Battle of Waterloo [Quenched]

BENJIKAT IS DEAD · Post by **BENJIKAT IS DEAD** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:38 pm

Congrats on a very very cool map cairnswk.

I came back just for this quench and have been a naughty boy using my multi to play your map

I love how the cavalry allow you to jump across the board very much like knights in chess...

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:15 pm

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congrats on a very very cool map cairnswk.

I came back just for this quench and have been a naughty boy using my multi to play your map

I love how the cavalry allow you to jump across the board very much like knights in chess...

it was worth coming back for - this map is class

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:33 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Several things on waterloo are quite different from other maps and should be better explained in the legend

Specifics:
1. artillary
a. state in legend that armies cannot fort from these positions. This is not like other bomabardments
b. clarify where you can and cannot attack. In some cases, I think it actually needs to change. For example, M03 can attack Huaghonot village positions, but P03 cannot attack villages on that side. That is just one example of the many inconsistancies. I personally would like to see more uniformity, but at a minimum, it needs to be clarified.
c. Since these attacks are neither truly like other bombardments nor standard attacks, I would like to see a different name used (maybe artillary fire or something???).

2. It may be too late for this, but the territory colors are unusually difficult to discern. Can they be altered slightly?

3. Some of the names are hard to discern at first, especially for the farm houses and towns. It takes a game or two to even know what is what. This could be explained better. The commander names are explained, but the farmhouse and town names are not necessarily that clear.

Why it is needed:
#1: The waterloo map is always going to be a "complicated" map. Still, there is no need to make it unduly so. The artillary issue, for example, is definitely NOT clear to anyone who hasn't played this map before. I have no issue with the change. I just feel you need to explain it better, beginning with using a different name for this new, different sort of attack and then followed by a better explanation -- detailing better just what these positions can and cannot attack AND that armies put there cannot be forted off. It isn't clear now. The name change would allow anyone else wanting to employ this sort of attack in a new map to do so with uniformity. Right now we have regular attacks and bombardments. This would be another alternative. I like it, it just needs to be explained better.

#2 - self-explanatory. Darken, brighten ??? Different colors are nice for a change, but these are hard to discern.

#3. Just a better explanation on the legend would make figuring out what is what a bit easier. It shouldn't take 2-3 tries for an explerienced player to figure these things out. .. . and I am not just referring to myself.

To all:

Thank you for your attention!

Player57832...thank you for commenting, and without the risk of appearing arrogant, the next time you want to express something about a map, please give the mapmakers the courtesy of your presence in the foundry before a map gets quenched. You are much more likely to have success with me before my maps gets quenched as this is the more appropriate time to comment on the play in everyone's maps.

I can see that you venture out cocassionally from the suggestions and bugs forum and the intelligent konversation forum to the GD and Strategy, but hardly ever to the foundry. With this your requests are unlikely to go anywhere, as other people appear also to be telling you to read the instructions in the legend.

I don't see anything wrong with what is in the legend, and at this stage i should advise you to examine the words in conjunction with what is in the drop list for each attack. You appear to be able to fill quite a number of posts with strategy requests for my other maps, please do so also for this one.

I tend to agree with stated below by yeti_c, that attack = fortify and bombardment = neutralise which does not equate to fortify....which everyone should know by now, if they don't then they will learn very fast.

As for the colours, no go to change, they stay, everyone has had ample opportunity to express ideas on this map...it was widely advertised in both the general discussion and foundry areas and has been in development since 31 Oct last year - that's 3 months that people have had to express ideas, but you didn't bother to show up.

As for names of farmhouses etc, read the legend, that what those names & abbreviations are in there for.

Thank you once again.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:34 pm

Kinnison wrote:I have an entirely different *and somewhat minor* problem...

It's with cavalry. Nowhere is it noted that cavalry can FORTIFY up to two positions away, but it is possible for them to do so. Perhaps it's supposed to be assumed by their attack range. This is... oddly phrased, but acceptable.

The second is with BOB and the map, I'll go toss that into the BOB thread.

Thanks Kinnison for your comments.
Since cavalry can attack, i would expoect that everyone would also know that they must be able to fortify.

I don't use BOB, and i certainly don't use BOB when i develop maps. I must refer you to someone else like yeti_c who may be able to assist you there.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:41 pm

Personally I don't think that any of these are problems...

Everyone knows that "What you can Attack" = "What you can Fortify to"...

Look at 1 way borders... we all know that they can only be forted one way - because they can only be attacked one way...

With the new "ONLY" bombards - this says that The Artillery don't Attack anyone...

C.

