Conquer Club

can the lakes attack eachother??? if not can u add "the lakes can not attack each other" somewhere on the map

WM...great looking map...I haven't seen this for a few pages and changes are well adjusted. Glad u removed the flag in background of each region. Looks much cleaner now.
I have to say however, I'm not a fan of the 'no border' happeneing between the lakes and some territories. I feel there should be some definition there, to be consistent with other territories bordering the lakes.

cairnswk wrote:WM...great looking map...I haven't seen this for a few pages and changes are well adjusted. Glad u removed the flag in background of each region. Looks much cleaner now.
I have to say however, I'm not a fan of the 'no border' happening between the lakes and some territories. I feel there should be some definition there, to be consistent with other territories bordering the lakes.

I guess I don't understand. There are only a few territories that have the ability to attack lakes. Those are depicted with arrows and a gradient shoreline. Technically all of the lakes border many land territories but can only attack/be attacked where there is an arrow.

spinwizard wrote:can the lakes attack eachother??? if not can u add "the lakes can not attack each other" somewhere on the map

That is like asking can territories attack each other. There is no text that says they can't. So they can. Follow the rivers connecting them to find out which ones can attack each other.

sammy324 wrote:Another possibilty for "watertown" could be Lake Placid. It's not a big town, but for its olympic history and reputation as a touristy place, it should be considered.

Agreed, Lake Placid has hosted two winter Olympics!

Watertown claim to fame is that .. well... actually, they dont have one.

Watertown is out. Lake Placid is in. Is there anything else.

I will:
Fix the wobbly text once the names are agreed upon.
Start the XML when the names and borders are done.

Any other suggestions?

I love it more than my girlfrined (unless she looks at this post)

Looks just great. Awesome job. Can't wait to play it.

i like the wobbly text, gives this map some character. please dont 'fix' it.

mibi wrote:i like the wobbly text, gives this map some character. please dont 'fix' it.

I concur... I reckon it's an awesome map.

C.

I want to play this map....hurry make it happen!!!!

I like the border-less solution for port territories, but there are two borders which look a bit off:

- Green Bay has that peninsula, which looks really fuzzy without an "inner" border (the v-shaped border covering the East side of the main landmass and the West side of the peninsula). The peninsula has a long border on the East side anyway, which should be plenty long enough to make the effect clear, so maybe adding in part of that inner border would give the peninsula some definition?

- The arrow between Detroit and Lake Erie pretty much obscures all of the non-border, while the solid border right above the arrow makes it seem as if Detroit has a solid border all around. I think removing the Detroit border between the two arrows would make it more clear that Detroit is also a port territory. Since there's also the Windsor-Detroit arrow to separate Erie from Huron, removing that border shouldn't cause people to think Detroit can attack Lake Huron as well

About the crooked text, I've said all along that I like the effect of the text conforming to the topography of the map. I don't think they're disruptive enough to affect anyone's ability to read the names at a glance. Not sure what the popular opinion on that is though.

Lastly, I just noticed that the map lacks a compass. I almost never look at the compass on any map (obviously), and it's pretty clear which direction is North on this map. Not sure if you intended to put one in though, so I'm just pointing it out in case you forgot.

vakEirn79 wrote:- Green Bay has that peninsula, which looks really fuzzy without an "inner" border (the v-shaped border covering the East side of the main landmass and the West side of the peninsula). The peninsula has a long border on the East side anyway, which should be plenty long enough to make the effect clear, so maybe adding in part of that inner border would give the peninsula some definition?

I will fix this

vakEirn79 wrote:- The arrow between Detroit and Lake Erie pretty much obscures all of the non-border, while the solid border right above the arrow makes it seem as if Detroit has a solid border all around. I think removing the Detroit border between the two arrows would make it more clear that Detroit is also a port territory. Since there's also the Windsor-Detroit arrow to separate Erie from Huron, removing that border shouldn't cause people to think Detroit can attack Lake Huron as well

I can take the border away between the arrows too.

vakEirn79 wrote:About the crooked text, I've said all along that I like the effect of the text conforming to the topography of the map. I don't think they're disruptive enough to affect anyone's ability to read the names at a glance. Not sure what the popular opinion on that is though.

It seems the text is popular this way. I will keep it and if there is any issue we will have a poll for it.

vakEirn79 wrote:Lastly, I just noticed that the map lacks a compass. I almost never look at the compass on any map (obviously), and it's pretty clear which direction is North on this map. Not sure if you intended to put one in though, so I'm just pointing it out in case you forgot.

Good idea I did not think of that. I will probably try something nad stick it on the east side of the map.

I think that the borderless ports look really bad. I think that the anchors and an explaination would work best.

Evil Pope wrote:I think that the borderless ports look really bad. I think that the anchors and an explaination would work best.

I wouldn't mind that except that not everyone was understanding the explanation correctly and nobody was able to come up with an explanation that everyone could understand.

I think the way it is now is the way most maps handle this sort of thing and that it looks pretty good. We're really at the point where something like that is an opinion thing and not something that needs to be fixed or changed.

what happened to the flags of the states in the back-ground?

