D-Day: Omaha Beach! [Quenched]

[mibi]

id like to wait for xml upgrades, but i dont anticipate it for several months,

Nor sure what you may want to implement here that would require some sort of xml upgrade. Everything looks like something that is possible at the moment without excessive coding. If you were referring to this map.

the only thing would be attack but not conquer movement, which would be good for ranged attacks but not ranged fortifying and such. i dont even know if this is possible even with upgraded xml. i dont even know what ugrapded xml is.... or even xml for that matter

[unriggable]

Side beaches should be 4, since middle beach you have to defend from more sides.

[mibi]

Added army 'circles' and other things like barbwire

I also changed the name to focus just on Omaha beach and its landing sectors, Easy, Fox, and Dog, charlie is not listed. This is to avoid any confusing with other d-day maps and historical stuff. but now i need a name for the flats, any ideas?

[spiesr]

call 1 spiesr

[DiM]

the way the turets work is silly and totally unrealistic.

why does the east turret (the one on the right) attack all the way to the left beach but it can't attack the right beach?

and why only odd or even numbers? again rather odd.

just split the beach in half and each turret attacks one half.

and one more thing. i really don't like the current graphics because they look just like the siege map. try another approach.

[mibi]

the way the turets work is silly and totally unrealistic.

why does the east turret (the one on the right) attack all the way to the left beach but it can't attack the right beach?

and why only odd or even numbers? again rather odd.

just split the beach in half and each turret attacks one half.

whoops, yeah the turrets should be reverse, they can attack the two closest beaches, and the even odd thing is to give the beaches some area of cover instead of increasing their borders by +6, also artillery and mortars weren't were the most accurate thing on the beach so their targets are limited. It also allows the middle beach to have a chance of being defensible instead of being attacked from all sides and on ever territory from two locations.

and one more thing. i really don't like the current graphics because they look just like the siege map. try another approach.

and the graphics are totally different than siege, unless you are talking about the perspective. if its a problem for you DiM i suggest you not play both maps at the same time.... if they make it on to the site.

[DiM]

and the graphics are totally different than siege, unless you are talking about the perspective. if its a problem for you DiM i suggest you not play both maps at the same time.... if they make it on to the site.

it's not the perspective. it's the style. same borders same feeling. i'm looking at the beach and at the hills and i'm seeing the plains or the midlands. i'm loking at the little pillboxes and i see the castle walls. also having numbers instead of names makes me feel like the maps have almost identical graphics.

which is not necessarily bad since the siege graphics are very good. but i do feel a change in style would be welcomed.
then again it's just me so if everybody likes it i have nothing against it.


PS: and the x thingys look bad. it's like someone stitched pieces of beach together

[mibi]

and the graphics are totally different than siege, unless you are talking about the perspective. if its a problem for you DiM i suggest you not play both maps at the same time.... if they make it on to the site.

it's not the perspective. it's the style. same borders same feeling. i'm looking at the beach and at the hills and i'm seeing the plains or the midlands. i'm loking at the little pillboxes and i see the castle walls. also having numbers instead of names makes me feel like the maps have almost identical graphics.

which is not necessarily bad since the siege graphics are very good. but i do feel a change in style would be welcomed.
then again it's just me so if everybody likes it i have nothing against it.


PS: and the x thingys look bad. it's like someone stitched pieces of beach together

i doubt many players have seen and studied the siege map as much as you and others in the foundry so i dont think it will be a problem. also, at least siege and this map are different from 80% of the other maps on the site which are, find geography map > borders > texture > army circles > quench.

[DiM]

and the graphics are totally different than siege, unless you are talking about the perspective. if its a problem for you DiM i suggest you not play both maps at the same time.... if they make it on to the site.

it's not the perspective. it's the style. same borders same feeling. i'm looking at the beach and at the hills and i'm seeing the plains or the midlands. i'm loking at the little pillboxes and i see the castle walls. also having numbers instead of names makes me feel like the maps have almost identical graphics.

which is not necessarily bad since the siege graphics are very good. but i do feel a change in style would be welcomed.
then again it's just me so if everybody likes it i have nothing against it.


