Rail Europe [Quenched]
Moderator: Cartographers
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
V7 Small and Large Updates
V7 Updates
* Four-way station text changed to "intersecting"
* Brussels and Luasanne terminals moved, and Milan station moved to Zagreb to make room for Munich and Frankfurt.
* The GLacier Express changed to INtercity Express LON-BRU-KLN-FNK-MUN-LUS-PAR-BRU. Bonuses need re-doing for that train.
V7 Small
V7 Large
* Four-way station text changed to "intersecting"
* Brussels and Luasanne terminals moved, and Milan station moved to Zagreb to make room for Munich and Frankfurt.
* The GLacier Express changed to INtercity Express LON-BRU-KLN-FNK-MUN-LUS-PAR-BRU. Bonuses need re-doing for that train.
V7 Small
V7 Large
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
-
WidowMakers
- Posts: 2774
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, MI
Ok I have a question. How is the gameplay on this map different from Rail USA?
Rail Europe text:
*At Paris all stations border each other
*At terminals with more than one station, attack can only be a bordering station
*At four-way stations, all territories border each other
*External to terminals, attack can only be made along the route lines.
Rail USA text:
Station names are:
*3 letter station name
*3 first letters of the rail line
*Stations can only attack adjacent stations along their rail line except
*Stations in teh same city can attack each other.
*All Chicago stations border each other.
So based on this text
1) The only difference I see in gameplay between the two is that the stations in Rail Europe for MOW and WAW can't all attack each other. Based on everything else written, it would play the same as Rail USA.
So why not (to keep things similar and less confusing for the player when both of these maps are out) Use the same text for both maps.
It would keep the understanding of the maps the same and players would be less confused with two types of text and one map that has only two cities that have stations that can't attack each other (MOW and WAW)
2) On rail USA cairns, you told me not to use the word terminal because it meant the end of a line. That being said then, I would recommend to remove it from Rail Europe. Again another area that I feel would be better in the maps were consistent with text.
I suggest this be the text used for Rail Europe:
*All Paris stations border each other.
Station names are:
*3 letter station name
*3 first letters of the rail line
*Stations can only attack adjacent stations along their rail line except
*Stations in the same city can attack each other.
It is easier to read and maintains consistency across the maps. The only thing lost is the limited attack form the vertically oriented Rail Europe Stations (WAW and MOW) And I don't feel that is a big enough gameplay mechanic to warrant an entirely new text system between the two maps.
PLUS: When are you gonna get rid of the skinny attack lines. They look bad. Why aren't you using railroad tracks like on Rail USA. I think they look much better.
Rail Europe text:
*At Paris all stations border each other
*At terminals with more than one station, attack can only be a bordering station
*At four-way stations, all territories border each other
*External to terminals, attack can only be made along the route lines.
Rail USA text:
Station names are:
*3 letter station name
*3 first letters of the rail line
*Stations can only attack adjacent stations along their rail line except
*Stations in teh same city can attack each other.
*All Chicago stations border each other.
So based on this text
1) The only difference I see in gameplay between the two is that the stations in Rail Europe for MOW and WAW can't all attack each other. Based on everything else written, it would play the same as Rail USA.
So why not (to keep things similar and less confusing for the player when both of these maps are out) Use the same text for both maps.
It would keep the understanding of the maps the same and players would be less confused with two types of text and one map that has only two cities that have stations that can't attack each other (MOW and WAW)
2) On rail USA cairns, you told me not to use the word terminal because it meant the end of a line. That being said then, I would recommend to remove it from Rail Europe. Again another area that I feel would be better in the maps were consistent with text.
I suggest this be the text used for Rail Europe:
*All Paris stations border each other.
Station names are:
*3 letter station name
*3 first letters of the rail line
*Stations can only attack adjacent stations along their rail line except
*Stations in the same city can attack each other.
It is easier to read and maintains consistency across the maps. The only thing lost is the limited attack form the vertically oriented Rail Europe Stations (WAW and MOW) And I don't feel that is a big enough gameplay mechanic to warrant an entirely new text system between the two maps.
PLUS: When are you gonna get rid of the skinny attack lines. They look bad. Why aren't you using railroad tracks like on Rail USA. I think they look much better.
-
WidowMakers
- Posts: 2774
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, MI
Sorry I should have added this to the previous post.
In Rail USA the Stations were the same size in the large and the small map. I see here that they are larger in the large map. Is that for any reason?
Just want to make sure you scaled them up properly so the numbers would fit.
Plus if you decided to use the smaller size on the big map, I feel it would make that map look better, because it would feel less cramped and would have more room to let the tracks move around the map.
