Battle of Waterloo [Quenched]

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:54 am

yeti_c wrote:Just upto Oaktown to finalise the Gameplay then.

C.

which in pritty sure he will

NOTE: the plan isnt to have all these stamps brought about it FF

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:55 am

gimil wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Just upto Oaktown to finalise the Gameplay then.

C.
which in pritty sure he will

NOTE: the plan isnt to have all these stamps brought about it FF

Obviously - but the maps that are already here need to get them... so I suggest go and hand out FF and Idea stamps to all the stickied maps in here.

C.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:56 am

yeti_c wrote:
gimil wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Just upto Oaktown to finalise the Gameplay then.

C.
which in pritty sure he will

NOTE: the plan isnt to have all these stamps brought about it FF
Obviously - but the maps that are already here need to get them... so I suggest go and hand out FF and Idea stamps to all the stickied maps in here.

C.

there was an agreement that there is no need to back date all maps

I also cant do it myself right now becasue airport PC has right click locked . . .

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:57 am

gimil wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
gimil wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Just upto Oaktown to finalise the Gameplay then.

C.
which in pritty sure he will

NOTE: the plan isnt to have all these stamps brought about it FF
Obviously - but the maps that are already here need to get them... so I suggest go and hand out FF and Idea stamps to all the stickied maps in here.

C.
there was an agreement that there is no need to back date all maps

I also cant do it myself right now becasue airport PC has right click locked . . .

Can you press the button between windows and Ctrl on the right hand side of the keyboard?

C.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:00 am

yeti_c wrote:
gimil wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
gimil wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Just upto Oaktown to finalise the Gameplay then.

C.
which in pritty sure he will

NOTE: the plan isnt to have all these stamps brought about it FF
Obviously - but the maps that are already here need to get them... so I suggest go and hand out FF and Idea stamps to all the stickied maps in here.

C.
there was an agreement that there is no need to back date all maps

I also cant do it myself right now becasue airport PC has right click locked . . .
Can you press the button between windows and Ctrl on the right hand side of the keyboard?

C.

I can push them but the button between windows and control dont so nothing

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:03 am

Shame...

That's equivalent to right click!!

C.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:05 am

yeti_c wrote:Shame...

That's equivalent to right click!!

C.

Just have to wait for big cole to sign in!

Anyway flight being called

talk to you all in a while!!

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:32 pm

Quench Quench!!!?

lanyards · Post by **lanyards** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:33 pm

cairnswk wrote:Quench Quench!!!?

I think you have to have the Gameplay Stamp from Oaktown before Andy can quench.

--lanyards

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:14 pm

Should Artillery marked terts be allowed to attack and take over bordering terts?

Yes, they should be allowed to attack bordering terts as well as maked bombardments on their side of the map. - 18% [ 3 ]
No, they should only be alllowed to bombard terts on their side fo the road. - 81% [ 13 ]

Total Votes : 16

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:16 pm

class idea good work chaps.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:20 pm

Coleman wrote:Should Artillery marked terts be allowed to attack and take over bordering terts?
Yes, they should be allowed to attack bordering terts as well as maked bombardments on their side of the map. - 18% [ 3 ]
No, they should only be alllowed to bombard terts on their side fo the road. - 81% [ 13 ]
Total Votes : 16

Thanks Coleman.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:22 pm

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... o_V28S.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... o_V28L.jpg

http://h1.ripway.com/lanyards/WaterlooXML.xml

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:06 pm

Looks like a fun map. I have no beef with the play - the bonuses are a bit higher than we're used to seeing, but I think they are consistent across the map and appropriate given the size of the thing. And I'm sure there is a funny attack route or two that will be exploitable to a player's advantage, but half the fun of playing a map like this is finding that stuff.

I am, however, unclear about some of the wording in the legend. I'd like to see if there is a more clear and concise way of spelling out some of the rules. All of the following could be interpreted incorrectly:

"Artillery can bombard opposing enemy marked territories only on same side of Brussels road except v. Blucher territories."

Huh?

"Cavalry can attack adjacent and next territories."

Having not followed the design of this map I'm not sure what a "next territory" is.

"5 Commanders per side; hold any 3 per side - Bonus +3."

I figured this one out, but it could be more straightforward, especially the "- Bonus +" part. How about just "Hold three allied commanders: +3"

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:15 pm

oaktown wrote:Looks like a fun map. I have no beef with the play - the bonuses are a bit higher than we're used to seeing, but I think they are consistent across the map and appropriate given the size of the thing. And I'm sure there is a funny attack route or two that will be exploitable to a player's advantage, but half the fun of playing a map like this is finding that stuff.

I am, however, unclear about some of the wording in the legend. I'd like to see if there is a more clear and concise way of spelling out some of the rules. All of the following could be interpreted incorrectly:

"Artillery can bombard opposing enemy marked territories only on same side of Brussels road except v. Blucher territories."

Huh?

"Cavalry can attack adjacent and next territories."

Having not followed the design of this map I'm not sure what a "next territory" is.

"5 Commanders per side; hold any 3 per side - Bonus +3."

