Moderator: Cartographers
Flapcake wrote:tokle wrote:Flapcake wrote:tokle wrote:I don't know why qwert doesn't post his ideas here directly, rather than in pms...
But I actually think having bombardment of No-man's land is still a good idea. I think it adds another element that the players have to be observant and know what's going on. Because it might lead to a non-observant or non-experienced player to waste ammo on taking out enemies in no-man's land because they don't realise that they turn neutral. Or they forget.
Another, better point is that it allows you to see no-man's land in fog games. In that way the planes could be considered reconnaissance planes.
You got a very good point, (who hasent in a sleepy moment bombarded a neutral troop, I dident say that )
I can see when you put that way, that it could make some sence.
I think what qwert ment was that it sounded conflicting, perhaps it should be formulated another way, and it could provide a spoil by taking out your opponents sentenced to death troop, you dont get any thing for hitting a 1 neutral troop.
You do get spoils from bombarding neutrals too.
I just thought that when the neutral was down to "1" it could not come down to "0" on bombarding, since one do not take over the area, and you should probably eliminate troops to get spoils? (do it make sense?)
tokle wrote:Flapcake wrote:tokle wrote:Flapcake wrote:tokle wrote:I don't know why qwert doesn't post his ideas here directly, rather than in pms...
But I actually think having bombardment of No-man's land is still a good idea. I think it adds another element that the players have to be observant and know what's going on. Because it might lead to a non-observant or non-experienced player to waste ammo on taking out enemies in no-man's land because they don't realise that they turn neutral. Or they forget.
Another, better point is that it allows you to see no-man's land in fog games. In that way the planes could be considered reconnaissance planes.
You got a very good point, (who hasent in a sleepy moment bombarded a neutral troop, I dident say that )
I can see when you put that way, that it could make some sence.
I think what qwert ment was that it sounded conflicting, perhaps it should be formulated another way, and it could provide a spoil by taking out your opponents sentenced to death troop, you dont get any thing for hitting a 1 neutral troop.
You do get spoils from bombarding neutrals too.
I just thought that when the neutral was down to "1" it could not come down to "0" on bombarding, since one do not take over the area, and you should probably eliminate troops to get spoils? (do it make sense?)
You make sense. But you're wrong. You get a card from bombarding a neutral 1.
Flapcake wrote:tokle wrote:Flapcake wrote:tokle wrote:Flapcake wrote:You got a very good point, (who hasent in a sleepy moment bombarded a neutral troop, I dident say that )
I can see when you put that way, that it could make some sence.
I think what qwert ment was that it sounded conflicting, perhaps it should be formulated another way, and it could provide a spoil by taking out your opponents sentenced to death troop, you dont get any thing for hitting a 1 neutral troop.
You do get spoils from bombarding neutrals too.
I just thought that when the neutral was down to "1" it could not come down to "0" on bombarding, since one do not take over the area, and you should probably eliminate troops to get spoils? (do it make sense?)
You make sense. But you're wrong. You get a card from bombarding a neutral 1.
Can the current XML technology sort it out that it wont be possible to get spoils from bomberding neutrals ?
tokle wrote:I doubt it.
isaiah40 wrote:I still say that you should at the very least make the Field Hospitals safe from the bombardment of the airplanes. In FOW, you will be able to see practically the whole map, which negates playing FOW. Also change Felt to Field.
Flapcake wrote:Your right about the FOW, but then I think it should include the supply line aswell, course the feild hospital only have 4 areas, but hmm is it possible to make the XML so that you can shoot in blindness ?
felt (danish, sorry)being changed to feild
Flapcake wrote:
felt (danish, sorry)being changed to feild
QoH wrote:Flapcake wrote:
felt (danish, sorry)being changed to feild
should be fIEld, not fEIld...
isaiah40 wrote:You won't need to go to 860x840, but you can go to 840x840. All you have to do is consolidate the legend somewhat. Since you have the abbreviations in the legend now, I believe you can do something like this, mind you this is on an 840x840 image.
This is just my suggestion. Others may have other ideas on how to get it done. There won't be a problem of going to 840x840 to get everything into the legend properly. As you can see I also suggest on increasing the Foxhole values. I think these new values will make it worthwhile to take all the foxholes.
phantomzero wrote:Question regarding the allied flags. Why choose only those 3?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Australia
Canada
Indian Empire
New Zealand
South Africa
Belgium
Greece
Italy
Empire of Japan
Montenegro
Portugal
Romania
Russian Empire
Serbia
Also fought in the war and sustained casualties.
