WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Game 5546235..I got ripped off

Postby schism on Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:40 pm

I mortared an area and annihilated it but would not take it...I got cheated how is this fixed?

please refer to Game 5546235 player is schism, is was my second turn

Thank you
User avatar
Cook schism
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: City of Angeles
Medals: 1
Standard Achievement (1)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby Industrial Helix on Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:07 pm

Yeah... that would be bombard, which is different than one way attack. bombard can reduce the number of the opposite enemy and reduce them to neutral. A one way attack is like bombard except you actually take the territory after defeating all of a player's men there.
Sketchblog [Update 07/25/11]: http://indyhelixsketch.blogspot.com/
Living in Japan [Update 07/17/11]: http://mirrorcountryih.blogspot.com/
Russian Revolution map for ConquerClub [07/20/11]: viewtopic.php?f=241&t=116575
User avatar
Cook Industrial Helix
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:49 pm
Location: California
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (3)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)
Training Achievement (1) Map Contribution (5) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby schism on Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:17 am

well thats bull$hit if you ask me.... :x
User avatar
Cook schism
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: City of Angeles
Medals: 1
Standard Achievement (1)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby captainwalrus on Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:11 pm

schism wrote:well thats bull$hit if you ask me.... :x

Then don't play maps that use bombardment...
~ CaptainWalrus
User avatar
Private 1st Class captainwalrus
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:19 pm
Location: Finnmark
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby schism on Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:45 am

sorry for that remark....I was being sarcastic...but I realize sometimes on posts it can be taken wrong.
User avatar
Cook schism
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: City of Angeles
Medals: 1
Standard Achievement (1)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby Swifte on Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:41 pm

Why are all the little Italian flags on this map backwards?
User avatar
Major Swifte
Chatter
Chatter
 
Posts: 2057
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:05 pm
Location: usually Mahgreb
Medals: 125
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (31)
General Achievement (31) Clan Achievement (6) Challenge Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (7)

Re:

Postby cairnswk on Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:36 pm

cairnswk wrote:...
the flags in the legend are set at the correct position for reading....i.e. left to right, with the poles situated on the left.
In the map, some are reversed to give the appearance of movement making them flow behind their flag. this was done after a suggestion from the punters, but i think it would look silly for some of the other flags to fly in reverse.
...
User avatar
Corporal cairnswk
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 50
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (35) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby DiM on Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:43 pm

i was just playing this map and i was thinking it would be interesting to make the objective achievable. right now the objective means holding about 90% of the map which is kinda hard to do.

i don't know if it's worth changing the map for this just giving my 2 cents.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10386
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby cairnswk on Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:06 pm

DiM wrote:i was just playing this map and i was thinking it would be interesting to make the objective achievable. right now the objective means holding about 90% of the map which is kinda hard to do.

i don't know if it's worth changing the map for this just giving my 2 cents.


Dim, hi.
The Axis actually defeated the Allies in this battle to capture Tobruk, and the Allies forced to flee to Egypt.
Essentially there are two sides to this battle, and as such it's probably best for 1V1, doubles, quads.
But from the viewvpoint of the Allies, it would be necessary to defeat the Axis partners while holding Tobruk.
From the viewpoint of the Axis, they'd want to destroy the Allies.
So i doubt that holding anything less than the current objective would suffice in order to be true to history, but i don't deny it's a high objective.
Also i've had a game where i won because i destroyed my enemies before the objective was achieved, so thus the objective then becomes obsolete but enemy still destroyed.
I wouldn't want to change the map, but i think the objective is achieveable. :)
User avatar
Corporal cairnswk
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 50
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (35) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby DiM on Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:20 pm

cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:i was just playing this map and i was thinking it would be interesting to make the objective achievable. right now the objective means holding about 90% of the map which is kinda hard to do.

i don't know if it's worth changing the map for this just giving my 2 cents.


Dim, hi.
The Axis actually defeated the Allies in this battle to capture Tobruk, and the Allies forced to flee to Egypt.
Essentially there are two sides to this battle, and as such it's probably best for 1V1, doubles, quads.
But from the viewvpoint of the Allies, it would be necessary to defeat the Axis partners while holding Tobruk.
From the viewpoint of the Axis, they'd want to destroy the Allies.
So i doubt that holding anything less than the current objective would suffice in order to be true to history, but i don't deny it's a high objective.
Also i've had a game where i won because i destroyed my enemies before the objective was achieved, so thus the objective then becomes obsolete but enemy still destroyed.
I wouldn't want to change the map, but i think the objective is achieveable. :)


yeah of course that judging from a historical point of view the objective is accurate but the thing is that in 3-8 players it's impossible to take it unless you own the entire map, in which case you've already won with or without the objective.

and in 1v1 where it should be easier it's actually kinda a bad move to go for the objective because basically you'd have to kill a lot of neutrals.

in my opinion objectives should be an alternative way to the classical style of winning which is by sheer accumulation of terits. yes the objective is achievable but it's the same as winning in a classical fashion. you'd still have to be by far the strongest player on the map and completely dominate the opponents.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10386
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby cairnswk on Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:35 pm

DiM wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:i was just playing this map and i was thinking it would be interesting to make the objective achievable. right now the objective means holding about 90% of the map which is kinda hard to do.

i don't know if it's worth changing the map for this just giving my 2 cents.


