I am ready to add my map - Over the Top!

[jdimeo]

Check it out here: https://github.com/triplea-maps/over-the-top Ready to transfer ownership.

Brief intro from the game notes:

[beelee1]

Looks pretty cool ! I cloned it and added the map but says missing the small bolshevic flag. iIdk why, the flag is there. At any rate, looking forward to trying out :)

[jdimeo]

Thanks @beelee1 . I'm realizing now that some of the image file names are capitalized incorrectly- I fix that before I create a .zip locally so I was able to play it but I need to figure out how to get Git to reflect the right capitalization. I'll do that tomorrow!

[jdimeo]

@beelee1 Try this release .zip and see if it works better for you: https://github.com/triplea-maps/over-the-top/releases/download/0.0.2/over-the-top.zip

[beelee1]

@jdimeo right on got it to fire up :) I noticed you used dashes - instead of underscores _ in the naming. Idk why but they prefer underscores. Also i noticed in your new xml you had, player="" in the mapName line. I 86'd that and got it to fire.

At any rate, Good Job ! You guys obviously put a lot of work into it. Was funny as I was just rewatching the WW1 Apocalypse on the military channel lol

[DanVanAtta]

Hi @jdimeo, please transfer ownership of the repo to 'triplea-games' and we'll set you back up as an admin of the repo

[DanVanAtta]

Correct, org name is: "triplea-maps", not "triplea-games"

[tvleavitt]

I tried to make this work, and I got an error message from the latest pre-release about not being able to find polygons.txt, even after I moved everything into a maps folder. This looks intriguing, so I'd like to try it out early.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:17 PM J Dimeo notifications@github.com wrote:

@beelee1 https://github.com/beelee1 Try this release .zip and see if it works better for you:

https://github.com/jdimeo/over-the-top/releases/download/0.0.2/over-the-top.zip

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/8325#issuecomment-736224559, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB5HAKSTT3WYC6VUYG6LZTSSR37TANCNFSM4UH46C7A .

-- Thomas Leavitt Internet enabled since 1990

[jdimeo]

@DanVanAtta I'm getting "You don’t have the permission to create public repositories on triplea-maps " when I attempt to transfer ownership

@beelee1 I use JAXB code to automatically write the game file in many cases and it added player="" in some cases because it was defined by the game.dtd. This has never caused a problem for me or the other people who have loaded it. Did you get a specific error message about that line?

I'm also not sure I can change the naming convention of the units at this point- that's a bigger change and I actually wish we had display names (with spaces and capitalization) that were different from the "real" names (lower/underscore/whatever) so I chose this convention because I thought it was most user friendly.

P.S. thanks for the encouragement! it's been many years in the making and a lot of fun to work on.

@tvleavitt Which .zip were you trying? This one: https://github.com/triplea-maps/over-the-top/releases/download/0.0.2/over-the-top.zip should be set up correctly with everything in a map folder (not maps)

[beelee1]

@jdimeo right on I may not have updated when I added the new xml. I was tweaking around with the naming and such. Anyway looks way cool.

@tvleavitt I got it to work with 2.5.22294

[DanVanAtta]

Instead of transfer ownership I did a fork of the repository. @jdimeo - Your new repo is: https://github.com/triplea-maps/over-the-top

You should have an invite adding you as a admin for that repo.

The only thing remaining, at your leisure is to make the map available by updating triplea_maps.yaml. It's recommended to go ahead and add your map early as an 'experimental' category and then when it's more refined we can bump up the category.

[jdimeo]

Thanks @DanVanAtta . I went ahead and deleted the original, so it only exists now under the triplea-maps so we don't have to worry about keeping two repositories in sync.

I'll open the YAML pull request soon!

I was wondering about the status- we've been building this map for over 3 years and I'm eager to get some playtesting so we can work on balancing, but all the kinks except for testing/balance have been worked out. I don't want to be presumptuous but can we start at GOOD to get more eyes on it?

[DanVanAtta]

Let's start with experimental and plan to get to 'good' very shortly (days) later.

