Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[cairnswk]

Things that u might want to look at: Capitania name is not centered to pentagon
Portuguese "flag" is distorted and pixelized.
That is also not the right flag in 1588(http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:F ... ugal_(1616).svg), and portuguese ships sailed under the burgundy flag.

Another thing, there is a possibility that you were lead to a mistake. Are u sure Capitania was a ship?From what i know São Martinho was the "capitania", wich means, the leader of the fleet.
It might be worth a 2nd look

cheers

This is not a full working list of ships compiled for the "Armada" it is has to be representational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_ ... 578%29.svg
This is the shield i have used for Capitanai which i believe is correct.
Yes it is pixelised but best that can be done at that size. Looks centered to me.

From Wiki http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... W_N4Oydfug
Diego Medrano commander of Squadron of Galleys of Portugal (incorrectly linked in wiki)
Squadron of Galleys of Portugal
Four ships;
Capitania (50 guns).
Princesa (50 guns).
Diana (50 guns).
Bazana (50 guns).

Also here http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=87185
Galleys of Portugal, under Don Diego de Medrano.
Galley, "Capitania
" "Princesa"
" "Diana"
" "Bazana"

[Armandolas]

It is centered in the OP but not in the last link u provided.
That flag you have is from an early date (1578).The problem is not the pixelization..The problem is its deformation(changed aspect ratio)
if u want u can use this one, its the accurate... the is a more traditional one: http://imageshack.us/a/img833/8116/z27w.png
Here is a link for portuguese flag chronology: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolu%C3%A ... e_Portugal

Dont want to be picky.I just trying to give some feedback.i wish u can understand that.
Ive been looking at the link you gave me and some more that ive found and noticed that capitania ship its a medium size ship and with a very low number of cannons. I believe it was used as support ship fro the main ones(it is also a rowing ship i believe)

there is another link that might interest you : http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/Articles/ ... aList.html

[cairnswk]

It is centered in the OP but not in the last link u provided.
That flag you have is from an early date (1578).The problem is not the pixelization..The problem is its deformation(changed aspect ratio)
if u want u can use this one, its the accurate... the is a more traditional one: http://imageshack.us/a/img833/8116/z27w.png

Dont want to be picky.I just trying to give some feedback.i wish u can understand that.
Ive been looking at the link you gave me and some more that ive found and noticed that capitania ship its a medium size ship and with a very low number of cannons. I believe it was used as support ship fro the main ones(it is also a rowing ship i believe)

there is another link that might interest you : http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/Articles/ ... aList.html

I don't care if you are picky. i just wish you had the decency to come in offer these things up when the map was in development graphics stage...all this would have been finalised by now instead of having to go over it again and send off more updates to whoever uploads than is really necessary.
Time management seems not to be one of yours nor others best qualities
I'll consider those change at later date if there are more changes to the gameplay etc.
I too have those list, but I'm not going to do anything about it. it's there now and will stay.

[Jippd]

I can understand both sides.

cairns you have to understand that not everyone will have time to add input throughout the entirety of the development process and even if their input is late that doesn't mean it is invaluable. If it improves the map I think it should be done.

I can also understand how it is frustrating to you since this process takes so long that it should seem like other people are aware of the extensive process.

Many people might not have the time unfortunately to put in input when it would be most ideal. I think input at any time should be considered valuable if it adds to the map.

[cairnswk]

I can understand both sides.

cairns you have to understand that not everyone will have time to add input throughout the entirety of the development process and even if their input is late that doesn't mean it is invaluable. If it improves the map I think it should be done.

I can also understand how it is frustrating to you since this process takes so long that it should seem like other people are aware of the extensive process.

Many people might not have the time unfortunately to put in input when it would be most ideal. I think input at any time should be considered valuable if it adds to the map.

Yes Jippd, it is indeed frustrating and i like everyone else have RL to deal with also, so on that platform we are level.

But this map was in production for 769 days (2 1/2 years) during which time there is certainly plenty of time to get feedback in.
since some of the comments are from people who've been part of the site processes since 2008 or before, i would have thought there was plenty of knowledge around about what goes on in the foundry. And for a process that involves feedback from players, i would have thought that players could give a little time to that process to ensure that facts graphics etc are correct before going to BETA. But no, the current lazy players processes is "deal with it when goes BETA" which is for me very frustrating and you wonder why i have the attitude i have. Indeed, if we have a quick look at this persons posts, there are plenty of ocassions where the player has been in the foundry, but apparently gave me the excuse that he has only jsut started playing the map, so wanted to give feedback. Once again. lazy players who do have time but just couldn't be bothered.
If you can't give me time at the right time, then don't expect me to pander to many interest when in BETA.
IUf you can't me the respect of providing maps for you guys to play, then don't expect repsect back from me for poor behavioural patterns also.
I said in previous post that i would "consider those change at later date if there are more changes to the gameplay etc."
I did not say it was not invaulauble.
I did not say I would definitely not do it, but it will be considered, which means that most likely it will happen.
The name Capitania has been recentered on the large version.
This happens time and again, and is an ongoing source of antagonism.

