TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

[cairnswk]

Perfect cairns.

I will step away for the time being so that some gameplay discussion can continue.

Yes, a lot of that has already gone on to get this to this stage, but i do feel that some further discussion wouldn't go astray so that i can start putting some final touches to this.

[MrBenn]

I was just sat here looking at the map... and you're really not going to like me for saying this... I realised that the ripples in the water background are going in a different direction to the wind on the sails...

[cairnswk]

I was just sat here looking at the map... and you're really not going to like me for saying this... I realised that the ripples in the water background are going in a different direction to the wind on the sails...

No i'm not, it's fair comment....fixed for next version MrBenn

[Incandenza]

I'd like to talk for a second about extreme long-distance connections, and the general advisability, or lack thereof, of, um, thereof.

I've been looking at the cheat sheet, and some of the following connections set off a couple of alarm bells:
British
Ajax-Achille and Leviathan-Achille
Bellerophon-Tonnant (this one looks like it goes through a couple of bowsprits anyway, and fyi, Bellerophon is still misspelled)
Bellerophon-Thunderer
Victory-Swiftsure (this one I'm a bit on the fence about)
Neptune-Royal Sovereign

French
Pluton-Neptune
Scipion-Neptune
Pluton-Themis

Spanish
San Juan de Nepocemo-Argonauta (this one I'm also on the fence about, but maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but they only just barely connect, about which more below)

Part of my argument is for legibility, for a few of these one could make a legitimate argument that they don't appear to connect, but my broader issue (warning: history weenie approaching) is that it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the battle. There's only a certain amount of sea over which a ship of the era could project its power, and some of these connections are practically warps to the other side of the map. I'm all for connectivity, but connections like Ajax and Leviathan to Achille are basically warping across two thirds of the map. In keeping with the theme, it should take some, well, sailing to get from one area of the map to another.

I'd be particularly inclined against long-range British connectivity, since it's already easier to move around the map via British ships than it is Spanish or French.

Any of these connections that end up in the final map, you might want to think about subtly clarifying that they are, indeed, attack routes. Moving some ships around, even a few pixels in some cases, would work wonders. The upshot is that connections that are more than a few boatlengths should be made as obvious as possible, there should be no need to break out a ruler (or refer to the cheatsheet) to know that a given two ships are connected.

On an unrelated note, perhaps the flagship bonus could be "+1 to any bonus of the same nation". Actually, let's get back to that one when we get around to discussing bonuses.

[cairnswk]

....
Part of my argument is for legibility, for a few of these one could make a legitimate argument that they don't appear to connect, but my broader issue (warning: history weenie approaching) is that it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the battle. ....

Inca...the only thing i can think of do to clarify the connections and reduce the number of connections to make for a more strategic game (the British were overwhelmingly connected) is to bring back the lines between ships, and have them at reduced opacity so that they don't stick out line eye-sores.
Oh and legend hasn't been changed yet so please don't comment on that.

[ZeakCytho]

I like the new lines.

Shouldn't Ajax and Revenge connect, though?

[cairnswk]

I like the new lines.

Shouldn't Ajax and Revenge connect, though?

You mean Defiance and Revenge...yes. I'll fix.

[ZeakCytho]

I like the new lines.

Shouldn't Ajax and Revenge connect, though?

You mean Defiance and Revenge...yes. I'll fix.

That too...but can't you draw a line between Ajax and Revenge?

[the.killing.44]

Montanez — Bahama (it's hard to see if the line is there; I had to zoom all the way in)
Bellerophon's name seems bolder than the others

Oh, and I see what you mean about the connections. I found 15 you took away — 11 were British!

.44

[cairnswk]

I like the new lines.

Shouldn't Ajax and Revenge connect, though?

You mean Defiance and Revenge...yes. I'll fix.

That too...but can't you draw a line between Ajax and Revenge?

Can you explain why you'd want one there.
Isn't this exactly the type of thing that Inca was going on about...ships being too far away...

[cairnswk]

Montanez — Bahama (it's hard to see if the line is there; I had to zoom all the way in)
Bellerophon's name seems bolder than the others

Oh, and I see what you mean about the connections. I found 15 you took away — 11 were British!

.44

Bellerophon...fixed next version.
spanish connection because they're yellow will probably have to be somewhat different colour.
Yes the british were far too strong for somewhat balanced play.

[ZeakCytho]

That too...but can't you draw a line between Ajax and Revenge?

Can you explain why you'd want one there.
Isn't this exactly the type of thing that Inca was going on about...ships being too far away...

Because "direct line of sight" in the legend implies there should be a connection. If you don't have a connection (and I think I agree that there shouldn't be), maybe you should reword the legend?

[the.killing.44]

That too...but can't you draw a line between Ajax and Revenge?

Can you explain why you'd want one there.
Isn't this exactly the type of thing that Inca was going on about...ships being too far away...

Because "direct line of sight" in the legend implies there should be a connection. If you don't have a connection (and I think I agree that there shouldn't be), maybe you should reword the legend?

Well he did say not to comment on the key because he hadn't fixed that yet … but I agree, that does need to be reworded.

.44

[Incandenza]

As much as I preferred the map visually without the connections, I think going back to subtle lines is the best call. I'll have another look once I get off work.

[the.killing.44]

As much as I preferred the map visually without the connections, I think going back to subtle lines is the best call. I'll have another look once I get off work.

Agreed, but I liked the solid lines better than the dotted ones. However, I can see subtlety being an issue with solid lines … care to try it out?