In Rail USA the Stations were the same size in the large and the small map. I see here that they are larger in the large map. Is that for any reason?
Just want to make sure you scaled them up properly so the numbers would fit.
Plus if you decided to use the smaller size on the big map, I feel it would make that map look better, because it would feel less cramped and would have more room to let the tracks move around the map.
Thanks WM for the comments.WidowMakers wrote:Ok I have a question. How is the gameplay on this map different from Rail USA?
Rail Europe text:
*At Paris all stations border each other
*At terminals with more than one station, attack can only be a bordering station
*At four-way stations, all territories border each other
*External to terminals, attack can only be made along the route lines.
Rail USA text:
Station names are:
*3 letter station name
*3 first letters of the rail line
*Stations can only attack adjacent stations along their rail line except
*Stations in teh same city can attack each other.
*All Chicago stations border each other.
So based on this text
1) The only difference I see in gameplay between the two is that the stations in Rail Europe for MOW and WAW can't all attack each other. Based on everything else written, it would play the same as Rail USA.
Yes WAW and MOW stations can't all attak each other.
NO it is not going to play the same as RAIL USA.
In RAIL USA the routes are very linear.
IN Europe there is a mixture of linear routes and regional routes as for Italy, Iberia, GB and Scandanavia mixed with those other linear routes.
This will make play very different indeed.
I might consider that although I would prefer to have somethings different.So why not (to keep things similar and less confusing for the player when both of these maps are out) Use the same text for both maps.
Good considerations.It would keep the understanding of the maps the same and players would be less confused with two types of text and one map that has only two cities that have stations that can't attack each other (MOW and WAW)
2) On rail USA cairns, you told me not to use the word terminal because it meant the end of a line. That being said then, I would recommend to remove it from Rail Europe. Again another area that I feel would be better in the maps were consistent with text.
I suggest this be the text used for Rail Europe:
*All Paris stations border each other.
Station names are:
*3 letter station name
*3 first letters of the rail line
*Stations can only attack adjacent stations along their rail line except
*Stations in the same city can attack each other.
It is easier to read and maintains consistency across the maps. The only thing lost is the limited attack form the vertically oriented Rail Europe Stations (WAW and MOW) And I don't feel that is a big enough gameplay mechanic to warrant an entirely new text system between the two maps.
When i let you know it's time to do rail lines thanks...LOL...luv the humourPLUS: When are you gonna get rid of the skinny attack lines. They look bad. Why aren't you using railroad tracks like on Rail USA. I think they look much better.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
No simply that i haven't got to scaling the stations up or down yet.WidowMakers wrote:Sorry I should have added this to the previous post.
In Rail USA the Stations were the same size in the large and the small map. I see here that they are larger in the large map. Is that for any reason?
Yes the stations on the small map are 22px wide, and i'll prob make the stations on the large map 24px wide. At present they're about 28 px wide.Just want to make sure you scaled them up properly so the numbers would fit.
Plus if you decided to use the smaller size on the big map, I feel it would make that map look better, because it would feel less cramped and would have more room to let the tracks move around the map.
Last edited by cairnswk on Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
-
WidowMakers
- Posts: 2774
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, MI
I agree the new rail route configurations will make the map play different. I just meant that having different "directions" between two Rail maps might be confusing thats all.cairnswk wrote:Thanks WM for the comments.
Yes WAW and MOW stations can't all attak each other.
NO it is not going to play the same as RAIL USA.
In RAIL USA the routes are very linear.
IN Europe there is a mixture of linear routes and regional routes as for Italy, Iberia, GB and Scandanavia mixed with those other linear routes.
This will make play very different indeed.
Looking good.
Mmmm.....a possibility, but i think we went way outside the standard template with Rail USA and everyone seemed to latch onto that quickly, i imagine that bringing it back to a mixture of the two might be pleasing to many.WidowMakers wrote:I agree the new rail route configurations will make the map play different. I just meant that having different "directions" between two Rail maps might be confusing thats all.cairnswk wrote:Thanks WM for the comments.
Yes WAW and MOW stations can't all attak each other.
NO it is not going to play the same as RAIL USA.
In RAIL USA the routes are very linear.
IN Europe there is a mixture of linear routes and regional routes as for Italy, Iberia, GB and Scandanavia mixed with those other linear routes.
This will make play very different indeed.
Looking good.
Thanks for 'looking good"..appreciated WM.
It still feels a little messy, but i think that is because it has different mix of station types (which I think is very representative of Europe); plus THERE ARE NO RAIL LINES YET. 
