Battle of Waterloo [Quenched]

[tim02]

truely brillaint I love the way you took history on this one

[Unit_2]

i also saw that D15's borders are differnt colors then the rest of the cont.

[asl80]

Good work cairns. Stunning

Some suggestions: Though i'm sure you would have most of them in mind anyway.

*Could the Napolean image be presented similarly to the Wellington image? i.e. clearer yet faded (which sinks in nicely there
(Also, of the coats-of-arms top centre, are these on their right sides, i.e. correlative with Napolean on the left and Wellington on the right - my unreflective assumption would be that the lion was the british lion - fill me in if it's not?)

*The bonus distinctions by colour and terrain are good, though i'm still clinging to the idea of red v blue. Maybe within the grey army number holders you could try the slightest outline (inside) or glow of red/blue respectively.
(Is there a reason why D15 has a light blue outline?)

*Is the road not a border then? I think this is a good idea if it isn't - since when was an army deterred by a road. But you should probably mention this in the legen either way.

*Would be good if you could make the little legend in the bottom right look a little more elevated, as per the rest (which is good). Though i see it is on the same "level" as the napolean image part - so maybe just a bit more shadow if this could still maintain consistency.

*Maybe enhance/enlarge the brick walls?

*LHS needs an army circle. (Actually, is this a territory? - nothing in the legend i don't think)

*DC3 to PC4 bridge - what about a wooden bridge, or at least something more graphical, rather than symbolic.

* Of the artillary setup - Herakilla's suggetions sound good, though would it just be absolute caos in terms of holding bonuses (if someone just built up their armies on one artillary they could effectively force the holding of a bonus on that side to take place only by building up on all the bonus region territories - which i could imagine wouldn't be that desirable {Maybe a solution to this problem could be that you only need to hold a certain number of territories [like in Berlin] in a bonus to recieve the bonus, which could be set uniformly among all the bonuses, and have only the amount of territories needed to gain the bonuse stipulated individually in the legend? - this is obviously a bit wacky, though not completely beyond a working solution})
Also, been bombarders, could they also attack their adjacent territories (xml-able?) - maybe they shouldn't be able to in anycase. The balancing of the artillary, i.e. Blue 4 to Red 5 on the Left, and B 5 to R 3 on the right seems a little out - unless there is some other factor that balances?


Looking forward to see what your thoughts for the bonuses are.

P.S. This is very important: i don't like the reference to an aweful band in the legend, i.e. D12 - it is imperitave that you change this or at least accompany the reference with an appropriate amount of derision!!! hehehehe
(But i'm sure the young fella Unit_2 is stoked that he's got a mention in there too)

[cairnswk]

that is much better.

Thanks mibi fo your input....this map has been a challenge for three months now trying to work out how to best "present it", but i feel like i am getting somewhere now...big as it is, and of course everyone is not going to like the "huge" gameplay.
I hope there will be some decent feedback on gameplay bonuses this time around as opposed to what the aftermath was with pearl harbour.

[cairnswk]

my god cairns what hte hell is this



its going to take me a while to get my head around this one but im liking the concept so far.

but one thing im finding difficult is identified the villages and farms any way to make this less of a problem?

EDIT: nevermind i ee how its worknig now lol

Good gimil...this is a huge map to do because of the historical importance and the gameplay components, but i think will a lot of luck it will get there.

[cairnswk]

cairswk, can you change the color of the borders in "D" area? it is really hard to see where the lines are because of the colors are close to the same, also in the "R" area its hard to see though not as hard as the "D" area.

Yes unit 2....i see you have a couple of posts about the borders....they will be changed so that everyone can determine what is what...have that confidence!

[cairnswk]

unit 2 is right, maybe a black border would work though. it might take away from the fieldness feel of the map (lol) and i like this a lot better than the others, it looks more like a field

i'll try the black border and see what it is like....

farms and villas need to be one consistent color for each respectively

yes, these need work for the next version and will be done.

and i personally think that allowing the artilleries to bombard any target of the OPPOSITE army's troops on their side of the road will allow for interesting game play and more realism to the battle. (after all, why would an artillery bombard its own troops for one, but not be able to hit the enemy as well?) this also puts a lot of power in the artilleries and makes them a crucial part of any strategy, i believe that people said earlier that the artillery should play a bigger role in the map and this would do that!

