Trench warfare 1917 [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

Flapcake...just a little couple of English/Grammar things i'd prefer to see...

1. THE ALLIED should be THE ALLIES

2. Same applies in lines 4 and 5 under that heading.

3. No man's land etc. etc should probably read...
"No man's land: all troops (N1 to N18) reset to 1 neutral at start of next turn." - no need to capitalise "All" or pluralise "starts"

4. Shell Holes (S1, S3, S4, S6) Can Bombard Nearest Fox Hole -> = One way bombard...
You got capitals for everything in that and as such it is inconsistent with the line above...the only capital needed is for "Shell" as in
"Shell holes (S1, S3, S4, S6) can bombard nearest fox hole (no punkt required) -> = one-way bombard"
...one-way is hyphenated according to the Oxford Dictionary.

5. From Dictionary.com
fox·hole
noun
a small pit, usually for one or two soldiers, dug as a shelter in a battle area.

...although the Oxford Dictionary shows it as being one word...all i am saying is that you need to have consistency in how it is shown, and at present you have two versions ->Fox Hole. and Foxhole

6. There appears to be some inconsistency in the arrows used for indicators under the Bombardments sections...some are short and some are long

7. you could probably change the BY in the map and xml references to small "by"

Just some suggestions, sorry so picky...but you are looking for stamp?

I see there is a 888s map on page 6, but has anyone done anything towards the Colour Blind test.

Apart from that, great map and great artwork.

[natty dread]

1. THE ALLIED should be THE ALLIES

Or maybe you could just call them Entente & Central.

[Flapcake]

Flapcake...just a little couple of English/Grammar things i'd prefer to see...

1. THE ALLIED should be THE ALLIES

2. Same applies in lines 4 and 5 under that heading.

3. No man's land etc. etc should probably read...
"No man's land: all troops (N1 to N18) reset to 1 neutral at start of next turn." - no need to capitalise "All" or pluralise "starts"

4. Shell Holes (S1, S3, S4, S6) Can Bombard Nearest Fox Hole -> = One way bombard...
You got capitals for everything in that and as such it is inconsistent with the line above...the only capital needed is for "Shell" as in
"Shell holes (S1, S3, S4, S6) can bombard nearest fox hole (no punkt required) -> = one-way bombard"
...one-way is hyphenated according to the Oxford Dictionary.

5. From Dictionary.com
fox·hole
noun
a small pit, usually for one or two soldiers, dug as a shelter in a battle area.

...although the Oxford Dictionary shows it as being one word...all i am saying is that you need to have consistency in how it is shown, and at present you have two versions ->Fox Hole. and Foxhole

6. There appears to be some inconsistency in the arrows used for indicators under the Bombardments sections...some are short and some are long

7. you could probably change the BY in the map and xml references to small "by"

Just some suggestions, sorry so picky...but you are looking for stamp?

I see there is a 888s map on page 6, but has anyone done anything towards the Colour Blind test.

Apart from that, great map and great artwork.

1. THE ALLIED should be THE ALLIES

Or maybe you could just call them Entente & Central.

Il look at it.


Il get those issues sorted out by sunday.

[RedBaron0]

1. THE ALLIED should be THE ALLIES

Or maybe you could just call them Entente & Central.

You could... but since it's just Germany saying "Central Powers" doesn't make sense. Entente or Allies is fine either way.

Color blindness filter isn't as necessary here, since there isn't colored bonuses, but I didn't see any issues when I ran it through my filters.

[cairnswk]

...
Color blindness filter isn't as necessary here, since there isn't colored bonuses, but I didn't see any issues when I ran it through my filters.

ok, just going through the processes that should be required for stamping.

[RedBaron0]

I know, and you're right, I just forgot, and since I forgot I checked myself. Thanks for reminding me cairns!

[Flapcake]

Color blind test:

I think it turned out fine.
http://vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckImage.php?&img1=uploads%2Fvc_oAYHgD_orig.jpg&img2=uploads%2Fvc_oAYHgD_sim.jpg&simType=protanope&imageCached=vc_oAYHgD_orig.jpg&imEngIP=vischeck.homeip.net

[Flapcake]

Changes: text in legend to correct (oxford) english

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

I think you should denote bombardments with some kind of icons. It's very tedious to always check the legend for what you can bombard.

You have plenty of room to do this, so I see no reason why not make the interface of the map a bit more intuitive.

