Battle For Australia [Quenched]

by **onbekende** on Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:08 am

I started a battle for Australia game, you are more then welcome to join in

by **t.e.c** on Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:54 am

good work cairnswk, it's a nice map. a couple of things though..

birdam cames up as birdim in the xml.

the other thing is that the neutrals make this map very difficult to play as a 2 player game. i know you designed it for more than that, but i didn't realise until i started a game. and i'm losing :cry:

i'll know for the future though!

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:01 pm

t.e.c wrote:good work cairnswk, it's a nice map. a couple of things though..

birdam cames up as birdim in the xml.

the other thing is that the neutrals make this map very difficult to play as a 2 player game. i know you designed it for more than that, but i didn't realise until i started a game. and i'm losing i'll know for the future though!

t.e.c. sorry to hear you losing...i have had same reports from others for 2 player game...thanks for this pickup....its a good one.

Andy and Lackattack

There is an error on Birdam.....should be Birdum.
So below is both large and small image fixes and link to corrected xml.

Small map

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av033S.jpg

Large

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av033L.jpg

Corrected XML
http://www.sendspace.com/file/l7b0jb

Thanks.

by **Passispass** on Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:40 pm

Nvm I didn't read the previous post.

by **misher** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:50 pm

<Subject>: Changing the name of the map Battle for Australia

* Change the name of the map to Operation Watchtower or the Guandalcanal Campaign

<Body>:

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation. Would look better and sound better than Battle for Australia. Also battle for Australia only refers to Australia when the map actually focuses on Guinea.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:23 pm

misher wrote:<Subject>: Changing the name of the map Battle for Australia

* Change the name of the map to Operation Watchtower or the Guandalcanal Campaign

<Body>:

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation. Would look better and sound better than Battle for Australia. Also battle for Australia only refers to Australia when the map actually focuses on Guinea.

Misher...thanks for your comments.
You will notice on the map that this area also concetrates on Darwin and Eastern Australia.
During WWII, these areas were attacked by the Japanese as well as Papua, the Solomons, The Bismarks, Northern Areas of New Guinea, and the islands of the East Indies. Guadalcalan and Operation Watchtower, were NOT the only battles fought in this area, as the Battle of the Coral Sea was fought from Australia and Allied Cariiers, in fact Mareeba was one of the main airbases for the Allied airattacks fighting these battles in conjunction with land troops.
Indeed, many Australia and Allied troops lost lives in many battles in these areas to defend Australia from the perceived takeover by the Japanese. I think the the scope of this map is justifiably named the Battle For Australia For that very reason. I don't mean to be offensive but calling the map Guadalcanal or similar would be in my view absurd.
I you wish please do up a map of the Solomons and have an Opration Watchtower map...there is nothing to stop you.!

This map will remain however as the Battle for Australia.
Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Australia in Wikipedia if you have any further doubts.

by **gerard** on Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation.

Cairns - I love the map but think misher is has a good point- the name is misleading. "Battle for Papua" would be more appropriate or "Hard Work up North" or something.
I know there was a bit of hysteria at the time about the Japanese invading Oz but they never had planned for it and wouldn't have had the ability anyway. They planned on isolating and neutralizing the continent but only got around to a few bombing raids.
Papua and the coral sea was where the pointy end came to rest and in the words of the Hoodoo Gurus "Tojo never made it to Darwin". But - in the end - you have done the hard work and produced a great map so what you feel happy with.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:37 pm

gerard wrote:
Would involve the changing of the name to something more precise and accurate, one that actually refers to the WWII situation.

Cairns - I love the map but think misher is has a good point- the name is misleading. "Battle for Papua" would be more appropriate or "Hard Work up North" or something.
I know there was a bit of hysteria at the time about the Japanese invading Oz but they never had planned for it and wouldn't have had the ability anyway. They planned on isolating and neutralizing the continent but only got around to a few bombing raids.
Papua and the coral sea was where the pointy end came to rest and in the words of the Hoodoo Gurus "Tojo never made it to Darwin". But - in the end - you have done the hard work and produced a great map so what you feel happy with.

Thanks Gerard for your comments. I am happy with the map and the title. Had we not stopped them at Kokada and Milne Bay, then I would hate to think what might have been. I still believe regardless of what historians say that the Japanese had every intention of invading Australia for its resources.

by **AndyDufresne** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:57 pm

Hm, as we seem to receive a number of bug reports regarding the large neutral deployment, would it be possible to perhaps add an asterisk somewhere on the map that could explain there will be a large neutral deployment? Perhaps this is a precedent we'll have to set with future maps that use the neutral deployments (large numbers at least).

As I am going to be of town for the next week, I'd speak with either Keyogi or Lack, or wait til I get back.

--Andy

by **cairnswk** on Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:42 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, as we seem to receive a number of bug reports regarding the large neutral deployment, would it be possible to perhaps add an asterisk somewhere on the map that could explain there will be a large neutral deployment? Perhaps this is a precedent we'll have to set with future maps that use the neutral deployments (large numbers at least).

As I am going to be of town for the next week, I'd speak with either Keyogi or Lack, or wait til I get back.

--Andy

Sure Andy.
Please advise if this is suitable below....

by **fireedud** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:46 pm

I don't what you should change it to, but I think it would be better to change it to fit the map.

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:56 pm

fireedud wrote:I don't what you should change it to, but I think it would be better to change it to fit the map.

Yes, thanks fireedud, that's what i've done in the map above.

by **Teya** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:00 pm

would it be better to put something shorter? like "18 neutral will be deployed"

Short and simple usually works well.

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:10 pm

Teya wrote:would it be better to put something shorter? like "18 neutral will be deployed"

Short and simple usually works well.

Hi Teya...thanks for your post...yes that can be done..is the position OK?

by **Teya** on Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:04 pm

There isn't really anywhere else to put it. Im sure it would be appropriate in the legend, but there is no room for it.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:11 am

v34 Small

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av034S.jpg

Large

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av034L.jpg

by **Teya** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:26 am

You have different explanations on small & large map.. I also dont think you need to put the "on this map" part, but thats just me.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:20 am

Teya wrote:You have different explanations on small & large map.. I also dont think you need to put the "on this map" part, but thats just me.

Teya...can u do a refresh in your browser please.

by **lackattack** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:14 am

18 neutral territories are deployed sounds off to me.

how about 18 territories are initially neutral on this map?

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:34 am

lackattack wrote:18 neutral territories are deployed sounds off to me.

how about 18 territories are initially neutral on this map?

Done Lackattack...as below:

Small V35

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av035S.jpg

Large V35

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av035L.jpg

by **lackattack** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:15 pm

done!

by **Heimdall** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:59 pm

I just started two 6 player games on this map and i swear the the neutrals are in the exact same spot in both games? Am i dreaming? :roll:

Games
600987
573527

by **DiM** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:15 pm

Heimdall wrote:I just started two 6 player games on this map and i swear the the neutrals are in the exact same spot in both games? Am i dreaming?
Games
600987
573527

this map has 18 teritories that start as neutral in each game. they are the same every time.

by **Heimdall** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:42 pm

DiM wrote:
Heimdall wrote:I just started two 6 player games on this map and i swear the the neutrals are in the exact same spot in both games? Am i dreaming?
Games
600987
573527

this map has 18 teritories that start as neutral in each game. they are the same every time.

That can be fixed i hope?