PS The BOB issue is also a non-issue!!

BENJIKAT IS DEAD · Post by **BENJIKAT IS DEAD** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:57 pm

I agree with yeti - I think the instructions are fine as they are.

If we had further info pages for the maps, then that would be the place you could spell out the implications of "bombards ONLY".

I think that the very meagre explanation of "bombardment" at the very bottom of the instruction page is more to blame for misunderstandings than any of the maps.

People are always going to complain about big maps with lots going on... but most of the time they should just of studied it for a bit longer - or use BOB.

PS I'm 12-10 in 1v1s now - let's see how many I get to play before I get banned

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:01 pm

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote: banned

Under The Thumb!!!

C.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD · Post by **BENJIKAT IS DEAD** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:19 pm

yeti_c wrote:
BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote: banned
Under The Thumb!!!

C.

nah - I think the site should ban me for having a multi !

MOBAJOBG · Post by **MOBAJOBG** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:55 pm

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=1669899

I'm not able to fortify my armies from C05 (an artillery) to any of my linked territories. Why?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Before any of you mapmakers jump onto me for not reading this thread, I would like to say ...Sorry and I did read but most of the contents are a little too technical and perhaps a tad too confusing for my simple comprehension.

btw, I luv this map.

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:02 pm

since artillery can ONLY bombard, this means they cannot advance any armies when they attack. therefore, they cannot fortify either.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:15 am

but it is weird they cant fort there naighbours

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:41 am

Lone.prophet wrote:but it is weird they cant fort there naighbours

Yes it is weird isn't it Lone.prophet. That's because they haven't been given borders with each other, deliberately.

Why would you want to give all your ammunition to your neighbour, when they should get theirs from the ammunition dump, which if you think about it, could be the equivalent of the drop in CC games.

In this scenario's case, you can fort the artillery if you own the terts in front or beside it.

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:17 am

this map is quite fun I must say.

I think it's better for team games as I'm having some fun in my triples games just using the artillery to bombard away. I think those 14 territories are quite important.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:23 am

with Fog of war the artilerry is very important

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:37 am

edbeard wrote:this map is quite fun I must say.

I think it's better for team games as I'm having some fun in my triples games just using the artillery to bombard away. I think those 14 territories are quite important.

Yes edbeard i agree...i had a triples game with yeti and that dude that was dead, o benjikat (sorry i forgot his name) and we ended up playing real time...it was a blast, i learnt heaps about my own map.

Shame we don't have sandbox.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:40 am

cairnswk wrote:
edbeard wrote:this map is quite fun I must say.

I think it's better for team games as I'm having some fun in my triples games just using the artillery to bombard away. I think those 14 territories are quite important.
Yes edbeard i agree...i had a triples game with yeti and that dude that was dead, o benjikat (sorry i forgot his name) and we ended up playing real time...it was a blast, i learnt heaps about my own map.
Shame we don't have sandbox.

Hmmm good use of the word "blast"!!!!

C.

C4 · Post by C4 » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm

Takes some time to get use to but's a cool map. Lots of detail to understand

lt.pie · Post by **lt.pie** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:18 am

its the best map for strategy by far in my opinion-

sparkyball · Post by **sparkyball** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:19 am

lt.pie wrote:its the best map for strategy by far in my opinion-

I have to agree with this... I'm on my first game on this map and it is an amazing complex map... with great strategy just, became one of my new favorites

pvlk · Post by **pvlk** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:30 pm

lt.pie wrote:its the best map for strategy by far in my opinion-

I think the trick is that you have so many choices to make when setting out each turn that it always feels like you might have taken another approach. At first I wondered at all the "continent" bonuses, but then I realized that to take advantage of them requires a lot of planning and effort, so it balances out.

I hope someone else tries this approach. Has anyone noticed some in the works with tis type of approach?

pepperonibread · Post by **pepperonibread** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:01 pm

I think I've found a mistake in the XML... here's a screenshot:

You can't attack from Ney 04 to Reille 07, and if I understand the legend, you should be able to because Ney 04 is a cavalry territory.
Thanks

EDIT: Sorry for eliminating you in the above game, cairns. It had to be done

Lanyards is next...

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:38 pm

Perhaps that's just what you get for trying to attack me. Sadly though, I think you're right.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:33 am

NIce cards Pep!!

C.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:58 am

Well done Pepperonibread...

here is the adjusted xml.

Lackattack has been PMed.

http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/_waterloo110208.xml

Thanks

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:27 am

I'm quite surprised at how long that took to be noticed in a game by someone

Battle of Waterloo [Quenched]

Need more like this