Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:Beko The GReat...a couple of things if i may...
1. the text on the small legend is a little hard to read, can you increase it's size any, don't change the font, but also place a semi-transparent layer behind it so it will stand out more. i liike the background but there is a lot going on in the background of that legend with the colours and the text, so i think a layer will help lift it.

I'm aware of this too. Next version small map will be easier to read

cairnswk wrote:2. there are two peices of real estate on the map that are somewwhat blank....the sea near France and England, perhaps a small image to fill that.
And the other is, can you increase the size fo the title a bit. i think it gets lost a bit because it is not sitting with the rest of the legend.
Otherwise looking great.

The title will stay where it is, since there's no much room in anywhere else, though the font size will increase... I'll feel the gap in Atlantic ocean with something

Cheers!

Any more ideas? I want to make a new version of this but I needed more ideas to make a better new version

Cheers!

You could put the knight near France. That way increasing the title font doesnt cover it and you fill the empty space.

And I still think an additional bonus for holding 3 shield terts for +1 would work on your map.

The port symbol near Normandy. Which tert is that for? And can ports attack each other?

Aragon. Is there enough space so it doesn't interfere with the 3 digits? The 888 rule.

jefjef wrote:You could put the knight near France. That way increasing the title font doesnt cover it and you fill the empty space.

I find the knight way too good in Maghrib so I'll have to put something in the ocean

jefjef wrote:And I still think an additional bonus for holding 3 shield terts for +1 would work on your map.

Gameplay discussion has ended and that suggestion would take off the influence of Rome and Yerushalyim and giving more to the shields.

[quote=jefjef"]

The port symbol near Normandy. Which tert is that for? And can ports attack each other? [/quote]

It's explicit in the map that Ports can attack Yerushalyim, nothing says they can attack each other
The Port is for Normandy, that discussion a while ago led to the conclusion that it is well placed now

jefjef wrote:Aragon. Is there enough space so it doesn't interfere with the 3 digits? The 888 rule.

Haven't tested. Thanks for notice that

Cheers!

Awww, no finland on this map... it would have fit the theme well as it was conquered by swedish crusaders in the middle ages.

Oh well, it's probably too late. It'd be a pain to try adding it now, eh...

Anyway, the map looks really nice. Can't wait to play this one.

btw. IMO norge and england should be connected, but you probably won't make gameplay changes anymore...

Awesome great map, Congrats...I like these themes.
Just a small comment: I didn't noticed the One-way attack arrows. When playing, one could easily overlook those arrows, and afterwards, when it's too late, noticing them.
Can you make them a bit more destinctive by highlighting them? Don't make it too shiny, just another color or some soft stroke would be enough i guess?

cheers
Dub

natty_dread wrote:Awww, no finland on this map... it would have fit the theme well as it was conquered by swedish crusaders in the middle ages.

Oh well, it's probably too late. It'd be a pain to try adding it now, eh...

Anyway, the map looks really nice. Can't wait to play this one.

btw. IMO norge and england should be connected, but you probably won't make gameplay changes anymore...

About expanding the map I think and have said before it's pretty balanced and nice like it is.

About Norge and England, there was a big discussion about that, there was a version including a one way attack from Norway to England but the idea didn't succeed. And as you say gameplay is pretty closed now

DubWarrior wrote:Awesome great map, Congrats...I like these themes.
Just a small comment: I didn't noticed the One-way attack arrows. When playing, one could easily overlook those arrows, and afterwards, when it's too late, noticing them.
Can you make them a bit more destinctive by highlighting them? Don't make it too shiny, just another color or some soft stroke would be enough i guess?

cheers
Dub

I'll see what I can do

Cheers!

Also, just noticed that the spelling of the regions is in its local tongue...
Flandres is english. In Dutch it's Vlaanderen, in French Flandre. Feel free to change this one. ( I guess in old-dutch it Vlaenderen?)
grtz

DubWarrior wrote:Also, just noticed that the spelling of the regions is in its local tongue...
Flandres is english. In Dutch it's Vlaanderen, in French Flandre. Feel free to change this one. ( I guess in old-dutch it Vlaenderen?)
grtz

for Flandres is in French
as translated from Dutch Vlaanderen it is plural
in English it would be Flanders
in consequence I would say what is written is correct

pamoa wrote:

DubWarrior wrote:Also, just noticed that the spelling of the regions is in its local tongue...
Flandres is english. In Dutch it's Vlaanderen, in French Flandre. Feel free to change this one. ( I guess in old-dutch it Vlaenderen?)
grtz

for Flandres is in French
as translated from Dutch Vlaanderen it is plural
in English it would be Flanders
in consequence I would say what is written is correct

Sorry for the French and English, missed my point there...
BUT: Flanders is a Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, so In Dutch it's "Vlaanderen" (always, that's not plural).
on the other side, In 1099 it was a province from the French king, so in French it would be Flandres...
So the French ruler called it Flandres, the Dutch-speaking inhabitants called it Vlaanderen...

It's up to you,
Grtz

DubWarrior wrote:

pamoa wrote:

DubWarrior wrote:Also, just noticed that the spelling of the regions is in its local tongue...
Flandres is english. In Dutch it's Vlaanderen, in French Flandre. Feel free to change this one. ( I guess in old-dutch it Vlaenderen?)
grtz

for Flandres is in French
as translated from Dutch Vlaanderen it is plural
in English it would be Flanders
in consequence I would say what is written is correct

Sorry for the French and English, missed my point there...
BUT: Flanders is a Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, so In Dutch it's "Vlaanderen" (always, that's not plural).
on the other side, In 1099 it was a province from the French king, so in French it would be Flandres...
So the French ruler called it Flandres, the Dutch-speaking inhabitants called it Vlaanderen...

It's up to you,
Grtz

The native language is dutch but it was a domain of France so I'll leave it as it is, otherwise I would have to change the names of some other cities just because the names were different in local languages

Firstly..great looking map

Secondly...I was just wondering why you've used the classical name for Scotland(Alba) but not for Ireland(Hibernia). I havnt read the whole thread so apologies if this has been mentioned before. This isnt a complaint or demand for change, I was just wondering.

I look forward to playing this one

Gypsys Kiss wrote:Firstly..great looking map

Secondly...I was just wondering why you've used the classical name for Scotland(Alba) but not for Ireland(Hibernia). I havnt read the whole thread so apologies if this has been mentioned before. This isnt a complaint or demand for change, I was just wondering.

I look forward to playing this one

Hello! Thanks for your doubt. There was a whole discussion about territory names some time ago. Though I have to enlight you in this one. Hibernia is the latin name of Ireland, not the name in the native language (Éire), though Alba is the name of scotland in Scottish Gaellic

Cheers!

Simply amazing, i cant wait to play this map

C A N N O T W A I T T O P L A Y O N THIS MAP ... still holding my breath

It is a bloody shame that it takes sooooooooo FREAKIN long to wait for these people to put a damn near perfect map out ...

IT IS A SHAME

and whoever is responsible: SHAME ON YOU !!1

natty_dread wrote:Awww, no finland on this map... it would have fit the theme well as it was conquered by swedish crusaders in the middle ages.

that didn´t happen until the 13th century..

btw. IMO norge and england should be connected, but you probably won't make gameplay changes anymore...

the connection should rather have been with northern alba; the earldom of orkney was norwegian until 1468 and included parts of mainland scotland

Beko the Great wrote:

MrBenn wrote:5. With the "special" symbols on the map (Shield, Port, Crescent), I know you've placed them consistently to the left of the territory name, but in some places, I think there is room to deviate from this convention, which could help to fit names properly/completely within the correct territory, and more importantly in the case of Al-Madinah, ensure the symbol is in the corresponding territory. It would also be nice to see the Venedig Port symbol on the coast!

Placement of "stuff" in the map is really a major issue, though, the Port of Venedig in the sea it's not relevant for map understanding and would confuse the things a bit in the surrounding territories. Al-Madinah Symbol, I agree it should be in the territory, but, there's no more room for it, so in this matter I've not change nothing.

MrBenn wrote:6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

Even in a different colour not sure if it would be more enlightening or confusing...

Cheers!

In response to the above, I definitely think that the special symbols absolutely MUST be in the relevant territory, especially where they are used to indicate some sort of bonus.

I can live without an additional icon on Jerusalem, although I really do think that it needs something to help bring it to notice.

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

Hello All!
I'm Back!