Create some kind of unique symbol for each artillery and aircraft, and match the regions they bombard with the same symbol. Then you can just write in the legend "artilleries & aircrafts bombard regions with matching icons".

[Flapcake]

I think you should denote bombardments with some kind of icons. It's very tedious to always check the legend for what you can bombard.

You have plenty of room to do this, so I see no reason why not make the interface of the map a bit more intuitive.

Create some kind of unique symbol for each artillery and aircraft, and match the regions they bombard with the same symbol. Then you can just write in the legend "artilleries & aircrafts bombard regions with matching icons".

I respect your opinion, but I like it the way it is with text. I dont find it that hard to see what the plains and guns can hit.

I guess what you suggets is to make a tiny icon and insert at end of the text like: FOX 8 @

It could be done easy but im not a fan of that idea.

[natty dread]

I respect your opinion, but I like it the way it is with text. I dont find it that hard to see what the plains and guns can hit.

I guess what you suggets is to make a tiny icon and insert at end of the text like: FOX 8 @

It could be done easy but im not a fan of that idea.

From Gameplay guidelines:

Player-friendliness - Any information you need to know to play a map should be easy to gather by looking at the map itself. The legend should be clear, concise and consistent; the map itself should be free of unnecessary or cumbersome rules that push it over the line separating complex from confusing.

Incidentally, the same thing is also repeated in the graphics guidelines.

Generally, it's always better to represent things visually rather than in text. It makes the map more intuitive and easy to understand. When you're playing a speed game you don't want to start deciphering the legend to figure out what bombards where. On this map, there's no reason (eg. space constraints, complexity) that would require you to explain the bombardments in text, so there's no reason for you to not make the map easier to play. The challenge in a map should come from developing a good strategy and figuring out the dynamics of it, not from connections or rules being unclear or difficultly explained.

For the same reason, I think you should have some kind of colour-coding for the bonus areas, or some other way besides the names of the regions to distinguish them. Maybe a coloured background for the region names?

[cairnswk]

Changes: text in legend to correct (oxford) english

Thank-you

Flapcake, i am inclined to agree with natty on the bombardment colour issue, although i don't think it needs to be done with icons e.g. @
You could simply colour code (in suitable colour appropriate to keep the style you have) the text of the attacking aircraft or whatever with a single line square inside the fox-hole or similar. and have the reference in the legend the same colour code.
This would solve two issues:
1. it would make it easier for quick idenitification for those who have normal colour vision
2. it would still be in text to get around any issue for the CB
you'd have the best of both worlds.
Up to you.

[RedBaron0]

I'd agree with cairns on this, color coding is easier and just as informative as icons. Individual icons will unnecessarily clutter the map. If you denoted it the same way with the same singular icon, say an open site cross-hair, (Much like D-Day) and allowed the player to then read which goes where, that may work too

[Flapcake]

Il look in to it soon

[Gillipig]

I haven't posted in this map thread until now but I've kept an eye on it . Let me first say that it looks like I would expect a trench map would look like. Apart from the trench floor which looks way too clean and unrealistic. The real trenches were muddy partly covered in water and in pretty bad shape. Make it a bit more realistic would ya !

[AndyDufresne]

I haven't posted in this map thread until now but I've kept an eye on it . Let me first say that it looks like I would expect a trench map would look like. Apart from the trench floor which looks way too clean and unrealistic. The real trenches were muddy partly covered in water and in pretty bad shape. Make it a bit more realistic would ya !

Some grime could add to the aesthetics of it, if it easy enough to do.


--Andy

[Flapcake]

I haven't posted in this map thread until now but I've kept an eye on it . Let me first say that it looks like I would expect a trench map would look like. Apart from the trench floor which looks way too clean and unrealistic. The real trenches were muddy partly covered in water and in pretty bad shape. Make it a bit more realistic would ya !

Some grime could add to the aesthetics of it, if it easy enough to do.


--Andy

Thx for your comments,
I already tryed many versions ago, with some blasted and dirty pathways, but as (who was it ) sayd, the pathways shows wich trench that can atack wich trench, and its must stay clear that way, to not confuse people to think the way is blocked, so no waterpools, no shell blasted walls, no dead bodys will float in the pathways, sorry for taking the drama out there. I could maby somehow throw some dirt in, il look at it

[Gillipig]

Thx for your comments,
I already tryed many versions ago, with some blasted and dirty pathways, but as (who was it ) sayd, the pathways shows wich trench that can atack wich trench, and its must stay clear that way, to not confuse people to think the way is blocked, so no waterpools, no shell blasted walls, no dead bodys will float in the pathways, sorry for taking the drama out there. I could maby somehow throw some dirt in, il look at it

Blasted walls makes for perfect impassables, but with the way you've gone on this map, there's no place for them. Don't be afraid to go creative on this map. Sometimes there's a fine balance between clarity and dullness. If I would suggest anything it would be to make this map more chaotic. This type of warfare (trench) was particularly known for human misery and it's pointlessness. I think you should try to capture more of that in the map!

