Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
option 3 is the most, lets say, down to earth look. option 3 will be better for design apperence. it look better with the ships pointed down and the beach upwards.
great job with the legend
Romania-i tara mea, si buna si rea
O iubesc, ma mandresc ca m-am nascut in ea,
Well if we assumed everyone who voted for 1 would vote for 3 if 1 wasn't an option then we have a tie right now. I can't believe it looks like what I want is going to lose again, after the flagets won in Great Lakes I'm not sure how much more I can take.
Coleman wrote:Well if we assumed everyone who voted for 1 would vote for 3 if 1 wasn't an option then we have a tie right now. I can't believe it looks like what I want is going to lose again, after the flagets won in Great Lakes I'm not sure how much more I can take.
don't worry, I never heed the polls anyway (as in siege), ... it just gives the foundry members something extra to click on.
i know, when i look at number too I just imagine those germans clutching to the bunkers for deal life, fearing they might fall out the bottom and off the map.
Well i must say that if you go historical corect no2, then i must say that if Germans have 3 division only in omaha beaches, then nobody, or very small number of ally soldier will survive in these beaches, and they have no chance to go in land.
qwert wrote:Well i must say that if you go historical corect no2, then i must say that if Germans have 3 division only in omaha beaches, then nobody, or very small number of ally soldier will survive in these beaches, and they have no chance to go in land.
all the territories are the same in the 3 maps, one is just upside down. but if the germans have all the divions, then yeah, it will be impossible to take the beach.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum
"i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"
but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not
Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum "i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"
but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not
maybe they will think they get a +4 for the little ships too.. and so a +40 for all 'ships'!
Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
well you have those stupid peoples i just know that there will be duizends of people who post it in the suggestion/bug forum "i hold a ship but didn't get any bonus why"
but keep it as it is than we have an advantage and those dumb people not
maybe they will think they get a +4 for the little ships too.. and so a +40 for all 'ships'!
for me, the biggest concern is west/east. since you use names like west/east in territory names, I think the west should be on the left side and the east on the right side. Since there are no North/South names, I don't care which way is north or south.
Or, scrap the east/west names for the divisions and the flyovers and put something else. then you don't have to worry so much about all of this.
It should be about easing confusion while making sure it looks good at the same time.
edbeard wrote:for me, the biggest concern is west/east. since you use names like west/east in territory names, I think the west should be on the left side and the east on the right side. Since there are no North/South names, I don't care which way is north or south.
Or, scrap the east/west names for the divisions and the flyovers and put something else. then you don't have to worry so much about all of this.
It should be about easing confusion while making sure it looks good at the same time.
yeah im taking suggestions for names instead of east, west. I could give the german divisions names like 352nd Infantry Division , 916th Grenadier Regiment. I dunno about the fly overs tho.
Wisse wrote:you say "+7 for each ship" but much people forget the tiny ships then
... I think you messed up what you were trying to say, that doesn't make any sense.
i meant much people would not mind the tiny ships they would think that they only need the big ships for the bonus
well that is ridiculous for two reasons, 1. peopel would have to think they get a +4 bonus for holding 2 territories, and 2. people would have to think they get a bonus for holding only half of the numbered territories around them.
so im not too sure it would be a problem. but if others think it might be confusing I can add some outlines to all the ships to make it more clear, but that might not look too great.
When I first looked at the map I didn't realize the little ships where a part of the ship continent. I was going to comment about the bonuses for ships being too high since they had so few countries.
Anyway, I think a simple solution would be to say "+7 for each group of ships" instead of "+7 for each ship". After all, there really are multiple ships for each bonus.
gimil wrote:since your able to shoot in any direction why not introduce an AA gun somewhere in the central division which can attack all 4 corners of the map?