[tvleavitt]

It appears that when you mess directly with the downloadedMaps folder, TripleA does not re-index the directory and pick up the changes, so putting this in that folder with -develop in the filename breaks things after it had initially been loaded as over-the-top.zip; I had to rename the folder to over-the-top and re-zip it to avoid that; I can't figure out where the index file is stored, either. Does the system expect everything to be managed via the repository and the Download Maps program?

I get the "can't display over-the-top/doc/images/anzac.png when opening up the preview in Select Maps; I suspect this is because it is now "over-the-top/map/doc/images" but hasn't been updated in the README.md? Also get the can't load polygons.txt, which I think is a different problem, and related to the failure to re-index the folder?

Thomas

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:53 PM J Dimeo notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks @DanVanAtta https://github.com/DanVanAtta . I went ahead and deleted the original, so it only exists now under the triplea-maps so we don't have to worry about keeping two repositories in sync.

I'll open the YAML pull request soon!

I was wondering about the status- we've been building this map for over 3 years and I'm eager to get some playtesting so we can work on balancing, but all the kinks except for testing/balance have been worked out. I don't want to be presumptuous but can we start at GOOD to get more eyes on it?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/8325#issuecomment-736843961, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABB5HAJG3XS6ETJW6DLQOXLSSVQWHANCNFSM4UH46C7A .

-- Thomas Leavitt Internet enabled since 1990

[beelee1]

@tvleavitt yea I tried to compress what was working for me from dlmaps but said it was still too big. Looks as if it'll be merged soon.

Well I tried to add to send space for a quick link but still too big. Over 300mb

[jdimeo]

@beelee1 you were right- the underscore things matters a ton, at least for the map name ;-) sorry for taking so long to open the PR but I wanted to make sure the map downloaded successfully from the YAML before I opened it. This is the final link that actually works (and I'll be adding it shortly): https://github.com/triplea-maps/over-the-top/releases/download/0.1.0/over_the_top.zip

[jdimeo]

@beelee1 @tvleavitt The PR was just merged and this map is now available for download through the game under Experimental. Let me know what you think! Feel free to open tickets here: https://github.com/triplea-maps/over_the_top/issues

[Cernelius]

Let's start with experimental and plan to get to 'good' very shortly (days) later.

I don't see why putting in "good" a map whose first digit versioning is a zero (according to what I got). As I see it, if the mapmaker (in this case @jdimeo) is not having the first digit game's version being a positive number, that means that, in his opinion, the game is incomplete.

[jdimeo]

@Cernelius have you actually looked at the map? I was holding off on 1.0 until it was finally released and merged

[Cernelius]

@Cernelius have you actually looked at the map? I was holding off on 1.0 until it was finally released and merged

That doesn't make sense to me. If the map is already at its first version, I would version it as 1.0 (that is anyway what regular user will initially get right after your "YAML" change request is merged).

[jdimeo]

C'mon man! check out the map! we've put a lot of hard work into it. I can change the version to whatever.

[Cernelius]

I think there might be a misunderstanding going on here. I was talking merely about the versioning, not the quality of the map. I've not played the game and, skin wise, this is one of the best looking maps I've seen in TripleA.

Sadly, I hate split territories (in general). I realize that a World War I map has much advantage in having a separate visual for the territory around the border between France and Germany, of course.

You can re-read all I said just as a simple question like "why is this map not at version 1.0 or more?".

[Cernelius]

I said "map" but I meant "game". You cannot version maps.

Also, I'm getting two "Over The Top" games in my "Select a Game" window. Why? Is this happening to somebody else too?

[Cernelius]

Disclaimer: What follows are some big-picture considerations on the game and, at least for me, they are not related to what category this map should be part of.

---

In general, World War I maps always have to deal with the scenario issue of having, on may instances, relatively very little geographical space for representing most of the main events.

