WWII:Poland [Quenched]

[iancanton]

Gameplay wise, is it really fair that Fredon von Bock is the only starting space without a tank? I know that he can still reach PAF in as many spaces as the others without it, but tanks give +1. So if on the first turn everyone goes and gets thier tank space whoever starts here is at a disadvantage?

When we took Fedor von Bock's territory away i don't think we realised a +1 bonus was being taken away. Thanks for that nice catch. I've added the tank bck in and have given Fedor's starting territ back up to 4 neutrals. Instead of taking away his tank to stop his advantage. I have added more barbed wire which now makes it an even field i'm fairly sure.

just as this one is solved neatly, as is so often the case, something else pops up.

If Gerd goes before Johannes, Johannes is in deep shit: Gerd takes a tank, Johannes takes a tank, Gerd takes Johannes' tank since they border and forts his bonus of three there, Johannes is quickly trapped in his start territory and can't get out save for the plane, which is a dead end. Same goes for any two commanders who have adjoining first tanks - think I'd like to start in Fedor or Ferdinand who won't be molested by another player to start the game.

if we reduce the aircraft to 2 neutrals each, then does that let those who start later use an aircraft-based bombardment strategy as an alternative?

So perhaps scrapping the +1 for each tank held would be best? and just keep the +4 for 3?

sounds good. this might level things a bit more with regard to the balance between tanks and aircraft, as well as reducing the first turn advantage.

ian.

[samuelc812]

Update

Scrapped the +1 for each tank held bonus and lowered the Neutrals on the planes to 2.

Version 15 Small

Click image to enlarge.

Version 15 Large

Click image to enlarge.

Version 15 Small-Neutrals

Click image to enlarge.

[samuelc812]

So..... No comments in 2 days, must be perfect then j/k

[gimil]

Well sam, I finally found the perfect tutorial to make the whole legends thing I was huffing about work. I used this tutorial on my golden part in the Mars map thread.

http://www.rnel.net/tutorial/Photoshop/12609

Use this on your fancy gold designs (and the flat yellow lines) to make a pretty neat metallic effect on those parts. Make sure thou that you replace silver colours with your own golden ones .

I think will give your map a more complete looks buddy.

[oaktown]

OK sam, I think the gameplay is looking cleaner... sorry you've been on the verge of being forged for weeks now, but there were some serious gameplay changes made lately. If the gameplay folks who stamped this to begin with will sign off on the current play I think you're good to go.

I have some little nitpicks

• The border SC06 and SU04 needs to be widened.
• In the Polish Air Force square in the legend, can you remove the word "for" and save a line?
• I have trouble with the grammar of the "On September 1st, 1939 Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany, soon followed by the Soviet Union" etc. Poland is the subject of the sentence, so in the second clause of the sentence you are saying that Poland was followed by the Soviet Union and a small Slovak contingent, when that wasn't the case at all. You may want to re-write it to say either that "On September 1st, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, followed by the Soviets..." or "1939 Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany, which was followed by the Soviet Union..." That second one is not as good, as it sounds like the Soviets literally followed the German tracks.

[samuelc812]

Update!

Well sam, I finally found the perfect tutorial to make the whole legends thing I was huffing about work. I used this tutorial on my golden part in the Mars map thread.

http://www.rnel.net/tutorial/Photoshop/12609

Use this on your fancy gold designs (and the flat yellow lines) to make a pretty neat metallic effect on those parts. Make sure thou that you replace silver colours with your own golden ones .

I think will give your map a more complete looks buddy.

Done

OK sam, I think the gameplay is looking cleaner... sorry you've been on the verge of being forged for weeks now, but there were some serious gameplay changes made lately. If the gameplay folks who stamped this to begin with will sign off on the current play I think you're good to go.

I have some little nitpicks

• The border SC06 and SU04 needs to be widened.
• In the Polish Air Force square in the legend, can you remove the word "for" and save a line?
• I have trouble with the grammar of the "On September 1st, 1939 Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany, soon followed by the Soviet Union" etc. Poland is the subject of the sentence, so in the second clause of the sentence you are saying that Poland was followed by the Soviet Union and a small Slovak contingent, when that wasn't the case at all. You may want to re-write it to say either that "On September 1st, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, followed by the Soviets..." or "1939 Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany, which was followed by the Soviet Union..." That second one is not as good, as it sounds like the Soviets literally followed the German tracks.

All Done

Version 16 Small

Click image to enlarge.

Version 16 Large

Click image to enlarge.

Version 16 Small-Neutral

Click image to enlarge.

[the.killing.44]

Hey sam, lookin' pretty sweet on the legend.