PS: and the x thingys look bad. it's like someone stitched pieces of beach together

i doubt many players have seen and studied the siege map as much as you and others in the foundry so i dont think it will be a problem. also, at least siege and this map are different from 80% of the other maps on the site which are, find geography map > borders > texture > army circles > quench.

i agree the 2 maps are different from the ones available for play at the moment but think about it like this. siege will get quenched before this map. then, when this one will get quenched people will think. WTF? is this a siege clone? same idea of a siege, same graphics. hmmm.

i think this won't be beneficial for this map. that's why i'm saying to go for a different approach.

i would really love a iwo jima style map. do it like a war map foung on the tables of generals planning the attack.

[Qwert]

Thanks dim for these compliment

[Spockers]

Not open to suggestion:
The territory number, it stands at 72, which is a magic number divisable evenly by 3,4,6 and 8! So that means no neutrals on this map what so ever.

5?

[Zorg_rsk]

The map to me dosn't quite look the way I feel the battle should be portrayed. At the moment the top sections are all the same and the bottom sections are all the same, which is boring and whilst good for more basic element maps, for a historical battle I feel there should be more Asymetry as the battle suggests.

[yeti_c]

Not open to suggestion:
The territory number, it stands at 72, which is a magic number divisable evenly by 3,4,6 and 8! So that means no neutrals on this map what so ever.

5?

2 neutrals in this instance...

C.

[Coleman]

I haven't seen Samus around so I figured I'd go ahead and do it since I built a program for it.

Code: Select all

Continent       Worth   Recomend
U.S.S. Arkansas 2.5833  3
U.S.S. T.J.     4.75    5
U.S.S. Bayfield 2.5833  3
Fox Beach       5.1667  5
Easy Beach      6       6
Dog Beach       5       5
Flat 1          3.9167  4
Flat 2          5.9167  6
Flat 3          5.8333  6
Flat 4          5.8333  6
Flat 5          3.25    4
Left Turret     1.3333  2
Right Turret    1.3333  2
Left Pillbox    1.0833  1
Middle Pillbox  1.0833  1
Right Pillbox   1.0833  1
All ships       8.1667  4
All pillboxes   5.25    3
Both turrets    3.6667  3

No reason you have to give the bonuses that the continents are technically worth, but if you were wondering what the formula comes up with.

Also, and everyone is probably going to hate this... I'd almost rather this map was called Beach Attack or Invasion and all the historical references to D-Day removed for a few reasons:

1) Staying historically accurate limits creative license.
2) Another group has a d-day map in development that is probably more historically based.
3) It would cut down on a lot of the history related bickering.

Also, there have been some weird comments about the art being similar to Seige... What do you expect when the same artist is doing both maps? To call this a siege clone simply because the art is similar is ridiculous.

[DiM]

Thanks dim for these compliment

i always liked your maps. i hope one day they'll get quenched.

[DiM]

Also, there have been some weird comments about the art being similar to Seige... What do you expect when the same artist is doing both maps? To call this a siege clone simply because the art is similar is ridiculous.

i don't care if it's the same person doing the map. look at keyogi for example. compare australia to conquer 4 and to revamp of middle east. 3 totally different styles and same artist.

plus mibi is a graphic designer not like the rest of us so he has vast experience and knows what i'm talking about. i don't know his exact field of expertise but i'm sure his projects have different styles.
i have a friend that's a graphic designer and he works in publicity. i'm telling you not a single one of his projects is similar to another. yes you might find some common points but those are so minor only a carefull watcher could observe.

and i'm not calling this a siege clone just because of the graphics but also because of the theme (both are about sieges) because of the perspective and because of the gameplay. this is not d-day it's siege with modern set-up.

again i say that a iwo jima style would suit this map a whole lot better.


and since i used keyogy as an example imagine middle east designed with the same graphics as australia. which would you prefer? a colourful revamp or the parchment one?