OK, i think that might be a good idea.

[cairnswk]

=D>

Major improvement. Now I'll begin to follow this map. Excellent work cairns

Good....keep your eyes peeled

[cairnswk]

truely brillaint I love the way you took history on this one

Well i tried to be true to the battle map as best possible....i think i have succeeded to some extent.

[cairnswk]

Good work cairns. Stunning

Some suggestions: Though i'm sure you would have most of them in mind anyway.

......

Thanks asl80...i will attend to most of those suggestions for the next version....keep your eyes peeled.

[cairnswk]

Current Version

[Herakilla]

DI5 is a different color than the rest of the D area

[Aerial Attack]

LHS is listed in the legend only has HS - this could cause some of the confusion. I think once it has the same feel as the other farm houses - it will be much easier to distinguish.

[rebelman]

my first impressions about this map are very positive but i want to have a look at the thread before making any detailed comments (was drawn in by your thread in general discussion)

[rebelman]

ok here are my detailed thoughts having gone through all 11 pages (i cant believe all comments so far have been on topic, I never saw that in a foudry thread before )

I love "gimmicky" maps and its no surprise then that this one appeals to me lol

Firstly im thrilled you got rid of the helmet look - that took form the overall appearance

I have one big overall concern because there is so much going on it does look a bit like someone squashed this entire map like an acordian - perhaps the whole concept of less is more mightn't be a bad one for this map overall ie remove some territories and as a result increase the size of some remaining ones - obviously this is a firt impression and its hard to tell how squashed or not it is without playing a game on it.

i really don't like your infantry - they should look more like this:



instead of the symbols you are using

and i think your artillery should look more like this:




instead of the symbols you are using

i would be interested to know what starting positions would be (to ensure no player has no obvious advantage) and if neutral armies are going to be greater or lesser on some territories ala age of might

your hedges remind me of either caterpillars or sweets but definitly not hedges - i would suggest changing these

is brussels road impassible i assume not as you never state this but i suspect many who play this without the benefit of grease monkey will assume it is impassible

the bridge between dc3 and bc4 looks like something that was pasted in there by mistake -this should look more "bridgey"

farms bonus: would be better if any 3 was +2 but +4 for all 4 ala the planes in ph - gives a big incentive to take all 4 then instead of +3 for any 3 and nothing extra for the 4th

the coding style for the villages and farms should be the same as for other terrritories otherwise this will cause confusion (i actually struggled to find some of the farms on the current map)

ie one letter - for the territory
one letter for its military strength if any
and its number (even if its a stand alone it should still get the number 1)

ok those are my inital thoughts - hope they are of some help

ps despite the way the poll is going the greens and browns look very well and are much easier on the eye

[cairnswk]

DI5 is a different color than the rest of the D area

Yes i have fixed that already in the next version

[cairnswk]

LHS is listed in the legend only has HS - this could cause some of the confusion. I think once it has the same feel as the other farm houses - it will be much easier to distinguish.

Being attended to in next version....Aerial attack...thanks

[cairnswk]

my first impressions about this map are very positive but i want to have a look at the thread before making any detailed comments (was drawn in by your thread in general discussion)

i caught a fish....yes rebelman...that's why it is there in general discussion to gove people out there a chance to comment if they want to follow it through.

[cairnswk]

ok here are my detailed thoughts having gone through all 11 pages (i cant believe all comments so far have been on topic, I never saw that in a foudry thread before )

I love "gimmicky" maps and its no surprise then that this one appeals to me lol

Firstly im thrilled you got rid of the helmet look - that took form the overall appearance

Good...pleased to hear.

I have one big overall concern because there is so much going on it does look a bit like someone squashed this entire map like an acordian - perhaps the whole concept of less is more mightn't be a bad one for this map overall ie remove some territories and as a result increase the size of some remaining ones - obviously this is a firt impression and its hard to tell how squashed or not it is without playing a game on it.

I have intention of reducing some terts.

i really don't like your infantry - they should look more like this:



instead of the symbols you are using

and i think your artillery should look more like this:


instead of the symbols you are using

I'm nopt sure i agree with you altogether on this one.

