Conquer Club

London paris is more east west than north south so I don't care!

t-o-m wrote:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

dakky21 wrote:I wouldn't mind at all if it was east-west rotated. But north-south can't work, or it can, but then write all the territory names upwards down as well, so we all know we're looking at a map from an opposite side.

Why? It's unrelated to gameplay.

dakky21 wrote:But, you notice the map in the background of this image which you posted? Do you see Britain on the upper part or on the lower part of the map?

This map isn't about Britain. It is focused in all the way to the English Channel.

You have one problem with all your images... All of them are on tables or on the ground.

This map is about English Chanel or about Perspective?

Here is how English Chanel looks like. Maybe in your mind it looks differently, but in majority of the humans it has this image.



Get it?

GoranZ wrote:Get it?

Your logic assumes that somebody always stands at the south end of the table.

t-o-m wrote:Your logic assumes that somebody always stands at the south end of the table.

Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world. In every map south is represented at the bottom of the map.

But if you want to make map from your perspective, name it accordingly, dont hijack popular name.

GoranZ wrote:Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world.

You have misunderstood what I wrote. All in all, what we are discussing does not affect gameplay. If you need to describe it, it's a creative concept and one that I know that you disagree with. There has been input from many people, in this thread and outside of this thread, and with their support I would like the map's orientation will remain as is. Thanks for your input and I hope you can appreciate the map even though you would like it to be different.

t-o-m wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world.

You have misunderstood what I wrote. All in all, what we are discussing does not affect gameplay. If you need to describe it, it's a creative concept and one that I know that you disagree with. There has been input from many people, in this thread and outside of this thread, and with their support I would like the map's orientation will remain as is. Thanks for your input and I hope you can appreciate the map even though you would like it to be different.

cartographers really do put south on the bottom though with the north arrow pointing up

hotfire wrote:cartographers really do put south on the bottom though with the north arrow pointing up

You're absolutely right.

t-o-m wrote:

GoranZ wrote:Its not my logic... Its what is agreed in the whole world.

You have misunderstood what I wrote. All in all, what we are discussing does not affect gameplay. If you need to describe it, it's a creative concept and one that I know that you disagree with. There has been input from many people, in this thread and outside of this thread, and with their support I would like the map's orientation will remain as is. Thanks for your input and I hope you can appreciate the map even though you would like it to be different.

You know when will your "creative" concept see the light of the day? At best in 3337.
Enjoy wasting your time.

GoranZ wrote:

t-o-m wrote: You know when will your "creative" concept see the light of the day? At best in 3337.
Enjoy wasting your time.

I'll achieve more than you ever will with that attitude. Have a nice day.

t-o-m wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

t-o-m wrote: You know when will your "creative" concept see the light of the day? At best in 3337.
Enjoy wasting your time.

I'll achieve more than you ever will with that attitude. Have a nice day.

Actually you wont achieve anything since no one will understand you...

"+" is a mathematical sign that we use for Addition. That is a RULE, there are no such this as perspectives to that.
Same applies to the location of North in Every map, including the ones you posted. Even if they are on a table any text on them would follow North-South direction.
Get it now?

Hi!

Really really like this map idea. I don't agree at all with all the people saying South should be North, it really doesn't bother me. Maybe it's true that you could flip it upside down (to the "correct" orientation) and the gameplay would remain unchanged...but surely the same argument applies to then flipping it back upside down (to how it is now) and really there's no difference either way?

At first I wasn't really sold by the region naming...like, maybe there are geographically accurate local names you could use...but as soon as I noticed that the names correspond to the square that the regions are in, I warmed to them. Quite a convenient naming system actually, and will be extra useful to those who use the drop-down lists to choose regions in a game (ie. no clickable maps).

I might suggest renaming the map....perhaps Operation Overlord? Opening this thread I was expecting something more like the existing WWII maps of Europe (eg. WWII Eastern Front).

Graphically I really like it. There are a few things I'll pick out in the main foundry, but looks good to me here, and there's a distinct theme. One thing which I think will make a difference is putting a shadow of sorts behind the impassables...make them look less floaty. Also, the airfield regions were a little harder to spot in contrast to the other nice bright icons for everything else, especially given the importance of those regions.

Which leads me to my last point for today...I'm either misunderstanding or not quite sold on some of the bonuses...