This is the new version of this map:

[bigimg]http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6094/europe1099v20large.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3877/europe1099v20small.jpg[/bigimg]

The legend and title size is bigger.
About other purposed changes, I don't think there's such a great need in putting an image in the Atlantic since the map is already full. About Jerusalem I agree it needs to be enhanced, maybe change territory color to red? Or change the army circle to be different from all others. Sugestions needed in this point.

Cheers!

Hell yes! This is beautiful map.

For Jerusalem you could take a page out of the Third Crusade and make it a six pointed star. Or just change the territory to gold, which I think will work better considering Seljuk is already reddish. You might have to alter Spain some, maybe swap colors?

Whatever you decide on, be aware that the dotted line from Cypress should be altered as the word Yerushalayim kind of covers it.

I agree that the North Atlantic doesn't need anything.

You might want to tweak Flandres border so the word fits in there without distorting gameplay. Perhaps you could move Athens south a little and have it straddle the Peloponnese. Kilikya is in a strange place as well, lower the dot and put the name on top so that it goes a bit into Konya?

I'd like to see the spacing between Medina Mayurga shrunk a bit... it looks like it's describing two territories, which I think it isn't as there's no accompanying army dot.

I presume Corsica and Sardinia are connected via land on this map? It's a departure from the truth and I think navy dots are needed. If they cannot attack each other, then it needs to be more clear.

Industrial Helix wrote:Hell yes! This is beautiful map.

For Jerusalem you could take a page out of the Third Crusade and make it a six pointed star. Or just change the territory to gold, which I think will work better considering Seljuk is already reddish. You might have to alter Spain some, maybe swap colors?

Whatever you decide on, be aware that the dotted line from Cypress should be altered as the word Yerushalayim kind of covers it.

I agree that the North Atlantic doesn't need anything.

You might want to tweak Flandres border so the word fits in there without distorting gameplay. Perhaps you could move Athens south a little and have it straddle the Peloponnese. Kilikya is in a strange place as well, lower the dot and put the name on top so that it goes a bit into Konya?

I'd like to see the spacing between Medina Mayurga shrunk a bit... it looks like it's describing two territories, which I think it isn't as there's no accompanying army dot.

I presume Corsica and Sardinia are connected via land on this map? It's a departure from the truth and I think navy dots are needed. If they cannot attack each other, then it needs to be more clear.

Thanks for the complement!

I'll take all you said in consideration. Some changes will be made in the next version.

Cheers!

Moved to the Gameplay Workshop. Your gameplay stamp is suspended until the map conforms to new Foundry standards. To wit:
- Please differentiate in the first post between "starting territories" and "starting positions," as the latter is a reserved technical term. If the territories aren't specially coded in the XML, they're not "starting positions."
- It's a bad idea to have 60 starting territories -- it gives the first player an advantage in 4p and 5p games. Consider making 1-3 more territories start neutral, or getting rid of a couple entirely; 57, 58, and 59 are all safe numbers.
- Please use "bonus zones" or "realms" (or some other alternative) instead of "territories" in the legend -- or leave the label off entirely. "Territories" refers to the individual constituents.

It's nice to see this back in development - hopefully it shouldn't take too much to clarify those bits mentioned above, and then yo'll be able to finish polishing off the graphics

Welcome back!

Evil DIMwit wrote:Moved to the Gameplay Workshop. Your gameplay stamp is suspended until the map conforms to new Foundry standards. To wit:
- Please differentiate in the first post between "starting territories" and "starting positions," as the latter is a reserved technical term. If the territories aren't specially coded in the XML, they're not "starting positions."
- It's a bad idea to have 60 starting territories -- it gives the first player an advantage in 4p and 5p games. Consider making 1-3 more territories start neutral, or getting rid of a couple entirely; 57, 58, and 59 are all safe numbers.
- Please use "bonus zones" or "realms" (or some other alternative) instead of "territories" in the legend -- or leave the label off entirely. "Territories" refers to the individual constituents.

Hello!
The only problem with the gameplay is just the number of territories? I can remove one for sure but that makes no sense to me, since with 60 territories there aren't neutrals in 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 player games which is awesome in my opinion. Also, the value of Yerushalahim will overcompensate the advantage of having one extra starting army. This was widely discussed before and I'm not likely to change, but if this map will be stuck in the foundry for that, I can accept it against my will...

Thanks for the other tips. I'll replace the word "territories" in the legend.

Cheers!

This is a really good looking map. I look forward to playing it.