Moderator: Cartographers
updated in the first page nowender516 wrote:
XML- http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/11/9/ ... .V1.13.xml
Large map- http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af10 ... age_OF.png
Small map- http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af10 ... all_OF.png
These files are now awaiting uploadKabanellas wrote:Thanks a lot C9![]()
![]()
updated in the first page nowender516 wrote:
XML- http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/11/9/ ... .V1.13.xml
Large map- http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af10 ... age_OF.png
Small map- http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af10 ... all_OF.png![]()
![]()
great job Ender!


ender516 wrote:Okay, here it is: NapoleonicEurope.V1.13.xml
This latest version differs from V1.12 (which never went live) in that V1.13 restores the United Kingdom bonus to 3 and removes the Naples-Bosnia link (which was proposed and accepted in this thread, but never made it onto a graphical version).
So, if this version goes live, it differs from the current live version (V1.11) in that the bonuses for Sweden, Naples, and Denmark have all been reduced from 2 to 1, and the abbreviation used in the XML for Saxony has been corrected from Sw to Sx.
Kabanellas, you will likely want to update the first post with the following:
XML- http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/11/9/ ... .V1.13.xml
Large map- http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af10 ... age_OF.png
Small map- http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af10 ... all_OF.png
I think this is the second time this has been mentioned. The bonus for holding all of Poland overrides the Warsaw w/ Prussia bonus and the Krakow w/ Austrian Empire bonus. In general, the additive bonuses are overridden by holding a primary bonus which includes them: e.g., if you hold the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, you do not get the extra for holding Bessarabia with the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to convey this on the map. During gameplay development discussions, the consensus seemed to be that this sort of thing was not unusual.Patriot1985 wrote:Also, I have noticed that the +1 bonus for Prussia w/Warsaw was down in the last game I played.
I strongly disagree. I've played 200 1v1 games on this map. I probably wouldn't have made it to Brigadier without it. It's a very interesting map to play 1v1. There are very few maps like this that can sustain large attacks and counterattacks with high bonuses and yet stay interesting and not be decided right away.VicFontaine wrote:That map is a POOR one to play 1-on-1. Why would you do that? Changing a game to making it pliable for a 1-on-1 game doesn't make much sense to me.
I'll pipe up to agree it's one of the better 1 v 1 maps that has so many regions (compared to say WW2 Europe or World 2.1 it's much fairer), but I can warn you not to play joriki as he it excellent on it.joriki wrote:I strongly disagree. I've played 200 1v1 games on this map. I probably wouldn't have made it to Brigadier without it. It's a very interesting map to play 1v1. There are very few maps like this that can sustain large attacks and counterattacks with high bonuses and yet stay interesting and not be decided right away.VicFontaine wrote:That map is a POOR one to play 1-on-1. Why would you do that? Changing a game to making it pliable for a 1-on-1 game doesn't make much sense to me.
I'm gonna toss my 80% in.Army of GOD wrote:I cannot disagree with you guys more. Many times in a 1v1 game someone will drop in either Sicily or Rome, take the Italy bonus and it'll be game over. And Sweden and Norway are well protected, so they shouldn't have been +2s to begin with.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
This is definitely not a poor 1v1 map. I've played over 100 1v1s on it (lost 4 to joriki =( ) and love it. This makes 1v1 more fair, and it doesn't change other gametypes really...VicFontaine wrote:That map is a POOR one to play 1-on-1. Why would you do that? Changing a game to making it pliable for a 1-on-1 game doesn't make much sense to me.
Well France shouldn't be easy to hold. The French can't hardly hold it. lolGillipig wrote:I think France is a bit too hard to hold! Maybe you should give it one border and territ less? How about merging Provence with Burgundy and lowering the total bonus to 4?
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:Well France shouldn't be easy to hold. The French can't hardly hold it. lol
I agree wholeheartedly. Especially about UK. UK is the counterbalance to the Portugal/spain > France expansion, the back door if you will. Weakening UK would partially negate it's viability as a "home base" in the build games, but also, put further focus on "spain" as the ideal starting position.Raskholnikov wrote:England is well balanced at 3. First, it does not have easy access to any land battles at all, and breaking through sea battles could easily lead to it being conquered if done too early in the game. So the +3 is vital to ensure its development in the middle game. Second, it reflects the historical reality of a slow English build-up at the stgart of the Napoleonic era, to its achieving a strong position towards its end. Here, too, the +3 is essential. Finally, a +2 would put it on the same level with the Ottoman empire and less than hald of France or Russia, which again makes no sense game play wise or historically. I strongly oppose any change in England's bonus for all these reasons.
France is tough to hold, just as Russia is, because they should be tough to hold given their bonuses and easy access to 5 land battles in and around their territories. So, again, I strongly oppose removing any territory from France or making any new impssable borders.
After the latest changes, I think the game is perfectly balanced and no other changes should be made - save minor ones not pertaining to game play, if necessary.
the thread is already stickyso if the Foundry guys could make this thread sticky