[mibi]

Also, there have been some weird comments about the art being similar to Seige... What do you expect when the same artist is doing both maps? To call this a siege clone simply because the art is similar is ridiculous.

i don't care if it's the same person doing the map. look at keyogi for example. compare australia to conquer 4 and to revamp of middle east. 3 totally different styles and same artist.

plus mibi is a graphic designer not like the rest of us so he has vast experience and knows what i'm talking about. i don't know his exact field of expertise but i'm sure his projects have different styles.
i have a friend that's a graphic designer and he works in publicity. i'm telling you not a single one of his projects is similar to another. yes you might find some common points but those are so minor only a carefull watcher could observe.

and i'm not calling this a siege clone just because of the graphics but also because of the theme (both are about sieges) because of the perspective and because of the gameplay. this is not d-day it's siege with modern set-up.

again i say that a iwo jima style would suit this map a whole lot better.


and since i used keyogy as an example imagine middle east designed with the same graphics as australia. which would you prefer? a colourful revamp or the parchment one?

if people don't like the Siege! map and don't play it then I will know that there isn't room for two maps in the same style. However, if Siege is more popular than say, Australia, then I will assume that there is an apatite for the style. And seriously DiM, im not sure why your complaining about two maps with the same style of game play, considering all the other maps in for the forge and on the site that are just some land mass split into territories.

And really the two maps arn't that similar in style, sure there is a wall, but that wall ca be breached in 8 of the 9 territories that border it from the beach, so its not about holding a wall like siege. but it is about holding and defending areas, which is what every map is about. i really don't see any similarities besides the perspective and the bottom attacking the top aspect.

and if you think this is the only style im capable of, coleman or samus will attest to maps i have in development which are 500% different then anything on this site.

[DiM]

Also, there have been some weird comments about the art being similar to Seige... What do you expect when the same artist is doing both maps? To call this a siege clone simply because the art is similar is ridiculous.

i don't care if it's the same person doing the map. look at keyogi for example. compare australia to conquer 4 and to revamp of middle east. 3 totally different styles and same artist.

plus mibi is a graphic designer not like the rest of us so he has vast experience and knows what i'm talking about. i don't know his exact field of expertise but i'm sure his projects have different styles.
i have a friend that's a graphic designer and he works in publicity. i'm telling you not a single one of his projects is similar to another. yes you might find some common points but those are so minor only a carefull watcher could observe.

and i'm not calling this a siege clone just because of the graphics but also because of the theme (both are about sieges) because of the perspective and because of the gameplay. this is not d-day it's siege with modern set-up.

again i say that a iwo jima style would suit this map a whole lot better.


and since i used keyogy as an example imagine middle east designed with the same graphics as australia. which would you prefer? a colourful revamp or the parchment one?

if people don't like the Siege! map and don't play it then I will know that there isn't room for two maps in the same style. However, if Siege is more popular than say, Australia, then I will assume that there is an apatite for the style. And seriously DiM, im not sure why your complaining about two maps with the same style of game play, considering all the other maps in for the forge and on the site that are just some land mass split into territories.

if you look at my posts throughout the foundry you'll see i'm not a fan of classic recipe. take acountry split into terits and add borders. there are really rare occasions i like those maps (middle east or coral coast).
again i'm asking you to view this my way. i've worked a lot in management and marketing so maybe it's a professional habit but i tend to view each thing i do as a product or a service and try to find ways of making it presentable, attractive, long lasting and efficient. very rarely a product with the same style as a previous one has had more success and on those rare occasions when it did it was only because it improved some flaws of the previous but i've always thought it could have been even more succesfull with a different approach. yes sometimes a different approach can mean disaster if it's not handled right that's why usually small companies prefer to launch a clone and reap some of the success of the predecessors. but i do appreciate the small companies that have the guts to launch something innovative and bold that make fortunes just because they had balls. now let's say mibi is a company that makes video games. and Siege is their first launch. it gets reviewed by various sites and magazines and gets good grades and praises for the inovative style and gameplay. perfect. then the mibi company decides to announce a new game. people have high hopes especially when they know their debut game was a success. th d-day game is released, it gets reviews in various magazines and sites, it still gets good grades but not as good as the first one. most reviewers think this would have been better launched as an expansion for the previous game not a stand alone release. they already start saying things like maybe that's all they can do, maybe they started doing what EA Sports does and launch updated clones. maybe this d-day game would have been another block buster if it had iwo jima style. questions, doubt, regrets start to appear. while i agree this is not an industry and we all do maps for free i still belive the same principles apply if we want varied state of the art maps.