I still have a little dwindling concern on the text. Well, not a concern, but I think you can do better. Two things I suggest are that firstly, you take a brush from "Natural Brushes," make its spacing ~50% or more, and in a new layer just draw over the legend sloppily, probably covering half of it. Then alt-click (sorry, I think that's it, but I don't 100% know what it is on PCs!) on all the thumbnails of the layers that make up the legend sans the red background box (i.e. lines, text — probably not icons) and create a layer mask on your sloppy cover layer. Then alter the blending mode and opacity layers to suit how it looks. Also look into color overlays for a really grungy look — this will make the text and box look much nastier and more suitable to the map I think!

To go along with that, you can create multiple layers of these, each having some parts, and each layer has a different color overlay. So for instance I've created 3 layers, the first with a color overlay of a brown, the second a ~50% gray, and the third straight black — each of these have the widespread natural brush loosely gone over it. Then each layer's opacity and blending mode is different to get the perfect look. I would advise you keep the eagle and title, as well as the decorative linings out of this, unless you were to create a new, very low-opacity layer for that particularly. But experiment as usual!

(If you need a small tut for this, give me 3 days to get PS back up and running. Also, thanks to RJ for this way of going about coating text and things for grunge )

The other issue I see is that the sea and neutral territory font is very unbecoming of the rest of the map. How about something like this (you'd use all caps I think), or a more straight-forward, elegant looking example (again, using all caps and maybe the thing I talked about above)?

My final issue I'd look at in, anyways, but it is the positioning of your commander co-ords. I know it's annoying to cover up the insignias, but it would be oh-so-much incredibly better if you could move the commander co-ords under or above their respective commander names. I'm thinking: Nazis go in the black in the bottom line of the cross for Blaskowitz and von Rundstedt, but in the upper line of the cross for von Bock; Poles are in the white for Maczek and Bortnowski, the red for Kutrzeba and Rydz-Smigly; the Czech straddles the middle line of the ‡ between the two horizontal lines; and the soviets are in the red between the star's two lower points for every one. It's a ton better both aesthetically and practically, as the mind would then put the number to the flag/nae directly. I realize it creates a fair amount of dead space, but you can always shift flags over where necessary. For Catlos and Timoshenko, it might be better to move them to the right and left, respectively, if only for co-ord centering reasons!

Sorry for such a long post this late, but I think those would be the final touches that bring the map to the final(ly) Final Forge

Great work sam,
.44

[iancanton]

the map looks fantastic, other than the shape of poland being virtually invisible. any way to fix this while retaining the current overall look?

If the gameplay folks who stamped this to begin with will sign off on the current play I think you're good to go.

let's do a final check on the gameplay for 1v1.

player 1 starts with blaskowitz, von bock, kovalev and timoshenko. each autodeploys 3 and he deploys 3 more on von bock. after losing 3 troops, von bock captures a tank on gc10, advancing 5 troops there; after losing 2 troops, blaskowitz captures an aircraft on ng02, moving 3 troops there.

now, what does player 2 do?

ian.

[Teflon Kris]

1 v 1 Scenario

In this scenario (although with 11 starts, wouldn't each player in 1 v 1 get 3), player 2 would presumably be interested in taking a plane and attacking player 1's tank - possibly a 7 v 5 attack.

If that fails, with 1 slightly depleted to 4 troops, the situation is that player 1 doesn't have enough to comfortably take the PAF from the tank (4+3) and attack a general - he takes an easy 1 from the tank instead and forts 3 from the general to the tank (now 9). He may take other planes / tanks elsewhere.

Player 2 then would have even less chance of taking the tank from his plane. However, he would now have 9 on each general, plus 3 to deploy, so enough troops to take another plane and attack the tank, depleting it again, or take a tank himself, or various other options ... If player 1 had taken the PAF and had, say 4 there, player 2 could deploy on a general, attack a tank with 12 then attack the PAF. In this scenario, the game would become a battle for the PAF, with the player that holds it first having a big +5 advantage.

.... conclusion, with the +3s on all the commanders, and careful tactics, player 1 would not easily have a huge advantage and be able to quickly make a rush on the PAF, without plenty of luck - if he did he would still have a strong general or two to bombard.

The mid-game scenario of players battling over tanks and Polish Commanders - and using tanks to link troops - looks pretty likely, although other games may be a straight race for the PAF.

The tank neutral size and PAF neutral size reduce the first player advantage. The potential advantage on a classic-style map is greater in my opinion (especially with unlimited forts).

All uncertainties previously raised now seem to have been addressed by amendments to the legend and the addition of the PAF's barbed wire.