For example, here, in this map, the front-line between the Italians and the Austro-Hungarians (in this game called simply as Austrians) is merely Venice bordering Innsbruck and Trieste. In the actual war, discounting the relatively too small territorial gains made by the Italians to that point (the Italians had advanced about half the distance between the city of Trieste and the pre-war Italian border), after the Central Powers went on the offensive against Italy, the most they achieved was to conquer only about half of Euganean Venetia (back then just known as Venetia, since the Austrians dominated Julian Venetia and Tridentine Venetia). That territory, that they conquered, didn't comprise the actual city of Venice, nor any of the important cities of Verona and Padua, and was, back then, a poor, backward and economically scarcely important part of Italy. Nothing of this can happen in this map. The closest you can get, to the "Battle of Caporetto", is either the Austrians invading and failing to conquer Venice or the Austrians invading and conquering Venice. Actually, the Austo-Hungarians would have invaded and conquered only a minority (also economically) of the territory called as "Venice" in this map.

This was an example of the huge space constraints that World War I maps, in general, have to deal with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto#/media/File:Battle_of_Caporetto.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vittorio_Veneto#/media/File:Battle_of_Vittorio_Veneto.jpg

---

I believe it is not advisable having "AA-Gun" units since start game. As far as I know, effective anti-aircraft guns units were developed during the war. At least, I'm not aware that, at the start of the war, any of the factions had units on the ground able to shoot down aircraft in significant numbers, but I don't know much about this.

---

I understand that having the whole European Ottoman territory as a British territory called Gallipoli and having Istanbul in Asia are deliberate choices in line with the general concept of the game ("this game does not reflect a specific point in time") and the general size of land zones (if wanting to have Gallipoli as a land zone at all), but I feel this being a very extreme solution. I wonder if it might be too extreme. Maybe, if the zone would have been drawn much bigger than it is, one could have split European Turkey into the two territories of Gallipoli and Constantinople, or having a limited combat round system, so to allow a prolonged existence of both British and Turkish units in a single European Turkey territory owned by the Ottomans.

---

The way the Bolsheviks are handled I believe is, in some way, almost opposite to historical reality, as the Communist seizure of power was a virtually blood-less change of government, after which the Siberian and mostly the non-Russian parts (if one believes that the Ukainians are not Russians) of the former Empire seceded and started a civil war against. For example, the Communists didn't have to fight against any Russian armies to conquer Moscow and Petersburg. I get that this representation of Bolshevik forces trying to conquer Russia from beyond the Urals and from Northern Russia is an abstraction, but I wonder if it might be just too much even for a game that is not aiming at historicity. Of course, representing the Russian Revolution is not easy, and the way this game does it is one way of having it, but I would reword the part of the notes that says "the Bolshevik Infiltration inset represents the Russian territories in the far east that have fallen to communist control", to clarify that there are not really Communist controlled territories beyond the map's verge, but this is an abstract dynamic to represent the revolutionary pressure on the Russian state if my assumption is correct (since there never were far-eastern territories fallen to Communist control whence the Communists advanced to conquer the rest of Russia).

---

While TripleA makes you conquer enemy owned territories without non-infrastructure enemy owned units during the Combat Move phase, this actually may be argued it should happen during the Conduct Combat phase if the territory is not being blitzed.

---

You may want to double check the map's names with a period atlas. I've looked only at a few of them and I believe that, at least in English, "Romania" is either a too modern or Ancient Latin name (it would be either "Roumania" or "Rumania", at the time). Nevermind if you actually have seen a period atlas with the "Romania" name in it. Also, I believe "Istanbul" was commonly called "Constantinople", in English, at the time (I don't know how the Turks themselves were calling it). Also "Moldova" sounds to me as a name you would not find in a 1914 English atlas, but I cannot be sure.

---

I believe "Sarievo" is a skin issue, since the territory is called "Sarajevo".