And really the two maps arn't that similar in style, sure there is a wall, but that wall ca be breached in 8 of the 9 territories that border it from the beach, so its not about holding a wall like siege. but it is about holding and defending areas, which is what every map is about. i really don't see any similarities besides the perspective and the bottom attacking the top aspect.

here is a list of reasons why i believe the 2 maps are similar.
*graphics are identical.
*they are both about siege.
*top defends bottom attacks.
*same numbered terits without names
*similar gameplay

and if you think this is the only style im capable of, coleman or samus will attest to maps i have in development which are 500% different then anything on this site.

if i thought you were capable of only this style i wouldn't even have bothered asking you to change it. in fact i wouldn't have even bothered posting in this thread at all.

[Coleman]

I think this whole graphics thing is an interesting, perhaps even important argument, but that isn't my field and I'm not going to pretend that it is...

That said, I'm interested in the bonuses right now, and I feel like that is important. I'd like to know mibi's and other foundry members opinions on what I posted and what should/shouldn't change.

[mibi]

if you look at my posts throughout the foundry you'll see i'm not a fan of classic recipe. take acountry split into terits and add borders. there are really rare occasions i like those maps (middle east or coral coast).
again i'm asking you to view this my way. i've worked a lot in management and marketing so maybe it's a professional habit but i tend to view each thing i do as a product or a service and try to find ways of making it presentable, attractive, long lasting and efficient. very rarely a product with the same style as a previous one has had more success and on those rare occasions when it did it was only because it improved some flaws of the previous but i've always thought it could have been even more succesfull with a different approach. yes sometimes a different approach can mean disaster if it's not handled right that's why usually small companies prefer to launch a clone and reap some of the success of the predecessors. but i do appreciate the small companies that have the guts to launch something innovative and bold that make fortunes just because they had balls. now let's say mibi is a company that makes video games. and Siege is their first launch. it gets reviewed by various sites and magazines and gets good grades and praises for the inovative style and gameplay. perfect. then the mibi company decides to announce a new game. people have high hopes especially when they know their debut game was a success. th d-day game is released, it gets reviews in various magazines and sites, it still gets good grades but not as good as the first one. most reviewers think this would have been better launched as an expansion for the previous game not a stand alone release. they already start saying things like maybe that's all they can do, maybe they started doing what EA Sports does and launch updated clones. maybe this d-day game would have been another block buster if it had iwo jima style. questions, doubt, regrets start to appear. while i agree this is not an industry and we all do maps for free i still belive the same principles apply if we want varied state of the art maps.

Ha! ... interesting analogy, but unfortunately, totally useless. According to you, each launch of the "EA clone" Madden would see less and less sales, but sales increase, 2 million unites for Madden 2007 in the first week. So they have found something that works and are sticking with it. And as for expansion packs, I'm not sure you understand what an expansion pack is. You dont release a WW2 expansion pack for a Medieval era game. If you want to make your analogy work, I would have to do another Siege map that was a different castle and different setting but same style and graphics. What I am doing now is currently like EA releasing Battlefield 1942, and upon its success release another game in the same style and graphics in a different setting, like Battlefield 2, which sold more units.

What you seem to be suggesting is that since Battlefield 1942 gets good reviews, EA should then put out an RTS so it doesn't look like its copying it self. I don't think so. For your analogy to work you need to set it straight.