Nice map sam

[bryguy]

Love the map Sam, but just curious, why has the quality of the gold border around the legend dropped? I loved how it had a bevel to it, but now it is flat with a dark gold color inside the gold border....

Just curious about that.

[samuelc812]

Love the map Sam, but just curious, why has the quality of the gold border around the legend dropped? I loved how it had a bevel to it, but now it is flat with a dark gold color inside the gold border....

Just curious about that.

It was suggested by gimil that it would give it a more metallic effect

[oaktown]

1 v 1 Scenario
As in any 1v1 game I'd like to go first to control what my opponent can do. But that's not a map-specific issue.

I believe teflon is right in that each player would not start with four commanders to start the game, but as i only count 8 commanders it means each player starts with 2 and 4 will be neutral. Unless the plan is to code starting positions, but I would vote against this. If the other territories on the board are going to be coded neutral, the other eight territories will by default be starting territories. So then it comes down to luck - I'd give the advantage to the player who gets his two starting commanders close to each other so he can fort all of those per/turn autoplacements into one big stack. Can't control for luck.

And while it's always nice to go first in a 1v1, I think that any advantage is tempered by the fact that the early bonuses are auto-deployed rather than free placements... you can't just drop your 9 armies in one place and rolled over your opponent's commanders in the first round. The best you can hope to achieve in round 1 is to take a tank and a second commander, but then P2 will be able to pretty easily take your shit away from you.

The only way I see P1 having an advnatage is if P1 is able to get to the P.A.F. in round 2 or 3 and and knock out whatever commanders his opponent has moved his troops out of. I don't know what the starting neutrals will be set at on this map, but I hope that the P.A.F. is going to start high enough to make it hard to break. Six at least, since the bordering commanders get +3, in addition to the normal +3 turn.

On that note, the P.A.F. is going to be the key to winning smaller games since most of the armies are being generated by the commanders. Seems like giving that space a +5 as well really puts the player who holds it in the driver's seat. I'd rather see it bleed armies than generate so many. Ooh - maybe it could do both... P.A.F. loses 3 armies/turn to make a player really pay for holding it, but gives a +3 if you commit to holding it. Wow, if you don't do this on this map I'll do it on one of mine!

[danfrank]

Love the map Sam, but just curious, why has the quality of the gold border around the legend dropped? I loved how it had a bevel to it, but now it is flat with a dark gold color inside the gold border....

Just curious about that.

It was suggested by gimil that it would give it a more metallic effect

I would agree with the previous post the old boarder looked much better.. now the border seems out of place.. sometimes you have to stick with what you like instead of trying to please others...

[Echospree]

Hmm, so we are going with having 8 starting positions coded, or just letting the engine deal with it on it's own.

It only makes a difference in 1v1, so do we want people to start with 2 or 4 commanders each in 1v1? Two each works for me, it tempers the sheer chaos that would otherwise appear.

[oaktown]

Hmm, so we are going with having 8 starting positions coded, or just letting the engine deal with it on it's own.

It only makes a difference in 1v1, so do we want people to start with 2 or 4 commanders each in 1v1? Two each works for me, it tempers the sheer chaos that would otherwise appear.

You could also code the starts in such a way that in 1v1 games each players starts with 3 territories each. This is an interesting option in that you could control where each player gets his three starts to avoid one player having a powerful cluster and owning one side of the board. I'd say give P1 Mikhail, Edward, and Gerd, and give p2 Fedor, Semyon, and Ferdinand. They each have equal access to the three neutral commanders, they both have one commander in that weird northwestern region, and no player has adjoining commanders.

By not coding the other two as starts they'll go neutral in 1v1 games.

[Teflon Kris]

Oak has a good point - coded starts to avoid players getting clusters of commanders is certainly worthwhile.

[iancanton]

I'd say give P1 Mikhail, Edward, and Gerd, and give p2 Fedor, Semyon, and Ferdinand. They each have equal access to the three neutral commanders, they both have one commander in that weird northwestern region, and no player has adjoining commanders.

this limits the starting possibilities for a player to either one position or the other, analagous to black or white in chess; this is unique in cc – an extremely interesting idea, oak. developing ur strategy from a known position over several games will become common, rather like in age of realms.

alternatively, u can add randomness to start positions by having 2 sets of 2 coded start positions, say fedor and edward against gerd and vasily, with the other 4 starting commanders being uncoded. this is certain to let each side have 2 neighbouring starting commanders plus 1 isolated one, giving a greater variety of starting scenarios where it won't be possible to plan in advance so much.

ian.

