Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

[koontz1973]

I thought I'd made that clear. In my view, those soldiers were criminals. One might argue that they were only following orders, but you're making a positive reference to the British Empire honouring them, and that certainly wasn't just following orders; it was honouring someone for a crime after ordering them to commit it. I can't imagine that a map would even get to the beta stage that contained a positive reference to Nazi soldiers "honourably" slaughtering Jugoslavian partisans. If you disagree, please say so. If you don't disagree, that shows that our disagreement doesn't lie in a principle of "someone will always be found to find something offensive", but in that you don't view colonial crimes as crimes, or at least not in the same sense. If so, you're obviously entitled to that personal opinion, but I find it offensive to bring that sort of opinion into a CC map. Why would people who have strong feelings about these crimes have to deal with you glorifying them just so you can tell a story the way you see it? And why should I have to be associated with a site that glorifies crimes when I'm just here to have fun? In my view this sort of divisive political opinion should be kept out of the maps on this site.

Firstly, These soldiers are not criminals apart from one of them (Hook) who was put on military report for stealing and hitting a superior officer. You have an opinion that all soldiers that fought in these wars are criminals, you have that right because of soldiers fighting for those same freedoms. I personally take a huge offence that you even compare these soldiers to the Nazi party soldiers who fought in Germany in world war 2. Not every soldier that fought for Germany was a Nazi sympathiser or even a supporter. But to have a reference on maps to the German soldiers would be taken as offensive by a very large majority of the CC community. This is the reason that the Swastika is banned. Right now, Bamboo Jack is dedicated to the slave workers who built the railways for the Japanese. No Japanese have complained as far as I know. Also, I think there is a huge gap in knowledge in what happened over these days and years. I have spent many years reading on this subject, and admit that there where good and bad points to the war for both sides, but this one particular battle is notable.

This could have been taken care of a long time ago, if it was brought up. I'm sure koontz would have been willing to change it back then, and it is still up to him to change it if he so desires, but I'm not going to have him reword it for one person,

Thanks you isaiah, I see no reason to change it as I do not see this as a issue of coalitionistion but of bravery. If I wish to honour soldiers who fought against the odds and won, then I can place a map into the foundry and have the community shape it.

I think US was born in fight against colonization empires. If Britain won that war most of US would be still colony of Britain.

No, America would be in the commonwealth. There is a difference. Ask the Canadians and Algerians what the difference is.

[AndyDufresne]

Having had the most recently "censored" map I thought I would comment, and I do usually side with the philosophy that if it offends one person it should be changed, but in this case I'm not sure I agree. There are a lot of points, too many to quote, but mainly my problem is that the issue now seems to be more with koontz's comment rather than the actual comment on the map, which in and of itself is a fact, for right or wrong. The 11 guys were awarded the medal by their country, and that is what the map states. If you want to make a map from the Zulu point of view then the entire thing would be different, and that is your right as a map maker, and what the foundry process is designed to work through. If koontz's comment had not been made I'm not sure how you can argue with the fact that the medals were given, which is what the map states. The map I made, which I took down, had a clear notation that bin Laden was a terrorist, which can be argued based on personal/religious beliefs and is thus a reason for opposition. The comment in the legend is a case of fact, and from what I read is a praise of their valor, not the cause. No war is equal, that is just a fact, and war is bloody, and harsh. Unfortunately all of these maps, in one way or another glorify war, and thus the killing of soldiers and innocent people, but in the end it is for entertainment purposes and as such everyone is entitled to play or not play maps which they like or don't like.

I just don't like that the argument is now about koontz's comment in a post, and not about whether or not the map is historically accurate, which has been clearly stated by everyone to be fact. When people go to the map they will not see koontz's comment, they will see the legend. If they choose to play the map that it is their choice, if they choose to be offended then that is their opinion and they should protest by not playing it.

I agree with the majority Seamus' excellent post.


--Andy

[greenoaks]

my recently departed grandfather was a slave of the japanese. his eulogy was minamal as he never, ever spoke of his time there. the only time he ever indicated he was a pow was when my parents took him to the australian war memorial and the guide mentioned by name a few of the deceased, some of whom were his teenage friends.

for aussies gallipoli is australia's greatest military event. we pay homage to it every year. the turks, our sworn enemy, celebrate it with us.

bamboo jack is a tribute to the bravery and suffering of those involved. it is not a glorification of the event. it is a map about a few men overcoming great adversity.

it is the same with rorke's drift. it is not a map about whether the war was right or wrong. it is not whether someone won or lost. it is a remembrance of the great achievement of 11 men. something that would garner the respect of any opposition.