[Armandolas]

played a couple of quads.
Did u ever considered to have each player starting in both bow and stern?i believe it would make a 1st turn kill a bit harder and possible that it would give the possibility of a better fight

[cairnswk]

played a couple of quads.
Did u ever considered to have each player starting in both bow and stern?i believe it would make a 1st turn kill a bit harder and possible that it would give the possibility of a better fight

Yes, but that auto gives a bonus for the Command Flag-ship, so it is unfair if there is nothing to conquer to start with.

[cairnswk]

Alright, cairns...let's go live with this.

That is live now and a game waiting for you to test it

[Gilligan]

I don't see an invite.

[Armandolas]

This change on the winning condition makes the game much more interesting and gave some different strategic possibilities to the fight
Congratz on making it better

[cairnswk]

This change on the winning condition makes the game much more interesting and gave some different strategic possibilities to the fight
Congratz on making it better

Yes, it is a vastly different map now

[EricPhail]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

[cairnswk]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

Eric, thanks for the pick-up...
I've altered it in the attached xml, but will not sent it forward until we see if there are other alterations that have to made.

[FreeFalling123]

Am I the only one who has played a 1v1 and noticed that La Lavia cannot attack San Juan Del Portugals bow? I think I have found a glitch but perhaps its just a picky border my eye is missing, on BOB it shows it connects as well and quite frankly I think it should? I'm just taking shit over in this Game 13586242. Honestly, all my praise goes to this map, awesome job cairns. From my perspective these extra neutral barriers are a little strong to surpass and make it kind of a joke game, but with superior strategy who cares more in the favor of my game play than a noobs!! I'd put this map on a level 8 of 10 for difficulty, maybe more of a 9 !!

[Vid_FISO]

This probably won't go down well but - horrid looking map with far too many words.

[EricPhail]

Freefalling just looked carefully at that border in BOB and by eye, for some reason it appears to have been coded as a one way: San Juan de Portugal assaults La Lavia but the reverse is apparently not true, (I would expect that this is a glitch and will be corrected with the next update).

Furthur observation suggests that there may be a glitch 1 way from Santa Ana S to Urca Donchella also (this one shouldn't be an assault just a mutual bombardment)

[Gilligan]

Freefalling just looked carefully at that border in BOB and by eye, for some reason it appears to have been coded as a one way: San Juan de Portugal assaults La Lavia but the reverse is apparently not true, (I would expect that this is a glitch and will be corrected with the next update).

Furthur observation suggests that there may be a glitch 1 way from Santa Ana S to Urca Donchella also (this one shouldn't be an assault just a mutual bombardment)

Good catch. These are both true.

(for you cairns)
--Urca Doncella needs to be changed from border to bombardment on Santa Ana Stern
--La Lavia needs to border San Juan Bow

[cairnswk]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

Eric, thanks for the pick-up...
I've altered it in the attached xml, but will not sent it forward until we see if there are other alterations that have to made.

^^ further corrections, thank-you guys.
adjustements in the attached xml.

[cairnswk]

This probably won't go down well but - horrid looking map with far too many words.

Everyone has an relevant opinion for themselves. this is fair comment

[cairnswk]

... Honestly, all my praise goes to this map, awesome job cairns. From my perspective these extra neutral barriers are a little strong to surpass and make it kind of a joke game, but with superior strategy who cares more in the favor of my game play than a noobs!! I'd put this map on a level 8 of 10 for difficulty, maybe more of a 9 !!

The extra neutral barriers are strong yes, but it was worthwhile trying to make the map applicable to "most" gameplays.
It's when someone has done the hard work on conquering them, that they come into their own with 1 or 2s.
Yes it is a difficult map.

[cairnswk]

The battle of eddystone bonus appears to be called the battle of barnstable in the xml

Eric, thanks for the pick-up...
I've altered it in the attached xml, but will not sent it forward until we see if there are other alterations that have to made.

^^ further corrections, thank-you guys.
adjustements in the attached xml.

Adjustments have been uploaded
Thanks BigWham

[cairnswk]

Just discovered...Hope and Nonpareil have NIL mutual bombardment....
adjusted in xml below.

[cairnswk]

Just discovered...Hope and Nonpareil have NIL mutual bombardment....
adjusted in xml below.

Changes uploaded, thanks BigWham

[EricPhail]

Few more dodgy borders:
Mutual Bombardment between San Juan de Portugal Bow and San Salvador (shouldn't exist it's out of range)
Santa Anna Stern Bombards San Buena Ventura (again it's out of range and should exist)
PTL(A) bombarding Ark Royal Stern (as above)
TF(A) bombarding Margate (again out of range)

PTL (A) - White Bear Should be Mutual Bombardment
Tiger - GL (A) should be mutual
York - Margate LB should be mutual

Achatae should bombard plymouth

That's all I can see at the moment (could still be others)