Perhaps i can make a small adjustment to the legs of the infantry, but i wopuld be reluctant to consider changing these too much more....i have already spendt several hours trying things out here at home, and this combintion appears to work well re blue/red colour and simplt design for icons. I'll see.

i would be interested to know what starting positions would be (to ensure no player has no obvious advantage) and if neutral armies are going to be greater or lesser on some territories ala age of might

there are going to be no neutral armies as this point in time apart from those that are deployed by default in 5 players games for instance.

your hedges remind me of either caterpillars or sweets but definitly not hedges - i would suggest changing these

Yes i agree, they will be attentioned for work.

is brussels road impassible i assume not as you never state this but i suspect many who play this without the benefit of grease monkey will assume it is impassible

Brussel Road will be i0nplassable in certain sections except where the army terts cover the coiver the road. This is a mistake on this map as the layer for that aspect it too high in the system.

the bridge between dc3 and bc4 looks like something that was pasted in there by mistake -this should look more "bridgey"

Yes that too marked for attention.

farms bonus: would be better if any 3 was +2 but +4 for all 4 ala the planes in ph - gives a big incentive to take all 4 then instead of +3 for any 3 and nothing extra for the 4th

the coding style for the villages and farms should be the same as for other terrritories otherwise this will cause confusion (i actually struggled to find some of the farms on the current map)

ie one letter - for the territory
one letter for its military strength if any
and its number (even if its a stand alone it should still get the number 1)

i will consider some different bonuses here, prob is fitting it all in.
let me C.

ps despite the way the poll is going the greens and browns look very well and are much easier on the eye

Ye sthe results of the poll indicated preference for colours as per legend and there is nothgin to say it can't be green, browns and yellows. which is what is basically there now, althought these will not be final colors.

[benjikat]

I have only read from the latest update (page 10, so please forgive me if I am repeating anything) - also I have been typing this in bits over a number of hours so will have been "fastposted" a lot (edit: in 5 hours it appears I wasn't )

Firstly, I adore large complicated maps and this looks like it will be a truly excellent addition.

There is however a long way to go!

First impressions Unlike many large maps I found this very easy to understand quite quickly. The different colours of the "continents" really help and are pleasing to the eye. I also like the simplicity of the icons for A I C and commanders.

Territory Count I count 113 currently - I think this is a terrible number because in 6 player games each starts with 18 territores making going first too much of an advantage. In fact I would like all large maps to ensure that their territory count is such that for 4 & 6 player games each player gets n*3-1 territories - i.e so that 3 have to be taken away for they lose out on one to start with. For this map I think 104 (no more no less!) is the perfect number this is then true for 4,5&6 player games. Number of neutrals is largely irrelevant for these much larger maps and is never going to be more than 5 anyway.
Obviously this is territory count after enforced neutrals are taken into account - see below.

Territory naming I don't see the need for specifying the type of unit it is in the territory name - at first I thought that RC and RI were different continents for example ( and wondered why they were the same colour). I also dislike the abbreviated names in general. Have you considered using the same method as D-Day? - i.e where the continent is named and then the territories numbered, giving full names. This reduces the amount of text in general. One downside to this method is the way the territories get ordered in the dropdowns - with XXX 10 coming before XXX 1, which irritates me - the only way I can see of avoiding this is never to have more than 9 territories in a continent (any larger than that are probably going to be irrelevant anyway...).

Lines of attack I love the idea of the cavalry / artillery attacks, but they need to be defined a lot more clearly. How do you define "2 away" and "4 away" - firstly I presume you mean .."also up to...", secondly the only easy way I can see of defining the number of territories it is away is be attack routes - i.e 4 away would require 4 successful normal attacks to reach? However this leads to some strange situations - MA2 is 5 away from LI2 using this methodology, but that makes no sense in terms of the physical bombardment capabilities.

My greater concern about these lines of attack is that basically across the board there are almost no "safe" territories, meaning that for each continent, #territories=#borders. This isn't necessarily a problem as it would actually reflect the attritional nature of 18th century warfare very well. (and would make decent strategies for this map very different to most others).

However it still doesn't help define where the bombardments can be made to. Have you thought about having bombardment zones - which could be signified by using blue and red target icons, that are a little more focused than present? It could be as simple as a simple zone that can be bombarded by both sides - probably running from BC1 tor RC2, 2 territories wide - this could easily incorporate at least one territory of a large number of contintents maintaining the attrition angle.

