Battle For Australia [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

I just realized that on the map it says imperial japan and in the chart is says imperial navy so...ya...

Thanks for your observations, ParadiceCity9, thanks for dropping in.
The chart is only a tool for working out the bonuses. Imperial Japan and Imperial Navy refers to the same thing.
Take note of what is on the map, that's what matters.

[Samus]

CCC does have a great bonus distribution, but it doesn't have to be exactly 2 of each. Especially any bonus 6 or greater signifies a region that is too difficult for someone to expect to take and hold in most circumstances. They have their place, but you don't need to make sure you have enough of them by any means.

I see different numbers than you have on your new table. For instance, East Indies has 7 territories now, but your table reads 3 borders and attack routes while it now only has 2. Connecting Timor with IJN Kaga would correct this.

I see Papua as having 6 territories and 6 attacking territories, your table reads 5 and 8 now. The fact that you added a territory in East Indies leads me to think you meant to do something here, I'm just not sure what.

I count 6 attacking territories for N. New Guinea as well, but this winds up effecting nothing.

I only count 5 attacking territories for W. Australia (you have 6) which brings it to 5.50. Considering W. Australia can take Karumba to reduce 5 borders into 4, I'm thinking it should be +5.

The new number I get for Solomons is 4.50, but I think it was fine as it was with 3 borders worth +4.

So if we remove the Bouganville-IJN Shokaku attack route and replace the missing East Indies attack route, I get:

Allied Navy: 2.17 (2)
N. New Guinea: 3.25 (3)
East Indies: 3.17 (3)
Bismarks: 4.17 (4)
Solomons: 3.75 (4)
Papua: 4.50 (5)
New Guinea: 4.58 (5)
E. Australia: 5.08 (5)
W. Australia: 5.50 (5)
Imperial Navy: 6.00 (6)

The only thing I can think needs changing about this new distribution is doing something to make either Papua or New Guinea easier to hold, so that you would have three +4s and three +5s. I don't want to remove the Merauke-Mullingimbi attack route because without it that island is very cut off from the SW corner of the map. Not sure what else can be done.


Also, the text looks different in this update. Perhaps not bold anymore? I don't think it looks quite as good on the map, and it looks much worse in the legend.

[cairnswk]

CCC does have a great bonus distribution, but it doesn't have to be exactly 2 of each. Especially any bonus 6 or greater signifies a region that is too difficult for someone to expect to take and hold in most circumstances. They have their place, but you don't need to make sure you have enough of them by any means.

I see different numbers than you have on your new table. For instance, East Indies has 7 territories now, but your table reads 3 borders and attack routes while it now only has 2. Connecting Timor with IJN Kaga would correct this.

I see Papua as having 6 territories and 6 attacking territories, your table reads 5 and 8 now. The fact that you added a territory in East Indies leads me to think you meant to do something here, I'm just not sure what.

I count 6 attacking territories for N. New Guinea as well, but this winds up effecting nothing.

I only count 5 attacking territories for W. Australia (you have 6) which brings it to 5.50. Considering W. Australia can take Karumba to reduce 5 borders into 4, I'm thinking it should be +5.

The new number I get for Solomons is 4.50, but I think it was fine as it was with 3 borders worth +4.

So if we remove the Bouganville-IJN Shokaku attack route and replace the missing East Indies attack route, I get:

Allied Navy: 2.17 (2)
N. New Guinea: 3.25 (3)
East Indies: 3.17 (3)
Bismarks: 4.17 (4)
Solomons: 3.75 (4)
Papua: 4.50 (5)
New Guinea: 4.58 (5)
E. Australia: 5.08 (5)
W. Australia: 5.50 (5)
Imperial Navy: 6.00 (6)

The only thing I can think needs changing about this new distribution is doing something to make either Papua or New Guinea easier to hold, so that you would have three +4s and three +5s. I don't want to remove the Merauke-Mullingimbi attack route because without it that island is very cut off from the SW corner of the map. Not sure what else can be done.


