Conquer Club

I meant here.

He can't just edit it here?

Lets get Fitz in here to make sure the fix is correct, and check out any others that need it. Then he can post the link to the latest XML.


--Andy

Hey Andy, don't I get a thank-you?

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

....................

I'm halfway through building a pyramid if someone noticed.

I don't know.

AndyDufresne wrote:Lets get Fitz in here to make sure the fix is correct, and check out any others that need it. Then he can post the link to the latest XML.


--Andy

well i am quite sure its correct, but if you want flitz to do it no problem

It is correct

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Sharp eye there!
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.

Heres the new code:

http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html

http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html

Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.


Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!

Fitz69 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Sharp eye there!
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.

Heres the new code:

http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html

http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html

Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.


Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!

If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...

C.

Welcome.

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

....................

I'm halfway through building a pyramid if someone noticed.

IF I START USING BIG AND GAY FONT PERHAPS FITZ69 WILL NOTICE WHAT I'M SAYING.

PM him/

I just did.

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

....................

I'm halfway through building a pyramid if someone noticed.

IF I START USING BIG AND GAY FONT PERHAPS FITZ69 WILL NOTICE WHAT I'M SAYING.

He he - that's certainly big and gay!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Sharp eye there!
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.

Heres the new code:

http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html

http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html

Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.


Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!

If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...

C.

Hmm.. tried that but I couldn't get it to work.
Is there a kind soul here that can check the code for me?

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

Fitz69 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Sharp eye there!
Your'e quite correct. Thanks for spotting it.

Heres the new code:

http://upload2.net/page/download/fU4Khh ... l.zip.html

http://upload2.net/page/download/nVp5yq ... l.txt.html

Andy, let me know witch of the above links work best.


Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement in developing this map!

If you've got an uploaded map and xml you can run it through the border checker thingy...

C.

Hmm.. tried that but I couldn't get it to work.
Is there a kind soul here that can check the code for me?

You should be able to do it from the http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/U_S__Senate.xml (or whatever) file - obviously you will have to assume you know you've got the one that is wrong... the rest you can use... It's a cool utility... can be useful for checking maps to see where borders are!!!

C.

EDIT : Ran it through the checker and apart from Pete and Mary all looks good...

It only checks big maps though so if you've got your co-ords wrong in small it might not work!!

C.

Thanks!
The coord's should be ok, it was the links that I missed.

Andy? I'm ok with this. The xml seems to be ok now. Anythin you want to add?

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Gilligan wrote:It says Pete can border Mary. I didn't have a path connecting them, but I could still fortify there. Then I checked the XML, and it says you can attack Pete to Mary. They clearly do not border.

Game Number: 351049
I have Mary and Pete.
Rynn has Lola.
Sean21us has Tim.
Last Stand has ABC.
Sean21us has Jane.

So how could I have fortified there if Pete is surrounded by opponents?

Still hasn't been fixed...

Jafnhár wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Still hasn't been answered ...

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Still hasn't been answered ...

Come on guys this is the foundry. Its a forum for map making. Take this debate to the social lounge or flame wars.

Guiscard wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:

Fitz69 wrote:

Jafnhár wrote:Is not "Fundamentalist" supposed to be "Fundamentalism"? Fundamentalist is one that holds that philosophy, but fundamentalism is the philosophy as a whole.

You almost have a point there.
Fundamentalism is not a philosophy but more of an attitude adopted in conjunction to any held conviction.

Though one must keep in mind that there are many kinds of fundamentalism.
The type I am referring to is definatly one that is held, in this case, by a group.
Thus fundamentalist.
The context of the map's theme further rarefies the possible holders of any philosophy (attitude) to the point that anyone with a slightly decent insight into the political atmosphere of the USA will know what is implied.

I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding.

Fundamentalist is one who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about a person).

Fundamentalism is reducing religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts (along with other definitions, but still talking about an attitude, not a person).

Now, it looks like there's some guy that holds fundamentalism opinions on this territory. Talking about a person instead of it as an attitude doesn't narrow the term, there are just as many definitions for it in a dictionary, but the difference between them is as stated above.

Still hasn't been answered ...

Come on guys this is the foundry. Its a forum for map making. Take this debate to the social lounge or flame wars.

This is a barely a debate, he has only answered once and it does directly affect the map.

wrong forum for a debate on scemantics.

Look, I am doing you a favour by pointing out your mistakes in your map. I have done everything I can to point it out, but if you disagree, there is nothing more that I can do. I can't say that I care.

And saying that this is the wrong forum to discuss it because it affects scemantics (whatever that means) is like saying that this forum is wrong to discuss colours in maps, because they affect arts.