Bonus conditions:
(1) Paratrooper: +3 deploy with airfield on opposite side
(2) Airfield + (paratrooper + reinforcement pair): +3 deploy
(3) Reinforcement: +2 autodeploy with paired paratrooper

Say that I hold an English airfield, and a French paratrooper-reinforcement pair....I get +3 deploy from condition (1)...and another +3 on top of that from condition (2) ?? And if that's not already enough, I get +2 autodeploy from condition (3).

This feels way overpowered as a bonus. Especially when we consider that the airfields attack paratroopers on the opposite side. Conditions (1) and (2) aren't exactly contradictory, but they serve a similar purpose and we could maybe do without one of them?

There's an added twist by the way....
Say that I hold two English airfields, and a French paratrooper-reinforcement pair. Is the bonus going to double up, so that condition (2) gives me +6 troops and then a further +3 from condition (1) ??

Hope that all makes sense. Really looking forward to seeing this map progress!

MB

ManBungalow wrote:I don't agree at all with all the people saying South should be North, it really doesn't bother me. Maybe it's true that you could flip it upside down (to the "correct" orientation) and the gameplay would remain unchanged...but surely the same argument applies to then flipping it back upside down (to how it is now) and really there's no difference either way?

A teammate of your writes this on game chat: "Lets buildup North-East of London"
Million dollar question: For which territory he is referring to?

Your opinion is as part of Cartographers group or as regular CC user?

GoranZ wrote:A teammate of your writes this on game chat: "Lets buildup North-East of London"
Million dollar question: For which territory he is referring to?

I'm glad that you have such a keen interest in the map, and I'm glad you're now talking about the actual gameplay of the map.

However, you already asked this question on November 13th. The answer is still the same: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 2#p4749007

Hey ManBungalow! Thank you for taking the time to give some feedback, I really appreciate it.

ManBungalow wrote:I might suggest renaming the map....perhaps Operation Overlord? Opening this thread I was expecting something more like the existing WWII maps of Europe (eg. WWII Eastern Front).

Sure, I'm open to naming the map anything. 'Operation Overlord' has a bit more of a gaming theme than '1944 Invasion of Europe', so that fits well.

ManBungalow wrote:Graphically I really like it. There are a few things I'll pick out in the main foundry, but looks good to me here, and there's a distinct theme. One thing which I think will make a difference is putting a shadow of sorts behind the impassables...make them look less floaty. Also, the airfield regions were a little harder to spot in contrast to the other nice bright icons for everything else, especially given the importance of those regions.

Yes, you are absolutely right. The impassables need to stand out more and that's on my to-do list. I think a new graphic for the airfields is also on the cards.

ManBungalow wrote:Which leads me to my last point for today...I'm either misunderstanding or not quite sold on some of the bonuses...

Bonus conditions:
(1) Paratrooper: +3 deploy with airfield on opposite side
(2) Airfield + (paratrooper + reinforcement pair): +3 deploy
(3) Reinforcement: +2 autodeploy with paired paratrooper

Say that I hold an English airfield, and a French paratrooper-reinforcement pair....I get +3 deploy from condition (1)...and another +3 on top of that from condition (2) ?? And if that's not already enough, I get +2 autodeploy from condition (3).

This feels way overpowered as a bonus. Especially when we consider that the airfields attack paratroopers on the opposite side. Conditions (1) and (2) aren't exactly contradictory, but they serve a similar purpose and we could maybe do without one of them?

There's an added twist by the way....
Say that I hold two English airfields, and a French paratrooper-reinforcement pair. Is the bonus going to double up, so that condition (2) gives me +6 troops and then a further +3 from condition (1) ??

Hope that all makes sense. Really looking forward to seeing this map progress!

MB

Thanks for thinking about this and pointing it out -- I dreamt up the (2) bonus structure pretty quickly as I liked the idea that yes, it could become a multiplying bonus a bit like how resource pairs work in the Age of Realms series (this would allow an added strategy of controlling the air). I think that we can solve this problem by removing (1) as a bonus, and switching the autodeploy from the reinforcements to the paratrooper. Even if a player was able to secure this bonus, it wouldn't be an easy one to speedily grab and defend as they would be straddling the map in all areas. I also think that the +1 per square bonus structure makes the airfield/paratroop/reinforcement bonus less valuable than if the former didn't exist.

You can expect an updated in the next 10 days. I know GoranZ can't wait for the latest edition.

t-o-m wrote:

GoranZ wrote:A teammate of your writes this on game chat: "Lets buildup North-East of London"
Million dollar question: For which territory he is referring to?

I'm glad that you have such a keen interest in the map, and I'm glad you're now talking about the actual gameplay of the map.

