Moderator: Cartographers
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
Ah, ok then. It has been discussed. But then I don't understand why you figured that the 1905-borders would be acceptable for the Scandinavian countries?Beko the Great wrote:I know the Italian situation by the time and it's so complex I decided to ignore it a bit... And as you may my map is kinda based in this: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1090map.htm And in this map even Corsica and Sardinia are part of Holy Roman Empire. Hmm I think the anchor is good. Thanks for all your comments! I'm actualy adding a lot of changes:
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
Speaking purely personally, if there was some way to redraw the terits so as to better reflect the Scandanavian political divisions of the era without substantially altering the gameplay of the bonus, I would be all in favor...alstergren wrote:Ah, ok then. It has been discussed. But then I don't understand why you figured that the 1905-borders would be acceptable for the Scandinavian countries?
Denmark would have to be expanded into Southern Sweden. Norway slightly tweaked to include parts of the Swedish west coast (leaving a small part of the coast left in Swedish hands).Incandenza wrote:Speaking purely personally, if there was some way to redraw the terits so as to better reflect the Scandanavian political divisions of the era without substantially altering the gameplay of the bonus, I would be all in favor...
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
I know the boundaries are wrong! I know Denmark had a part on actual sweedish territory and Norge went also to actual Sweedish coast. Though, I use this borders because It doesn't change gameplay at all and, it's more easy to understand. See? With the borders you sugest, Denmark would be a territory divided in two great masslands (scandinavia and actual Denmark), so I know it's not geo-historicaly accurate but It looks better and is easier to understand.alstergren wrote:Maybe this has already been addressed (didn't have the stamina to look through 15 pages). But the map does not seem to reflect accurately Europe at AD 1100.
See:
http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm
Noticed that Denmark/Norway/Sweden was clearly wrong (depicting boundaries drawn, well, 1905 I guess). Other parts may be slightly off as well. This should be fixed I think if wishing to do a historical map, doesn't make sense to cheat on that part.
Well I count and recounted, 62, two starting neutral... so I don't see why attack another territory.jefjef wrote:Hello Beko & all.. If my late night math is correct their are 61 terts. If your interested in an even # and want to use up a dead space you could make what we know today as Poland a deploy tert, accesable only to HRE, and of no value (Like Karelia in WWII map) worth nothing nor part of a bonus. But a strategic spot none the less. It was a barbarian/peasant populated area that was an insignificant threat in the grand scheme of things... But it was still a "frontier"threat (cossacks & such). Something to consider. Great work. Thank you.
No. That doesn't make sense. It's three territories. I don't see why they shouldn't be historically accurate if you're making a historic map. That doesn't make sense. Using historical borders doesn't make it harder to understand.Beko the Great wrote:I know the boundaries are wrong! I know Denmark had a part on actual sweedish territory and Norge went also to actual Sweedish coast. Though, I use this borders because It doesn't change gameplay at all and, it's more easy to understand. See? With the borders you sugest, Denmark would be a territory divided in two great masslands (scandinavia and actual Denmark), so I know it's not geo-historicaly accurate but It looks better and is easier to understand.alstergren wrote:Maybe this has already been addressed (didn't have the stamina to look through 15 pages). But the map does not seem to reflect accurately Europe at AD 1100.
See:
http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm
Noticed that Denmark/Norway/Sweden was clearly wrong (depicting boundaries drawn, well, 1905 I guess). Other parts may be slightly off as well. This should be fixed I think if wishing to do a historical map, doesn't make sense to cheat on that part.
Hope I have convinced you.
Cheers!
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
I'll just sit a few hours with the map in front of me and think what cool graphic I'll add, but I promess, version 17 will be graphically updatedjefjef wrote:I knew not to trust that late night math.... A tert there would be one of those variables & use up a dead space. But ya could put a cool graphic there too like the one in the lower left. Thanks.
Thank you very much, Miss Captain Aline for supporting me from the beginning of this. I love to read your commentsAline_Cedrac wrote:Really great looking! I'm glad those important orders are now historically accurate!*.* I can't stop saying this...but...I really want to play on this map!
Keep on the fantastic work!
Kisses,
Aline
This is probably my last lingering gameplay issue... with 60 starting terits, 1v1s and 3p games will be fine, everyone starts with 20 terits... but in 4p games (and this'll especially be an issue in 2v2), everyone starts with 15 terits, giving a substantial first-mover advantage. The obvious solution would be to code an extra neutral start, or remove a terit. It's not a deal-breaker, but worth discussing, mitigating drop and first-mover advantages having become something of a cottage industry in the foundry these days...Beko the Great wrote:Well I count and recounted, 62, two starting neutral... so I don't see why attack another territory.jefjef wrote:Hello Beko & all.. If my late night math is correct their are 61 terts. If your interested in an even # and want to use up a dead space you could make what we know today as Poland a deploy tert, accesable only to HRE, and of no value (Like Karelia in WWII map) worth nothing nor part of a bonus. But a strategic spot none the less. It was a barbarian/peasant populated area that was an insignificant threat in the grand scheme of things... But it was still a "frontier"threat (cossacks & such). Something to consider. Great work. Thank you.
Cheers!