[Seamus76]

Very well said greenoaks.

[thenobodies80]

It seems to me that with rare exceptions there's a bit of confusion about this topic.
The map must be analized as it is. And for what I can see, the current map doesn't have elements on it that glorify the British soldiers in a different way than a historical point of view. The legend simply mentions that the soldiers received a medal, this is a fact, not taking a postion or change the reality of things. I do not see anything offensive in this.
Similarly, the map doesn't denigrate the Zulu troops using any sort of racist term or trying to diminish their effort in the battle.

My role is to look at the map, not the opinions of those who drew the map.
For me everyone is free to have their own opinions, the important thing is that everyone keep the opinion for themselves and that they don't use the map as a "manifesto" to sponsor those opinions.

The map, as it is now, it's just the story of what happened at that time, so it's good in that way. Maybe that phrase in the legend can be rephrased or removed, but this is not a case where I can draw a line.
Colonialism wasn't certainly a good thing, but it's part of history. It can be represented on a map, just it's necessary to represent it in the right way without making a map that says "I'm a supporter of this side". This is history, and this is how historical maps must work. History can only be told, not changed (sorry if someone here is a fan of counterfactualism, that is my opinion is not bad but just a good way to start a discussion with friends)

I read in this thread that some people is arguing about a koontz post or about how much time has passed or trying to make a comparison with the swastika symbol. All those things are totally different concepts and topic and they are not related with the current one.

The concept is not based on how much time has passed, what are you ideas or what faction you want to represent. If we want to draw a line, the line must stay where the common sense lies. If your representation goes over the common sense, then expect that someone in blue will come to draw a line.
Swastika (again ) is a different topic and as I already said any discussion about a possible use is useless. We can agree or not about the use, but this is a case in which we can argue for months but nothing will change.It's just a rule of this site. You can't use it here.

I hope that this make clear because this map has reached the Beta stage with that text on it.

Nobodies

[thenobodies80]

http://h1.ripway.com/koontz/RorkesDriftv21.xml

Sent to lackattack

P.s. You don't need to write everything huge and in red! Don't worry I have a good eyesight

[joriki]

The map must be analized as it is. And for what I can see, the current map doesn't have elements on it that glorify the British soldiers in a different way than a historical point of view. The legend simply mentions that the soldiers received a medal, this is a fact, not taking a postion or change the reality of things. I do not see anything offensive in this.
Similarly, the map doesn't denigrate the Zulu troops using any sort of racist term or trying to diminish their effort in the battle.

My role is to look at the map, not the opinions of those who drew the map.
For me everyone is free to have their own opinions, the important thing is that everyone keep the opinion for themselves and that they don't use the map as a "manifesto" to sponsor those opinions.

[...]

I read in this thread that some people is arguing about a koontz post

I certainly agree that this should be about the map and not about the opinions of those who drew them, and that everyone is free to have their own opinions. koontz1973 and I find each other's opinions offensive, but we're just going to have to live with that.

I want to try to explain why I nevertheless think that koontz1973's statement about the intended meaning of the text on the map is quite relevant. Not because this is about his or her private opinion, but because that statement should guide us in interpreting the text on the map. You state somewhat categorically that "the current map doesn't have elements on it that glorify the British soldiers in a different way than a historical point of view". But this all started when I felt that it could be understood to do so, and suggested to change the wording to avoid that interpretation. It was then that koontz1973 said that the text was in fact *intended* as a positive reference. So against your subjective impression that there is only historical fact and no positive value judgement, there stands both my subjective impression that a positive value judgement might be inferred and the author's objective statement that a positive value judgement was intended. That statement, even though it was made in a post and isn't written on the map, is relevant in that it supports my subjective impression and casts doubt on yours. In a sense, you're misunderstanding the text if you think that it doesn't make a positive value judgement, since its author intended it to make a positive value judgement. That's why, even though this is about the map and not about koontz1973's personal opinions, the situation is nevertheless fundamentally different than if koontz1973 had replied that my worries were unfounded and the text was purely intended as a neutral statement of fact. (There's a further practical difference in that in that case, koontz1973 would now probably be cooperating with me in looking for a formulation to make sure to avoid any unintended possibility of interpreting the text as a positive reference, whereas he or she is of course instead defending the text because the positive reference was intended.)

So the current situation is that we have a map at the beta stage that carries a text which its author intended as a positive reference to an act by the British Empire to honour soldiers who fought in its colonial wars, and at least one person (me) read it that way. As far as I'm concerned, there's no significant difference between that and saying that we have a map at the beta stage that does indeed contain such a positive reference. And I continue to maintain that that inserts divisive political opinions where there shouldn't be any. I'm willing to work constructively with anyone who's interested in reformulating the text to remove that intended positive reference.

[jimboy]

Just to make a comment that im sure has already been brought up but i don't have time to read this whole thread. I personally think that they bonus structure is a little too big and im worried that its going to cause this a map that is more driven by dice and drop than strategy. Has there been any thought into maybe making it +1 for every 2 territories owned with a chief? Either that or maybe it would be a good idea to have a +2 bonus for every 3 territories while owning a chief. Just something to think about anyways

[koontz1973]

Just to make a comment that im sure has already been brought up but i don't have time to read this whole thread. I personally think that they bonus structure is a little too big and im worried that its going to cause this a map that is more driven by dice and drop than strategy. Has there been any thought into maybe making it +1 for every 2 territories owned with a chief? Either that or maybe it would be a good idea to have a +2 bonus for every 3 territories while owning a chief. Just something to think about anyways

It is starting to look a little big. It has made for some very intense games but right now, in the smaller games, first one to get a bonus, wins.

Some options.
+2 for every 3.
+1 for every 2.
Split the 2 larger iButhos into 4 smaller ones with 2 more chieftains.

P.s. You don't need to write everything huge and in red! Don't worry I have a good eyesight

I know you have good eyesight, but large red is pretty much my default for things. Always do it.

[koontz1973]

joriki, I never meant any offence over the map. I was watching the film earlier this year and thought it would make a very good idea for a map. The text has gone through many revisions while in the foundry process, if you look at previous versions that are posted in post one of the maps thread, you will see the changes as they are made and how it has been worded over the months it was in the foundry.

While the text might be for one side, the chieftains I chose also honour the Zulus.
Shaka - The best known Zulu king who united the Zulu tribes
Mpande - half brother to Shaka
Cetshwayo - King during the Anglo - Zulu war and who led the fight at Rorke's Drift
Dabulmanzi - was a commander during the war and brother to Cetshwayo
Phunga - a king that led his people against the Boars
Buthelezi - modern day king that played Cetshwayo in the film Zulu.
If you read up on any of these chieftains, you will see that I chose kings that honour the Zulu nation.

Lastly, your whole premise that this was a colonial war is not true. I advise you to read up on the history of this area and you might see things slightly differently. But here is a very brief account.
British outposts like Rorke's Drift were on Zululand because the British had permission by Mpande (the longest serving king of the Zulu people) to farm there lands. Mpande had interests in the British and also Christianity. He was succeeded by his son Cetshwayo after his death. The British were to the south and the Boars to the north. It was the Boar farmers who rose up against the Zulus. It was them who started the fighting. After the fighting in the north, it turned south. In 1879, at the time of Rorke's Drift, Zululand was an independent nation, and it stayed that way. Never was Zululand considered a colony of Britain.
In around 1884/5 the Zulu civil war caused Cetshwayo to flee to London in exile. With the help of the British he returned, was wounded and died a few months later. His half brother who was supported by the Boars won the civil war. Welcome to South Africa over the last 100 years.

[danfrank]

I certainly agree that this should be about the map and not about the opinions of those who drew them, and that everyone is free to have their own opinions. koontz1973 and I find each other's opinions offensive, but we're just going to have to live with that.

I want to try to explain why I nevertheless think that koontz1973's statement about the intended meaning of the text on the map is quite relevant. Not because this is about his or her private opinion, but because that statement should guide us in interpreting the text on the map. You state somewhat categorically that "the current map doesn't have elements on it that glorify the British soldiers in a different way than a historical point of view". But this all started when I felt that it could be understood to do so, and suggested to change the wording to avoid that interpretation. It was then that koontz1973 said that the text was in fact *intended* as a positive reference. So against your subjective impression that there is only historical fact and no positive value judgement, there stands both my subjective impression that a positive value judgement might be inferred and the author's objective statement that a positive value judgement was intended. That statement, even though it was made in a post and isn't written on the map, is relevant in that it supports my subjective impression and casts doubt on yours. In a sense, you're misunderstanding the text if you think that it doesn't make a positive value judgement, since its author intended it to make a positive value judgement. That's why, even though this is about the map and not about koontz1973's personal opinions, the situation is nevertheless fundamentally different than if koontz1973 had replied that my worries were unfounded and the text was purely intended as a neutral statement of fact. (There's a further practical difference in that in that case, koontz1973 would now probably be cooperating with me in looking for a formulation to make sure to avoid any unintended possibility of interpreting the text as a positive reference, whereas he or she is of course instead defending the text because the positive reference was intended.)

So the current situation is that we have a map at the beta stage that carries a text which its author intended as a positive reference to an act by the British Empire to honour soldiers who fought in its colonial wars, and at least one person (me) read it that way. As far as I'm concerned, there's no significant difference between that and saying that we have a map at the beta stage that does indeed contain such a positive reference. And I continue to maintain that that inserts divisive political opinions where there shouldn't be any. I'm willing to work constructively with anyone who's interested in reformulating the text to remove that intended positive reference.

CONTRADICTION

[joriki]

CONTRADICTION

Could you please elaborate?

[isaiah40]

+1 for every 2 would be good, would also extend the game a tad more.

[thenobodies80]

http://h1.ripway.com/koontz/RorkesDriftv21.xml

Sent to lackattack

The new xml was uploaded.


--------------------------

I know you have good eyesight, but large red is pretty much my default for things. Always do it.

Don't do it, then. It's pretty annoying.

[koontz1973]

joriki, I do not find your opinion offensive as we all have a right to them. What I found offensive was when you compared these soldiers to the Nazis. That was offensive. If it was meant to shock, it worked. If you meant to create a flame war thread, it seems to of worked. This map has taken me hundreds of hours to make, it has been in the foundry for months. Not once, has anyone made a comment about it apart from grammatical or spelling errors. You say you find it offensive, fine, but you have not come up with an alternative option. If you do that, and I think it is better, then I will give it serious thought about how to get it to fit.

My only suggestions to you now, is to go and read some history books so you know what you are getting into and to know what you are talking about. And now that you have found the foundry, come more often and post your thoughts before Beta stage. If you had suggested this months ago, like all suggestions made by everyone, I would of tried to get it in.

[Seamus76]

And now that you have found the foundry, come more often and post your thoughts before Beta stage.

I agree with Koontz, we need more people and opinions in the foundry. This will only make all the maps better for everyone.

I can also vouch for koontz that he is the first to make a change that has been suggested, if it is appropriate, no matter how much more work is involved or even if it was not originally in the mind of the maker. And while these maps are the work of the makers, they are for everyone and as such we want them to actually be for everyone, and that will only happen if more people give input, start discussions, and more importantly start debates that get everyone thinking how to make the maps better.

[koontz1973]

Not in large red letter. Pretty it is not.

Gone with isaiah40 suggestion about the bonuses as they are very large very quickly.

New images and xml.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/854/sdriftlarge.png
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8757/sdriftsmall.png
http://h1.ripway.com/koontz/RD22.xml

[koontz1973]

I spoke to SirSebstar today about the map. Here are his comments and I agree with them. Posting the messages here to see what you all think of his ideas.
Basically he is saying it is too damn easy to win.
His idea is to change the winning condition to this.
2 commanders and 3 chieftains.
Open up the two commanders to there respective 1 neutral next to Schiess.
These seem to be good ideas but before I go ahead, wondering what you think before I go and make a drastic change like this.

As one of the all time great map analyst, after you have finished your game against aalii, can you give me your thought. Apart from the damn nasty map. Right now we are trying ot get the bonuses right. 2 for 2 seem to be too high. Any thoughts on this yet.

koontz

lol
sure, but i just worked for 24 hours, so i am going to take a long sleep first

As one of the all time great map analyst, after you have finished your game against aalii, can you give me your thought. Apart from the damn nasty map. Right now we are trying ot get the bonuses right. 2 for 2 seem to be too high. Any thoughts on this yet.

koontz

i consider you my friend you know... but you map sucks..lol
its far to easy to obtain the objective. it is also childichly easy to simply take it and then there is only 1 spot you need to defend... well that is just a big fat nono i my book, simply make 1 to capture is no good.
far out suggestion. the central commander and 2/3s of the availiable commanders(commanders being the +2 autodeploy spot)? (that way, if you win the game by objective, you are likely to have won it anyways.

bonus tructure, how about looking at the dass schloss map, were you need a certain amount of them to claim a bons, hold all get a big bonus, hold a few, get a small one, in addition to the commander +2??

i cannot make heads or tails of the bonus structure. can we talk about this.

also mother of shaka was nandi right? i see her name spelled different from what i though was right..(me must be wrong most likely)

the concept..
WOW mind blowing nice. hystory wise, very interresting

yours truly

what about the sugg that you need to have a center piece (maybe the 2 commanders) as well as the majority of the outlying commanders?
sort of, you defeated a whole bunch the rest pack up kind of thing?

I consider you my friend you know

Same here, that is why I asked.

its far to easy to obtain the objective.

If I open up the territs holding the 2 commanders. So they can be attacked by Schiess (as now)
Reynolds to Bromhead
593 Jones to Chard.
This gives 2 territs that have to be defended instead of 1.
Also, raise the neutrals up to 10 for Chard and Bromhead.

The bonus will change as always in beta. Next version will have +1 for every 2 territs held with the chieftains.

also mother of shaka was nandi right?

full name Ndaba kaMageba. Son of Mageba. king around 1745 to 1763

Any other thoughts? Please let me know. I would rather remake the whole thing completely and have a good map, than try to defend a bad one.

koontz

So, hold the 2 commanders and 2, 3 or 4 chieftains to win.

Pick a number and I will get it done.

if you keep the 2 commanders (which i think if good although it be better if they were not defended by a single spot, but thats minor compared to the huge improvement) then i think 3 out of 6 commanders will do the trick
that leaves enough room for both players, the game is not nececarrely over, so fog might hold surprises. in short. yup i like the idea.

2 commander's and (any) 3 chieftans

[Leehar]

The post suggs before beta is all well and good, but the only reason why it was noticed is probably because joriki played it in beta? I thought that was the point of beta maps, that you pick up all these things that weren't noticed earlier?

And then koontz, all I've read up is that the british invaded zululand on some pretext and this battle was an inevitable concomitant of that, which is why I can agree with joriki's pov that your description is unfavourable in positively lauding the actions of the british. You made a good point that you brought in some of the zulu leaders into the map (which was kinda confusing since shaka was around half a century ago, and I'd imagine the guys actually wouldn't have won if he was there and the zulu's weren't half-injured having beaten the english a few days previously), but you really didn't give them the credit that was due and ended up being heavily lavished onto these english vc winners.
You say you've read many history books on the subject, which is good to know and probably means you know more about it than me, but could I just ask how many of those were written by the english and descendants of them that could be biased due the inevitable subjectivity that probably crept in? I can tell you my history textbooks give a very different take on the events of the anglo-zulu war then I assume you've been exposed to... (Tho perhaps were biased in the opposite direction )

I would just like to add tho that I appreciate the amount of work you've obviously put into the map and the foundry as a whole, so please don't look upon us as unnecessary critiques, but joriki obviously did think your phrasing was of concern, and I have to concur that there could be a more neutral slant on it.

[isaiah40]

Personally, I would do what SirSebstar suggested. I totally trust his judgement on how a map plays. That is my two cents - if I keep giving my two cents I'll be broke!

[Victor Sullivan]

I played a quick-and-dirty 1v1 Speeder awhile back and got killed. I support the changes. Good Lord, that guy totally, like, for lack of a better phrase, metaphorically raped me. Like, dude. Yeah.

Perhaps the River Warriors could use some tweaking bonus-wise, but I've yet to get enough play time in to say so for sure.

Just my two cents. Let's see, if I'm 53 years old, accounting for inflation... Damn, I think my two cents is worth, like, 22. Or something.

-Sully

[sundance123]

The map must be analized as it is.

Thats a bit drastic. So thats what goes on the foundry. Not sure I like this site anymore.



But seriously, I do think the wording acknowledges other points of view. Why is that not enough?

[isaiah40]

Just my two cents. Let's see, if I'm 53 years old, accounting for inflation... Damn, I think my two cents is worth, like, 22. Or something.

-Sully

Well, really, pennies from way back then, when you had clubs and dragged your wife by the hair time period, were like worth, like, nothing because they weren't invented yet!

[Victor Sullivan]

Just my two cents. Let's see, if I'm 53 years old, accounting for inflation... Damn, I think my two cents is worth, like, 22. Or something.

-Sully

Well, really, pennies from way back then, when you had clubs and dragged your wife by the hair time period, were like worth, like, nothing because they weren't invented yet!

I still don't understand why she wanted a divorce...

-Sully

[koontz1973]

OK.
Changes that I will do over this weekend.
Change winning condition to be hold british commanders and a majority of chieftains (4)
Open up the sandbags between the commanders and Reynolds and 593 Jones.
Lower Schiess to a 1 neutral to make him the same as above two.

With the chieftains at 4 neutrals now and the bonus at +1 for 2, that should make for longer games.

Personally, I would do what SirSebstar suggested. I totally trust his judgement on how a map plays. That is my two cents - if I keep giving my two cents I'll be broke!

Thats why I asked him.