Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[cairnswk]

I have posted the following on the front page above Gameplay
Nomeclature
Beacons -> Beacon Penzance, Beacon Eddystone, Beacon Plymouth etc....
Treasury -> Sir Martin Frobisher M1, Sir Martin Frobisher T1, Sir Martin Frobisher T3, Sir Martin Frobisher T4, Sir Martin Frobisher T5
Command Vessels -> Santa Ana Stern, Santa Ana Bow
Land Bases -> Truro LB, Penzance LB, etc, with exception of LB Army Brussel
Supply Ships -> SS Banzana, SS David etc.

[cairnswk]

I am ready to take this map into the large version - 10% larger only.
I would ask anyone wanting to have a say in any further graphics before i do so, to step forward now and examine this map to give their input, or forever hold your peace.
I will not, and i repeat, after having put this call out, i will not attend to any suggestions after the graphics process has ended, (unless it applies to a change in gameplay in BETA) regardless of the conditions of the foundry.
This map has been in development for near 18 months and i consider this to be quite ample time for anyone to put their suggestions forward.
I do not want a repeat of some similar ocassions from the past where major adjustments have been requested in an untimely manner - like several months after graphics stamp.
Think what you will of me for being harsh on this one, but ...

[cairnswk]

For consideration towards the end (reminder):
the conditional border text might read a player may use a command vessel region to assault any commander's monarch region, but only if one region of that commander's command vessel is held. i presume that a command vessel can assault any commander's monarch region, including his own.

I am not in favour of this workding as it is too lengthy.

[thenobodies80]

The only concerns I have are the dotted arrows. Why the first one is darker than the others? (sorry if it's explained somewhere)
Moreover the dark one is much better: more clear and clean.
I think that arrows can be improved a bit, for example teh one between Portland and Poole LB has a dot that is darker because it overlap the border between the two regions and there's also a dot that is visible under the arrowhead.

That's all. Everything else looks fine, but give me the time to sleep and take a second look tomorrow with less tired eyes, just to be sure to not miss something.

[cairnswk]

The only concerns I have are the dotted arrows. Why the first one is darker than the others? (sorry if it's explained somewhere)
Moreover the dark one is much better: more clear and clean.
I think that arrows can be improved a bit, for example teh one between Portland and Poole LB has a dot that is darker because it overlap the border between the two regions and there's also a dot that is visible under the arrowhead.

That's all. Everything else looks fine, but give me the time to sleep and take a second look tomorrow with less tired eyes, just to be sure to not miss something.

Version 29 fixes those dotted lines.

[thenobodies80]

Perfect!

[isaiah40]

Perfect!

+1

[iancanton]

Why are there neutral 2s in the southern regions?

Ah Doom....this is the balancing aspect of the gamplay...to make it a little harder to conquer these terts as an attack line to opponents command vessels

The 2 on La Manuela does not achieve this.
The other ones do make sense, I will go back and look at his reasons for that.

EDIT:So it slows yellow from taking Paxat San Estobel as easily, but it doesn't stop teal from taking Santa Ana so easily.

Triumph and Revenge have no such block between them.

I realize Gameplay is closed, I just want to look at these last things.

Iancanton, do you have a comment?

sorry for the delayed response, doom. the n2 on la manuela prevents paxat san estaban (the correct spelling is actually paxat san esteban) from bombarding the ss paxat la isabela auto-deploy from the start. the intention is to prevent all cases of player 1 using his first turn advantage to conquer a single, then immediately bombard an opposing bonus before anyone else has played. ordinary starting ships do not necessarily have this protection.

in the main legend, command ship is used, while the conditional borders text has vessel. perhaps flagship can be used in both places to avoid confusion?

ian.

[cairnswk]

...
sorry for the delayed response, doom. the n2 on la manuela prevents paxat san estaban (the correct spelling is actually paxat san esteban) from bombarding the ss paxat la isabela auto-deploy from the start. the intention is to prevent all cases of player 1 using his first turn advantage to conquer a single, then immediately bombard an opposing bonus before anyone else has played. ordinary starting ships do not necessarily have this protection.

in the main legend, command ship is used, while the conditional borders text has vessel. perhaps flagship can be used in both places to avoid confusion?

ian.

ian, esteban is fixed...
i'd prefer to not use flagship, rather i simply changed vessel to ship.
please refresh for changes as above.

ian. can i ask are you all done now? so i can move this to large

[cairnswk]

I have updated the front page with the starting numbers for each player.

[nolefan5311]

Couple questions regarding the XML cairns...

Are the SS Ships part of the Single Ships of Same Nation bonus? I don't think so but I want to make sure.

And Vanguard Command Ship...are the bow and stern intentionally reversed compared to every other ship? Same with San Lorenzo.