Also, the text looks different in this update. Perhaps not bold anymore? I don't think it looks quite as good on the map, and it looks much worse in the legend.

Samus, thanks for that mamoth effort in answering/appeasing my questions. Below is the map with I think the correct bonuses according to what you wrote above; and some fix the Papua New Guinea siutation. Does this appear OK.

[DiM]

2 things.

1. blend the icons in the legend better. there's still some white on the edges.
2. do something about the corners of the map. there's white showing behind the round corner. make the white transparent.

[Guiscard]

[quote="DiM"2. do something about the corners of the map. there's white showing behind the round corner. make the white transparent.[/quote]

The white will be transparent when playing. The maps are presented on a white background (just checked my games).

[DiM]

2. do something about the corners of the map. there's white showing behind the round corner. make the white transparent.

The white will be transparent when playing. The maps are presented on a white background (just checked my games).

perfect then just blend the legend icons

[cairnswk]

perfect then just blend the legend icons

DiM...is this OK wiht the legend?

[cairnswk]

Anyone got any feedback? Say something please. whether it's good or ugly or other....

[DiM]

yup the legend is better. other than that i have no other comments. i'm not particularly fond of this map. maybe it's the abundance of sea routes or the itsy bitsy tiny territories, or maybe both. coral coast is much much better.

all i can comment is the gfx aspect.
2 more things.
* put a dot after Is.
*the rivers look somewhat odd because they are light blue and the ocean is greenish-something. making the ocean blue will hurt the eyes but maybe you could add some of that greenish thing to the rivers. not too much because they'll look bad but just enough to make them blend.

[cairnswk]

yup the legend is better. other than that i have no other comments. i'm not particularly fond of this map. maybe it's the abundance of sea routes or the itsy bitsy tiny territories, or maybe both. coral coast is much much better.

all i can comment is the gfx aspect.
2 more things.
* put a dot after Is.
*the rivers look somewhat odd because they are light blue and the ocean is greenish-something. making the ocean blue will hurt the eyes but maybe you could add some of that greenish thing to the rivers. not too much because they'll look bad but just enough to make them blend.

Dim, appreicate your honesty on this map. Perhaps it is the small islands.
Adjustments made as per the V20 below....

[haoala]

i think this map is exciting, but some countries are hard to see, like tulagi. also it might be confusing especially the japanese continent

[cairnswk]

i think this map is exciting, but some countries are hard to see, like tulagi. also it might be confusing especially the japanese continent

Haoala, thanks for input. I'll see about increasing the size of Tulagi a bit, the japanese continent should not be confusing as this is all the same colour even though it is spread across the map. Can I suggest to follow the lines that connect the japanese territory colours. This is part of the challenge of this map.

[Samus]

I think the regions/borders/connections are mostly worked out. I only have two concerns right now.

First, Molucca and Celebes both connect to the same territory. Being able to take a territory to reduce 2 borders into one is certainly nothing new, but in this case it's 3 borders to 2 borders in what is probably already the most "tucked away" region on the map. I think I would prefer a Timor-IJN Kaga connection, or something else maybe.

Second, I'm sort of bothered by how Aitape and Madang are now sort of off on their own only connecting to one territory. I think if you modified the rivers so that Aitape was the "exposed" territory rather than Hollandia, that would fix this.

[luckiekevin]

Hate to be a font nazi but I think the territory font can be better. It's a bit of a pixly font and something warmer could give the map a better look.

[cairnswk]

Hate to be a font nazi but I think the territory font can be better. It's a bit of a pixly font and something warmer could give the map a better look.

Luckiekevin...thanks for your post.
Do you have a particular font in mind? I work with Fireworks.

[d.gishman]

I actually like the font. It's nice and clean, reminds me of an old video game or something

[onbekende]

Can you perhaps change the bonus legend fitting the left to right postion of continents (Like I will use)

Code: Select all

1 4 5 8
2     9
3 6 7 10

1) East Indies:
Move name "Flores" to the rightm the top line to the left.
Army Shade of Timor to the left a bit.

