Egypt: Upper [Quenched]

by **Kaplowitz** on Sun May 18, 2008 2:36 pm

Maybe you could put "to Abedju" on Minu and vice versa, similarly to world maps that connect Alaska to Russia? Its not needed, but it could help to have more clarification.

by **cairnswk** on Sun May 18, 2008 4:20 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:Maybe you could put "to Abedju" on Minu and vice versa, similarly to world maps that connect Alaska to Russia? Its not needed, but it could help to have more clarification.

Good suggestion in comparison to other maps, but space is a problem. I think also that there is enough instructions as to what joins what.

by **yeti_c** on Mon May 19, 2008 3:59 am

The "some dows connect the same" territory bit is a bit weird and confusing...

Consider having a different type of Dow to represent them - i.e. a red one or something? Could you perhaps call them something different too...

so you would have

"[] Dows cross the river Nile."

"[] --- connect parts of the same territory" (where --- is the new name & [] is a picture of each boat)

C.

by **oaktown** on Thu May 22, 2008 10:36 pm

nitpick: I believe you mean e.g. instead of i.e. in the legend. I think e.g. means "for example" while i.e. means "in other words."

The dows that connect a single territory - could they somehow be different? Maybe a 'double dow' with another dow (or more) right behind the first, to suggest that there is heavy traffic going back and forth?

In the center map I'm thinking maybe you don't need such a heavy border between the territories that are split by the left/right map division. The idea behind the center map is to show how the maps fit, but it also plays the role of demonstrating that the territories are part of a single bonus region. The heavy line makes me think twice about how 'together' they are.

The desert attack routes - in a game I'd be awfully frustrated to find that almost every territory of every region is a border territory I have to defend. As it is, Tephihu is a +3, but it's just as large and has as many borders as the +4 Saka just south of it. What if the attack arrow went to Sep instead? It would give balance with the southern end of the map, where that region has three borders to hold, and still serve the purpose of of eliminating the easy-to-expand-from dead end region.

I like the arrows better than before, but I still think something on-topic like trade routes with camels would fit the map better.

by **cairnswk** on Sat May 24, 2008 5:40 am

Heard yo-u guys above. yeti_c and oaktown.

Version 12.
Changes:
1. Coloured sails on the dows indicating a differentiation, i was going to use gold but they didb't stand out as much as the purple against the blue of the river.
2. line between Minu and Abedju fixed.
3. Sep made the border Tepihu
4. oaktown, not in favour of the camel idea , i think there is already enough artwork on this considering it is a map divided in two regions.....and the current arrows keep the theme continuance with Lower Egypt arrows.

by **oaktown** on Sat May 24, 2008 10:01 am

OK, I'm kinda nervous stamping your maps now cairns, but here it goes!

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat May 24, 2008 10:23 am

Cairns can you switch the colors of the dows? The purple ones stand out much more, but are less important to the game-play.

by **oaktown** on Sat May 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:Cairns can you switch the colors of the dows? The purple ones stand out much more, but are less important to the game-play.

I tend to agree, except that in the Egypt Lower map you use white dows for attacks.. if you're going to switch it here, you may want to make the dows purple on the other map for cross-map consistency.

by **ZeakCytho** on Sat May 24, 2008 12:37 pm

The text for the white dows say that they enable "cross river attacks," but so do the purple dows

. You should change it to "cross territory attacks" or something like that.

I agree with Kaplo. I'd keep the white dows as trans-territory attacks, though, and just change the purple to a more dull color. Grey, maybe? Or brown? Tan? Something like that.

by **cairnswk** on Sat May 24, 2008 2:56 pm

oaktown wrote:OK, I'm kinda nervous stamping your maps now cairns, but here it goes!

Thanks oaktown, but this one is nowhere near the complication of Das Schloss. Only thing that may be issue here is the linaeation of the gameplay.

Kaplowitz wrote:Cairns can you switch the colors of the dows? The purple ones stand out much more, but are less important to the game-play.

Kaplowitz...thanks for the suggestion...but i'm not in favour of switching from the white. I agree the purple ones stand out much more but i beleive they are both equally important to gameplay.

oaktown wrote:
Kaplowitz wrote:Cairns can you switch the colors of the dows? The purple ones stand out much more, but are less important to the game-play.

I tend to agree, except that in the Egypt Lower map you use white dows for attacks.. if you're going to switch it here, you may want to make the dows purple on the other map for cross-map consistency.

ZeakCytho wrote:The text for the white dows say that they enable "cross river attacks," but so do the purple dows . You should change it to "cross territory attacks" or something like that.

I agree with Kaplo. I'd keep the white dows as trans-territory attacks, though, and just change the purple to a more dull color. Grey, maybe? Or brown? Tan? Something like that.

I know that three people have said change the colour, so i did change it to TAN, this colour stands out less and leaves the white dows clearly in-the-picture.
I have also increased the size of the dows (including on Lower Egypt) and removed the inner bevel that was on them...i think they all stand out much more now.
I have also changed the text to "inter-territory attacks", and removed some extraneous words from the left text.

