Peloponnesian War [Done]

[the.killing.44]

Nice job qwert.

.44

[tsioumiou]

HEEEY i definitely want to play this...
When does it go live?

[tsioumiou]

Btw why u named them Lacedaemonians and not Spartans.
This was a war between Sparta and Athens.
Lacedaemonia is just the area there but the people are mostly called Spartans.
Also Sparta is more commonly known
Of course you can call them Lacedaemonians if you want

P.S. Great job. Players might get a history lesson from this map

[tsioumiou]

Also i just saw the sign on the top left :" ΠΕΛΟΠΟΝΝΕΣΙΑΝ ΩΑΡ" thats not correct . If u want to say Peloponnesian war in Greek is "ΠΕΛΟΠΟΝΝΗΣΙΑΚΟΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΣ" or you can just put it in english. Unless you wanted to write Peloponnesian war with greek letters. Although "Ω" its an "O" in greek so its a bit strange as u wrote it.

[neanderpaul14]

Definitely a word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
I guess "Peloponnese" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnese) would be the name of the peninsula.

Well, then fault on me. My Firefox spell checker says 'Peloponnesian' isn't a word.

Firefox is messed up it keeps telling me that LOL isn't a word either


Seriously though really looking forward to this one. Thanks for another great looking map qwert

[Qwert]

well today map is released,and i start checking games.
So far comment of people is very possitive,and people like map concept.
I must say that im supprised that many games start with fog of war?

[GrimReaper.]

well at least his map is historically accurate

[Qwert]

by GrimReaper. » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:14 am

well at least his map is historically accurate

[saaimen]

Hi qwert!

Here I am checking in late as usual
A few comments on this VERY nice map:
- for the objectives, I'd turn "Capture" into "Hold". Just to make sure nobody thinks they'll win when conquering the last one. As you know, some people had troubles with that on Europe 1913. And it doesn't sound any worse
- I can read a tiny bit of Greek, otherwise I wouldn't be able to read the seas' names. I suppose this is to avoid cluttering the map when the names aren't really necessary for gameplay? I'd like to see them in English aswell, but I guess that'd be ugly
- Maybe do to "Map inset" what you did for the title: simply use western alphabet. Once more, just to avoid issues.
- I'm not crazy about the framing of the inset region (I mean on the map, not the inset itself). Its color and shape seem to modern for this nice 'ancient' map. And also, it doesn't really cover the same land as the actual inset. I AM a big fan about your wonderful army circles though :d:

And that's all I can come up with!
Sorry if these things have been discussed before. I hope you consider them, but I wouldn't mind if you changed nothing at all, cause it really is a beautiful map once again! Congratulations

[Qwert]

by saaimen » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:48 am

Hi qwert!

Here I am checking in late as usual
A few comments on this VERY nice map:
- for the objectives, I'd turn "Capture" into "Hold". Just to make sure nobody thinks they'll win when conquering the last one. As you know, some people had troubles with that on Europe 1913. And it doesn't sound any worse
- I can read a tiny bit of Greek, otherwise I wouldn't be able to read the seas' names. I suppose this is to avoid cluttering the map when the names aren't really necessary for gameplay? I'd like to see them in English aswell, but I guess that'd be ugly
- Maybe do to "Map inset" what you did for the title: simply use western alphabet. Once more, just to avoid issues.
- I'm not crazy about the framing of the inset region (I mean on the map, not the inset itself). Its color and shape seem to modern for this nice 'ancient' map. And also, it doesn't really cover the same land as the actual inset. I AM a big fan about your wonderful army circles though :d:

And that's all I can come up with!
Sorry if these things have been discussed before. I hope you consider them, but I wouldn't mind if you changed nothing at all, cause it really is a beautiful map once again! Congratulations

