Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[iancanton]

i very much suspect that the basic layout of the map, after ur changes, is virtually there (apart from the fact that some command ships can still be bombarded by enemy ship start positions) and only the bonuses and neutrals need more critical attention.

antwerp and brugge have no army count. bruxelles is anomalously in french, while the other nearby regions are in dutch; brussel is more logical.

although the overall package looks better if there is legend at top and bottom with the playable map in the middle, this doesn't work so well when trying to understand the bonuses.

it makes more sense for the ship bonus to be valid for 9 single ships of the same nation, so that a player will tend to accumulate ships from one side of the battle. it's not at all obvious that a command ship is part of this bonus and, unless a player is familiar with trafalgar (which has a similar concept), it probably wouldn't even cross his mind in his first armada game. this needs some explanation in the legend.

one might wonder why certain parts of the english channel give such high bonuses of +2 to +4 for holding 3 to 5 regions. after all, they're just areas of empty sea, while conquering 9 ships gives just +1. i understand that the sea areas cannot bombard, so they need some bonus to compensate, but the difference appears to be excessive.

ian.

[cairnswk]

i very much suspect that the basic layout of the map, after ur changes, is virtually there (apart from the fact that some command ships can still be bombarded by enemy ship start positions)

Did you examine the chart i did 2 pages back ian?
Can you advise where you see that because they were all located well away from each other...perhaps i am mistaken

and only the bonuses and neutrals need more critical attention.

definitely agree.

antwerp and brugge have no army count.

Fixed.

bruxelles is anomalously in french, while the other nearby regions are in dutch; brussel is more logical.

sorry, not sure what u mean here

although the overall package looks better if there is legend at top and bottom with the playable map in the middle, this doesn't work so well when trying to understand the bonuses.

i beleive this is the best solution as players may not have to scroll so far when looking up something.

it makes more sense for the ship bonus to be valid for 9 single ships of the same nation, so that a player will tend to accumulate ships from one side of the battle.

Agreed and Fixed next version

it's not at all obvious that a command ship is part of this bonus and, unless a player is familiar with trafalgar (which has a similar concept), it probably wouldn't even cross his mind in his first armada game. this needs some explanation in the legend.

Agreed, and because CV has it's own bonus, i have stated it is not part of the +1 for 9 bonus...so does that need increasing?

one might wonder why certain parts of the english channel give such high bonuses of +2 to +4 for holding 3 to 5 regions. after all, they're just areas of empty sea, while conquering 9 ships gives just +1. i understand that the sea areas cannot bombard, so they need some bonus to compensate, but the difference appears to be excessive.
ian.

it was appropriate to include the main battles of the journey, and these are included as continents to battle over....i would be happy to adjust bonuses where needed. please advise further

VErsion 15.

Click image to enlarge.

[iancanton]

i very much suspect that the basic layout of the map, after ur changes, is virtually there (apart from the fact that some command ships can still be bombarded by enemy ship start positions)

Did you examine the chart i did 2 pages back ian?
Can you advise where you see that because they were all located well away from each other...perhaps i am mistaken

são luis can bombard san martin. scout can bombard ark royal.

bruxelles is anomalously in french, while the other nearby regions are in dutch; brussel is more logical.

sorry, not sure what u mean here

bruxelles is the french name for brussels (brussel in dutch), while gent, brugge and ieper are dutch names for these cities (gand, bruges and ypres in french), calais is a french name (kales in dutch) and antwerp is in english (antwerpen in dutch and anvers in french). we need some consistency here.

although the overall package looks better if there is legend at top and bottom with the playable map in the middle, this doesn't work so well when trying to understand the bonuses.

i beleive this is the best solution as players may not have to scroll so far when looking up something.

on the contrary, players may have to scroll to both top and bottom to make sure that they have the complete picture, for example the treasury is in both the top and bottom part of the legend.

ian.

[cairnswk]

i very much suspect that the basic layout of the map, after ur changes, is virtually there (apart from the fact that some command ships can still be bombarded by enemy ship start positions)

Did you examine the chart i did 2 pages back ian?
Can you advise where you see that because they were all located well away from each other...perhaps i am mistaken

são luis can bombard san martin. scout can bombard ark royal.