[samuelc812]

An update will come tomorrow but before i give an update, here's my little speel.

the.killing.44

You know i respect you're comments and i really do which is why i've changed a few fonts, because i believe you were right about them, i have also repostioned co-ords as you will see in tomorrows update. However, I really think the map is looking fine as is on the grunge and i'm not going to change it, i believe it looks pretty much perfect as is and i've achieved the look i wanted.

bryguy and danfrank

Thanks for you comments guys but i respectfully disagree with you about the gold grunge curls which surround the legend and parts of the border. I like them more now then i did then, the bevel doesn't really add much and the previous color didn't really go with the colour scheme of the map in my opinion. The metallic feel gimil has given to them makes them look a lot better in my opinion. So therefore they will stay as is unless there is an overwhelming amount of people coming in and saying what you guys have said, which i highly doubt.

oaktown, DJ Teflon and iancanton

I'd say give P1 Mikhail, Edward, and Gerd, and give p2 Fedor, Semyon, and Ferdinand. They each have equal access to the three neutral commanders, they both have one commander in that weird northwestern region, and no player has adjoining commanders.

I like this idea more if you guys don't mind makes it a little more even in a 1v1 if you ask me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What i'm really looking for now is not major things like "I think it could look more grungy" but more the finer details if that's ok with everyone. We've got gameplay sorted now with the coded starts in 1v1 games. I'm looking for attack lines that look strange and other things that don't balance on small and the large.

An update will be up within the next 24hrs and will have the changes mentioned. Thanks guys for contributing to this map

[cowboyz]

I have no clue about map making but this looks pretty cool so far
Keep it up

[samuelc812]

Ok here is the update And just to re-iterate what i said...

An update will come tomorrow but before i give an update, here's my little speel.

the.killing.44

You know i respect you're comments and i really do which is why i've changed a few fonts, because i believe you were right about them, i have also repostioned co-ords as you will see in tomorrows update. However, I really think the map is looking fine as is on the grunge and i'm not going to change it, i believe it looks pretty much perfect as is and i've achieved the look i wanted.

bryguy and danfrank

Thanks for you comments guys but i respectfully disagree with you about the gold grunge curls which surround the legend and parts of the border. I like them more now then i did then, the bevel doesn't really add much and the previous color didn't really go with the colour scheme of the map in my opinion. The metallic feel gimil has given to them makes them look a lot better in my opinion. So therefore they will stay as is unless there is an overwhelming amount of people coming in and saying what you guys have said, which i highly doubt.

oaktown, DJ Teflon and iancanton

I'd say give P1 Mikhail, Edward, and Gerd, and give p2 Fedor, Semyon, and Ferdinand. They each have equal access to the three neutral commanders, they both have one commander in that weird northwestern region, and no player has adjoining commanders.

I like this idea more if you guys don't mind makes it a little more even in a 1v1 if you ask me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What i'm really looking for now is not major things like "I think it could look more grungy" but more the finer details if that's ok with everyone. We've got gameplay sorted now with the coded starts in 1v1 games. I'm looking for attack lines that look strange and other things that don't balance on small and the large.

An update will be up within the next 24hrs and will have the changes mentioned. Thanks guys for contributing to this map

Version 17 Small

Click image to enlarge.

Version 17 Large

Click image to enlarge.

Version 17 Small with Neutrals

Click image to enlarge.

FF?

[oaktown]

FF?

Um, OK.

Final Forge

---The WWII: Poland Map has reached the ‘Final Forge’ Stage. The map has passed rigorous gameplay and graphics examinations, and major concerns have been addressed. If you have any other concerns, please make your voice heard. As long as there is still discussion or posts that have yet to be commented on, the map will remain in Final Forge until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version. After a reasonable amount of time has been given for final comment, and after the completion of the XML, the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play.

Post questions and concerns if any.

[Echospree]

Do SCo6 and SUo4 border each other? If so, I'd suggest making the border between the two longer, long enough for it to be obvious.

[AndyDufresne]

Similarly, SC04 and Stanislaw do not border, correct? It looks almost as if they do, especially when investigating the large map.


--Andy

[oaktown]

I'm pretty sure we mentioned the first border earlier, and both would improve clarity.

[MrBenn]

Congrats on getting to FF!

My tiny niggles are:
1. The PAF symbol looks whiter on the legend than on the map
2. [quote="Echospree"]Do SCo6 and SUo4 border each other? [quote]
3. Perhaps turn the opacity of the commander symbols down a little, so they're more subtle, and don't jump out so much
4. The font you've used for your 'special thanks' doesn;t look right - perhaps you could make it look like it's engraved on the border?

5. You could probably do something better with your signature too