yeti_c wrote:cairnswk wrote:Incandenza wrote:No one in here but us chickens... lemme see if I can drum up a bit of attention.
I wonder if everyone is happy with this as is
I'm happy with it - but I'm not blown away with the map I'm afraid...
This isn't something that should change the map - and I have not a clue to how to fix it... I think my problem is that I was looking for another Waterloo - but I know that the actuality of Sea Battles aren't much more than sail massive boat next to other boat - shoot the crap out of other boat - first boat to sink loses.
The land battle of waterloo is much more of a strategic battle - because that was how it was in real life... Nelson revolutionised naval warfare... his technique was to outflank the opponents... he took a lot of early fire - but eventually maneouvered his ships into 'raking' positions - where he could blast down the weaker bow/stern of the enemy ships - instead of against the strengthed sides of the ships...
This is why he attacked in two lines splitting the forces - and providing raking stroke after raking stroke upon the french and the spanish...
The map doesn't portray this - but I have NO CLUE how to manage that - or even if we should...
(I'm not writing this to piss you off Cairns - it's just some tired rambling on a sunday night - I'm not sure if it's relevant!)
C.
WidowMakers wrote:That is one of the tough things about maps where the territories are the weapons too.
In a land based map, the armies are on the territories and when they fight, they advance to the next territory. The territory naturally stays put and the armies move.
In this SHIP based map, the territories are the armies. In reality the ships should move and the game layout would change each turn. Territories (ships) would be sunk and disappear. This obviously will not happen because we do not have that capability with XML or game engine.
Again that being said, the map is not bad. It is a very good looking and well though out piece or work. Any map that has "movable" territories (ships, planes, spaceships, tanks, etc) will lose some touch of reality because those would move each turn. But like I said before, there is nothing we can do.
Great map Cairns
WM
WM and Yeti_c, thanks for your thoughts on this one.
I too realise the limitations of the gameplay engine and xml we have to work with.
The only other thing i could do would be to change the map into an early battle configuration with distinct British Weather and Lee lines advancing into the French and Spanish lines.Bbut that would not alter much the French and Spanish lines and you would still have the long strung-out lines on each side.
With this version, I have tried to create that of the Weather line of the British advancing into the fray, and the Lee line already well involved in the fray. This scopes for more bombardment ability which should make the map more interesting than if it were a version from the previous paragraph above. At least this configuration gives sense that a naval battle is underway (at a point in time) and that bombardment and movement between ships (take-overs and crew assistance in same sides).
As far as a comparison to Waterloo, there is none, Waterloo had the extra ability for cavalry, which allowed attacks terts away. As a classic sea battle, it might prove worthy in the end however.
As for fixing it....the only other way to fix it so it works better as a sea battle is to have several representations of ships and men attacking each other that represent the commander ships (like the huts in Bamboo Jack) and have these graphically shown as men swinging from ropes and clawing their way aboard the ships which would have to be taken holders-bolders for the bonus. But this would entale a much larger map, unless of course you want to destroy the "history weenies" and reduce drastically the number of actual ships involved in the fray. Food for thought?! Perhaps another map?
