Author Topic: Flayed1 Can you do me a favor? (Read 6139 times)

SlapShot · « **Reply #75 on:** December 02, 2006, 12:25:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Don't get baited, Slap, that's not a suggestion nor an idea.

... nope ... was leading him down the CV commander road ... the idea would never work if that were the premises.

SlapShot · « **Reply #76 on:** December 02, 2006, 12:49:34 PM »

Is there a way to reduce the text that is displayed for field names and field elevations ... in offline mode.

Trying to plot and understand the layout ... the text really gets in the way, at least on this map ... and it's needed to really see whats going on and plan accordingly.

Flayed1 · « **Reply #77 on:** December 02, 2006, 12:54:12 PM »

Slap I was thinking on your setup and the problem I see is that HT seems to want loops.

Currently in orange it is a single loop and he basicly gave me the option to double it and add forks to expand the front a bit..

On your example though I like it, it looks like you would have about 10 different lines...

Hmmm I just had a thought.... I bet I could run the lines some how to have the seperate countries really fight over controll of a line giong into the third country..

At least in the center of this map.. With HT's new idea it may be possible for one country to cut off an invading country and start follwing it up the line if they could hold on to the (T) base.

Ahhh brain strain again LOL

Flayed1 · « **Reply #78 on:** December 02, 2006, 12:59:32 PM »

Slap what I am having to do is cut and paste screen shots of the clipboard map togeather in photoshop that have no field info on them. and take seperate screen shots of the clipboard with info displayed and keep that beside my working map as a referance. Kinda a pain.

BaldEagl · « **Reply #79 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:09:13 PM »

I posted the folllowing in the other thread this morning and SlapShot seemed to think it would be better served here so I just copied my various posts over. Hope I'm not doing something I'm not supposed to here.

I just had a nother idea that might make this work on the big maps. Why not try opening all bases in particular zones so you have the forward zones of each counrty open? I can't remember how many zones are on the big maps so maybe this wont work but if there's not enough then how about re-writing the zones so there are a few more?

Just an idea.

I was thinking about this a little more. There's probably a relatively easy way to re-write the zones. Let the factories support the same fields they support now (a "master zone") but splt the fields into two or maybe even three sub zones (or "capture zones").

When say, 60-70% of a currently available capture zone has been captured, then the next one becomes available for capture along with the remaining fieds in the current capture zone.

I think an idea like this could appease all factions. It allows some freedom of choice but still focuses players into a smaller area. NOE guys could still do their thing, particularily at the outside fringes of some of the big map zones. CV's for the most part still come into play, etc., etc.

It seems like it would also be a relatively easy solution for HiTech and his staff although I'm not a programmer so I can't say for sure.

Geez, I'm gushing with ideas now. Here's one more to add to this line of thought. Say a capture zone is 60-70% captured so the next one is set to open. Make all abutting zones open until one field is taken, then close everything but the fields in the capture zone with the lost field. This way the direction of battle across the map could change based on the strategy of the players and add another element to gameplay. This one might be too complex to easily implement but it might be cool.

OK, tell me to shut up now.

OK, I lied. I didn't shut up. The "pinch points" could still be accomplished on the jump from main zone to main zone or even from capture zone to capture zone.

After reading this thread it seems like you could do this with the line and arrow system you're using now but maybe not.

Laurie · « **Reply #80 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:12:02 PM »

Reallly nice work flayd, wtg <>,

this is just an idea to possibly enhance it,

maybe a few more 'chain-starter bases' on coasts to really make cv's useful,

so say you you could steam it down the cost and start at new chain to stir things up a bit?

just an idea.

thats some realll nice work tho man.

SlapShot · « **Reply #81 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:18:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flayed1
Slap I was thinking on your setup and the problem I see is that HT seems to want loops.

Currently in orange it is a single loop and he basicly gave me the option to double it and add forks to expand the front a bit..

On your example though I like it, it looks like you would have about 10 different lines...

Hmmm I just had a thought.... I bet I could run the lines some how to have the seperate countries really fight over controll of a line giong into the third country..

At least in the center of this map.. With HT's new idea it may be possible for one country to cut off an invading country and start follwing it up the line if they could hold on to the (T) base.

Ahhh brain strain again LOL

OK ... I understand your or his notion on the "loop" idea. I was trying to see if he would allow a spider technique as long as the concentration was not too fractured, but would allow a country to spread itself out a little more.

Granted, the picture that I presented may have been too "loose", but I really was not paying attention to all the details ... I was just wanting to get an acceptance of the concept.

My feelings is that if the route is too focused (the other side of "loose"), then an understaffed country will simply get bulldozed.