Thanks for those ian...fixed in V15 above, please refresh your browser.

bruxelles is anomalously in french, while the other nearby regions are in dutch; brussel is more logical.

sorry, not sure what u mean here

bruxelles is the french name for brussels (brussel in dutch), while gent, brugge and ieper are dutch names for these cities (gand, bruges and ypres in french), calais is a french name (kales in dutch) and antwerp is in english (antwerpen in dutch and anvers in french). we need some consistency here.

OK, i have changed them all to Dutch - i think, thank you for those language alternatives.

although the overall package looks better if there is legend at top and bottom with the playable map in the middle, this doesn't work so well when trying to understand the bonuses.

i beleive this is the best solution as players may not have to scroll so far when looking up something.

on the contrary, players may have to scroll to both top and bottom to make sure that they have the complete picture, for example the treasury is in both the top and bottom part of the legend.
ian.

From a design pov, i prefer this layout because the top and bottom enclose the map.
Your are correct for functionality however. The only thing i would be prepared to do is drop the bonus legend below the current bottom legend...if you can imagine how that would look...and even then i am not sure i would want to do that as i beleive it would look ghastly. Sorry, just my opinion.

PS: Ian, i have just spent an hour of so experimenting with the layout and moving things around.
1. i moved the top legend to below the current bottom legend, and this created greater issues with the bonuses being so far away from the actual map bonuses, it is still necessary to scroll from bottom to top to see the relevant areas on the mpa itself referred to in the legend.
2. i then moved the top legend to above the current bottom legend and (as much as it looks ghastly) there is some functionality there however, from the top of the map to the bottom of the monarch positions which is the play area, is still 700 pixels high thereabouts.
3. the current layout from top of map to bottom of monarch areas is only 620 pixels - not too far out of the min 600 pixels for small maps.

Whichever way one goes and on the basis of the above, i am reluctant to move anything.

[iancanton]

thanks for trying, anyway. just trying to anticipate the comments about the legend at the graphics stage.

there are still a few territories (i'm using territories to mean non-treasury regions and presume that this is the meaning in the legend) that can assault or bombard an opponent's start: diana and doncella, aid and poole land supply, bull, rainbow stern and ft(a), ft(a) and london land supply, zuniga and vanguard stern and moon, scout and brighton land supply.

can all territories bombard 2 in any direction, or just ships? i'm assuming it's all territories, since the legend doesn't say otherwise.

in the treasury, is it worth breaking up the upward arrow to make it clear that u cannot assault two treasury squares above?

tilbury fort (not fort tilbury) is on the north side of the river thames, not the south. if u don't have enough room for the army count up there, then just extending the green colour and the western border line to the other side of the river will be fine, as long as there's no doubt that it assaults york.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/tilbury-fort/

ian.

[cairnswk]

thanks for trying, anyway. just trying to anticipate the comments about the legend at the graphics stage.

and i appreciate your efforts there ian.

there are still a few territories (i'm using territories to mean non-treasury regions and presume that this is the meaning in the legend) that can assault or bombard an opponent's start: diana and doncella, aid and poole land supply, bull, rainbow stern and ft(a), ft(a) and london land supply, zuniga and vanguard stern and moon, scout and brighton land supply.

ah yes...will fix.

can all territories bombard 2 in any direction, or just ships? i'm assuming it's all territories, since the legend doesn't say otherwise.

well that is a point for discussion i guess. naturally ships would be able to, but should that be extended to land also, do you think?

in the treasury, is it worth breaking up the upward arrow to make it clear that u cannot assault two treasury squares above?

good point...will fix.

tilbury fort (not fort tilbury) is on the north side of the river thames, not the south. if u don't have enough room for the army count up there, then just extending the green colour and the western border line to the other side of the river will be fine, as long as there's no doubt that it assaults york.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/tilbury-fort/
ian.

Ah, ok. i can re-arrange that.
Will have something for those changes in the next few days.
Please advise you thoughts on the land assaults two terts away.

[iancanton]

it makes complete sense that all ships, armies and land supplies ought to be able to bombard; it's questionable for battle sites, english non-supply territories, beacons and treasury regions.

SS for supply ship looks much neater than L.B. for land base. remove the dots?

ian.