Cavalry are fine as long as you come up with an easy way of saying they "can attack territories that the territories they could normally attack can attack" if you get my drift. (Just saying "2 away" has the potential I believe for confusion) - I'll put my thinking cap on for some neat wording

Farms and Villages I found these very hard to find to start with - a simple textured box next to the legend would have made that much more simple.

LHS - you know about in the legend - it also needs an army "circle".

I think that both of these bonuses should have a symmetrical nature - i.e I like the fact that each village is 2 territories - but one of the farms is 3. (Could HM become a single territory?)

Because they are spread across the map, I think that 3 villages could be as much as +9 - much like the "allied symbols" bonus on 8 thoughts - they are often quite easy to obtain, but if you are knocked off one of the points, your nearest army can be a long way away.

The farms could have the structure of the cities in the Italy map: 2=+1, 3=+2, 4=+3, although any 3 for +3 is fine as well

General graphical issues

UC4 is the wrong colour.
The legend in the bottom right corner is lost - I only noticed it after studying the map for 15 mins - I think it needs to be with the rest of Wellington's legend.
There is a 4 way border - RC1/RA2 - easily fixed
D region needs stronger border lines.
The bridge looks awful


Bonuses I was gonna leave it at that, but notice that almost noone has commented on the bonus structuring - so I'll give it a try!

Napoleon / Wellington: i think that the importance of these guys can really be played up. I would suggest that they start neutral (maybe 4) and that the armies are added directly to the territory. This would represent their commands and influence spreading through the battle. (I know that you have had your fingers burnt with the neutrals on BfA, but I think that having only a handful of neutrals is a very different proposition - they work v v well in Berlin and AoM for example).

There need to be more smaller areas like H. Could these be created by slipping off some sections of the larger ones? They needn't be in the corners however.

I was going to do an analysis of territories and borders, but realised that if the attack rules change then these would change greatly too... so let's leave that for another day, once the attack routes have been finalised (which you may feel they have been)

Disclaimer I have not been considering the "real" battle at all - just the playability of map v12...


Now if only I could put as much effort into making my own map ideas good enough to present to you guys....

[yeti_c]

Territory naming
One downside to this method is the way the territories get ordered in the dropdowns - with XXX 10 coming before XXX 1, which irritates me - the only way I can see of avoiding this is never to have more than 9 territories in a continent (any larger than that are probably going to be irrelevant anyway...).

Actually a nicer way is to name the territories...

XXXX 01
XXXX 02
XXXX 03
XXXX 04
...
XXXX 10

Then the DD is correct...

C.

[cairnswk]

Firstly, I adore large complicated maps and this looks like it will be a truly excellent addition.

There is however a long way to go!

First impressions Unlike many large maps I found this very easy to understand quite quickly. The different colours of the "continents" really help and are pleasing to the eye. I also like the simplicity of the icons for A I C and commanders.

Thanks for that benjikat....blame mibi for this ease of recognition....he did it.... i was forced...he is such a brut

I have read you post and will consider it piece by piece as i am compiling a new version and reducing the number of terts....posting something more structured as an answer later for you.

[cairnswk]

Territory naming
One downside to this method is the way the territories get ordered in the dropdowns - with XXX 10 coming before XXX 1, which irritates me - the only way I can see of avoiding this is never to have more than 9 territories in a continent (any larger than that are probably going to be irrelevant anyway...).

Actually a nicer way is to name the territories...

XXXX 01
XXXX 02
XXXX 03
XXXX 04
...
XXXX 10

Then the DD is correct...

C.

I agree with you yeti_c on this above,....I am however almost stuck on the current terit naming method for this map....while it is a little more text to deal with and a double up with the icons, i thing this map deserves it, and in the xml i will be writing.....or something very structured along these lines...so there is absolutely no room for misinterpretation.

D12: D'erlon Inf. 02
MA1: Imp. Guard Art. 01
ZC3: Ziethen Cav. 03

[cairnswk]

Also, just wanted to say i might not get an update finished this weekend to post up....have an RL work staff xmas party to attend on friday night, my own election party (we have a federal election here this weekend) with a few friends at my unit on saturday night and shopping this evening thursday night, so it's going to be a busy weekend where not a a lot of map making will be done.

[cairnswk]

Are there any further changes suggested for the next version before i upload it?