However, you already asked this question on November 13th. The answer is still the same: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 2#p4749007

I asked him, not you... It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue about map making. You propose to change my teammates so I can play your perspective map. What an idiot you are

GoranZ wrote:I asked him, not you... It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue about map making. You propose to change my teammates so I can play your perspective map. What an idiot you are

Thanks for your input. I have read and understood it all and I don't care what you think.

Reminds me of when I get forced to play on the wrong end of a board game but the writing is all correct side up instead of upside down

Interesting orientation / concept.

Changelog:
V4 (gameplay + graphical changes)

• Added shadow and highlights behind tree impassables to make them pop
• Updated the XXXXXX beach impassable graphics
• Changed bonus structure (removed paratrooper bonus & switched autodeploy bonus from reinforcements to paratrooper)
• Made decay zones more red
• Redesigned How To Play section
• Cleared up some beach regions / moved around some army numbers for clarity

To-do

• Make all ship graphics unique
• Update Airfield icons
• Update Town icons
• Amend region names

Side note: The poll has now ended with 4 votes to 2 in favour of keeping the map's orientation the way is currently is

i'm unsure what happened to the v4 image, which is no longer visible.

t-o-m wrote:The poll has now ended with 4 votes to 2 in favour of keeping the map's orientation the way is currently is

given that the invasion is north-to-south, there is a certain logic in showing south at the top and north at the bottom. including somewhere on the map a compass which clearly displays the direction of north will save confusion.

u've made a solid start and the map qualifies in most respects for the draft stamp. the one area where it falls down is its size (and this is so obvious that i have to apologise for not having drawn ur attention to it earlier): it's unnecessarily big, by which i mean having too many regions for the nature of the map. although i realise that the image shown is of the large map, 630 x 600 is the maximum for the small map. i suggest cropping the top and bottom row of squares and moving london and paris slightly, which i believe doesn't harm playability, otherwise u will struggle to fit in every region.

ian.

Image still available, just forum formatting error

GoranZ wrote:Your opinion is as part of Cartographers group or as regular CC user?

As ever, my opinion is just my own. It's Tom's map, and we're just here to guide and support him through the process.


Interesting comment from Ian regarding the map size actually...

It seems quite plausible to remove squares A-F (and move Paris down), and I feel that might actually make players focus more on stuff happening around the channel. Then to square it off, maybe the grid squares F, L, R....JJ could be cropped out in a similar way?

idk man, if you really don't want to start cutting out regions like that, I think a supersize application might still be possible?

Operation Overlord or better said Normandy Landings are presented on the following official map bellow. Limits of the battle zone is Calais and there was no landing outside Normandy Beaches. Your battle zone is off on both sides when it comes to naval operations. Airborne operations are even more off. What you have is not Operation Overlord.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

iancanton wrote:...

Thanks for the feedback Ian. I appreciate your perspective – I think that removing the top row of regions adds a lot of balance to the map and makes it a good size – the map is now square in format and will fit better on everybody's screen.

GoranZ wrote:...

Gozan, thanks for your continued interest and support for the map. The route on the right hand side of the map serves the interest of gameplay, not historical accuracy.

___________
Changelog:
V5 (gameplay + graphical changes)

• Removed top row of regions to balance the gameplay – the map image is now square shaped
• Updated town symbol & changed them from 5 neutral to 4 neutral
• Moved tank from Barlou to Burgundy
• Removed tank from Dijon
• Moved Parachute from Cadiz to Dijon & moved Reinforcement from Cerise to Donat

To-do

• Make all ship graphics unique
• Change region names to improve consistency (either making French names French, English names English, or moving more towards a ‘military code’ like
• phonetic system – I think I prefer the latter, as it gels with the [A], , [C] box system more)
• Redesign army backgrounds, especially the ones on the ships. They need to be more clear cut.
• Make each ship graphic unique
• Consider new Airfield icons

despite a few days passing by, i still cannot see the v5 version. this will presumably correct itself.

no need to spend too much time on names at this stage, since u'll be changing them depending on the size and shape of the map that u take forward into the main foundry workshop.

GoranZ wrote:What you have is not Operation Overlord.

in the interest of clarifying that u're not trying to present a map of the actual d-day invasion, u'll have to think of a less misleading map title at some point.

ian.

iancanton wrote:despite a few days passing by, i still cannot see the v5 version. this will presumably correct itself.

I think it's something to do with the image hosting site I've been using. It's been hit and miss, so I'll try using Photobucket from now on.