Moderator: Cartographers
oaktown wrote:welcome to the foundry, yet again.
Question - to get the mineral-port bonus, do you just have to hold the two territories, or do you have to connect them? Because connecting them would make more sense, as the idea is that you're getting the goods to the port, but there are many, many possible routes in which you could connect them.
edbeard wrote:I'm not sure if you guys are on the same page.
This is my interpretation
1. Oaktown was wondering if players needed to 'connect' the ports to their Minerals by holding rail stations that make a line from Port to Mineral
2. cairswk thought he was talking about making the ports connect to each other?
I could be way off base but that's what I think you guys were talking about.
Either way, I don't like either of these ideas. 1. would be very difficult to do XML wise unless you specified the path. 2. is outside the realm of a 'rail' map
edbeard wrote:so you need to hold that direct path to get the bonus? In a couple places, it is possible to hold both the M and P territories AND connect them, but not via a direct path. Are you intending these NOT to count for a bonus?
I don't think you would be able to since the XML would probably be horrendous in a couple cases.
edbeard wrote:I think you're misunderstanding me.
I was asking if you needed specific routes (which you have provided) because in some cases, you can connect the mineral and port without taking those paths which you have specified. But, I'm guessing you will write these paths onto a legend so there is no confusion.
cairnswk wrote:Fellow Aussie Tieryn has offered to do the xml for this map, and it's OK by me.
Thanks Tieryn.
cairnswk wrote:Version 9
Some chages here:
1. taken the sleepers off the rails to re-do them
2. Increased the height to allow some more legend room and moved that around
3. INcluded all stops on long distacen trains
4. clarified port pairs a bit further
5. dulled the states bonuses
6. adding the QR to the top of northern sstations in QR...does this work for the colour-blind?
Tieryn wrote:
and that's me xml'd out for the day, more when changes happen .
Tieryn wrote:Thirdly... It's not stated... what are we doing with ports?
All connecting? (Just balance wise this blows my connections spreadsheet all out of proportion for ports... but it's do-able)
Adjacent Connecting? Balance wise I'd prefer this
No Connections at all? This is also perfectly acceptable for my feel of the game just by writing out all of the connections... I've done it so far as is, I'll re-check the bonus calculations tomorrow.
Can you give me a decision by tomorrow cairns? It would mean I can push ahead on the codeside.
Also, territory from WA - SA, I've not heard of Loongana, but Eucla would be the town I'd pick as being there (it's on the border of SA/WA pretty much) not sure if the rail goes there, tho I'd suspect it did... could you check up on this?
that r roughly my calc, but don't fix you on the calculated bonus he!Tieryn wrote:
and that's me xml'd out for the day, more when changes happen .
Tieryn wrote:That's wrong now anyway as it uses ports as attacking each other, which isn't really -rail- Australia anyway heh... so I'll re-do it with new numbers soon.
What I was mainly looking at was the "calculated" which territory should be more and how that maps to what is... but I suspect that will change with ports gone.
cairnswk wrote: I am consulting oaktown re the CB issue.
oaktown wrote:cairnswk wrote: I am consulting oaktown re the CB issue.
Of course, mine is only one flavor of colorblindness, but the colors I have the worst time distinguishing are QRail and TasRail. Fortunately the two colors don't intersect, and the bonuses are so different that it's evident which is which, so it's not really an issue. If VicRail was a bit darker that'd set it apart a bit for me, but it's alright as is.
Overall I'd say these colors are fine for me to play with as is.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users