Battle For Australia [Quenched]

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:17 am

I think that Andy must create new subforum for quenched maps.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:45 am

yeti_c wrote:Nope - that's the way the map is to be played...

It's to promote Japan vs Australia gameplay.

C.

All...its not only to promote the Japan Vs the Allies gameplay but also a north vs south gameplay.

I agree also with Qwert above....it would be nice to have a quenched sub forum alongside a Final Forge sub forum.

ga7 · Post by **ga7** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:58 pm

I just noticed there was some misspelled names, so if you ever do an update:
Bouganville should be Bougainville
Choisuel should be Choiseul

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:58 pm

Lackattack.

As per our previous conversation some weeks ago, i have changed the Battle For Australia map to no neutrals, and changed the notation on the map accordingly.

I have also changed the names on each map for Bougainville and Choiseul
as per the post above from ga7.

Links

XML

http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/battle_fo ... utrals.xml

V36 Small

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av036S.jpg

v36 Large

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... av036L.jpg

V36 Small

v36 Large

BeakerWMA · Post by **BeakerWMA** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:07 pm

No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:10 pm

BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BeakerWMA....sorry about that, but i will PM lackattack and ask him if it is possible to have both neutral and non-neutral version available.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:44 pm

No neutrals? WTF? that's what makes this map so awesome...

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:52 pm

BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.

BreakWMA......unfortunately lackattack has said her prefers to not have two versions available to keep things unconfusing. so for now BFA will go to no neutrals for the time being.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:39 pm

cairnswk wrote:
BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.
BreakWMA......unfortunately lackattack has said her prefers to not have two versions available to keep things unconfusing. so for now BFA will go to no neutrals for the time being.

Sigh...that kind of makes it lose it's flavor. Why did he say he wanted no neutrals? The notice on the top right is self explanatory.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:37 am

unriggable wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
BeakerWMA wrote:No neutrals makes me sad

I hated that the first time I played the map, but after awhile I thought it set it apart and grew to like it.
BreakWMA......unfortunately lackattack has said her prefers to not have two versions available to keep things unconfusing. so for now BFA will go to no neutrals for the time being.
Sigh...that kind of makes it lose it's flavor. Why did he say he wanted no neutrals? The notice on the top right is self explanatory.

Lack didn't say he wanted no neutrals...i decided to change because not everyone was happy with all those neutral terts, and using neutrals also makes some of the map totally useless if nobody is going to conquer those neutral terts, and that is generally what happens.

nagerous · Post by **nagerous** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:57 pm

Maybe it shouldn't say all neutral territories have been removed as that just creates confusion now.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:40 pm

nagerous wrote:Maybe it shouldn't say all neutral territories have been removed as that just creates confusion now.

ah...time to have it removed then. thanks nagerous.

Post by **iancanton** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:12 pm

in the xml, bougainville is misspelled bouganville, though it's spelled correctly on the map.

ian.

Post by **iancanton** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:53 am

iancanton wrote:in the xml, bougainville is misspelled bouganville, though it's spelled correctly on the map.

any chance of fixing the xml error?

ian.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:21 pm

iancanton wrote:
iancanton wrote:in the xml, bougainville is misspelled bouganville, though it's spelled correctly on the map.
any chance of fixing the xml error?

ian.

Sent

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:34 pm

Thanks cairnswk.

--Andy

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:04 am

Maybe it's time to remove the "all neutral territories are removed from this map"?

ManBungalow · Post by **ManBungalow** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:17 pm

Gilligan wrote:Maybe it's time to remove the "all neutral territories are removed from this map"?

I was under the impression that the comment alludes to historically neutral regions, not regions belonging the neutral player?

eg. removing Switzerland from the WWII Europe map

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:18 pm

ManBungalow wrote:
Gilligan wrote:Maybe it's time to remove the "all neutral territories are removed from this map"?
I was under the impression that the comment alludes to historically neutral regions, not regions belonging the neutral player?

eg. removing Switzerland from the WWII Europe map

Incorrect, when the map was first put into play a lot of the center map was made neutral. Much of Papua, New Guinea, and surrounding areas were made neutral. Then no one ever touched that side of the map and they were removed.

Battle For Australia [Quenched]

V36 Small and Large no neutral changes.

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Battle For Australia [Quenched]

Re: Battle For Australia [Quenched]

Re: Battle For Australia [Quenched]

Re: Battle For Australia [Quenched]