Cuban Missile Crisis [Quenched]

[Gillipig]

I don't have much to say because I can only see thing I like with this map. Here's a virtual pat on the back !!

[MrBenn]

The large map is missing the ripples around the ships.

[Victor Sullivan]

got on tonight. Updated first post.

Thanks!

-Sully

[Ace Rimmer]

updated images on first page in-place. They should be final, just waiting on XML (any update?) from sully.

[Gillipig]

Yes, I can't wait to play it!!! This could be a new favorite of mine. It's got the looks, all depends on how well it flows with 1v1 though!

[Victor Sullivan]

updated images on first page in-place. They should be final, just waiting on XML (any update?) from sully.

Sh-Boom!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... risis1.xml

Just make sure you drop those 10s on the launch buttons. Also, you should use the mapmaker tool and screenshot the coords I used (with 888s) to make sure they look okay to everyone. I'd do it myself, but I'm on my laptop, whose (?) screen is too small.

-Sully

[Victor Sullivan]

Here you go, Ace:

CubanMissileCrisis1.xml

(47.27 KiB) Downloaded 348 times

Been a busy week, so I haven't had much time to get on (end of the quarter).

-Sully

[Ace Rimmer]

Haven't forgotten this. XML looks decent, but needs the starting positions added. I'm gonna try to get to that but frankly I've been trying for two weeks.

[thenobodies80]

On my part I have no big suggestions for this map, the only one could be to work a bit on the text in the legends of your big version. The one you have on the small looks less fuzzy and more clean. Although it could sound strange, it's easier for me to read the legends on the small than on the big.

[Flapcake]

On my part I have no big suggestions for this map, the only one could be to work a bit on the text in the legends of your big version. The one you have on the small looks less fuzzy and more clean. Although it could sound strange, it's easier for me to read the legends on the small than on the big.

Same for me, the text in the small version is sharp and easy to read, when in the big one its soft and blury, it looks clearly best in in the smalle version.

Im realy looking forward to play your beautiful map

[Ace Rimmer]

After looking at was was possible with the XML, I decided to add starting positions to eliminate dropping the ship bonus. There will be 6 starting positions, each with one US and one USSR ship. Each person will get a max of 2, with the unused ones being starting neutrals. In 2p/3p games, that means each player will start with 2 of each type of ship, and in 4p-6p games, each person will start with one of each ship. In 7p/8p, the starting positions are ignored, but there is only a 17% chance of someone dropping 3 ships. We can keep the +1 for 3 bonus without having anyone drop it. To do this, Provomyy and USS Randolph were changed to a neutral 3 each, in addition to changing B-59 from neutral 2 to neutral 3 (so all neutral ships match).

That's what I originally wrote about starting positions.

Here are my thoughts:

USS Belle Grove and Krasnyy Kaukaz
USS Gearing and Ognevoy
USS Cambria and Tashkent
USS Eldorado and Reshitelnyy
USS Norfolk and Azou
USS Shadwell and Volya

Asking Sully to update his XML via PM

[Victor Sullivan]

Fixed.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... risis2.xml

CubanMissileCrisis2.xml

(48.13 KiB) Downloaded 333 times

-Sully

[koontz1973]

After looking at was was possible with the XML, I decided to add starting positions to eliminate dropping the ship bonus. There will be 6 starting positions, each with one US and one USSR ship. Each person will get a max of 2, with the unused ones being starting neutrals. In 2p/3p games, that means each player will start with 2 of each type of ship, and in 4p-6p games, each person will start with one of each ship. In 7p/8p, the starting positions are ignored, but there is only a 17% chance of someone dropping 3 ships. We can keep the +1 for 3 bonus without having anyone drop it. To do this, Provomyy and USS Randolph were changed to a neutral 3 each, in addition to changing B-59 from neutral 2 to neutral 3 (so all neutral ships match).

That's what I originally wrote about starting positions.

Here are my thoughts:

USS Belle Grove and Krasnyy Kaukaz
USS Gearing and Ognevoy
USS Cambria and Tashkent
USS Eldorado and Reshitelnyy
USS Norfolk and Azou
USS Shadwell and Volya

Asking Sully to update his XML via PM

If a starting position is ignored,, would the ships start as normal or would they start as neutral as you have coded them as such? If this is so, then the small games are OK, but the larger games would start with a lot of neutrals on the fleets considering as there are only 7 US and 9 USSR ships.

[Ace Rimmer]

For 2 to 6 player games the unassigned ones would be neutral. For 7+ players the positions would be ignored and they would be shuffled like other territs.

[Victor Sullivan]

For 2 to 6 player games the unassigned ones would be neutral. For 7+ players the positions would be ignored and they would be shuffled like other territs.

Nope. They would be neutral in 7- and 8-player games.

-Sully

[koontz1973]

I would guess you would need to have all of the ships as a separate starting position placed with a normal territ, with a max of 3 given out in games. Not sure or the probabilities of dropping a bonus that way for the ships, but it should be small enough to be done. Sully should be able to give you the probabilities.

[Ace Rimmer]

For 2 to 6 player games the unassigned ones would be neutral. For 7+ players the positions would be ignored and they would be shuffled like other territs.

Nope. They would be neutral in 7- and 8-player games.

-Sully

Sorry sully but I am right and you are wrong. Ask Oliver or another XML guru.

[Victor Sullivan]

For 2 to 6 player games the unassigned ones would be neutral. For 7+ players the positions would be ignored and they would be shuffled like other territs.

Nope. They would be neutral in 7- and 8-player games.

-Sully

Sorry sully but I am right and you are wrong. Ask Oliver or another XML guru.

The territories are coded as neutrals. The only thing that can override that is starting positions. If there are too few starting positions, the starting positions code is ignored and the territories are then coded as neutral.

-Sully

[Ace Rimmer]

Then the 12 listed should not be coded as neutral in the XML if memory serves. I want them divided up if there are 7 or 8 players, but not for 6 or less. I think positions not used go neutral so they don't have to be neutral thru XML.

[Victor Sullivan]

Then the 12 listed should not be coded as neutral in the XML if memory serves. I want them divided up if there are 7 or 8 players, but not for 6 or less. I think positions not used go neutral so they don't have to be neutral thru XML.

If they're not coded as neutral, I believe that causes problems. If nothing else, the excess positions won't be coded neutral, but will be dealt out as normal.

-Sully

[Gillipig]

I keep looking after the beta stamp but can't find it. Boys, lets stamp this shit!! (shit as in something good )

[Ace Rimmer]

I keep looking after the beta stamp but can't find it. Boys, lets stamp this shit!! (shit as in something good )

As soon as we iron out the XML beta should not be an issue. I just sent a pm to oliver to ask for help.

[OliverFA]

Hello guys, as this issue with knowing exactly what happens with unused started positions is very important, I have asked for extra confirmation. I will get back to you as soon as we have that confirmation.

[Ace Rimmer]

Thanks Oliver. FYI for everyone - I won't be back on the computer until Dec 12th at the earliest. Hopefully sully will have an updated XML by then and we can get that checked so we can get beta by the end of the year.

[Victor Sullivan]

Thanks Oliver. FYI for everyone - I won't be back on the computer until Dec 12th at the earliest. Hopefully sully will have an updated XML by then and we can get that checked so we can get beta by the end of the year.

Thumbs up!

-Sully