Moderator: Cartographers
t-o-m wrote:dakky21 wrote:I wouldn't mind at all if it was east-west rotated. But north-south can't work, or it can, but then write all the territory names upwards down as well, so we all know we're looking at a map from an opposite side.
Why? It's unrelated to gameplay.dakky21 wrote:But, you notice the map in the background of this image which you posted? Do you see Britain on the upper part or on the lower part of the map?
This map isn't about Britain. It is focused in all the way to the English Channel.
GoranZ wrote:Get it?
t-o-m wrote:Your logic assumes that somebody always stands at the south end of the table.
GoranZ wrote:Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world.
t-o-m wrote:GoranZ wrote:Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world.
You have misunderstood what I wrote. All in all, what we are discussing does not affect gameplay. If you need to describe it, it's a creative concept and one that I know that you disagree with. There has been input from many people, in this thread and outside of this thread, and with their support I would like the map's orientation will remain as is. Thanks for your input and I hope you can appreciate the map even though you would like it to be different.
hotfire wrote:cartographers really do put south on the bottom though with the north arrow pointing up
t-o-m wrote:GoranZ wrote:Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world.
You have misunderstood what I wrote. All in all, what we are discussing does not affect gameplay. If you need to describe it, it's a creative concept and one that I know that you disagree with. There has been input from many people, in this thread and outside of this thread, and with their support I would like the map's orientation will remain as is. Thanks for your input and I hope you can appreciate the map even though you would like it to be different.
GoranZ wrote:t-o-m wrote:You know when will your "creative" concept see the light of the day? At best in 3337.
Enjoy wasting your time.
t-o-m wrote:GoranZ wrote:t-o-m wrote:You know when will your "creative" concept see the light of the day? At best in 3337.
Enjoy wasting your time.
I'll achieve more than you ever will with that attitude. Have a nice day.
ManBungalow wrote:I don't agree at all with all the people saying South should be North, it really doesn't bother me. Maybe it's true that you could flip it upside down (to the "correct" orientation) and the gameplay would remain unchanged...but surely the same argument applies to then flipping it back upside down (to how it is now) and really there's no difference either way?
GoranZ wrote:A teammate of your writes this on game chat: "Lets buildup North-East of London"
Million dollar question: For which territory he is referring to?
ManBungalow wrote:I might suggest renaming the map....perhaps Operation Overlord? Opening this thread I was expecting something more like the existing WWII maps of Europe (eg. WWII Eastern Front).
ManBungalow wrote:Graphically I really like it. There are a few things I'll pick out in the main foundry, but looks good to me here, and there's a distinct theme. One thing which I think will make a difference is putting a shadow of sorts behind the impassables...make them look less floaty. Also, the airfield regions were a little harder to spot in contrast to the other nice bright icons for everything else, especially given the importance of those regions.
ManBungalow wrote:Which leads me to my last point for today...I'm either misunderstanding or not quite sold on some of the bonuses...
Bonus conditions:
(1) Paratrooper: +3 deploy with airfield on opposite side
(2) Airfield + (paratrooper + reinforcement pair): +3 deploy
(3) Reinforcement: +2 autodeploy with paired paratrooper
Say that I hold an English airfield, and a French paratrooper-reinforcement pair....I get +3 deploy from condition (1)...and another +3 on top of that from condition (2) ?? And if that's not already enough, I get +2 autodeploy from condition (3).
This feels way overpowered as a bonus. Especially when we consider that the airfields attack paratroopers on the opposite side. Conditions (1) and (2) aren't exactly contradictory, but they serve a similar purpose and we could maybe do without one of them?
There's an added twist by the way....
Say that I hold two English airfields, and a French paratrooper-reinforcement pair. Is the bonus going to double up, so that condition (2) gives me +6 troops and then a further +3 from condition (1) ??
Hope that all makes sense. Really looking forward to seeing this map progress!
MB
t-o-m wrote:GoranZ wrote:A teammate of your writes this on game chat: "Lets buildup North-East of London"
Million dollar question: For which territory he is referring to?
I'm glad that you have such a keen interest in the map, and I'm glad you're now talking about the actual gameplay of the map.
However, you already asked this question on November 13th. The answer is still the same: viewtopic.php?f=583&t=215492#p4749007
GoranZ wrote:I asked him, not you... It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue about map making. You propose to change my teammates so I can play your perspective map. What an idiot you are
t-o-m wrote:The poll has now ended with 4 votes to 2 in favour of keeping the map's orientation the way is currently is
GoranZ wrote:Your opinion is as part of Cartographers group or as regular CC user?
iancanton wrote:...
GoranZ wrote:...
GoranZ wrote:What you have is not Operation Overlord.
iancanton wrote:despite a few days passing by, i still cannot see the v5 version. this will presumably correct itself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users