Conquer Club

Another alternative would be to simply make the grey background darker

[bigimg]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/6305/londonn1d.png[/bigimg]

Actually, I think I'll go with this - dark grey, with very very slight blue tint - gives a sort of authentic, old school b&w photo feel...

Also it makes it look kinda misty and I like that

[bigimg]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2636/londonn2.png[/bigimg]

Actually the most recent one is a winner as well.

Yep I'll go with that one. I want to keep the background more b&w, because... it reminds me of the album cover of London Calling?

Anyway, trying out some fancy thing with the bonus borders... also added abbreviations in the legend.

[bigimg]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2636/londonn2.png[/bigimg]

Now I want that GamePlay stamp!

Alternate bridges

[bigimg]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2636/londonn2.png[/bigimg]

Alternate title, new glowy effects.

[bigimg]http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4153/londonn3.png[/bigimg]

edit. meh, too glowy... I'll go back to less glowyness. The title isn't that good either, I like the simpler version better.

[bigimg]http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4153/londonn3.png[/bigimg]

Another alternate title, also: aligned the map better to the center of the image

[bigimg]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4153/londonn3.png[/bigimg]

So, where are all those people now who told me they simply hated the graphics?

I have new graphics now and none of those people are commenting.

It seems that CC has gone into hibernation during the last week, nobody has really commented on anything I've had a new map on the d. 21 without a single comment, but with over 50 views could someone as well have said something about it, anyway the thread is about your map and I'd love to give a comment.

I can much better like your new style, it is more contemporary, the old verision was more 1800's style, and it was not bad either, so it is really a matter of taste.
I thought the font to "london" fits well to the map.

Nothing much from me but aleast a comment

Some smallish tweaks. Nothing too visible, mainly just fiddling with the details.

[bigimg]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1930/londonn4.png[/bigimg]

Looks almost as sexy as you, natty

-Sully

Well duh, it's a fucking masterpiece, I know.

As for the gameplay, I've decided that Ealing & all NW territories will be coded as starting positions. This prevents the dropping of NW in 2-4 player games, and minimizes the neutrals on the map.

So, all the gameplay complaints have been addressed, where's my stamp? I'd like to start working on the small map...


Also: Should I include "Classic Cities" on the map? Are other "Classic Cities" maps planning on doing this?

i'm leaving the stamping of this map to my colleagues because i haven't followed its development since the gameplay competition stage, so my comments in this post are purely as a player.

i have to say that, of the city maps out there, this one ranks just above hong kong: in other words, the gameplay almost completely fails to capture the spirit of the city in a way that nyc, vancouver, chicago or sydney metro do. perhaps this is necessarily the case for such a small map.

putting a tiny bonus zone (northwest) in a corner of the map doesn't help the gameplay quality, since most games will feature a near-decisive struggle for a little-known part of outer london. i certainly feel that merging northwest with west will improve matters; if u want to keep 7 bonuses, then westminster, kensington and hammersmith can form a small bonus instead. although i realise that these comments have come very late, any change along these lines will be appreciated by this london resident!

ian.

Well, thanks for your opinion Ian.

In fact we had NW and W as one bonus previously, but the overall consensus was that the map needed a small bonus area. So I'm sorry but won't be going back on that at this point.

As for Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith, it could work from a gameplay perspective... However I wouldn't know what to call that area... and the idea of the map is kind of to stick with the official divisions as accurately as possible.

A compromise solution: I could remove the impassable from between Hounslow/Hillingdon, I didn't really consider it necessary in the first place... that way NW wouldn't be so powerful since it'd be easier to break, and the focus of the map would shift closer to the center.

natty_dread wrote:A compromise solution: I could remove the impassable from between Hounslow/Hillingdon, I didn't really consider it necessary in the first place... that way NW wouldn't be so powerful since it'd be easier to break, and the focus of the map would shift closer to the center.

Sounds good

-Sully

Ok, done.

[bigimg]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9626/londonn5.png[/bigimg]

If it turns out NW is now useless we can always add the impassable back in beta. I can backport it from an older version...

natty_dread wrote:the idea of the map is kind of to stick with the official divisions as accurately as possible.

the map follows the official postcode districts consistently, with one major error: camden ought to be part of northwest london and, not only that, but camden is actually the northwest head postal district. the map will then have two small bonuses (northwest and north, with the latter becoming the easiest bonus on the board) instead of just one tiny bonus and there will be more play in the centre, since camden will become necessary for the northwest player and desirable for the north player. u might find it desirable to reinstate the impassable that u've just removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NW_postcode_area

can u also remove the bexley-havering connection, since no bridge or tunnel exists at that point, and replace it by a greenwich-newham connection (this is the docklands light railway tunnel from woolwich arsenal in greenwich to london city airport in newham). this has only a minor gameplay effect, which is to bring defensive troops into a more central position.

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/archives/woolwich-arsenal-extension

ian.

I don't know if those changes would be good for the gameplay though... I'll have to think about this

If you implement what ian suggests, I wonder if you could remedy the issue with North by eliminating the impassable between Enfield and Waltham Forest?

-Sully

Actually, I think adding Camden to NW would create more problems than it solves. The current arrangement just works better gameplay-wise, and from what I gather the postal areas don't really correspond that closely to the boroughs anyway...

However, I'm willing to move the Bexley-Havering connection to Greenwich-Newham, this won't change the border count of either area and if it's more realistic, let's go with it.

natty_dread wrote:Actually, I think adding Camden to NW would create more problems than it solves. The current arrangement just works better gameplay-wise, and from what I gather the postal areas don't really correspond that closely to the boroughs anyway...

is the current arrangement really better? if camden isn't made part of northwest (although the borough boundaries have changed since the postal districts were devised, camden was the most significant part of the northwest area), then u need something else to bring the play closer to the middle, otherwise players who don't have a strong position in the outer northwest will rush to other parts of outer london to conserve their forces and avoid conflict in multi-player games. although the city bonus of +1 is good in that it mitigates this effect slightly, the effect is too small and i suspect that many players will not kill 3 neutrals for a +1 bonus in such an insecure area.

natty_dread wrote:However, I'm willing to move the Bexley-Havering connection to Greenwich-Newham, this won't change the border count of either area and if it's more realistic, let's go with it.

at least we're agreed here!

ian.

How about this: I'll annex Camden to NW, then add an impassable between Harrow & Ealing, to keep the border count of NW at 3. Then I'll also have to increase the bonus of NW to 3, to keep it a feasible bonus. N and NW will then both be 4 territories/3 borders, and both will give a bonus of 3, I think it'll be balanced.

Also, with this change, since the smallest bonus areas are 4 territories, there will no longer be any starting positions and 2-player games will start with 10 territories each.

Said & done

[bigimg]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2562/londonn6.png[/bigimg]