[cairnswk]

it makes complete sense that all ships, armies and land supplies ought to be able to bombard; it's questionable for battle sites, english non-supply territories, beacons and treasury regions.

SS for supply ship looks much neater than L.B. for land base. remove the dots?

ian.

Thanks for that ian. Those aspects above should be addressed in this version 16.

[DoomYoshi]

Disdain and Diana in the legend are different colors and shapes than the same ships in the map. When you get to graphics, that should probably be fixed to avoid confusion.

The beacons should have either beacon at least with 2 or 3 neutrals to avoid giving the british players too much advantage (unless it was the beacons that caused the battle to be won - I'm not very familiar with this battle).

Perhaps some key territories could also have a higher neutral bonus. Not sure which ones to put it on though.

[pamoa]

wow it has changed since I came last time
few remarks

I read all legend complex but understandable
except for the second part of Treasury Movement
does it mean the first row of treasury is attackable from command vessel, SS, LB ?

what is the difference between +1M and +1T in the treasury

I would restrain bombardment to command vessel only
as larger ship they are controlling at range
smaller ship shouldn't be
neither land bases but I'm not sure

[cairnswk]

Disdain and Diana in the legend are different colors and shapes than the same ships in the map. When you get to graphics, that should probably be fixed to avoid confusion.

please remind me at gfx stage if i haven't fixed it by then

The beacons should have either beacon at least with 2 or 3 neutrals to avoid giving the british players too much advantage (unless it was the beacons that caused the battle to be won - I'm not very familiar with this battle).

it was the beacons that alerted the british that the spanish were coming, so they did already have some advantage...and the 1 neutral would simulate that....but then they can only be gained along the way by conquering those terts.

Perhaps some key territories could also have a higher neutral bonus. Not sure which ones to put it on though.

good suggestion...perhaps someone else can take up that challenge.

[cairnswk]

wow it has changed since I came last time
few remarks...

of course...you should know by now that it would change each time i do an update.

I read all legend complex but understandable
except for the second part of Treasury Movement
does it mean the first row of treasury is attackable from command vessel, SS, LB ?

Yes

what is the difference between +1M and +1T in the treasury

+M1 is the monarch tert start that has to be held +1T is the first treasury tert that has to be conquered to earn the treasury bonus, whereafter you can start to attack (when necessary but not at the start) or fort to you other starting positions.

I would restrain bombardment to command vessel only
as larger ship they are controlling at range
smaller ship shouldn't be
neither land bases but I'm not sure

well, no, all vessels had capacity to bombard all other vessel.
I beleive ian has conquered that aspect.

[pamoa]

I read all legend complex but understandable
except for the second part of Treasury Movement
does it mean the first row of treasury is attackable from command vessel, SS, LB ?

Yes

what is the difference between +1M and +1T in the treasury

+M1 is the monarch tert start that has to be held +1T is the first treasury tert that has to be conquered to earn the treasury bonus, whereafter you can start to attack (when necessary but not at the start) or fort to you other starting positions.

then I suggest a clearer and grouped phrasing
I still can figure out who can attack who and what bonus it get
you should add a monarch definition
player is vague here do you mean red, blue, green, ... or spain and britain

hold a monarch and their treasury +11
bow and stern range an assault to any player's monarch territory e.g. victory b to F +1M
each monarch assault their own treasury only
the treasury : players must conquer neutrals to earn corresponding row bonus which autodeploy
treasury movement : players move one-way up to earn bonuses
or can assault and fort from any treasury square to same player's command vessel, supply ship (ss) or land base (lb)
spanish/english treasury : higher adds to lower bonuses

monarch (M) :
their is 6 monarch starting positions on both side
bonus +1 for each (change the +1M to M)
hold a monarch position and its own treasury column for +11
each monarch position can only assault one-way up
and is assaulted by any command vessel (bow or stern)

treasury :
bonus for each row see the ladder on the side (remove the T in side legend)
row bonuses autodeploy
each treasury position can assault one-way up
or fort to any same player's command vessel, supply ship (SS) or land base (LB) *

* I'm not sure what you meant here by attacking your own position
how do you define same player's positions
either you can only fort to any of your own hold positions then how to code it
or their are predefined link from each treasury column to assault one particular vessel, ss or lb then it should be stated
or you can assault any vessel, ss or lb

I would restrain bombardment to command vessel only
as larger ship they are controlling at range
smaller ship shouldn't be
neither land bases but I'm not sure

well, no, all vessels had capacity to bombard all other vessel.
I beleive ian has conquered that aspect.