Flapcake wrote:
Yes ther was many ohter countries joined ww1, but there is no room for more trenches and the 3 flags represent the 3 generals / warlords as bonus areas. there are also on the German side Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, but this is takin out of history and formed like an close up battle, its not the big picture, thats an totaly nohter map, there it is posible to include all the participanted countries.
I could call it "1918 Western Front offensive" it was purely england and france, with support from American soldiers that fought against the German defense line. but this map is not about who participanted, its a trench map, thats what the game play is about. if it can satisfy anyone that it is some other flags then fine with me.
isaiah40 wrote:Since there hasn't been any other gameplay concerns, I'll send this to the trenches!! Congrats!!
AndyDufresne wrote:Flapcake wrote:
Yes ther was many ohter countries joined ww1, but there is no room for more trenches and the 3 flags represent the 3 generals / warlords as bonus areas. there are also on the German side Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, but this is takin out of history and formed like an close up battle, its not the big picture, thats an totaly nohter map, there it is posible to include all the participanted countries.
I could call it "1918 Western Front offensive" it was purely england and france, with support from American soldiers that fought against the German defense line. but this map is not about who participanted, its a trench map, thats what the game play is about. if it can satisfy anyone that it is some other flags then fine with me.
Sounds like a reasonable rebuttal.
--Andy
koontz1973 wrote:Congrats on the GP stamp. Looks like they are giving them out today.
Some cosmetic changes.
You have made the point yourself about how the Brits and French fought on the western front with help from the US, so can we get the Europe flags in front of the American flag.
German guns, why are they pink. Can we have another look at there colouring. Maybe a green if you want them different to the Allied guns.
Your shell holes are great, but the men look a little plastic and the XXXX tank barriers XXXX look like plastic.
The photo you have is copied from the left to the right side of the map. Can a different photo be found for the right side. Maybe have one with Germans going over the top.
Shell hole next to AC1. Is this a shell hole or an impassable. If neither, can you move it down a tad to stop confusion. Same with the German one at W5 (to the left).
German flag looks blurred.
That should keep you busy for a while.
And again, congrats.
DiM wrote:so now that this got the gameplay badge (congrats, btw) it's time for graphics
in no specific order here are some thoughts:
1. the red arrows are too flashy. they should blend more. also how come a shell hole can bombard a fox hole? logic tells me it should be the other way around. perhaps from a gameplay point of view it's better like it is now but logically it's a bit weird.
2. the shell holes are actually 1 image rotated and copy/pasted all over. the problem with that is that the original image had a light source and a shadow. by rotating it you now have a discrepancy. in one hole the light is in the north on another the light is in the south and so on. i think you should forget the image with the blow hole and look at the d-day map and try to replicate what mibi did there. it's actually a rather simple process that involves clip-masking and bevel.
3. this is not a very big issue but i'm actually quite distracted by the various size of map elements. for example the dead horse is the size of an airplane and the dead soldiers would never fit in the trenches. perhaps making then smaller.
4. the texture in the foxholes is a bit too sharp and repetitive. i'd use the same texture that you have on the trenches that connect the fox holes.
5. the fox holes and trenches need some depth. a really small bevel and some proper shading will work wonders.
6. blow holes? i don't know, maybe i'm the only perv here but the name makes me think of glory holes.
7. the flags in the legend somehow manage to be both pixelated as well as blurry at the same time not good. smooth and crisp is how they should be
8. the black/white image with the soldiers doesn't quite fit with the colourful map that's around it.
9. text in the legend. some of it has shadowing, some doesn't.
10. i'd like to see the legend created like a military report/file with orders or something like that.
that's it for now. i hope nothing i wrote has been mentioned before i honestly did not read the whole thread.
Industrial Helix wrote:Ignoring various historical inaccuracies...
This map is shaping up quite nice.
Do the field hospitals do nothing? I see the red cross and I conclude it should be an autodeploy where I can heal my injured troops and use them later in the battle.
The map needs to differentiate what you consider a fox hole versus a shell hole. Technically they're about the same thing in all but name. Though the foxhole didn't really come into common usage until WWII. but now... ahh... I see you are referring to the front line trenches as fox holes.
Though, how does one determine where the nearest fox hole is to a shell hole? You need to graphically depict which foxholes are reachable from which shell holes.
And the arrows, I presume indicate a one way attack, you need to put this in the legend somewhere.
Otherwise, keep up the good work!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users