Dim, hi.
The Axis actually defeated the Allies in this battle to capture Tobruk, and the Allies forced to flee to Egypt.
Essentially there are two sides to this battle, and as such it's probably best for 1V1, doubles, quads.
But from the viewvpoint of the Allies, it would be necessary to defeat the Axis partners while holding Tobruk.
From the viewpoint of the Axis, they'd want to destroy the Allies.
So i doubt that holding anything less than the current objective would suffice in order to be true to history, but i don't deny it's a high objective.
Also i've had a game where i won because i destroyed my enemies before the objective was achieved, so thus the objective then becomes obsolete but enemy still destroyed.
I wouldn't want to change the map, but i think the objective is achieveable. :)



yeah of course that judging from a historical point of view the objective is accurate but the thing is that in 3-8 players it's impossible to take it unless you own the entire map, in which case you've already won with or without the objective.

and in 1v1 where it should be easier it's actually kinda a bad move to go for the objective because basically you'd have to kill a lot of neutrals.

in my opinion objectives should be an alternative way to the classical style of winning which is by sheer accumulation of terits. yes the objective is achievable but it's the same as winning in a classical fashion. you'd still have to be by far the strongest player on the map and completely dominate the opponents.


haven't you just answered you own question about what an objective should be?
User avatar
Corporal cairnswk
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 50
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (35) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby ViperOverLord on Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:40 pm

One of the greatest maps__ Figures that cairnswk made it.

BTW - I haven't followed the convo close - But I'm against an objective for this map if one is being proposed. I think it's good not to mess with an already great formula.
User avatar
Major ViperOverLord
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:19 pm
Location: California
Medals: 127
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (3)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (30)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (10) Tournament Contribution (31)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby DiM on Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:49 pm

cairnswk wrote:haven't you just answered you own question about what an objective should be?


yes i did, that's why i'm saying this objective isn't. on this map if you go for the classical way of winning which is through total annihilation of your opponents or if you go for the objective it's the same. there's absolutely no difference. it's like making the objective to hold the whole map. in some instances (mainly 1v1) it's even harder to hold the objective than to kill your opponent.

in other objective maps you can win via objective even if you're the weakest player thus making the objective an alternative to the classic annihilation.

but, again, it's probably not worth changing the map.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Image
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10386
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks
Medals: 45
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (10)
Tournament Contribution (4) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby cairnswk on Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:53 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:One of the greatest maps__ Figures that cairnswk made it.

BTW - I haven't followed the convo close - But I'm against an objective for this map if one is being proposed. I think it's good not to mess with an already great formula.

ViperOverLord, thanks for the kudos, and for dropping in...
I'm very sorry to inform you, but there is already an objective on the map, even though you may never have used/seen it.
So it is there, but play can render it obsolete.
User avatar
Corporal cairnswk
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 50
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (35) General Contribution (3)

Re: WWII: Battle of Gazala [Quenched]

Postby cairnswk on Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:16 pm

DiM wrote:
cairnswk wrote:haven't you just answered you own question about what an objective should be?


yes i did, that's why i'm saying this objective isn't. on this map if you go for the classical way of winning which is through total annihilation of your opponents or if you go for the objective it's the same. there's absolutely no difference. it's like making the objective to hold the whole map. in some instances (mainly 1v1) it's even harder to hold the objective than to kill your opponent.

in other objective maps you can win via objective even if you're the weakest player thus making the objective an alternative to the classic annihilation.

but, again, it's probably not worth changing the map.

I say the objective is, even though it is only 45 of the 70 terrs (64% - I just counted them), which is consistent with what history might have required, as i explained above.
It is possible to obtain the objective, it is also possible to have classic gameplay by annihilating you oponent, and it is possible to conquer the whole map if you wish.
I've played 3 1v1 games and only won 1 - where 49/70 regions were held - but i anniahlated my opponent on that occasion.
Same opponent, different game, he won 44/70
different game, different opponent - he won 46/70
I would say that the objective is highly achieveable except most people porably use classic gameplay style annihilation anyways,
And yes, at only 64% percent of terrs required for objective, i'd be most unlikely to change the objective.
User avatar
Corporal cairnswk
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:32 pm
Medals: 50
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Map Contribution (35) General Contribution (3)

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Login