[DiM]

if you look at my posts throughout the foundry you'll see i'm not a fan of classic recipe. take acountry split into terits and add borders. there are really rare occasions i like those maps (middle east or coral coast).
again i'm asking you to view this my way. i've worked a lot in management and marketing so maybe it's a professional habit but i tend to view each thing i do as a product or a service and try to find ways of making it presentable, attractive, long lasting and efficient. very rarely a product with the same style as a previous one has had more success and on those rare occasions when it did it was only because it improved some flaws of the previous but i've always thought it could have been even more succesfull with a different approach. yes sometimes a different approach can mean disaster if it's not handled right that's why usually small companies prefer to launch a clone and reap some of the success of the predecessors. but i do appreciate the small companies that have the guts to launch something innovative and bold that make fortunes just because they had balls. now let's say mibi is a company that makes video games. and Siege is their first launch. it gets reviewed by various sites and magazines and gets good grades and praises for the inovative style and gameplay. perfect. then the mibi company decides to announce a new game. people have high hopes especially when they know their debut game was a success. th d-day game is released, it gets reviews in various magazines and sites, it still gets good grades but not as good as the first one. most reviewers think this would have been better launched as an expansion for the previous game not a stand alone release. they already start saying things like maybe that's all they can do, maybe they started doing what EA Sports does and launch updated clones. maybe this d-day game would have been another block buster if it had iwo jima style. questions, doubt, regrets start to appear. while i agree this is not an industry and we all do maps for free i still belive the same principles apply if we want varied state of the art maps.

Ha! ... interesting analogy, but unfortunately, totally useless. According to you, each launch of the "EA clone" Madden would see less and less sales, but sales increase, 2 million unites for Madden 2007 in the first week. So they have found something that works and are sticking with it. And as for expansion packs, I'm not sure you understand what an expansion pack is. You dont release a WW2 expansion pack for a Medieval era game. If you want to make your analogy work, I would have to do another Siege map that was a different castle and different setting but same style and graphics. What I am doing now is currently like EA releasing Battlefield 1942, and upon its success release another game in the same style and graphics in a different setting, like Battlefield 2, which sold more units.

What you seem to be suggesting is that since Battlefield 1942 gets good reviews, EA should then put out an RTS so it doesn't look like its copying it self. I don't think so. For your analogy to work you need to set it straight.

never played madden nfl. not american so not a fan of american football. what i had in mind was the fifa series which year after year is worse and worse. yes it gets good sells because ea is a financial monster that can buy it's way into any market but the game stopped developing since fifa 99.
or take the tiger woods golf series, same issues, every year it gets worse. the latest being the crappiest.

ea released battlefield 1942 and it got good reviews but between 1942 and battlefield 2 they released numerous other games. imagine ea releasing 3-4 battlefields without any other releases between them

what your doing here is releasing 2 battlefields shortly one after another with nothing in between.

and yes i know what an expansion is.

siege and d-day are something like tribal wars.
here people play siege. and after some time, i'll give you an expansion that opens a new land (d-day) with same graphics, same them but more for you to kill in instant dungeons. people will like it and play it but what if that wasn't just a new land? what if that was a whole new game that's totally different. it has the potential to be and you are the one that decides.

i think i've stated my point pretty clearly whether you want to do it my way or your way it's entirely up to you. so i won't bother you anymore on this issue.

[Coleman]

I'm not going to shut up about the bonuses until you guys talk about them.

[hulmey]

i think the layout is all wrong of this map Coleman....It should be fighting up the beaches...The machine gun bunkers should be straight onto the beach not in the fields!!!!How it is there is no real fighting!!!

I think im going to give this a go myself

[spinwizard]

i like it now u changed the nam, keep going and how did u make the holes in the sea wall?

[mibi]

i think i've stated my point pretty clearly whether you want to do it my way or your way it's entirely up to you. so i won't bother you anymore on this issue.

It baffles me how you have a problem with the same style on both of my maps, when 80% of the maps on the site are essentially expansion packs of the Classic map.