[GenerationKILL]

@Cernelius Thank you for your incite! All of your criticisms are well warranted as well as appreciated. However, the main focus for this mod that my friend John and I have been striving for have been visuals and game-play + new assets, not historical accuracy. The title 'Over the Top' can also be seen as a pun considering the overall setup and "abstractions" that the game provides(that was intentional). The most notable being the entire African campaign, which in-itself creates an entirely abstract representation of World War I and colonial imperialism.
The best analogy here would be comparing fps games such as 'Battlefield 1' vs. say 'Verdun' or 'Tannenburg'. Obviously our mod would fall under the 'Battlefield 1' category which is essentially a WWII game with a WWI skin. We have come a long way since our early attempts and many of your points brought up were previously considered during our play-testing; most notably the Italian Front. It is unfortunate that due to geographical scale we could not provide a more dynamic play for the Italians/Austrians unless we added another in-depth inset, which would severely clutter an already cluttered game map. We've settled on many of the 'Fronts' as possessing their own unique characteristics in terms of strategic approach; the Western front is wide/slow/sluggish, the Italian Front is more or less a 'Thermoplyea funnel', the Russian Front is a 'giant vise grip' etc..etc......with players having to adapt to each specific challenge to gain the upper hand. Originally, we had the 'Bolshevik track' lead directly into Moscow/St. Petersburg providing a never-ending threat to the collapse and takeover of the capitals, but we eventually settled on a fictitious 'Far Eastern Front' to create a more dynamic survival scenario for Czarist Russia(again, focus on game-play and fun). The Gallipoli peninsula is absolutely an extreme solution towards representing the battle, but I believe it reflects the overall strategic significance of controlling the Dardanelles Strait as opposed to directly threatening Constantinople. And yes, there are a few mis-labelled territories that are most definitely my fault and are attributed to lack of research/spell check i.e 'Sarievo' lol.

[Cernelius]

@GenerationKILL Did you actually draw the unit images or were they drawn specifically for this map? I'm just curious.

[GenerationKILL]

@Cernelius Yes sir, I drew everything specifically for this map. The units you see are actually my version 3 units, the first 2 versions being more mono-chromatic/arcade looking. I use Corel Painter (I can't stand photoshop).

[Cernelius]

Wow. I was wondering if they were shrunk images coming from somewhere else. I still wonder if you have drawn them bigger and then shrunk them down. Is there any particular source of inspiration for the images look (since photograps of the time were rarely of good quality and almost often colourless)? I wonder what's the average time per image for drawing them all (I'm thinking two hours per image if you are fast).

---

I saw that you put the roundel under only some of the land images. I believe that you choose those harder to distinguish or differentiated by the hue only, or both. For general consistency, I tend to think I would put it in all of them, if any one, except the immobile ones if they are always in the same owner's territory. On this regard, I'm not sure if you know that you don't have to draw the roundels in the images themselves. You can have the roundels in the "unitIcons" folder and unconditional entries, for association, in the "unit_icons" property file.

[Cernelius]

On this regard, I'm not sure if you know that you don't have to draw the roundels in the images themselves. You can have the roundels in the "unitIcons" folder and unconditional entries, for association, in the "unit_icons" property file.

On a second thought. I don't remember if the icons are drawn before or behind the images. If it is drawn before the image, it would be not good for this.

[Cernelius]

On this regard, I'm not sure if you know that you don't have to draw the roundels in the images themselves. You can have the roundels in the "unitIcons" folder and unconditional entries, for association, in the "unit_icons" property file.

On a second thought. I don't remember if the icons are drawn before or behind the images. If it is drawn before the image, it would be not good for this.

I tested it, and the icons are drawn before the images. So, nevermind, since here the ownership roundels would need to be drawn behind the unit images, if they were not part of them.

Still, I tend to think the ownership roundels and the rest of the images should not share the same files, but this would need development (at minimum, adding an option for drawing icons behind units (if there is no such option, already)).

For your informatio, the "properties" code for what I said would be something like: gameName.playerName.unitName=iconName.png

[jdimeo]

Building the roundels into the unit images was deliberate to have the polished visuals. Even if they drew behind, the blending wouldn't be as good as what @GenerationKILL achieves in his program (for example, the shadow of the zeppelin).

[Cernelius]

Building the roundels into the unit images was deliberate to have the polished visuals. Even if they drew behind, the blending wouldn't be as good as what @GenerationKILL achieves in his program (for example, the shadow of the zeppelin).