It was not about reality but playability
are you sure you want almost all territories to be able to bombard
I mean its a lot of bombarding position
and in trench mode it would be almost impossible to go forward

[cairnswk]

....
then I suggest a clearer and grouped phrasing
I still can figure out who can attack who and what bonus it get

that is possible but might be limited by space...and i am reluctant to implement large quantities of text when we know that a picture creates a thousand words

you can or your cannot figure these things out....i am not sure if you have written this correctly in incorrectly, so i do not entirely understand if you can or cannot figure it out

you should add a monarch definition
player is vague here do you mean red, blue, green, ... or spain and britain

well. think about this...your english should be good enough to decipher that player refers to an individual, so yes to green, red, blue etc.
Spain or Britain would refer to a nation...or a side of the battle.

hold a monarch and their treasury +11
bow and stern range an assault to any player's monarch territory e.g. victory b to F +1M
each monarch assault their own treasury only
the treasury : players must conquer neutrals to earn corresponding row bonus which autodeploy
treasury movement : players move one-way up to earn bonuses
or can assault and fort from any treasury square to same player's command vessel, supply ship (ss) or land base (lb)
spanish/english treasury : higher adds to lower bonuses

monarch (M) :
their is 6 monarch starting positions on both side
bonus +1 for each (change the +1M to M)
hold a monarch position and its own treasury column for +11
each monarch position can only assault one-way up
and is assaulted by any command vessel (bow or stern)

treasury :
bonus for each row see the ladder on the side (remove the T in side legend)
row bonuses autodeploy
each treasury position can assault one-way up
or fort to any same player's command vessel, supply ship (SS) or land base (LB) *

i will see what i can use from your suggestions though.

[color=#008000]* I'm not sure what you meant here by attacking your own position
how do you define same player's positions
either you can only fort to any of your own hold positions then how to code it
or their are predefined link from each treasury column to assault one particular vessel, ss or lb then it should be stated
or you can assault any vessel, ss or lb

i see what you are saying...
the idea is that there are borders from each treasury space in each column to each corresponding starting position for cv, ss or lb.
so what i proabably need to do is identify each ss, lb with it's herald

I would restrain bombardment to command vessel only
as larger ship they are controlling at range
smaller ship shouldn't be
neither land bases but I'm not sure

well, no, all vessels had capacity to bombard all other vessel.
I beleive ian has conquered that aspect.

It was not about reality but playability
are you sure you want almost all territories to be able to bombard
I mean its a lot of bombarding position
and in trench mode it would be almost impossible to go forward

yes, i want a lot of bombarding positions...for trench i beleive it simply means you have to wait for the next round before moving forward....this would result in players possibly not wanting to play trench on this map, which to my mind isn't a bad thing...it wasn't designed with trench in mind.

[pamoa]

...I still can figure out who can attack who and what bonus it get

you can or your cannot figure these things out....I am not sure if you have written this correctly in incorrectly, so I do not entirely understand if you can or cannot figure it out

you should have read "I can't" sorry for my typing error and approximative English

...if there is a predefined link from each Treasury column to assault one particular CV, SS or LB then it should be stated...

the idea is that there are borders from each treasury space in each column to each corresponding starting position for CV, SS or LB.
so what I probably need to do is identify each ss, lb with it's herald

yes it's imperative especially for British LB and on each column
also for each Treasury column
and I suppose de Parma and LB Army Brussels didn't get any treasury connection

[cairnswk]

...
and I suppose de Parma and LB Army Brussels didn't get any treasury connection

that's correct...the idea is that he was to be "rescued" and transported to England as part of the invasion...so in fact it is a bonus if the player from San Martin nca "help him out".

[cairnswk]

Version 17.
1. i've changed the Monarch and Treasury text and also the Command Vessel text
2. instead of alpha reference, i changed the top of each players Monarch and Treasury column to the corresponding shield and also added a shield to players SS and LB territory.

Click image to enlarge.

[nolefan5311]

I have a question cairns...you say the Treasury can only assault/fort that same players command vessel, SS, or LB. Is that possible with the current XML abilities? To code one starting position to only be able to attack the same players starting position?

