Conquer Club

I think that Andy must create new subforum for quenched maps.

yeti_c wrote:Nope - that's the way the map is to be played...

It's to promote Japan vs Australia gameplay.

C.

All...its not only to promote the Japan Vs the Allies gameplay but also a north vs south gameplay.

I agree also with Qwert above....it would be nice to have a quenched sub forum alongside a Final Forge sub forum.

I just noticed there was some misspelled names, so if you ever do an update:
Bouganville should be Bougainville
Choisuel should be Choiseul

Lackattack.

As per our previous conversation some weeks ago, i have changed the Battle For Australia map to no neutrals, and changed the notation on the map accordingly.

I have also changed the names on each map for Bougainville and Choiseul
as per the post above from ga7.

Links

XML

http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/battle_fo ... utrals.xml

V36 Small

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av036S.jpg

v36 Large

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av036L.jpg

V36 Small


v36 Large

No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BeakerWMA....sorry about that, but i will PM lackattack and ask him if it is possible to have both neutral and non-neutral version available.

No neutrals? WTF? that's what makes this map so awesome...

BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BreakWMA......unfortunately lackattack has said her prefers to not have two versions available to keep things unconfusing. so for now BFA will go to no neutrals for the time being.

cairnswk wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BreakWMA......unfortunately lackattack has said her prefers to not have two versions available to keep things unconfusing. so for now BFA will go to no neutrals for the time being.

Sigh...that kind of makes it lose it's flavor. Why did he say he wanted no neutrals? The notice on the top right is self explanatory.

unriggable wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BreakWMA......unfortunately lackattack has said her prefers to not have two versions available to keep things unconfusing. so for now BFA will go to no neutrals for the time being.

Sigh...that kind of makes it lose it's flavor. Why did he say he wanted no neutrals? The notice on the top right is self explanatory.

Lack didn't say he wanted no neutrals...i decided to change because not everyone was happy with all those neutral terts, and using neutrals also makes some of the map totally useless if nobody is going to conquer those neutral terts, and that is generally what happens.

Maybe it shouldn't say all neutral territories have been removed as that just creates confusion now.

nagerous wrote:Maybe it shouldn't say all neutral territories have been removed as that just creates confusion now.

ah...time to have it removed then. thanks nagerous.

in the xml, bougainville is misspelled bouganville, though it's spelled correctly on the map.

ian.

iancanton wrote:in the xml, bougainville is misspelled bouganville, though it's spelled correctly on the map.

any chance of fixing the xml error?

ian.

iancanton wrote:

iancanton wrote:in the xml, bougainville is misspelled bouganville, though it's spelled correctly on the map.

any chance of fixing the xml error?

ian.

Sent

Thanks cairnswk.


--Andy

Maybe it's time to remove the "all neutral territories are removed from this map"?

Gilligan wrote:Maybe it's time to remove the "all neutral territories are removed from this map"?

I was under the impression that the comment alludes to historically neutral regions, not regions belonging the neutral player?

eg. removing Switzerland from the WWII Europe map

ManBungalow wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Maybe it's time to remove the "all neutral territories are removed from this map"?

I was under the impression that the comment alludes to historically neutral regions, not regions belonging the neutral player?

eg. removing Switzerland from the WWII Europe map

Incorrect, when the map was first put into play a lot of the center map was made neutral. Much of Papua, New Guinea, and surrounding areas were made neutral. Then no one ever touched that side of the map and they were removed.