Limitations of TripleA (not being able to have the icon behind the unit) aside, I believe it should be always possible to obtain the same final quality by putting two images one above the other, instead of using a single image and all the basic ownership roundels for the same power look the same to me. In the case of the shadow of the zeppelin, one would have the shadow in the zeppelin image (it would not matter than it would look strange without the icon behind (I see now that the shadow is different if it is above the roundel), since the icon would be always there if it is unconditional). However, even if I'm right (of which I'm not sure since my experience in such things is rather basic), this would need more development changes to TripleA to assure that everywhere the image is shown it gets the icon too (for example, the "territory" tab) (it could be argued, already, that the image should never be shown without its icon if unconditional or the condition is currently verified).

[GenerationKILL]

@Cernelius Yes it was certainly time consuming to draw all of the units from scratch as I don't like the quicker "photo-bashing" method. Idk how many hours of research/drawing but in the hundreds when all 3 versions are taken into account. The infantry in particular are straight out of my head, as I'm a connoisseur of military uniforms. More technical units like planes tanks and ships I had to use references to copy from. Usually I had a transparent reference image overlay while I drew to retain correct proportion. I also had to 'fabricate' some of the experimental units that reflected more of a 1920s era.

I usually draw the units at about 4x size ratio and then shrink them down by 25% when I export them as a png for the game. As for the roundels, it was a personal choice as I opted out for the inf/cavalry b/c I chose a head on focus vs. 45 degree down angle as with the other units, therefore the roundels would look crooked in comparison. I figured it'd look better aesthetically without roundels as the infantry is easily distinguishable and iconic from each other nation.

[Cernelius]

Anyway, yeah, in the moment the roundel presence influences the shadow "projected" by the unit, it is probably making the most sense that they are the same image file.

[Cernelius]

Regarding "gas" (I assume here we are talking only about the poisonous one, not screening or tear or else), I find it strange that it is practically hidden behind the "Heavy Artillery" development. I surely agree it should be a technology (or at least surely not usable on round 1 if most of what happens in that round represents the start of World War I), but I think it would be better having a specific tech unit for developing gas (even if not an independent gas unit (for example, it could be a tech making also your already existent artillery able to generate gas units)).

Only looking at my purchase choices (that comprise the tech development choices), I initially assumed that the game has no gas, and, then, even though the game notes are arguably clear about the fact that the only kind of gas in the game are the ammunitions for (or rather produced by) heavy artillery only, I was puzzled enough by this unexpected representation of it (I think most will expect that, if gas exists, you have to purchase it or otherwise pay for it specifically) that I felt the need to open the game file to be assured about the matter. Normal users will not be able or willingly to do this.

I said arguably clear because all that the notes say, on the matter, is "heavy artillery have the unique capability of shooting gas munitions", which only means that no units other than heavy artillery are capable of "shooting gas munitions". That, rather, makes me think that there are "gas munitions" units in the game, but that doesn't imply that you cannot use gas without "shooting" it. For example, I can imagine that I can use gas by releasing it from tanks or dropping it from aircraft or shooting it and, in the last case, only heavy artillery can shoot it. Obviously, I would probably not think so, since I know the limits of the TripleA engine, but just taking the side of a less knowledgeable user. The certainty here would be given by the fact that, reading the whole notes, no other ways of using gas are mentioned. If not making a rewording that specifically clarifies that gas is generated uniquely by the heavy artillery, the excerpt would be at least a lot easier to visualize correctly if it would say "gas ammunitions", instead of "gas munitions" (as a related note, if everything called as "munitions" is "ammunitions", I would rather call them as such, especially in a game in which most units are partly representing, and in many cases (fighter, artillery and so on) named after munitions too).

Talking about notes clarity, is it not a bit confusing to have them saying "heavy artillery have the unique capability of shooting gas munitions against adjacent land territories" and "unlike munitions, they have no movement and so heavy artillery must be committed to the battle for their gas shells to have an effect"? I get that saying "heavy artillery has the unique capability of shooting gas ammunitions against adjacent land territories" may mean they are shooting such (am)munitions in the territories that they are invading (thus adjacent to the territory whence the invasion was made), and the second statement clarifies that this must be how it works, but I tend to think that most players, reading the first statement, will rather expect the artillery to send gas units into a territory adjacent to the one where the artillery is, without necessarily moving the artillery itself.