.44

[cairnswk]

That too...but can't you draw a line between Ajax and Revenge?

Can you explain why you'd want one there.
Isn't this exactly the type of thing that Inca was going on about...ships being too far away...

Because "direct line of sight" in the legend implies there should be a connection. If you don't have a connection (and I think I agree that there shouldn't be), maybe you should reword the legend?

Zeak...you didn't read my post..."Oh and legend hasn't been changed yet so please don't comment on that."

[ZeakCytho]

Zeak...you didn't read my post..."Oh and legend hasn't been changed yet so please don't comment on that."

[The Neon Peon]

Dotted lines are the way to go.

[cairnswk]

[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V26S.jpg[/bigimg]

[LED ZEPPELINER]

does the dotted line going through the center of the pic mean anything, if not i would get rid of it as it is sorta distracting

[the.killing.44]

does the dotted line going through the center of the pic mean anything, if not i would get rid of it as it is sorta distracting

Yes, read the key. That's how the bonuses are split up.

.44

[cairnswk]

does the dotted line going through the center of the pic mean anything, if not i would get rid of it as it is sorta distracting

Yes, read the key. That's how the bonuses are split up.
.44

Yeh guys....i'll see if i can find an alternative to that so there is not a confusing two lots of dotted lines.

[yeti_c]

does the dotted line going through the center of the pic mean anything, if not i would get rid of it as it is sorta distracting

Yes, read the key. That's how the bonuses are split up.
.44

Yeh guys....i'll see if i can find an alternative to that so there is not a confusing two lots of dotted lines.

Suggest a . - . - . line - used on Maps all over the world to signify borders/tropics etc.

Connections - much better with lines - and like the subtle idea.

I would remove the following connections
British
Agamemnon <-> Leviathon
Swiftsure <-> Defiance

French
MonBlanc <-> Redoutable

And add in the following
British
Dreadnought<-> Thunderer
Revenge <->Defiance

And possibly but Unsure
Neptune <-> Africa

Most of the connection changes are for legibility (crossing lines etc)
But also a couple for removal of deadends etc.

BONUSES
Above
British 7/13 = 3 <- 7 of thes ships can be held by holding 2 ships (Agamemnon & Ajax) Consider increasing to 8.
French 5/9 = 2 <- Nigh on impossible to hold due to connections - consider dropping to 4 (and allows doubling (i.e. 8/9 = 4)) (BUT can this be dropped?)
Spanish 3/6 = 1 (Allows doubling (i.e. 6/6 = 2) - Hard to hold - but could be dropped (leave as is)

Below
British 8/15 = 4
French 5/9 = 3
Spanish 4/8 = 2

All of these bonuses are going to be a lot harder to hold - I would suggest dropping British to 7 and French to 4 so that they can both be doubled (i.e. 14/15 = 8 & 8/9 = 6) (Spanish can already be doubled 8/8 = 4)

C.

[MrBenn]

The dotted lines make things easier to understand... Much as I preferred the map without them, I don;t think there is any other option than to keep them in. The compromise you've acheived here is a good one that works well.

As far as the legend text goes (I know it's not been updated yet), you could word it "ships must have direct line of sight and be in range .................." (the dots would be an example of the dotted lines)

[cairnswk]

Suggest a . - . - . line - used on Maps all over the world to signify borders/tropics etc.

Done.

Connections - much better with lines - and like the subtle idea.

OK

I would remove the following connections
British
Agamemnon <-> Leviathon
Swiftsure <-> Defiance

Done, but added connection Swiftsure to Dreadnought, i am concerned that Revenge & Defiance don't become clogged if someone lodges there and there is no other way around them.

French
MonBlanc <-> Redoutable

Same here, if someone lodges on formidable and there is no way around????

And add in the following
British
Dreadnought<-> Thunderer
Revenge <->Defiance

Done

And possibly but Unsure
Neptune <-> Africa

I think this could be left alone.

Most of the connection changes are for legibility (crossing lines etc)
But also a couple for removal of deadends etc.

Huh? Don't understand this reasoning.

BONUSES
Above
British 7/13 = 3 <- 7 of thes ships can be held by holding 2 ships (Agamemnon & Ajax) Consider increasing to 8.
French 5/9 = 2 <- Nigh on impossible to hold due to connections - consider dropping to 4 (and allows doubling (i.e. 8/9 = 4)) (BUT can this be dropped?)
Spanish 3/6 = 1 (Allows doubling (i.e. 6/6 = 2) - Hard to hold - but could be dropped (leave as is)

Below
British 8/15 = 4
French 5/9 = 3
Spanish 4/8 = 2

All of these bonuses are going to be a lot harder to hold - I would suggest dropping British to 7 and French to 4 so that they can both be doubled (i.e. 14/15 = 8 & 8/9 = 6) (Spanish can already be doubled 8/8 = 4)

Understood with changes done. Note that i've also adjusted the bonuses appropriately to create consistency in the bonuses.

Thanks C.

The dotted lines make things easier to understand... Much as I preferred the map without them, I don;t think there is any other option than to keep them in. The compromise you've acheived here is a good one that works well.

As far as the legend text goes (I know it's not been updated yet), you could word it "ships must have direct line of sight and be in range .................." (the dots would be an example of the dotted lines)

Done.

Version 27 below.



[bigimg]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282/cairnswk/trafalgar/trafalgar_V27L.jpg[/bigimg]