[Flapcake]

Thx for your comments,
I already tryed many versions ago, with some blasted and dirty pathways, but as (who was it ) sayd, the pathways shows wich trench that can atack wich trench, and its must stay clear that way, to not confuse people to think the way is blocked, so no waterpools, no shell blasted walls, no dead bodys will float in the pathways, sorry for taking the drama out there. I could maby somehow throw some dirt in, il look at it

If I would suggest anything it would be to make this map more chaotic. This type of warfare (trench) was particularly known for human misery and it's pointlessness. I think you should try to capture more of that in the map!

he he ok, thats why dead bodys and stuff lies around, lets not make this so caotic that people get thet eys burn just watching the map, im goin to keep this clear and easy, its the gameplay and not caos thats importend here

[Gillipig]

Thx for your comments,
I already tryed many versions ago, with some blasted and dirty pathways, but as (who was it ) sayd, the pathways shows wich trench that can atack wich trench, and its must stay clear that way, to not confuse people to think the way is blocked, so no waterpools, no shell blasted walls, no dead bodys will float in the pathways, sorry for taking the drama out there. I could maby somehow throw some dirt in, il look at it

If I would suggest anything it would be to make this map more chaotic. This type of warfare (trench) was particularly known for human misery and it's pointlessness. I think you should try to capture more of that in the map!

he he ok, thats why dead bodys and stuff lies around, lets not make this so caotic that people get thet eys burn just watching the map, im goin to keep this clear and easy, its the gameplay and not caos thats importend here

Just don't make it dull please.

[natty dread]

Gameplay clarity is the highest priority here.

More from gameplay guidelines:

Function trumps form - The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc...

Form must follow function - So important it's on the list twice! Expect to show some flexibility and be prepared to move away from complete geographical accuracy or historical authenticity: the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.

[Gillipig]

Gameplay clarity is the highest priority here.

More from gameplay guidelines:

Function trumps form - The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc...

Form must follow function - So important it's on the list twice! Expect to show some flexibility and be prepared to move away from complete geographical accuracy or historical authenticity: the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.

Don't come here with the rulebook, I know where to find it if I need it and I'm sure flapcake does too!
I'm trying to be creative and throw some ideas around with him. And the rulebook is the ultimate creativity killer!
Obviously the map would still have to be clear enough to be playable but there's no extra points for making a map ridiculously clear and sterile.
This map is not even close to being unclear at the moment so it's not something he needs to worry about.

[natty dread]

Don't come here with the rulebook, I know where to find it if I need it and I'm sure flapcake does too!
I'm trying to be creative and throw some ideas around with him. And the rulebook is the ultimate creativity killer!

Sorry but that's not how it works. The rules are not optional. You can't choose to ignore them no matter how much of a buzzkill you think they are. The rules are in place for a reason, and any mapmaker who wants to make maps in the foundry needs to follow them.

[Flapcake]

Don't come here with the rulebook, I know where to find it if I need it and I'm sure flapcake does too!
I'm trying to be creative and throw some ideas around with him. And the rulebook is the ultimate creativity killer!

Sorry but that's not how it works. The rules are not optional. You can't choose to ignore them no matter how much of a buzzkill you think they are. The rules are in place for a reason, and any mapmaker who wants to make maps in the foundry needs to follow them.

Lets end this dogfigth here,

Dont get me wrong, as much I want to follow the rules (its there for a reason) as much I want to be creativ and do a fun, both looking and playable map, so where does that bring me ? well for thematic stuff, it must overcome visability of what to do on the map, graphics must be clear of whats goin on, thats why only 2 dead soldiers and a horse (cat) 3 tank barriers are found in NM land, I had previus much more goin on there, blood and broken weapons, loads of dead bodys, but it got out of control and gameplay vanished, so for thematic stuff this is it, as I sayd b4 some dust can be added here and there, but no more hardware (blood), im sorry.

[RedBaron0]

Well spoken Flapcake. There is always a happy medium, just gotta find it.