2) New Guinea:
Good

3) W. Australia:
Switch "Mullingimbi" and its army shade, making the name go over the sea routes.

4) N. New Guinea:
Good

5) Papua:
Good

6) Imperial Japan:
Kill the link Ternati-Turk.

7) Allied Navy:
Good

The Bismarcks:
Move "Kavieng" and army shade together to the left.

9) Solomons:
Good

10) E. Ausrtralia:
Switch "Bamaga" and army shade of place and see how they fit well against new position of "Mullingimbi"

these are my suggestionsm do with them as you see fit.

[cairnswk]

Can you perhaps change the bonus legend fitting the left to right postion of continents (Like I will use)

Code: Select all

1 4 5 8
2     9
3 6 7 10

Yes I can do that in next version map.....

EDIT: Actually onbekende...I looked at that, and thought it is sort of in that position now, with the exception of the navy vessels which are too large to fit in with the general rhythm of the planes...so i think I will leave it to that just for now.

1) East Indies:
Move name "Flores" to the rightm the top line to the left.
Army Shade of Timor to the left a bit.
2) New Guinea:
Good
3) W. Australia:
Switch "Mullingimbi" and its army shade, making the name go over the sea routes.
4) N. New Guinea:
Good
5) Papua:
Good
6) Imperial Japan:
Kill the link Ternati-Turk.
7) Allied Navy:
Good
The Bismarcks:
Move "Kavieng" and army shade together to the left.
9) Solomons:
Good
10) E. Ausrtralia:
Switch "Bamaga" and army shade of place and see how they fit well against new position of "Mullingimbi"
these are my suggestionsm do with them as you see fit.

Thanks onbekende....i'll see what I can do about some of the re-positioning mentioned above, but i think it is inappropriate to kill the Ternati-Truk link, because if you do, you cut off the ability of the player to control/link the Japanese Navy continent.

[onbekende]

having a link to keep the whole continent together isn't really needed, in a map I was making, I had a continent split in half. it has the possibility to be fought over, and yet not give a high bonus extra with limited effort (taking the west, but not getting that +6 that easely.

[cairnswk]

I think the regions/borders/connections are mostly worked out. I only have two concerns right now.

First, Molucca and Celebes both connect to the same territory. Being able to take a territory to reduce 2 borders into one is certainly nothing new, but in this case it's 3 borders to 2 borders in what is probably already the most "tucked away" region on the map. I think I would prefer a Timor-IJN Kaga connection, or something else maybe.

Second, I'm sort of bothered by how Aitape and Madang are now sort of off on their own only connecting to one territory. I think if you modified the rivers so that Aitape was the "exposed" territory rather than Hollandia, that would fix this.

Thanks Samus...sorry about taking so long getting back....below in V21 map are these changes, as well as:

* increased the size of Tulagi (haoala)
* Flores name moved (onbekende)
* Kavieng name moved (onbekende)
* Mullingimbi - Bamaga named moved (onbekende)
* re-position of IJN Akagi

Samus, how do you feel about killing the link between Ternati and Truk? I really don't think it should happen as the IJN is going to be already hard enough to hold without keeping it together linked.

[Gozar]

I agree with you cairnswk, keep that connection.

[onbekende]

my reasoning: you already need men on Ternati and Truk to hold them, thus making it a more difficult continent to hold only adds tension.

[cairnswk]

my reasoning: you already need men on Ternati and Truk to hold them, thus making it a more difficult continent to hold only adds tension.

Ah yes, onbekende, but the link helps with fortifications around the entire "continent". Without it, you cut off the ability to move armies between the east and west flank. And in actual fact this is what happened in reality, the Japanese were able to use a link between Truk and Pilau (our version Ternati) to move troops and fighters. It's just that they didn't have enough troops and fighters to cover such a large area.
But anyway, keep posted, I am awaiting to see what Samus has to say about removing this Ternati-Truk link.

[onbekende]

I will certainly keep posting, I definatly like this map.

as I said, my opinion (you can always up the bonus for japanese)

and going to change the bonus legend?

[cairnswk]

Any more comments?