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
V8 update
This update has:
* some changes for WM re the stations text to bring this map into line with RAIL USA to some extent
* some other changes in the way stations can attack some stations
* reconfiguration of the way the rail lines operate - kind of like on platforms
* Line Codes on this map rather than first three letters of the line service.
V8 Small
V8 Large
* some changes for WM re the stations text to bring this map into line with RAIL USA to some extent
* some other changes in the way stations can attack some stations
* reconfiguration of the way the rail lines operate - kind of like on platforms
* Line Codes on this map rather than first three letters of the line service.
V8 Small
V8 Large
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
-
WidowMakers
- Posts: 2774
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, MI
Yes.....and this will require bonuses to be re-calculated of course.WidowMakers wrote:If WAW pink cannot attack WAW blue then WAW blue is a dead end and not really a border any more. Correct?
Same with
MOW : BLX
BRU : BNX
SPG : TVG
And LUS is really two two station cities because the north two cannot attack the south two?
WM
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
Bonus recalc: my cue
I hope I understand the the new border system :s
BNX:
4 terr, 3 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 4, great
BLX:
3 terr, 3 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, perhaps 2? I can see the same thing happening now there as with the Iberian/TGV system in the south. Naimly holding HAM SCR station and SPG BLx station, that total makes 9 terr to only defend 2, good for a max bonus of 4! Thus please BLX => 2
NRX:
6 terr, 5 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 6, this can stay, hard to get and defend line
VLX:
3 terr, 1 def, 1 cont => Bonus of 1, but sure, 2 is good, makes people want to get it I suppose
BRL:
4 terr, 1 def, 1 cont => Bonus of 2, sure, again 1 for the people who think its great to have, an Oceania so to speak
TRI:
5 terr, 3 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, but 1 is more then good enough
ORX:
7 terr, 6 def, 8 cont => Bonus of 7: good enough
SOX:
9 terr, 7 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 8, please 8, pretty please
VSX:
6 terr, 6 def, 8 cont => Bonus of 7, good eough
TGV:
4 terr, 4 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 5, but you know I asked for way less, at now the north-east has the same problem arrizing, if you have PAR TGV and NCE TGV, you have Iberia/TGV, preferable only a bonus of 4, thus TGV: 3 max
RIB:
7 terr, 2 def, 1 cont => Bonus of 3, MAKE IT 2!!!!!! or the games I tart playing this on and no-one sees this I win (wit the dices being nice)
ECX:
7 terr, 5 def, 5 cont => Bonus of 6, sure, good enough
SCR:
7 terr, 2 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, but 2 is MORE THEN FINE (again the rant)
TEE:
7 terr, 4 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 5, 5 is more then fine, 6 max
UKR:
6 terr, 2 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, atmost 3!! Only MOW and BUD need defending
ICE:
6 terr, 4 def, 7 cont => Bonus of 5, atmost 6, no 7
you saw my rants for the north-east and the south-west stuff. I so hope people don't see me doing tha when I play this map
I hope I understand the the new border system :s
BNX:
4 terr, 3 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 4, great
BLX:
3 terr, 3 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, perhaps 2? I can see the same thing happening now there as with the Iberian/TGV system in the south. Naimly holding HAM SCR station and SPG BLx station, that total makes 9 terr to only defend 2, good for a max bonus of 4! Thus please BLX => 2
NRX:
6 terr, 5 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 6, this can stay, hard to get and defend line
VLX:
3 terr, 1 def, 1 cont => Bonus of 1, but sure, 2 is good, makes people want to get it I suppose
BRL:
4 terr, 1 def, 1 cont => Bonus of 2, sure, again 1 for the people who think its great to have, an Oceania so to speak
TRI:
5 terr, 3 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, but 1 is more then good enough
ORX:
7 terr, 6 def, 8 cont => Bonus of 7: good enough
SOX:
9 terr, 7 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 8, please 8, pretty please
VSX:
6 terr, 6 def, 8 cont => Bonus of 7, good eough
TGV:
4 terr, 4 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 5, but you know I asked for way less, at now the north-east has the same problem arrizing, if you have PAR TGV and NCE TGV, you have Iberia/TGV, preferable only a bonus of 4, thus TGV: 3 max
RIB:
7 terr, 2 def, 1 cont => Bonus of 3, MAKE IT 2!!!!!! or the games I tart playing this on and no-one sees this I win (wit the dices being nice)
ECX:
7 terr, 5 def, 5 cont => Bonus of 6, sure, good enough
SCR:
7 terr, 2 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, but 2 is MORE THEN FINE (again the rant)
TEE:
7 terr, 4 def, 9 cont => Bonus of 5, 5 is more then fine, 6 max
UKR:
6 terr, 2 def, 2 cont => Bonus of 3, atmost 3!! Only MOW and BUD need defending
ICE:
6 terr, 4 def, 7 cont => Bonus of 5, atmost 6, no 7
you saw my rants for the north-east and the south-west stuff. I so hope people don't see me doing tha when I play this map
Emperor of the Benelux
Founder of the Commonwealth of Planets
Founder and CEO of JF
Founder of the Commonwealth of Planets
Founder and CEO of JF
Whoops...that was meant to be Manchester. But it's still too far north now.twinfists wrote:You seem to have put Birmingham where Liverpool is. I understand that the places aren't pinpoint accurate but there is about 100 miles between them!!