Unit_2 wrote:what happened to the flags of the states in the back-ground?

Some people complained that hey were not clear enough. But making them more clear made it harder to read the text. I just took them out.

Evil Pope wrote:I think that the borderless ports look really bad. I think that the anchors and an explaination would work best.

As Coleman said, some people, no matter how you try to word the text, will not understand things. These arrows, while maybe not as fancy or pretty as the anchors, are easy to understand. If someone looks at this map ans does not know what ans arrow means then TOO BAD!

Plus not having the text makes the map cleaner. Currently this is the easiest way to draw and explain the ports. And now we really don't even need to explain the ports. Look at the arrows would really be the only text we need. And that would be dumb (IMHO).

I think there are way too many "continents". You could remove some or join them together and change the bonuses. E.g. Seaside, Eastern U.S. etc.

Will_Liam wrote:I think there are way too many "continents". You could remove some or join them together and change the bonuses. E.g. Seaside, Eastern U.S. etc.

Well this definitely isn't World 2.1 So many of these are only worth 2 anyway. As long as it isn't 7 or 8 super continents I don't see this being a problem.

Also, really odd choice for a first post. But I like that it was in the foundry. And that is a really awesome shot of Ichigo's Hollowization.

Coleman wrote:

Will_Liam wrote:I think there are way too many "continents". You could remove some or join them together and change the bonuses. E.g. Seaside, Eastern U.S. etc.

Well this definitely isn't World 2.1 So many of these are only worth 2 anyway. As long as it isn't 7 or 8 super continents I don't see this being a problem.

Also, really odd choice for a first post. But I like that it was in the foundry. And that is a really awesome shot of Ichigo's Hollowization.

I agree. That's the only problem I have with some of these maps. It's two '2' bonuses, one '3', and then the rest are huge.

wrightfan123 wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Will_Liam wrote:I think there are way too many "continents". You could remove some or join them together and change the bonuses. E.g. Seaside, Eastern U.S. etc.

Well this definitely isn't World 2.1 So many of these are only worth 2 anyway. As long as it isn't 7 or 8 super continents I don't see this being a problem.

Also, really odd choice for a first post. But I like that it was in the foundry. And that is a really awesome shot of Ichigo's Hollowization.

I agree. That's the only problem I have with some of these maps. It's two '2' bonuses, one '3', and then the rest are huge.

ok there are 4 '2' bonuses: pennsylvania, new york, indiana, and minnesota - not 2 of them

Updated maps
-I fixed the two shorelines (Detroit and Chicago)
-Added A compass

With flags


Without Flags

with flags but make the winsconsin and michigan flags more subtle.

I think I prefer the map without the flags, but I don't really mind in the end... it's a great looking map regardless.

Could you possibly do something about the colours of Michigan/Indiana/Ohio? You've got three purple continents all next to each other. I can distinguish between them, but unless there's a specific reason they are these colours I find it a bit strange.

I'm not sure about the actual colour on the borders either. Perhaps if they were to fade more gradually? I don't really know what it is, but something seems a bit off. It's more noticeable without the flags though, so if you keep the flags I guess it's a moot point.

I like the arrows/borderless territory look but there's a few things to consider. I find the Chicago/Lake Michigan arrow very easy to identify, but the St. Ignace/Mackinac arrow almost gets lost up there. Perhaps try and darken up the outline/shadow of the arrows so they stand out more? Also, I find it a bit odd how the outlines of territories just stop on those bordering the lakes. Maybe if the lines were to gradually fade out it would look better.

The new title works, but just above it you seem to have a line across the top of the map where your white cloud look is missing.

I'm still not sure about the double legend and especially the need for a mini-map now that the continents are more easily identifyable. It's your call though. Also, perhaps consider swapping the mountain and river in the impassable key down the bottom. It looks as though the mountains are peaks breaking through the mist (nice effect ), and are part of the mountain range that actually make up the map.

Any chance you could bump up the Toronto army shadow a pixel or two to give it some space. Perhaps see if you can get Mackinac's army shadow within the territory as well.

Anyway, that's enough picking at the map for now. Good work WidowMakers, keep it up.

The flags seem too dark i think and the one in PA isnt dark enough if your going to leave it. i would also bump the brightness down a little bit. . Also are the army circles going to be big enough?

BizzleHawk67 wrote:

wrightfan123 wrote:

Coleman wrote:

Will_Liam wrote:I think there are way too many "continents". You could remove some or join them together and change the bonuses. E.g. Seaside, Eastern U.S. etc.

Well this definitely isn't World 2.1 So many of these are only worth 2 anyway. As long as it isn't 7 or 8 super continents I don't see this being a problem.

Also, really odd choice for a first post. But I like that it was in the foundry. And that is a really awesome shot of Ichigo's Hollowization.

I agree. That's the only problem I have with some of these maps. It's two '2' bonuses, one '3', and then the rest are huge.

ok there are 4 '2' bonuses: pennsylvania, new york, indiana, and minnesota - not 2 of them

Not this map in particular. Just some maps that people have suggested.