em on the Bombarding!!

C.

really cool except for the +20 bonus. 3 territories and you win the game! not fair. maybe make the entire icbm only able to attack the stage above it, and give it a bonus of 4 or 5. But that may be too much because you only really have to hold the silo then to get the bonus...
the silo could give minus armies, that would make it much harder to hold the nuke, but makes no sense idea wise.. radiation poisoning?

edit: see the update countires spelled wrong and miissile spelled wrong
+25 is even greater then before... why? graphic isn't my fav, but I do like the radar aspect of it.
instead of president and acquisition and warhead bonus, why not a lesser uranium + warhead bonus? also have a bonus for the ENTIRE rocket and the president and the acquisition. I liked the old silo's graphic.

You might also think about adding an extra silo to each nation connected to the same rocket, just to put some extra competition into it, and it would improve its gameplay when more players are involved

Aspect wrote:really cool except for the +20 bonus. 3 territories and you win the game! not fair. maybe make the entire icbm only able to attack the stage above it, and give it a bonus of 4 or 5. But that may be too much because you only really have to hold the silo then to get the bonus...
the silo could give minus armies, that would make it much harder to hold the nuke, but makes no sense idea wise.. radiation poisoning?

edit: see the update countires spelled wrong and miissile spelled wrong
+25 is even greater then before... why? graphic isn't my fav, but I do like the radar aspect of it.
instead of president and acquisition and warhead bonus, why not a lesser uranium + warhead bonus? also have a bonus for the ENTIRE rocket and the president and the acquisition. I liked the old silo's graphic.

You might also think about adding an extra silo to each nation connected to the same rocket, just to put some extra competition into it, and it would improve its gameplay when more players are involved

i think you are missing the point of the whole map. its an arms race and the first person to launch a first strike is generally the winner. no point in racing for a +4 bonus that wont do much.

Here is version 6.

I added the text explaining the attack/fortify direction up the missile.
Plus I switched the Spies back to their own country. It makes more sense that way. They are stationed in their home country but can do bombard the opponents to stop the missile launch.

Plus I cleaned up the glows and some of the other text.

The map is unclear as to which target acquisition you need to hold. Since that territory is a target, does it mean you would need the US president, US warhead, and Russian target to get the bonus?? If you want to keep it within the same country, perhaps rename it to Targeting Computer or something like it.

what happens when there are more then 2 players?

Maybe you should add 6 more countries.

tim02 wrote:what happens when there are more then 2 players?

Maybe you should add 6 more countries.

There are 18 start locations. I don't get your confusion here.