The Texan Wars [Quenched]

by **bryguy** on Sat May 31, 2008 1:32 pm

DogComplex wrote:The territories of Pampa and Lubbock are switched in map ID's. I can't believe this wasn't picked up earlier. Please fix.

Thanks,

DogComplex

it WAS picked up earlier, almost as soon as the map was made live. We've been trying to fix it for a long time now.

by **Halmir** on Sat May 31, 2008 4:30 pm

Hi, please check out my game 2501596 and my comments at 2008-05-31 21:26:04 (my local time anyway

)

I tried to attack Pampa but ended up in Lubbock, has someone landed paratroopers to rearrange the signposts? :s I fear there's a few territory links that could do with a bit of updating. Cheers!

by **Night Strike** on Sat May 31, 2008 4:34 pm

Seriously, does no one read the thread and notice that this issue has been mentioned a couple dozen times and that a fix is on the way???

by **t-o-m** on Sat May 31, 2008 4:35 pm

this is about the 20th time this has been mentioned - at least you came to the right place:)
the bug will be fixed soon

by **Appalachian** on Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Where do I post to call an extermintor???????????

by **TaCktiX** on Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:06 pm

Anything dealing with a specific map, you put in the map's topic (it's in Final Forge).

by **rocky mountain** on Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:16 pm

Pampa and Lubbock are switched. it cost me the game

p.s.- i know it's been mentioned.

by **gimil** on Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:35 pm

[merged]

by **Oggled** on Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:00 am

I have found a bug in it.
Basically, in game 2513402 (if i remember correctly), i tried to attack pampa from childress, but ended up conquering lubbock, even though it is through an impassable object. I defended lubbock as my border, but when people attacked lubbock from the indian territory, they conquered pampa - basically, something is wrong with it!

by **lackattack** on Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:54 am

edbeard wrote:I see a lot of people having this

<?xml version="1.0" ?>

at the top of their XML. This is not necessary to my knowledge and is added when you view the XML with an XML editor. When you write the XML, <map> should always be at the start

Actually, we must have that line in every map xml file. In this case I had to add it back myself.

XML Tutorial wrote:First of all, your XML file must begin with this on the first line:

Code: Select all
<?xml version="1.0"?>

by **bryguy** on Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:45 am

lackattack wrote:
edbeard wrote:I see a lot of people having this

<?xml version="1.0" ?>

at the top of their XML. This is not necessary to my knowledge and is added when you view the XML with an XML editor. When you write the XML, <map> should always be at the start

Actually, we must have that line in every map xml file. In this case I had to add it back myself.

XML Tutorial wrote:First of all, your XML file must begin with this on the first line:

Code: Select all
<?xml version="1.0"?>

what does that line DO anyways?

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:56 pm

Edbeard's file was uploaded today I believe.

--Andy

by **Appalachian** on Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:29 am

Has the fix been made?

by **edbeard** on Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:09 pm

Appalachian wrote:Has the fix been made?

yes it has.

by **rgbubba** on Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:55 pm

Thanks to all for your help in resolving these issues. I hope the next time it will be done better.

by **scottp** on Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:46 pm

RG, thanks for all the work that went into this map. It's one of my favorites.

Hate to bring up a negative, but isn't that Longhorn emblem you're using the copyrighted mark that the University of Texas holds? They do aggressively protect their mark. Just FYI.

by **rgbubba** on Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:54 pm

scottp wrote:RG, thanks for all the work that went into this map. It's one of my favorites.

Hate to bring up a negative, but isn't that Longhorn emblem you're using the copyrighted mark that the University of Texas holds? They do aggressively protect their mark. Just FYI.

by **scottp** on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:50 am

okay, cool.

thanks again for the effort. one of my very favorite maps, ESPECIALLY since the old classic and middle earth maps went poof!

by **nolefan5311** on Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:22 pm

What does the community think about changing the XML and coding Austin as a starting neutral? As it is now, it is included in the randomly allocated territories, and is dropped in a majority of games, causing an unnecessary advantage to the player who drops it.

by **rgbubba** on Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:43 pm

Please email me at rgbubba@yahoo.com for any issues you have on the Texan Wars! I might can fix the map!

by **nolefan5311** on Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:45 pm

You fixing the map would require it to back into Beta phase, when we can just have the Foundry Foreman edit the XML. Are you opposed to the changes?

by **chapcrap** on Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:12 pm

I am not opposed. However, if done, I think that giving it a higher bonus would be good. +2 if neutral.

by **nolefan5311** on Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:15 pm

chapcrap wrote:I am not opposed. However, if done, I think that giving it a higher bonus would be good. +2 if neutral.

That would require graphic changes to the map, which I'm not sure the mapmaker would be willing/able to do.

by **chapcrap** on Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:19 pm

nolefan5311 wrote:
chapcrap wrote:I am not opposed. However, if done, I think that giving it a higher bonus would be good. +2 if neutral.

That would require graphic changes to the map, which I'm not sure the mapmaker would be willing/able to do.

Fine!!

I would be ok with it starting neutral.

by **GaryDenton** on Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:44 am

The map shows bridges between San Antonio and Victoria but they do not connect on the map.

NEVER MIND - I realized those are supposed to be barbed wire.