So you're suggesting it should Liverpool. I'll change that in V9 if Liverpool is on the northwestern line to Glascow. Thanks twinfists.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
Qwert...thank you for the reminder,,,however, there is a message piece at the top of this map that will not be there in the final map. So the map is within size as far as i am concerned. I am very well aware of the restrictions of size, and you should look at your map in the New Ideas if you want to pick on cartographers about size - its well oversize.qwert wrote:621x650?Its these yours dimension of these map.If these a true you break size rules.Sorry but these new rule is very restricted,and you must resize yours map.
Please get off your size war-wagon. It's becoming irritating as well as tiresome.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
-
Qwert
- SoC Training Adviser
- Posts: 9262
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:07 pm
- Location: VOJVODINA
- Contact:
Sorry but i get some kind of warning from Keyogu,i hope that these rule not worth only for me.onbekende Posted: 08 Sep 2007 21:28 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
must....resist.....to.....smack.....youqwert wrote:
621x650?Its these yours dimension of these map.If these a true you break size rules.Sorry but these new rule is very restricted,and you must resize yours map.
onbekende wrote:must....resist.....to.....smack.....youqwert wrote:621x650?Its these yours dimension of these map.If these a true you break size rules.Sorry but these new rule is very restricted,and you must resize yours map.
he he he he
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
no qwert...they are not just for you. I had to re-size pearl harbor because it was 10 pixels oversize...the message piece is there so that i don't have to keep repeating myself in the forum about people wanting rail lines on this map when it is not ready for them. it also serves to explain other bits and pieces on the map, but will not be there when the final map goes live.qwert wrote:Sorry but i get some kind of warning from Keyogu,i hope that these rule not worth only for me.onbekende Posted: 08 Sep 2007 21:28 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
must....resist.....to.....smack.....youqwert wrote:
621x650?Its these yours dimension of these map.If these a true you break size rules.Sorry but these new rule is very restricted,and you must resize yours map.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
-
Qwert
- SoC Training Adviser
- Posts: 9262
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:07 pm
- Location: VOJVODINA
- Contact:
cairnswk Posted: 08 Sep 2007 21:30 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwert...thank you for the reminder,,,however, there is a message piece at the top of this map that will not be there in the final map. So the map is within size as far as i am concerned. I am very well aware of the restrictions of size, and you should look at your map in the New Ideas if you want to pick on cartographers about size - its well oversize.qwert wrote:
621x650?Its these yours dimension of these map.If these a true you break size rules.Sorry but these new rule is very restricted,and you must resize yours map.
Please get off your size war-wagon. It's becoming irritating as well as tiresome.
I belive that you a good person,but its look that i wrong ,i just be polite and i dont have any negative opinion of yours map. If i say something bad,then i will never go here again(these been mine first and last post and become irritatin for you
)
Qwert...i don't want you not to comment on the map....but the size thing is well documented in the forum discussion and i do keep up with what is going on in the forum....so please don't feel you are not welcome to make comment...i too like you and know u are good person also, but if you keep reminding me about size, i will get irritated when i already know about it.qwert wrote:cairnswk Posted: 08 Sep 2007 21:30 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwert...thank you for the reminder,,,however, there is a message piece at the top of this map that will not be there in the final map. So the map is within size as far as i am concerned. I am very well aware of the restrictions of size, and you should look at your map in the New Ideas if you want to pick on cartographers about size - its well oversize.qwert wrote:
621x650?Its these yours dimension of these map.If these a true you break size rules.Sorry but these new rule is very restricted,and you must resize yours map.
Please get off your size war-wagon. It's becoming irritating as well as tiresome.
I belive that you a good person,but its look that i wrong ,i just be polite and i dont have any negative opinion of yours map. If i say something bad,then i will never go here again(these been mine first and last post and become irritatin for you
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi