Moderator: Cartographers
No it doesn't need to be drawn like yousay it should with dots. It hasn't been an issue for anyone else, and I am wondering If you wanted to be so pedantic about stuff like this, then why haven't you brought it up well before this beta stage.ender516 wrote:I'm wondering why the Fort Rupert - Fort Augusta attack route is drawn with a unique style of double-headed arrow (almost like a start position/home-port connection). Shouldn't it simply look like another coastal route, drawn with dots? At a quick glance, I thought it might simply be a labelling line like those on the Church and Port Royal.
I initially thought it was a labelling line. Then I saw it was a double-headed arrow. Then I wondered why it was different from other connectors and what difference it might make. Aside from the dashed double-headed arrows making clear before play which are the starting positions, all your connectors have only one meaning: two-way attack. Okay, so there is no reason for a different connector and no reason it has to be the same as the others. I'm sorry I didn't notice it sooner, but it just as easily could have been someone who has never come into the Foundry and had the same question during beta play. The fact that it hasn't been an issue for anyone else could be used to turn away the first report of any comment, but I don't think it should be.cairnswk wrote:No it doesn't need to be drawn like yousay it should with dots. It hasn't been an issue for anyone else, and I am wondering If you wanted to be so pedantic about stuff like this, then why haven't you brought it up well before this beta stage.ender516 wrote:I'm wondering why the Fort Rupert - Fort Augusta attack route is drawn with a unique style of double-headed arrow (almost like a start position/home-port connection). Shouldn't it simply look like another coastal route, drawn with dots? At a quick glance, I thought it might simply be a labelling line like those on the Church and Port Royal.
It conveys clearly the message that that route is a two-way attack, and that is what is meant there.
If you thought it was a labelling line, then why have you idientified it as a double-headed arrow.
ender516 wrote: I picked up on this line when I was examining the centering as you suggested, and I didn't say it needed to be drawn with dots, I just asked (politely, I think). Some people like to be told about a little thing like this, because they may have missed it themselves and would rather change it. If you don't, there's no need to get huffy, I'm okay with that.
The above implies to me that you think it should be drawn with dots.Shouldn't it simply look like another coastal route, drawn with dots?
Code: Select all
<title>Jamaica</title>
Doesn't the title tage need to be there anymore?chipv wrote:I'm about to put the schema check into the Wizard but on my local version I can see you need to remove the title tag, otherwise all good.
Don't need
Code: Select all
<title>Jamaica</title>
No, lack moved map information out of the map XMLs and stores them locally now.cairnswk wrote:Doesn't the title tage need to be there anymore?chipv wrote:I'm about to put the schema check into the Wizard but on my local version I can see you need to remove the title tag, otherwise all good.
Don't need
Code: Select all
<title>Jamaica</title>
title tage removed from the file. Thanks chipvchipv wrote:...
No, lack moved map information out of the map XMLs and stores them locally now.
So map XMLs only contains what is needed for the game engine.
If you put your XML through mapmaker you can see what I mean, same schema check,
but it will be in the Wizard imminently. This is the same set of checks that the official map XML checking does.
I also misunderstood this wording. All would make more sense; "every" implied "each." to me.ender516 wrote:Well, I would agree with eddie2. "Every" could be read as "each" or "all". "All" has no such ambiguity in my eyes. Better yet, just say "3 Maroons +3". You can't get clearer than that, and it's consistent with phrases like "2 Bumbo (Rum)" and "Any 2 Food". Sorry to press you, cairnswk, but the Foundry's not done with you yet.cairnswk wrote:no, this should be done in the map thread.eddie2 wrote:hi dont know if this is the right place for this but on the board it clearly states 3 troups for each marron but in play you have to have all 3 for a 3 bonus
no, it states every maroon +3
that is taken as all maroons +3
no other way, that's how the foundry decided it to be worded.
Already changed.jwithington wrote:
I also misunderstood this wording. All would make more sense; "every" implied "each." to me.
Yes i agree it is icky collecting slaves.jwithington wrote:I LOVE this map like I love the AOR maps. Very cool!
I will say this though: it feels kinda icky to get a bonus by collecting slaves. I wonder if we can change that somehow? I know it's late...but I wanted to say it.
Yes it is intentional...to stop games ending in very few rounds.cgblack wrote:Game 6358825
We each started on one ship each with 3 units. Ships auto deploy two each turn, but the only adjecent terit starts with five neutrals. So more than likely no one attacks for the first three or four turns. Is this intentional?
My apologies if this has already been mentioned in the thread.
Yes just to balance neutrals and the attacks from wherever.eddie2 wrote:also is there any reason wy port antonio has 6 troups on compared to others having 5
your are).would people risk 6 on 5?eddie2 wrote:just that people would risk a 6 on 5 but 6 on 6 is this not putting that player at a disadvantage as if you take it it puts your troup count up to 5 for the next shot but person on france stands less of a chance.
In normal games bonus structure, you get:cgblack wrote:I didn't realize that you get the minimum three troops per turn as well, the "Standard +1 for three territories = N/A" lead me to believe you didn't. No real justification as to why I thought that, I just did.
So it only delays a turn or so (depending on how brave, or stupid
ON the basis of the above, i have changed the bonus wording for that apsect tocairnswk wrote:In normal games bonus structure, you get:cgblack wrote:I didn't realize that you get the minimum three troops per turn as well, the "Standard +1 for three territories = N/A" lead me to believe you didn't. No real justification as to why I thought that, I just did.
So it only delays a turn or so (depending on how brave, or stupid
+3 for holding 9 regions or less
+4 for holding 12 regions
+5 for holding 15 regions
etc.
the max and min you get in this map is +3.
people expect that you'll always get +3...that is why the legend states
"standard +1 for 3 territories = N/A"
unfortunately there in no more room to word it differently.
and i doubt if anyone has questioned this before you.
Thanks
yes it is worth a single shot if you get a double win carry on because if you get out you get plus 2 bonus at the start covering the troups you hadcairnswk wrote:would people risk 6 on 5?eddie2 wrote:just that people would risk a 6 on 5 but 6 on 6 is this not putting that player at a disadvantage as if you take it it puts your troup count up to 5 for the next shot but person on france stands less of a chance.
i think they'd be fools if they did that.
so to me, those odds don't stack up. 6 on 5 or 6 on 6 are both the same odds....disastrous.
You're right, that is a brilliant solution. Clear and concisecairnswk wrote: ON the basis of the above, i have changed the bonus wording for that apsect to
"For holding any number of territories" +3
because that's just what happens.
to be more specific, hamlin has the advantage of being able to take manchioneal, then a number of single neutrals (morant, yallah's bay, gordon town and possibly kingston harbour), with only morgan able to stop him easily. the 6-neutral on port antonio was designed to slow down hamlin's advance.cairnswk wrote:Yes just to balance neutrals and the attacks from wherever.eddie2 wrote:also is there any reason wy port antonio has 6 troups on compared to others having 5