If you were to allow multiple semi-concentrated routes, the country with the overwhelming numbers just may shoot themselves in the foot by fracturing and diluting their attack force on a front.

If the cattle are all herded down one chute ... well ... you get the idea.

There are a zillion ways to look at this ... granted, the bottom line is to design an attack route that will cause conflict, but on the other hand give it some evolving diversity, dynamics, and choices.

From what I am reading in the other post ... people don't want to be cattle driven down just one path and have the pre determined attack route do all the thinking for them ... I think they are insulted.

SlapShot · « **Reply #82 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:20:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flayed1
Slap what I am having to do is cut and paste screen shots of the clipboard map togeather in photoshop that have no field info on them. and take seperate screen shots of the clipboard with info displayed and keep that beside my working map as a referance. Kinda a pain.

Kinda a pain

Yup ... hence the question ...

Simaril · « **Reply #83 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:22:04 PM »

An aside --

I really like the idea of using the map itself as a template, and having a variety of the attack chains. It'd be the same as, say, Risk -- where troop placement makes strategy different every game, even though the board doesnt change.

Think of the advantages:

1. Significantly less "monotony effect" since the maps would play differently

2. Increased opportunity for community design participation.

3. Makes the arenas into HUGE TESTING LABS to let designers see how different approaches affect actual gameplay (like "Gee, if the V base were at a little lower altitude it might let aircraft do a sneak on the rear base"; or "I think the version with more unchained, isolated bases is more fun than the one with straight lines converging on a choke point"). That in turn would greatly increase the success of future designs.

4. Strategically minded players would get more fun from each map, since there wouldn't be a "best approach" that worked on, say, Trinity's chain sequence every time.

SlapShot · « **Reply #84 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:26:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
An aside --

I really like the idea of using the map itself as a template, and having a variety of the attack chains. It'd be the same as, say, Risk -- where troop placement makes strategy different every game, even though the board doesnt change.

Think of the advantages:

1. Significantly less "monotony effect" since the maps would play differently

2. Increased opportunity for community design participation.

3. Makes the arenas into HUGE TESTING LABS to let designers see how different approaches affect actual gameplay (like "Gee, if the V base were at a little lower altitude it might let aircraft do a sneak on the rear base"; or "I think the version with more unchained, isolated bases is more fun than the one with straight lines converging on a choke point"). That in turn would greatly increase the success of future designs.

4. Strategically minded players would get more fun from each map, since there wouldn't be a "best approach" that worked on, say, Trinity's chain sequence every time.

Yup ... the doors that this notion opens is numerous and appealing.

I am dusting off my MAW strat hat at this very moment ... lots of dust on the bugger.

hitech · « **Reply #85 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:28:08 PM »

Thanks flayed1, That should work for the next round. Btw hope to have the system in place, along with releaseing the terrain editor that lays out the paths.

And yes it wouldn't be to big of deal to have multiple path sets per terrain, even thow they are made in the TE, the are not int the terrain file itself, but just reside on the host.

HiTech

Flayed1 · « **Reply #86 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:44:57 PM »

Thanx

and glad to be of help... I'm gonna continue to work on some other ideas for it. I hope others do to and post in here.. This is one of the most constructive threads I've ever seen

EDIT: BTW I was just wondering about your thoughts on those bridge lines... Making them spetial to open up when certain objectives are met? or just standard lines?

SlapShot · « **Reply #87 on:** December 02, 2006, 01:53:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Thanks flayed1, That should work for the next round. Btw hope to have the system in place, along with releaseing the terrain editor that lays out the paths.

And yes it wouldn't be to big of deal to have multiple path sets per terrain, even thow they are made in the TE, the are not int the terrain file itself, but just reside on the host.

HiTech

HT ... could you go into a little more detail on what exactly it is that you are looking for. I am really intrigued with this notion and would like to put my spin on it ... as well as others probably ... and I think we need some more direction.

I posted a couple of screenshots with some spidering routes ... are those acceptable ?

SlapShot · « **Reply #88 on:** December 02, 2006, 02:00:10 PM »

This is one of the most constructive threads I've ever seen

Absolutely !!! ... if not the most ...

hitech · « **Reply #89 on:** December 02, 2006, 02:22:48 PM »

Flayed1: Will get into the details of layouts next week. It can take a while, I'm sure you know, to look at possible out comes from different links.

SlapShot: Isn't really any one system i'm looking for. But what ever systems is used it needs to keep the fields available for capture on 1 front at anyone time down to 2 or 3. More than that, the forces just start by passing each other.