On a historical (yes, I understand this game is not focused on being historical) note (beside the fact that whatever artillery could be produced before developing any gas and still being used to fire gas shells once they are available) heavy artillery is not the only way to deliver gas. In particular, the first time poisonous gas was used (at least on a tactically sizeable scale) (namely, at Ypres in April 1915), artillery had nothing to do with it, as the gas was released from tanks on German held territory under favourable wind conditions.

---

While checking out the gas, giving a brief look to the game file, I see many cases in which you have an empty count in options.

I wonder what the developers of this project think about that.

For example, in this case:

<option count="" name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Gas-Munitions"/>

The count for the option is actually "1", as the option could have been written (in my opinion, more clearly) as:

<option name="createsUnitsList" value="Gas-Munitions" count="1"/>

So, I wonder if it is a good practice to leave an empty count instead of omitting it? I cannot recall having ever seen something like this, at least not so systematically.

[jdimeo]

@Cernelius the empty count attributes are because I've automated a bunch of map tools (which I'm eager to share with the community) and don't edit the map myself as much as possible. In this case, I'm using an Excel sheet to manage the unit attributes and then automatically copying them into the game file using code generated by something called JAXB, which does a more formal serialization process and includes the attributes specified by the DTD even if they weren't used.

[Cernelius]

@Cernelius the empty count attributes are because I've automated a bunch of map tools (which I'm eager to share with the community) and don't edit the map myself as much as possible. In this case, I'm using an Excel sheet to manage the unit attributes and then automatically copying them into the game file using code generated by something called JAXB, which does a more formal serialization process and includes the attributes specified by the DTD even if they weren't used.

Ok. This clarifies why having empty counts when no count is needed or even possible, but, then, why not always either using the count for the count or always using the value for the count?

For example, instead of autogenerating <option count="" name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Gas-Munitions"/>, wouldn't it be feasible and clearer either to autogenerate <option name="createsUnitsList" value="Gas-Munitions" count="1"/> or <option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Gas-Munitions"/>? I assume the second alternative would be easier, as the first one would need you to specify which option values have the count (as their first entry in the value field).

[Cernelius]

I assume the second alternative would be easier, as the first one would need you to specify which option values have the count (as their first entry in the value field).

To be clear, this doesn't mean that this is what I suggest. I don't like that, when you see an option value with two items, they may be either two values or only one value with a count for it (depending on the option's name). I've a clear preference for the first alternative, as the second one always felt strange to me.

[Cernelius]

Also, I'm getting two "Over The Top" games in my "Select a Game" window. Why? Is this happening to somebody else too?

Nevermind. I've just found out that I had a second game file of this lingering since when I unsuccesfully tried to start the game before it was downloadable by the program.

[Cernelius]

All the error reports cluttering is very annoying...

Can you tell me (as soon as feasible) if the bid placement follows the usual rule of max 1 per zone or not? I believe the notes should tell that (unless I missed it).

[jdimeo]

@Cernelius I'm not sure what you mean when you say "all the error reports cluttering". Are you talking about this issue? the map/game? my PR?

There are no restrictions on bid placement

[Cernelius]

Sorry just off topic. I wasn't finding this issue despite I replied recently because of the various error reports.

So, are you telling me that Germany on round 1 can bid buy 11 infantry and place them all in 1 territory?

[jdimeo]

Yes! it's not as good as it sounds- if you invest in one front, you'll be weak on another :-)

[Cernelius]

Ok cool. That is what I was thinking too, because I don't think you are TripleA regulars of the lobby. However, in TripleA there is a common "tribal knowledge" rule that is max 1 per zone in any case, so I strongly suggest adding in notes that in this game you can place bid units with no caps (I'm pretty sure otherwise some will do it that way and many will wonder). Plus, in the future some developer might change how the bid placement works to add that common limit (I don't think anyone should do it).

[DanVanAtta]

Ya'll are going to reach a wider and more appropriate audience discussing this in forums. This issue was about the map being added, that is done.

Side-note, that is a good point raised @Cernelius , it is common for there to be a bid limit of one per territory.