Conquer Club

the.killing.44 wrote:How about aligning S. Francisco de Asis left, Royal Sovereign right, moving San Justo up, and moving the LoS symbol _._._ to the center of the text line? I know it's nitpicky, but if you turned down the outline thing I don't really know what else to say

.44

can do all these things, thanks for the suggestions.

cairnswk wrote:2. identify another sub-commander ship (easy to do), for instance: i am thinking
english -> royal sovereign
french -> not sure. more research needed for this one
spanish -> santissima trinidad

I was also thinking royal sovereign and santissima... maybe Algésiras for the French? T'was the only other french ship with an admiral aboard...

Incandenza wrote:

cairnswk wrote:2. identify another sub-commander ship (easy to do), for instance: i am thinking
english -> royal sovereign
french -> not sure. more research needed for this one
spanish -> santissima trinidad

I was also thinking royal sovereign and santissima... maybe Algésiras for the French? T'was the only other french ship with an admiral aboard...

Formidable was the flagship of vice-admiral Pierre Dumanoir le Pelley, who commanded the six-ship vanguard of the French fleet. Could be a candidate.

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

cairnswk wrote:2. identify another sub-commander ship (easy to do), for instance: i am thinking
english -> royal sovereign
french -> not sure. more research needed for this one
spanish -> santissima trinidad

I was also thinking royal sovereign and santissima... maybe Algésiras for the French? T'was the only other french ship with an admiral aboard...

Formidable was the flagship of vice-admiral Pierre Dumanoir le Pelley, who commanded the six-ship vanguard of the French fleet. Could be a candidate.

Would be better for it to be below the weather line.

C.

If thats the case, the only real choice is Algésiras.

I suppose it's worth pointing out that there will still only be six bonuses up for grabs, which is the precise situation cairns was trying to avoid in the first place... but this will make the flagships that much more enticing and will encourage battle in the center of the map. Plusses and minuses.

Incandenza wrote:I suppose it's worth pointing out that there will still only be six bonuses up for grabs, which is the precise situation cairns was trying to avoid in the first place... but this will make the flagships that much more enticing and will encourage battle in the center of the map. Plusses and minuses.

So you want to go with extra sub-commander bonuses and make Algesiras as the below W line french vessel.

cairnswk wrote:

Incandenza wrote:I suppose it's worth pointing out that there will still only be six bonuses up for grabs, which is the precise situation cairns was trying to avoid in the first place... but this will make the flagships that much more enticing and will encourage battle in the center of the map. Plusses and minuses.

So you want to go with extra sub-commander bonuses and make Algesiras as the below W line french vessel.

That's one potential fix...

Lemme toss another one out there: make the ships work more like the prison gangs in supermax. Each nation has 2 flagships. you have to hold one of the 2 plus x terits to receive +y bonus.

i.e. +1 for 3 ships (plus a flagship), +2 for 5, +4 for 7, etc.

It could work with the weather line (in which case which flagship you held would determine the ships you'd want to take, since you'd figure that bonuses should stay on one side of the line) or you could get rid of the weather line, and just have the battle, with the proviso that you couldn't double up on bonuses if you took both flagships of a given nation.

I'm not even convinced this is a good idea, seems like it could render those pesky british trailing ships more important, but figured it was worthwhile enough to run up the flagpole for comment.

The Neon Peon wrote:

I do like what you have done with the outlines, and how about a simpler fix... only ropes are outlined, not any part of the ship. That means getting rid of one outlined segment (the one sticking out of the ship) and leaving the rest so that only ropes are outlined. It is a small change, but I think it would look much better.

Having now had the time to examine all this...i feel i can't get rid of these sticking-out things....these are all essential parts of the rear of the vessel, and it would look stupid without them. Sorry guys

Version 30....with all those issues raised since last version.

Question? Are you wanting the new commanders to start as neutrals also, and if so, how many?

Santissama Trinidad seems not to be as bold as the other commanders?!

C.

yeti_c wrote:Santissama Trinidad seems not to be as bold as the other commanders?!

C.

That's cause it isn't a commander … the Spanish one isat the bottomm, Principe de Asturias.

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Santissama Trinidad seems not to be as bold as the other commanders?!

C.

That's cause it isn't a commander … the Spanish one isat the bottomm, Principe de Asturias.

.44

In that case, cairns forgot to remove the rutter.

The Neon Peon wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Santissama Trinidad seems not to be as bold as the other commanders?!

C.

That's cause it isn't a commander … the Spanish one isat the bottomm, Principe de Asturias.

.44

In that case, cairns forgot to remove the rutter.

a) rudder
b) it's a sail
c) you're right

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Santissama Trinidad seems not to be as bold as the other commanders?!

C.

That's cause it isn't a commander … the Spanish one isat the bottomm, Principe de Asturias.

.44

In that case, cairns forgot to remove the rutter.

a) rudder
b) it's a sail
c) you're right

.44

You guys haven't read the previous pages have you?
There are now commander vessels on both sides of the weather/lee line, making 6 in total.
i didn't forget to remove the sail - yes it is isn't a rudder

What C was talking about is the I beleive is the bolding of the text name for the new commander vessels.