Version 13

by **cairnswk** on Mon May 26, 2008 10:58 am

no comments here???

by **gimil** on Mon May 26, 2008 5:49 pm

ive been choking to stamp this one for a while, dont know why Ohavent done it yet.

by **cairnswk** on Tue May 27, 2008 3:35 am

gimil wrote:ive been choking to stamp this one for a while, dont know why Ohavent done it yet.

Thanks Gimil.....I'll put the large up shortly...for now here is the current small.

by **gimil** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:33 am

Still waiting on the large cairns

by **nagerous** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:37 am

I dunno if it is just me but the bonuses seem a tad too high. In a 1vs 1 sequential, if you start first you could reak havoc.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:20 pm

gimil wrote:Still waiting on the large cairns

below gimil

nagerous wrote:I dunno if it is just me but the bonuses seem a tad too high. In a 1vs 1 sequential, if you start first you could reak havoc.

i reduced the northern tert Tepihu by 1 as it now only has two borders.
I guess in 1vs1 you'd get 3 for drop plus 1 for every 3 which would total 6...yes you could create havoc and gain a large upper hand, but that wouldn't occur until the second round, and to be honest these maps were right for small 1vs1 games.

Click image to enlarge.

by **yeti_c** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:45 pm

Spot on changes for the two types of Dow.

C.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:06 pm

yeti_c wrote:Spot on changes for the two types of Dow.

C.

Good. something is going right! :roll:

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:40 pm

Agreed, I like them too, though "inter-territory" sounds somewhat odd. Maybe "cross river attacks" ...but that may be no good too!

--Andy

by **cairnswk** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:28 am

AndyDufresne wrote:Agreed, I like them too, though "inter-territory" sounds somewhat odd. Maybe "cross river attacks" ...but that may be no good too!

--Andy

Something like Inter-territory was suggested a couple of pages back by ZeakCytho, so unless everyone objects to it then it stays. I like the way Andy can never quite make up his mind.

by **yeti_c** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:21 am

cairnswk wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Agreed, I like them too, though "inter-territory" sounds somewhat odd. Maybe "cross river attacks" ...but that may be no good too!

--Andy

Something like Inter-territory was suggested a couple of pages back by ZeakCytho, so unless everyone objects to it then it stays. I like the way Andy can never quite make up his mind.

Wouldn't "inter-territory" actually mean attacking within a territory?

How about...
"White-sailed Dows allow access to enemy borders"
"White-sailed Dows allow attacks to borders"
"Attack via White-sailed Dows"
"Attack across the Nile on White-sailed Dows"
"White-sailed Dows Attack across the Nile"

C.

by **cairnswk** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:01 am

yeti_c wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Agreed, I like them too, though "inter-territory" sounds somewhat odd. Maybe "cross river attacks" ...but that may be no good too!

--Andy

Something like Inter-territory was suggested a couple of pages back by ZeakCytho, so unless everyone objects to it then it stays. I like the way Andy can never quite make up his mind.

Wouldn't "inter-territory" actually mean attacking within a territory?

How about...
"White-sailed Dows allow access to enemy borders"
"White-sailed Dows allow attacks to borders"
"Attack via White-sailed Dows"
"Attack across the Nile on White-sailed Dows"
"White-sailed Dows Attack across the Nile"

C.

inter-
pref.
1. Between; among: interdental.

I did do some homework when researching this, and this is why is it is the way it is.
If you wanted to say attack within a territory, you'd say

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: intra-
Function: prefix
1 : within <intrastate>
2 : during <intraday>

both references from dictionary.com

by **yeti_c** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:05 am

Ah - fair enough...

But did you like any of the other suggestions that might be nicer? (or variations of?)

C.

by **cairnswk** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:48 am

yeti_c wrote:Ah - fair enough...

But did you like any of the other suggestions that might be nicer? (or variations of?)

C.

Sorry chris, but i don't think so. we have two coloured-sailed dows now with specific instructions for each.
both colours specify two different offerings on the Nile when it is Impassable.
The only thing i might do to improve is to swap each side around.

by **yeti_c** on Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:54 am

cairnswk wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Ah - fair enough...

But did you like any of the other suggestions that might be nicer? (or variations of?)

C.

Sorry chris, but i don't think so. we have two coloured-sailed dows now with specific instructions for each.
both colours specify two different offerings on the Nile when it is Impassable.
The only thing i might do to improve is to swap each side around.

Upto you - I just find "inter-territory" a bit wordy is all - and doesn't match the other sides wording.

C.

Egypt: Upper [Quenched]

Re: EGYPT UPPER V11 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V11 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V11 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V11 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V12

Re: EGYPT UPPER V12 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V12 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V12 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V12 (P9) [I] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Comments please!

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Re: EGYPT UPPER V13 (P9) [I,Gp,Gr] - Small & Large

Who is online