![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Moderator: Cartographers
OliverFA wrote:Or we could name the advanced researches something like "Advanced X" so it would be easier to identify them
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:isaiah40 wrote:I say let's see how it plays in beta, and then if it needs to be changed, then we can do it at that time.
Are we at the point then that Oliver should get started on the XML? I think the only possible graphical tweak that's remaining at this point is finding another colour for either N or W homeland territories which is different from the other? That shouldn't affect the XML development at all, AFAIK.
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:OliverFA wrote:Or we could name the advanced researches something like "Advanced X" so it would be easier to identify them
lol Oliver, there is always that obvious solution which I'm surprised we didn't come up with previously. I think it'd be nicer to stick with the current names, unless we get some others having confusion over the which techs match with others. Mostly I'm thinking that "Advanced Army" doesn't sound as great as "Mobilized Army", though the variation for the other techs is nice too, IMO. Your suggestion I think would eliminate any problems if there are any with the colouring or tech names in the future.
OliverFA wrote:The only thing I don't really like about Dolomite comments is about the Top Secret Facility. It is supposed to be a way to invest in researching. With your normal deploy you can choose either to go militar or go scientific, but the TSF is only scientific, and that's its purpose. I agree about all the other comments, and specially about the basic / advanced researches layout as I previously said.
I will start the XML without the coordinates, but will do next week as also previously said
isaiah40 wrote:I like your thoughts dolomite!! Anyone else have any comments, suggestions, rebutals etc!? I'll wait a few days before I do anything. Oliver you can still get the layout of the XML started and done, just hold off on the co-ordinates and such.
dolomite13 wrote:Just noticed this... and I am sure it has been discussed and resolved already ... but ....
At the tip of the mountains in the SW area of the map... there is a single territory that is a choke point "WC1" all other mountain ranges have 2 territories that are required to be held to make the choke point.
I also noticed that player "W" and player "SW" are separated by 2 territories, "SE" and "E" by 2 territories but "NE" and "N" by 4 territories.
Their capitals are separated oddly as well with player "W" and player "SW" separated by 7 territories, "SE" and "E" by 8 territories but "NE" and "N" by 9 territories.
Mines look evenly spaced although the map is basically broken into 3 segments. The N/NE segment has 17 mines. The W/SW has 8 mines and the E/SE has 11 mines. With each of the 3 segments having 2 choke points it would be possible to get a decided advantage if you held the N/NE sector and could grab all 4 choke points. In team games, 17 mines is 34 forces with "mining" and it is doubles with "deep mining" to 68. a team that drops N/NE would be hard to stop I believe.
That's another 13 cents worth
=D13=
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just to throw it out there, I think everyone agrees Sabotage is going to be overpowered the way it is now. What if we made it so you could only bombard mines in the same segment that you own a capital? The only problem I could see with the idea is figuring out how to explain the different segments in very few words.
dolomite13 wrote:-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just to throw it out there, I think everyone agrees Sabotage is going to be overpowered the way it is now. What if we made it so you could only bombard mines in the same segment that you own a capital? The only problem I could see with the idea is figuring out how to explain the different segments in very few words.
You can't do conditional bombardments (I know, I tried)
So maybe having sabotage be a "killer" territory so people don't just camp it with a ton of troops and clean out every mine every turn would help. Maybe Killer 20. This would let the mining and deep mining bonuses be more useful early in the game before players can afford to use sabotage to clean out the mines.
=D13=
RedBaron0 wrote:With the tides of change come additional requirements. Since this map began its journey under the assumption that 8 being the maximum amount of player
isaiah40 wrote:I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.
isaiah40 wrote:I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:isaiah40 wrote:I'm back from my vacation, so I will attempt to get an update sometime this weekend.
I'm looking forward to seeing the new update. I think reorganizing the left will do a lot for making it clear which researches match with others.
Oliver, has there been any progress on the XML yet?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users