Please refresh your browsers to see these changes....

Version 30....with all those issues raised since last version.

Question? Are you wanting the new commanders to start as neutrals also, and if so, how many?"

cairnswk wrote:What C was talking about is the I beleive is the bolding of the text name for the new commander vessels.

Correct - and it's still not as bold as the other spanish commander?!

C>

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:What C was talking about is the I beleive is the bolding of the text name for the new commander vessels.

Correct - and it's still not as bold as the other spanish commander?!

C>

Same goes for Royal Sovereign and Bucentaure, and Algesiras looks over done

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:What C was talking about is the I beleive is the bolding of the text name for the new commander vessels.

Correct - and it's still not as bold as the other spanish commander?!

C>

Same goes for Royal Sovereign and Bucentaure, and Algesiras looks over done

Yes people, this all has to do with the play on the colour combinations, everything sitting over a blue background with transparency, and some blacks show differently.
so i have placed a same layer under each word and made the glow underneath 100% white and given them different transparencies for each colour glow. Now they should look relatively all the sale...
Please refresh to see the change.

cairnswk wrote:Yes people, this all has to do with the play on the colour combinations, everything sitting over a blue background with transparency, and some blacks show differently.
so i have placed a same layer under each word and made the glow underneath 100% white and given them different transparencies for each colour glow. Now they should look relatively all the sale...
Please refresh to see the change.

Hmmm - they all look a little bit different from each other - I think actually the problem is the different font sizing for the different length/height of the words?!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Yes people, this all has to do with the play on the colour combinations, everything sitting over a blue background with transparency, and some blacks show differently.
so i have placed a same layer under each word and made the glow underneath 100% white and given them different transparencies for each colour glow. Now they should look relatively all the sale...
Please refresh to see the change.

Hmmm - they all look a little bit different from each other - I think actually the problem is the different font sizing for the different length/height of the words?!

C.

They're all the same font size Monitiva Corsiva 15 pt. I've checked.

Unfortunately adding commanders doesn't solve the 1v1 drop issue. Even accounting for those 3 more ships starting neutral, you've still got 4 bonuses with a greater than 15% chance of being taken on the drop:

Continent/ Provinces/ Held/ Chance of Dropping
Br Windward 12 8 0.70%
Fr Windward 8 4 16.63%
Sp Windward 5 3 15.67%
Br Leeward 14 7 7.64%
Fr Leeward 8 4 16.63%
Sp Leeward 8 4 16.63%

Incandenza wrote:Unfortunately adding commanders doesn't solve the 1v1 drop issue. Even accounting for those 3 more ships starting neutral, you've still got 4 bonuses with a greater than 15% chance of being taken on the drop:

Continent/ Provinces/ Held/ Chance of Dropping
Br Windward 12 8 0.70%
Fr Windward 8 4 16.63%
Sp Windward 5 3 15.67%
Br Leeward 14 7 7.64%
Fr Leeward 8 4 16.63%
Sp Leeward 8 4 16.63%

Why is 15% so significant?
And what do you want to do about it?
We can't make anymore ships neutral for sakes of being reasonable.
I doubt if the history-weenie in you would allow dropping 4 ships out and i wouldn't be happy with that either.
If there are 55 terts in total, 6 neutral starts, that leaves 49 starting; and in a 1 vs 1 game that's 16 a piece.
Is it feasible to be able to take two terts after the drop to reduce the opponents bonus? And i know i am getting off track here for what you're talking about.
So fill me in more please, i've got to do stats next semester at Uni, and i've never been any good at them.

cairnswk wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Unfortunately adding commanders doesn't solve the 1v1 drop issue. Even accounting for those 3 more ships starting neutral, you've still got 4 bonuses with a greater than 15% chance of being taken on the drop:

Continent/ Provinces/ Held/ Chance of Dropping
Br Windward 12 8 0.70%
Fr Windward 8 4 16.63%
Sp Windward 5 3 15.67%
Br Leeward 14 7 7.64%
Fr Leeward 8 4 16.63%
Sp Leeward 8 4 16.63%

Why is 15% so significant?
And what do you want to do about it?
We can't make anymore ships neutral for sakes of being reasonable.
I doubt if the history-weenie in you would allow dropping 4 ships out and i wouldn't be happy with that either.
If there are 55 terts in total, 6 neutral starts, that leaves 49 starting; and in a 1 vs 1 game that's 16 a piece.
Is it feasible to be able to take two terts after the drop to reduce the opponents bonus? And i know i am getting off track here for what you're talking about.
So fill me in more please, i've got to do stats next semester at Uni, and i've never been any good at them.

Do you know what the chances are of both combatants dropping a bonus?

Gypsys Kiss wrote:Do you know what the chances are of both combatants dropping a bonus?

Dropping 2 different bonuses (in this case) is a mutually exclusive event (of course you have less chance though because you have used up some of your territories)

C.