On Sunday 10 December 2006 18:35, Jens Granseuer wrote: > On 10.12.2006 08:24, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > > On Thursday 07 December 2006 22:17, Jens Granseuer wrote: > > > * Phew. It's tough. I've played three times now, and lost all of them > > > 8-) I like the challenge, but I suspect we'll have to lower the > > > difficulty a little for the normal setting. Don't bother until other > > > people have told you to, though ;-) > > > > Now? I wonder if blue can win at all. > > I'm sure they can still win, but it's indeed a lot easier. I liked the > previous version better, though. This one's too much long-range combat > for my taste, but that may be just me. What do you mean by long-range combat? > > > * I guess we need to tweak the story a little so it fits the campaign > > > plot > > > > I believe this map could fit any plot. There is this great peninsula on > > the north, and ships have to go around it, which takes them a lot of > > time. There are two large coastal towns off map, one on the south and one > > on the east. If the channel is completed, and I now made it almost > > completed, fleet anchored in one town could move fast to the other, so, > > even if an army approaching > > > > >from the southeast attacks the city without the fleet, the fleet could > > > move > > > > there during the attack, preventing the capture. However, if there is no > > channel the fleet can't move fast enough and the city could be easily > > captured (or the fleet would have to be split, reducing its effectivity). > > The main problem with this plot and the campaign is that the campaign > description (in the wiki, at least) mentions that it takes place in an > almost desert-like region. Not much water, no coast to speak of. > > However, we could get away with making this one of the few bigger rivers > running through the province, and the EoK trying to make it usable for > shipping their reinforcements, or something. I wouldn't like to change the map that much, I become quite fond of it :) How about a channel between two large lakes? On Earth, Lake Chad, for example, 1,540 kmÂ, doesn't seem to affect surrounding desert much. Rest of the story could be pretty much the same. (While there are no large lake fleets, there still could be danger of, say, trade fleet used as troop transports.) > > Removed all air and related units. I'm still not sure what to do with > > hovercrafts - perhaps creating a few helicopters ("reinforcement > > arrived") when a hovercraft approaches the base. > > Other options may be: > > * move the HQ further inland (maybe switch places with the depot?) I was thinking about it too. > * reduce the size of the eastern body of water a bit I already did that, with the introduction of "trench" hovercraft can't get over, but it isn't enough. > * move the HQ closer to the water and use ships instead of choppers > * disallow building hovercraft (heh) I believe that hovercrafts would be the key for breaking a stalemate in a human vs human game, so that's why i think they should be kept. And now, for something completely different. I translated basic strings to Serbian, however the game had problems with Cyrillic. So, here is the translation and a patch which solves the problems (to see the problems, just see the translation without the patch). Description of the patch: I introduced new variable in class Widget called 'keypos' which contains the position of the highlighted key. As additional advantage, it will highlight exactly that key, so, for example, (mad up) strings: Dismantle _every turn Dismantle every _two turns Dismantle _never which are now displayed as: Dismantl*e* every turn Disman*t*le every two turns Disma*n*tle never will be displayed correctly. I then made a new function called 'ASCIIEquivalent', which returns - well, see the description. If it is needed, in the same way non-ASCII characters for French, German, Polish, Slovak etc. (Ã, Ã, Å, Ã...) could be introduced.