And perhaps I'm being dense here, but regions like Diana, Sun, Moon, Doncella, etc., aren't LB's or SS's, but have the Monarch's Commander's shields there...is there something special about these regions? I'm operating under the assumption that only the Spanish side has the SS's, and only the English side has the LB's, and that both sides don't have both a SS and a LB.

Also, there are two San Salvador's on the map. First one is right below Santa Anna Command Ship and the second one is to the upper left of San Cristobal Command Ship.

The XML is over 3500 lines and I haven't even done borders/bombardments yet lol

[cairnswk]

Couple questions regarding the XML cairns...

Are the SS Ships part of the Single Ships of Same Nation bonus? I don't think so but I want to make sure.

yes they are part of that bonus.

And Vanguard Command Ship...are the bow and stern intentionally reversed compared to every other ship? Same with San Lorenzo.

well, yes intentionally, just to mix up the gameplay...not all ships would have faced the same way in battle

And perhaps I'm being dense here, but regions like Diana, Sun, Moon, Doncella, etc., aren't LB's or SS's, but have the Monarch's Commander's shields there...is there something special about these regions?

yes these are starting positions, refer map front page.

I'm operating under the assumption that only the Spanish side has the SS's, and only the English side has the LB's, and that both sides don't have both a SS and a LB.

That is correct except for the LB Army Brussel, which counts as part of the same side for the Spanish +1 for 9 bonus. i'll have to put something in the map about that - done.

Also, there are two San Salvador's on the map. First one is right below Santa Anna Command Ship and the second one is to the upper left of San Cristobal Command Ship.

the ship below Santa Ana has been changed to São Cristóvão

The XML is over 3500 lines and I haven't even done borders/bombardments yet lol

Are U sure you haven't doubled up somewhere

Every single beacon territory ALSO has a regular territory there, right? i.e., Beacon Poole, and Poole, are two separate regions.

Yes. Note Plymouth Beacons are now named also A and B.

Version 30.

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

This question needs to be examined again.

The +11 bonus...is that ONLY for holding the Monarch and 4 Treasury territories? Or does that include the bow and stern of the command ships as well? The "Commander's" in the legend has me a little confused. I don't believe it includes any part of the command ships, but I just want to make sure.

This bonus should include the bow and stern of the command ship, plus all the treasury territories but not the Monarch position.

I think that now the wording has changed a little, this bonus can be brought down somewhat...what do others think?

[nolefan5311]

And perhaps I'm being dense here, but regions like Diana, Sun, Moon, Doncella, etc., aren't LB's or SS's, but have the Monarch's Commander's shields there...is there something special about these regions?

yes these are starting positions, refer map front page.

Thanks cairns. Can they also be assaulted by the Treasury positions like the Command Ships and SS's/LB's can?

And SS Amor (for D. Medina Sedona) is not the same color as all the other SS's.

[cairnswk]

And perhaps I'm being dense here, but regions like Diana, Sun, Moon, Doncella, etc., aren't LB's or SS's, but have the Monarch's Commander's shields there...is there something special about these regions?

yes these are starting positions, refer map front page.

Thanks cairns. Can they also be assaulted by the Treasury positions like the Command Ships and SS's/LB's can?

Instructions- Treasury Movement:
Each player can move one-way outward to earn additional bonuses or can assault from any treasury position to same player's Command Ship (B & S), Supply Ship (SS), or Land Base (LB) only.
Does that modification answer that? In other words no they cannot be assaulted from the treasury.

And SS Amor (for D. Medina Sedona) is not the same color as all the other SS's.

that is now fixed in v30 above. SS and colour has been removed from Julia Zabra. and SS Amor is now same colour as other SS's.

[nolefan5311]

And perhaps I'm being dense here, but regions like Diana, Sun, Moon, Doncella, etc., aren't LB's or SS's, but have the Monarch's Commander's shields there...is there something special about these regions?

yes these are starting positions, refer map front page.

Thanks cairns. Can they also be assaulted by the Treasury positions like the Command Ships and SS's/LB's can?

Instructions- Treasury Movement:
Each player can move one-way outward to earn additional bonuses or can assault from any treasury position to same player's Command Ship (B & S), Supply Ship (SS), or Land Base (LB) only.
Does that modification answer that? In other words no they cannot be assaulted from the treasury.

And SS Amor (for D. Medina Sedona) is not the same color as all the other SS's.

that is now fixed in v30 above. SS and colour has been removed from Julia Zabra. and SS Amor is now same colour as other SS's.

Sure does. Thanks cairns!

[cairnswk]

Version 30....bumped

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

This question needs to be examined again.

The +11 bonus...is that ONLY for holding the Monarch and 4 Treasury territories? Or does that include the bow and stern of the command ships as well? The "Commander's" in the legend has me a little confused. I don't believe it includes any part of the command ships, but I just want to make sure.