Well Saaimen, i belive that all graphical,and text things is decided in proces,and only its left to check how gameplay works,but i will try to reply on your impresion(i must say that you dont post here when map its been in proces-5 month).
1.First map is call EUROPE 1914-i must say that i get very few complaining abouth that,because people learn that map who have objectives need to waith one turn,to achive these objective,and i belive that they all ready know that. I use war terminology,because sound much better then-"HOld 8 shield for one turn to win a game" i hope that you understand that.
2.I dont read Greek. We need to have some feel that these map present Ancient Greece,so adding names in greek letters,give you that feel right?
3. I realy must to say that not get to many complaining about Map inset in greek,because the diferences is very small, and almost its similar to english.Ofcourse if i get many complaining abouth that,then i will change that.
4.Well saamien these is very long storry,i lost so long time to explane CA that these blue box in map its not nessesary, but now its implement,and i will left. Modern or not modern,these is hard to create,because you need to have some sources,to see how these look on ancient maps, but i dont find any ancient map,and then you need to create something from your head,and to belive that these will be in some old ancient map,if you understand what im meant to say.

[danfrank]

another awesome map by qwert.. Thanks for the hardwork and dedication.. Ok now the question.. I see the map has an objective to hold 8 flags.. In a team game is this objective configured to allow the team to hold the 8 flags or just one player of the team.. i have noticed that on all maps the bonuses can only be held by one player. to rec. bonus..

[saaimen]

if you understand what im meant to say.

I understand

i must say that you dont post here when map its been in proces-5 month

I warned you and apologized for that in advance I wrote this

Here I am checking in late as usual

and this

Sorry if these things have been discussed before. I hope you consider them, but I wouldn't mind if you changed nothing at all, cause it really is a beautiful map once again! Congratulations

I know it's a bad habit... I just don't have time to keep up with all the maps. And when they go live, I can't resist posting my feelings about it.
But once again, well done!

[Qwert]

by danfrank » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:13 am

another awesome map by qwert.. Thanks for the hardwork and dedication.. Ok now the question.. I see the map has an objective to hold 8 flags.. In a team game is this objective configured to allow the team to hold the 8 flags or just one player of the team.. i have noticed that on all maps the bonuses can only be held by one player. to rec. bonus

Hmm,i belive that only one player need to hold,not team. If you play other maps who have objectives,then you realised that. I belive that these XML features not exist here.

[thenobodies80]

by danfrank » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:13 am

another awesome map by qwert.. Thanks for the hardwork and dedication.. Ok now the question.. I see the map has an objective to hold 8 flags.. In a team game is this objective configured to allow the team to hold the 8 flags or just one player of the team.. i have noticed that on all maps the bonuses can only be held by one player. to rec. bonus

Hmm,i belive that only one player need to hold,not team. If you play other maps who have objectives,then you realised that. I belive that these XML features not exist here.

Yes the objectives would be captured by the same player, team doesn't count, similar than bonuses. Xml doesn't support this feature.
And I think there was a discussion about that in Suggestions forum.

I played (and won ) a game...i like this map!
For me it's ok.
Probably try to capture all shields is a bit difficult.
Nothing else for me now but i need to play other games to be sure at 100%
Good work

TNBDS

[Qwert]

Well when you play 1vs1 games,then like in other objective maps,you have more chance to kill opponent instead to achive objectives,these is how things work in 1vs1.
Its to many game options here,and probably objectives is hard to achive, but these is supose to be much harder,then all other.

[oaktown]

I use war terminology,because sound much better then-"HOld 8 shield for one turn to win a game" i hope that you understand that.

How about "Control" instead of hold? It'd a military term, and is more accurate than "Capture." Many users still don't understand how Objectives work - and others will be new to the concept - so it doesn't hurt to get the description right.

[Qwert]

How about "Control" instead of hold? It'd a military term, and is more accurate than "Capture." Many users still don't understand how Objectives work - and others will be new to the concept - so it doesn't hurt to get the description right.

Well i think that "Control"its more modern word for these map. For now terminology,when you control something,these not need to capture that.

