Moderator: Cartographers
Well, I'll hope all things will be clear once I post the next draft. Hope you'll like it and be ready to evaluate it, once it is here we still can see what other things can be added. But Yes, mapsize and code are limited. To me, this is a challenge to be creative. Take a look at all those maps, almost all of them use another story or gameplay-feature, but all with the same code!swampfox01776 wrote:HEy Dub
I went to the new " Mexico" mapand got an idea of what,since I'm code clueless, you meant by talking about when mentioning the Inability to create what alot of Star fort,Game play has been based upon.I see now that as of this writing,the game play is limited to a flat map,bound by whatever size that maybe...whew...
I still think making the game about the Star fort and attack's/Defense ..eTc should be developed with that as the goal.
I made some suggstions above,some of which can apply some cannot without a larger Map ability.
I did fix my pm problem,I'd had it turned off...didn't realize that..
So I thank you for allowing me some time to speak my mind and trying to help you.
I did pm the..new " Chat box" creator whom developed the code to make a " POPOUT" chat box...he included that code..and explained how to do it...and asked him what would be able to be done on making the GAME have a clickout/Popout ability,if a city per say would be clicked out...i didn't specifically name this map as the one that were thinking of that for....hopefully that can be done to take all games not just this one to the next level for game play abilities.
Thanks for allowing me to speak my mind and try and help with this.
Take care ,have good day
Swamp Fox
Thanks, well on a personal level I would say No...no offence but this map was meant as a dedication to Vauban and will be a simulation of siege strategies typically for this era. I think you will lose these things by putting it into the future...DJ Teflon wrote:I like your idea and development so far![]()
Just wondering if setting the map in the future may be an idea?
ah! pretty logic and usefull, thanks, I'll work it outpamoa wrote:if you make a straight line going from one circle to the other
then a single aligned shot from cannon on the wall
can kill and destroy everybody and every thing in the connecting trench
without any escape for the ones inside
on the contrary and if you watch closely
there is no segment of the zig zag
that can be bombarded "in line"

Yes, I didn't find a way to make a detailed attack combined with a larger country.pamoa wrote:nice draft
it seems you abandonned the idea of france background
I was thinking on 2 or 4 (2 left and 2 right, one on top of the other) camps. I also was thinking on a 4-star fort, so that would make all sides useful.few comments on the draft
first question will there only 1 attack side or more
5 branch star has a better look but you need to adapt to the map size try with 4
Why would I do so, wouldn't that make it more complex, since all zones have their own assault and defence-system?would your 3 battle zone be more if there are more attack zone (+2) each attack zone
SO they didn't used the gate but blow up a stone wall? Amazing, I could do so, but that would means that a bastion would come with a heavy 5 neutral, representing the time needed, while under fire, it took the miners to blow it up.I think counter-guard should be in the gate and attack one-way the nearest foot soldiers
and miners attack one-way a bastion it would be more accurate historically
What are those rules? Anyway, I was thinking on different sort of artillery, especialy aiming for the mid-battle. If you have a different suggestion to place some long-range artillery, let me know. In the meantime i'll think on it.I also think you should simplify the attacker zone
remove the camp with the long range artillery no need of it
and following Vauban rules the outpost was the fortified camp
Hmm, I know but I was looking for a way to slow down a large army, or make some loses in the troops before they can assault or come out of the trench. I'll think on it.the -1 feature in the line of sight of the citadel is totally inaccurate
it was the most difficult point to bombard that's why trenches were built there
maybe assailant artillery can get this -1 as it was the most exposed part of the system
or do you intend that digging the trenches was human costly
Yes, so what to do with ravelins who don't have a gate. will all 4 bastions be under attack? Doesn't look that historical accurate to me...the stables leading one-way to artillery or counter-guard is very smart I like it
to be more accurate ravelins should bombard (musketeers firing at) miners
but no one would loose time and men conquering them as they were under direct fire from citadel as you said
few comments on the draft
first question will there only 1 attack side or more
5 branch star has a better look but you need to adapt to the map size try with 4
I was thinking on 2 or 4 (2 left and 2 right, one on top of the other) camps. I also was thinking on a 4-star fort, so that would make all sides useful.
would your 3 battle zone be more if there are more attack zone (+2) each attack zone
go for 4 branches star with 4 attack zoneWhy would I do so, wouldn't that make it more complex, since all zones have their own assault and defence-system?
I think counter-guard should be in the gate and attack one-way the nearest foot soldiers
and miners attack one-way a bastion it would be more accurate historically
or put a -1 bonus on minersSO they didn't used the gate but blow up a stone wall? Amazing, I could do so, but that would means that a bastion would come with a heavy 5 neutral, representing the time needed, while under fire, it took the miners to blow it up.
I also think you should simplify the attacker zone
remove the camp with the long range artillery no need of it
and following Vauban rules the outpost was the fortified camp
I was thinking that each attacker has its own part of the circles with some connexionsWhat are those rules? Anyway, I was thinking on different sort of artillery, especialy aiming for the mid-battle.
If you have a different suggestion to place some long-range artillery, let me know. In the meantime i'll think on it.
the stables leading one-way to artillery or counter-guard is very smart I like it
to be more accurate ravelins should bombard (musketeers firing at) miners
but no one would loose time and men conquering them as they were under direct fire from citadel as you said
in a 4 branches star configuration each ravelin would have its gateYes, so what to do with ravelins who don't have a gate. will all 4 bastions be under attack? Doesn't look that historical accurate to me...