This bonus should include the bow and stern of the command ship, plus all the treasury territories but not the Monarch position.

I think that now the wording has changed a little, this bonus can be brought down somewhat...what do others think?

Still wanting someone to address this issue please.

[nolefan5311]

I've been hesitant to comment on this since I'm involved with the project, but I do think it could be reduced, possibly even removed altogether, especially with the high amount of autodeploys in the treasury positions.

You know what you could do is institute a new XML feature, the multiplier. Maybe have the bonus as a +3, and multiplied for every Command Ship held, or something like that.

If you do keep it, I think the wording needs to be changed to, "Hold all Treasury positions and both Command ship regions for a Monarch, +11 (or whatever the bonus will be). Or something like that. As it's currently worded, it sounds like the Monarch's Commander is a required territory.

[cairnswk]

I've been hesitant to comment on this since I'm involved with the project, but I do think it could be reduced, possibly even removed altogether, especially with the high amount of autodeploys in the treasury positions.

please don't hesitate to comment simply because you're doing the xml.
i thought this was about getting the gameplay sorted and since there is very little activity in comments otherwise, why not put your ideas forward!

You know what you could do is institute a new XML feature, the multiplier. Maybe have the bonus as a +3, and multiplied for every Command Ship held, or something like that.
If you do keep it, I think the wording needs to be changed to, "Hold all Treasury positions and both Command ship regions for a Monarch, +11 (or whatever the bonus will be). Or something like that. As it's currently worded, it sounds like the Monarch's Commander is a required territory.

How about: "Hold a Monarch's Commander's Ship and corresponding Treasury +2"
i think +2 is enough to give out as incentive on top of the other:
+1 for holding the B & S
+13 for holding all the treasury.


While i am at it...i think it will change also the Losing condition wording to:
"Players failing to hold any non-Treasury and Commander's ship will be eliminated"

[nolefan5311]

How about: "Hold a Monarch's Commander's Ship and corresponding Treasury +2"
i think +2 is enough to give out as incentive on top of the other:
+1 for holding the B & S
+13 for holding all the treasury.


While i am at it...i think it will change also the Losing condition wording to:
"Players failing to hold any non-Treasury and Commander's ship will be eliminated"

So it will be +13 for holding all the Treasury then?

And I do think you need to leave "region" after "non-Treasury". And I like that you have to hold a Monarch's Commander to stay alive. It's not too easy to kill someone off because of the whole conditional borders thing, and because those are the most important regions on the map, honestly. That's where everything starts. You could word it to say, "Players holding only a Treasury territory will be eliminated". That would make it easier for me to code too

[cairnswk]

How about: "Hold a Monarch's Commander's Ship and corresponding Treasury +2"
i think +2 is enough to give out as incentive on top of the other:
+1 for holding the B & S
+13 for holding all the treasury.


While i am at it...i think it will change also the Losing condition wording to:
"Players failing to hold any non-Treasury and Commander's ship will be eliminated"

So it will be +13 for holding all the Treasury then?

well yes, that's what that adds up to, unless you think it can be dropped down to +1 +1 +2 +3 = +7 instead of +1 +3 +4 +5 = +13

And I do think you need to leave "region" after "non-Treasury".

i poo-pooed...done!

And I like that you have to hold a Monarch's Commander to stay alive. It's not too easy to kill someone off because of the whole conditional borders thing, and because those are the most important regions on the map, honestly. That's where everything starts. You could word it to say, "Players holding only a Treasury territory will be eliminated". That would make it easier for me to code too

I think i'd like to stick with the current wording and play.

[nolefan5311]

How about: "Hold a Monarch's Commander's Ship and corresponding Treasury +2"
i think +2 is enough to give out as incentive on top of the other:
+1 for holding the B & S
+13 for holding all the treasury.


While i am at it...i think it will change also the Losing condition wording to:
"Players failing to hold any non-Treasury and Commander's ship will be eliminated"

So it will be +13 for holding all the Treasury then?

well yes, that's what that adds up to, unless you think it can be dropped down to +1 +1 +2 +3 = +7 instead of +1 +3 +4 +5 = +13

And I do think you need to leave "region" after "non-Treasury".

i poo-pooed...done!

I like the autodeploy amounts at what they currently are, and think any "droppable" bonus should be reduced to something like a +2 or +3, since they can really only be attacked, conditionally, through the Commander's Command Ship.

[cairnswk]

...
I like the autodeploy amounts at what they currently are, and think any "droppable" bonus should be reduced to something like a +2 or +3, since they can really only be attacked, conditionally, through the Commander's Command Ship.

OK. +3 it is.

Version 31.
1. new beacons
2. bonus dropped from +11 to +3

Large

Click image to enlarge.

Small

[cairnswk]

Pls note the sizes have changed, as per front page.