I figured this one out, but it could be more straightforward, especially the "- Bonus +" part. How about just "Hold three allied commanders: +3"

Oaktown...thanks for commenting, but i am going to ask you to go back and read through the thread to determine exactly where these statements have come from...then come back to me and we'll sort something out.

Now i know this is not going to be where players are looking at this from, but i think you need to read the thread so that you can see what some of the issues are that have been discussed, and why they are in the legend.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:35 pm

oaktown wrote:
I figured this one out, but it could be more straightforward, especially the "- Bonus +" part. How about just "Hold three allied commanders: +3"

I believe "5 Commanders per side; hold any 3 per side - Bonus +3."
is a lot more accurate on what is required than what you are offering.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:37 am

cairnswk wrote:Oaktown...thanks for commenting, but i am going to ask you to go back and read through the thread to determine exactly where these statements have come from...then come back to me and we'll sort something out.

Now i know this is not going to be where players are looking at this from, but i think you need to read the thread so that you can see what some of the issues are that have been discussed, and why they are in the legend.

Will do, when I'm less sleepy.

Those were my concerns from the point of view of a player coming to the map for the first time.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:44 pm

Hmm... so I've scanned through the thead, and I think I've caught most of the relevant discussion regarding the legend text. Here are my thoughts on the three lines I had issues with:

"Artillery can bombard opposing enemy marked territories only on same side of Brussels road except v. Blucher territories."

As this is a map in which two "enemy" factions are represented in addition to the normal game "enemies," some rules need to be wordier than in your average map. I'm having trouble with this because in my opinion the more concise you are the more precise you are - too many adjectives in one phrase (opposing, enemy, marked, same, only) leaves my head spinning. I have some suggestions which you are welcome to use or not use, but at least have a look.

1. You could easily lose the word "opposing" because calling two people opposing enemies is redundant... like friendly allies. Plus, opposing could be read to mean opposite on the map, which in this case it doesn't. Dropping this would cut one extraneous word.

2. Hyphenate "enemy-marked" to show that enemy + marked is a compound modifier. Otherwise players could be looking for territories that are marked to show where the artillery can attack, as there is in Western Front or Spaceness. This eliminates some confusion.

3. You could also drop the word "only." It doesn't aide in comprehension enough to justify yet another adjective in the sentence.

"Cavalry can attack adjacent and next territories."

I've read back, and I agree that "two away" was no better. If there's a word for something that follows what is adjoining (after next?) it's not common enough to use on a map. My only suggestion for adding clarity here would be to represent it visually: show a horse with separate attack arrows to the adjoining and next territories. This one is your call.

"5 Commanders per side; hold any 3 per side - Bonus +3."

The first time that this text appears is on page 4, and I couldn't find any discussion about it early on. The trouble here is that elsewhere in the legend you use "side" to refer to a side of the road... I see that there are five commanders on both "sides" of the road as well as five commanders on both "sides" of the battle, so what do you mean here? If you mean that you have to hold three commanders of the same color or army, you should say that somehow.

Beyond that problem I just find the line too wordy and a bit confusing. You don't tell us how many artilleries per side, or cavalries, so whether or not there are 5 commanders per side doesn't change the fact that you get +1 for holding three of them. The use of a dash in a bonus legend is always trouble, as it could be a minus. Colon maybe? And you wrote "Bonus" in this line, but nowhere else. I think that it will be obvious to anyone who has played a prior CC game that this is a bonus, unless you're talking about a negative bonus (- Bonus). Elsewhere, the line "3 villages +7" makes perfect sense.

There are any number of ways you can write this more concisely and stay consistent with the rest of the legend...
3 Allied-marked Commanders: +3
3 like-colored Commanders: +3
Any 3 Commanders of same color: +3

OK, the Grammar CA has spoken (sorry, it's the school teacher in me). Know that I love this map and think that it will provide for some mind-blowing play... I may need to set aside some real time to wrap my brain around this one when it goes live.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:44 pm

oaktown wrote:OK, the Grammar CA has spoken (sorry, it's the school teacher in me). Know that I love this map and think that it will provide for some mind-blowing play... I may need to set aside some real time to wrap my brain around this one when it goes live.

Oaktown...thanks for your positive comments and input there...i very much appreciate that, and am happy to change to clarify these issues...i hope with the help of my good Deputy Principal friend (lucky me!) sitting beside me here to guide that this will read better.

Links

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... o_V29S.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... o_V29L.jpg

http://h1.ripway.com/lanyards/WaterlooXML.xml

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:49 pm

I have one thing to say about these changes...

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:40 pm

oaktown wrote:I have one thing to say about these changes...

Oaktown...i hav two things to say...Charmed...absolutely charmed!

asl80 · Post by **asl80** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:27 am

Can't be too many to go now can there (andy) ... ???

gimil wrote:
well done cairns

Coleman wrote:Brilliant.

gimil wrote:
Great work guys

oaktown wrote:I have one thing to say about these changes...

I think these guys have just about said all there is to say ... You do a fine job cairns! well done.

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:27 am

not quite we are still missing one image

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:50 pm

Herakilla wrote:not quite we are still missing one image

Yeh...Quench Quench!!

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:40 pm

- - - - Quenching

---The Final Forge period has concluded for the Battle of Waterloo Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for live play (barring any Lack vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

--Andy