[cairnswk]

I have a question cairns...you say the Treasury can only assault/fort that same players command vessel, SS, or LB. Is that possible with the current XML abilities? To code one starting position to only be able to attack the same players starting position?

Well. think about this.
Assume: you hold all your treasury positions, your monarch position, both CV terts, SS (or LB).
Scenario 1: You can obviously fort to your CV terts, SS or LB from your treasury, since as you correctly stated you cannot attack your own terts from others your hold.

Assume: you hold all your treasury positions, SS (or LB), but someone has attacked both or one of your CV terts.
Scenario 2:You can then attack back to both CV terts from your treasury (or from bordering vessels)

Assume: you hold all your treasury positions, your monarch position, both CV terts, SS (or LB).
Scenario 3:Your Monarch is attacked and taken from one of your opponents CV terts. Ouch!
What to do? You have to gain control of one of your opponents' CV terts to retake your Monarch tert. This make the Monarch a very "required position" to hold.

And the strategy decisions that come from that when you are initially deploying at the start of your turn is to deicide whether your Monarch gets your initial "game deploy (usually of +3)" or to use it for other vessels you hold.
Remember the Monarch is part of the losing condition, and the Monarch already has +1 autodeploy.

Does that explain it?

[nolefan5311]

Ok, I've been away from "work" too long. I failed to realize there are PERMANENT associations between particular Monarchs, CVs, and LBs across ALL games (i.e., William Winter, Vanguard, and Margate LB are permanently associated across all games) based on their shield. I was operating off the assumption that there was not a consistent combination of M, CV, and SS/LB.

Carry on, carry on...momentary loss of focus corrected.

[pamoa]

about the "Monarch" term you use to define all 12 starting positions at the base of the treasury
I think it can bring some confusion as the only monarch named on your map are Philip II and Elisabeth I
so maybe "Nobles"

[cairnswk]

about the "Monarch" term you use to define all 12 starting positions at the base of the treasury
I think it can bring some confusion as the only monarch named on your map are Philip II and Elisabeth I
so maybe "Nobles"

pamoa. i really think your grabbing at straws here.
i do think that every player will get the fact from "Monarch (M)" (now that it's in place) that they each have a Monarch territory.
I am not in favour of using nobles when it is the nobles who are running the Command Vessels.

[cairnswk]

Ok, I've been away from "work" too long. I failed to realize there are PERMANENT associations between particular Monarchs, CVs, and LBs across ALL games (i.e., William Winter, Vanguard, and Margate LB are permanently associated across all games) based on their shield. I was operating off the assumption that there was not a consistent combination of M, CV, and SS/LB.

Carry on, carry on...momentary loss of focus corrected.

NP. Glad you caught it.

[iancanton]

swiftsure and poole land supply can still bombard each other. san martin b can still bombard de parma f, though this might be deliberate and is not necessarily a problem because de parma is not a starting region.

vanguard, which is already secure because of its corner position, is further protected by vanguard s being invulnerable from the east. as well as removing the barrier to the east of vanguard s, change the vanguard start position to vanguard b, frida and margate lb to dilute the advantage of being remote from attack.

some command vessel starting regions can be bombarded by an enemy after the latter kills an n1. i suggest that san pedro, san juan, san juan bautista and tramontana become n2. this gives a slight defensive advantage to the cv (against its potential aggressor) that happens to be in danger from this type of bombardment.

ian.

[cairnswk]

swiftsure and poole land supply can still bombard each other. san martin b can still bombard de parma f, though this might be deliberate and is not necessarily a problem because de parma is not a starting region.

vanguard, which is already secure because of its corner position, is further protected by vanguard s being invulnerable from the east. as well as removing the barrier to the east of vanguard s, change the vanguard start position to vanguard b, frida and margate lb to dilute the advantage of being remote from attack.

some command vessel starting regions can be bombarded by an enemy after the latter kills an n1. i suggest that san pedro, san juan, san juan bautista and tramontana become n2. this gives a slight defensive advantage to the cv (against its potential aggressor) that happens to be in danger from this type of bombardment.

ian.

ian, thank-you again. all done...pls refresh your browser for the change in V17 above.