Thank you very much for your images. The first one, mostly is a very good one. I'll get a good use to them.Silent Killer wrote:I love the soft cotton-y feel to this map, and I look forward to giving it a go once available.
I dont see any fault with this, so Ive nothing in the way of critical feedback.
However, I see your stewing over what graphic to put in the center of the map...
I take it the image will be located beside the legend???
This image depicts Baldwin of Boulogne entering Edessa in 1098, Baldwin conquered this land and went on to be Ruler in the first of the Crusader states.
It wouldn't take alot to extract part of him and his steed to place in your map.
This image is of Pope Urban II.
Founder, if you will, of the Crusades..
Both images are under the wiki commons licence and can be freely used should you choose to.
Anyway, great map.
SK
Hmm, this comment left me thinking...Incandenza wrote:This is probably my last lingering gameplay issue... with 60 starting terits, 1v1s and 3p games will be fine, everyone starts with 20 terits... but in 4p games (and this'll especially be an issue in 2v2), everyone starts with 15 terits, giving a substantial first-mover advantage. The obvious solution would be to code an extra neutral start, or remove a terit. It's not a deal-breaker, but worth discussing, mitigating drop and first-mover advantages having become something of a cottage industry in the foundry these days...Beko the Great wrote:Well I count and recounted, 62, two starting neutral... so I don't see why attack another territory.jefjef wrote:Hello Beko & all.. If my late night math is correct their are 61 terts. If your interested in an even # and want to use up a dead space you could make what we know today as Poland a deploy tert, accesable only to HRE, and of no value (Like Karelia in WWII map) worth nothing nor part of a bonus. But a strategic spot none the less. It was a barbarian/peasant populated area that was an insignificant threat in the grand scheme of things... But it was still a "frontier"threat (cossacks & such). Something to consider. Great work. Thank you.
Cheers!
also, when it comes to xml, you might consider coding two of the scandan terits as starting positions, to eliminate the odds of a player dropping that bonus in 1v1.
Thanks for the tip. I really prefer it the way it is. Gameplay is more balanced this way...And I know there were battles in this area, but I can ensure you those were guerrilla battles, not open field battles, because the terrain is very rough therejefjef wrote:Beko, I like the jordan river inclusion but maybe it should only be a barrier to one tert. What do you think about allowing Dimashg access again? Historically & biblically there were wars between kingdoms of those areas at that border.
Thank you very much. These praise comments so open from a member of the foundry really give me motivation to carry on. I think having 60 territs is very good because this way in 2 to 6 players games there are no neutrals in the way, and that's a big advantage in my opinion.MrBenn wrote:I'm not convinced the 60 terrs issue should hold the map back - I think we've started to put too much emphasis on trying to achieve perfect balance for all gametypes, when there are some circumstances in which some imbalance is inevitable. Yes, it would be preferable to avoid it where possible; but there is only so much you can do.
You will see I'm sureMrBenn wrote:Graphically this map is wonderful... I can;t see too much that would hold you back once the gameplay has been approved.
Incandenza wrote:when it comes to xml, you might consider coding two of the scandan terits as starting positions, to eliminate the odds of a player dropping that bonus in 1v1.
Beko the Great wrote:About Scandinavia, I don't think that drop is a big deal, since it's just a 1 army bonus.
coding the scandinavian regions as start positions is good advice, since i think there are no disadvantages to doing this. actually, it would be more correct to call them norse kingdoms instead of scandinavian kingdoms, since the word scandinavia was not used before the 18th century, more than 600 years after the period of the map.Beko the Great wrote:balance and perfection are unattainable so what we can do is come closer, with a lot of imperfections
Hmm, I do not oppose to that coding. So what you sugest is that in a 2 player start, the two players will have at least one territory in Scandinavia, right? As I said before I like the trickiancanton wrote:Incandenza wrote:when it comes to xml, you might consider coding two of the scandan terits as starting positions, to eliminate the odds of a player dropping that bonus in 1v1.Beko the Great wrote:About Scandinavia, I don't think that drop is a big deal, since it's just a 1 army bonus.coding the scandinavian regions as start positions is good advice, since i think there are no disadvantages to doing this. actually, it would be more correct to call them norse kingdoms instead of scandinavian kingdoms, since the word scandinavia was not used before the 18th century, more than 600 years after the period of the map.Beko the Great wrote:balance and perfection are unattainable so what we can do is come closer, with a lot of imperfections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia
That won't be hardiancanton wrote:i like the new borders of danmark. can u increase the size of the danish island, so that it almost touches the coast of the eastern part of danmark at helsingør? this will help to make it clear that these areas are part of the same region.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/europe/denmark/
Aragon plays his role in reconquista atacking "Medina Mayurqa" and defending Christian Iberia from the moors. I think adding a connection (one way attack or not) from Aragon to Qurtuba would be just another way of the only defending region of Christian Iberia (and a potential "accumulator" of armies) expand very quickly and unbalance the gameplay.iancanton wrote:is it possible to let aragon play a role in the reconquista? valencia was conquered by aragon, not by castilla, so aragon ought to have a border with muslim iberia. should we spell it aragó (catalan language)?
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/ ... recon.html
the mountains that now protect the balkans bonus zone are a good addition to the map. well done there!
ian.