[saaimen]

I think "Capture" should be replaced anyhow.
As I brought up, to capture something is to take it. Taking the objective territories is not enough, you should hold them for one turn.
I agree that my suggestion "Hold ..." is not very catchy. But "Control ..." is quite fine I think. In fact, in ancient times, you DID have to capture or conquer a region to control it. Eg. The Romans controlled all of the Mediterranean area. They did capture it first, right ?
Unless you have another option, qwert?

[Qwert]

by saaimen » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:17 pm

I think "Capture" should be replaced anyhow.
As I brought up, to capture something is to take it. Taking the objective territories is not enough, you should hold them for one turn.
I agree that my suggestion "Hold ..." is not very catchy. But "Control ..." is quite fine I think. In fact, in ancient times, you DID have to capture or conquer a region to control it. Eg. The Romans controlled all of the Mediterranean area. They did capture it first, right ?
Unless you have another option, qwert

Well i have some logic,and i try to understand your logic. Now if i understand what you say,when i change >Capture< to >Control< then people will realised that need to hold these territory for one round and then will win a game? When i say that Control is much modern word,these i meant because today,you dont have to capture some area to have control over these area,because in mine country NATO have control over Administratory border(5 KM)but they dont have any army there,if you understand what im say. Sorry but for me word control realy dont make sence in these map. Ofcourse maybe i dont quit understand military terminology.

[The Neon Peon]

Elimiotes coordinate needs to be moved 1 pixel to the left.

[saaimen]

Well i have some logic,and i try to understand your logic. Now if i understand what you say,when i change >Capture< to >Control< then people will realised that need to hold these territory for one round and then will win a game? When i say that Control is much modern word,these i meant because today,you dont have to capture some area to have control over these area,because in mine country NATO have control over Administratory border(5 KM)but they dont have any army there,if you understand what im say. Sorry but for me word control realy dont make sence in these map. Ofcourse maybe i dont quit understand military terminology.

That was a clarifying answer, thank you. Yet I think I've answered it before. Not that I want to be a know-it-all, I'll try to explain again
You could have two visions on why 'control' is a good choice. First of all, NATO didn't exist in Ancient Greece Areas were controlled by capturing and holding them by armed force. Indeed nowadays, 'control' could mean something else. Then again, it's actually whole states we're talking about. NATO might control your border, but they don't have a lot of power inside your capital, do they ? On the map, when taking a territory, there's no grey zones. It's either yours to control (/hold/...) or not.
The most important part is this. NOT using the word 'capture' will help people understand that they don't win the whole game when they win the battle for the last shield. They should hold them all, or control them, or whatever word you choose that indicates a stretch of time (in this case, 1 turn) instead of a moment (the actual conquering).
Personally, I like 'control'. But maybe there are other options. Do you have any ideas?

[farinelli]

I agree with using the word "control". I am in the midst of my first game with this map. I like it a lot! But until I came to this discussion, I didn't realize I was going to have to hold the shields for a full turn. I screwed up anyway. Bypassed the Boetians. "Control" would more likely have led me to understand that capturing was not sufficient. Had I not screwed up, I'd have been wondering why the game was not yet over.

[Qwert]

hmm, im thinking to change objectives,because now its very imposibile to achive these objectives, but these need good decision,

>Capture Troadians and 4 any other shields and hold for one turn to win a war<

saaimen what you think of these,its these clear enough?

[saaimen]

It is very clear. But I'd slightly change it:

>Control Troadians and any 4 other shields to win the war<

That way it's short enough to fit into the text box you have now (at least, I hope so).
Also the "any 4 other" sounds better to me than "4 any other". But maybe it should be "any other 4"
Any native English speakers here?

[Qwert]

waith,i have 8 shields,so probably need to be any 3 shields.

saamien
>Control Troadians and any 4 other shields to win the war<

i dont get that,i want to implement hold for one turn,and you now show me that no need for that?Any way >Control< and >Capture< have same number of letters and i dont see how these is short.
So mine propose is to change in these.
>Capture Troadians and any 3 other shield and hold for one turn to win a war<
Its these much clear and everybody will know what to do.
these will be put objectives to have some real purpose,i did know that before beta stage,and its good to have beta ,when can be fix some things.