Bruceswar wrote:Sweet to see this one coming back.
Thanks Bruceswar. It's been a long time in development!
I am wondering if gameplay is finalised on this? Perhaps ian canton could comment.
Moderator: Cartographers
Bruceswar wrote:Sweet to see this one coming back.
cairnswk wrote:iancanton wrote:can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions?
ian.
m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.
I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.
iancanton wrote:cairnswk wrote:iancanton wrote:can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions?
ian.
m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.
I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.
it's a standard tactic in trips and quads to wipe out an opponent from an area before he can play a turn, which is why i raised the question. does ms2 going to ms4 and ms5 instead of to m1 and m2 work any better?
ian.
iancanton wrote:the new one-way minesweeper layout works well.
there are a few regions, such as monash gully and quinn's post, which can be bombarded but have no special property other than the +1 auto-deploy and are not really on the way to anywhere. these are destined to remain neutral in most games, unless u reduce the neutrals to n2.
i think we're at the stage where we can freeze the layout (freeing u to work on graphics) and the only gameplay changes to consider, if any, will be neutrals and bonuses.
ian.
cairnswk wrote:do you have in mind which terts you want reduced apart from monahs gully and quinn's post?
iancanton wrote:cairnswk wrote:do you have in mind which terts you want reduced apart from monahs gully and quinn's post?
the land regions which are are neither adjacent to a starting region nor are part of only 6 troops separating starting regions from each other, plus all seamines and neutral minesweepers.
monash gully: n3 to n2
quinn's post: n3 to n2
tepe: n3 to n2
anafarta sagir: n3 to n2
kum tepe: n3 to n2
tekke burnu trenches: n6 to n2
sedd el bahr: n3 to n2
ms4, ms5, ms6, ms7, ms8 and ms9: n3 to n1
m1 ,m2 and m3: k3 to k2
can all forts bombard all narrows and all dardanelles? can forts bombard mines?
ian.
ManBungalow wrote:I'm already looking forward to playing this.
Graphics comments:
looks awesome
the Kilid Baar Plateau <-> Fistkush border line goes over some mountains
iancanton wrote:cairnswk wrote:do you have in mind which terts you want reduced apart from monahs gully and quinn's post?
the land regions which are are neither adjacent to a starting region...
iancanton wrote:tekke burnu trenches: n6 to n2
sedd el bahr: n3 to n2
cairnswk wrote:ian, i think the fort neutrals are out of kilter now, should they be re-examined, some are 3 some are 6, but i think possibly they should be similar.
iancanton wrote:iancanton wrote:cairnswk wrote:do you have in mind which terts you want reduced apart from monahs gully and quinn's post?
the land regions which are are neither adjacent to a starting region...iancanton wrote:tekke burnu trenches: n6 to n2
sedd el bahr: n3 to n2
actually, neither tekke burnu trenches nor sedd el bahr qualifies, so we'd better make them n3 instead of n2.
cairnswk wrote:ian, i think the fort neutrals are out of kilter now, should they be re-examined, some are 3 some are 6, but i think possibly they should be similar.
this doesn't really pose difficulties. the only reason some forts start as n6 is because they are adjacent to 2 starting regions. the minesweepers have no bonus and they can do very little with their 6 troops initially, so they're not a prime target for the forts. conversely, all of the landing ships have a +2 auto-deploy bonus, but are sitting ducks, so the main action is likely to take place there instead.
ian.
iancanton wrote:onward and upward!
ian.
Bruceswar wrote:you gotta do something with those mountains to make the pop out a bit more so people can see them on the map. They get lost in places like lone pine ridge.
Seamus76 wrote:Looks great cairns.
I believe Seamines is two words, Sea Mines.
Sorry if the Villages were explained earlier, but I want to make sure I understand them. So if I hold Krithia, that borders Madios? And all of the Villages just attack each other? Which I think is what it means.
RedBaron0 wrote:Since you don't have -land-mines I think the use of the word "sea" is redundant. "Mines" should be more than sufficient.
The beach color and their label are the same, and a few are too close together to the point where the labels disappear into the beaches themselves. KK Beach being the biggest offender I can see where half the "B" disappears into he beach. A dark glow or outline should fix this.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users