Conquer Club

Since I suggested its use, I just want to weigh in pretty quickly here...

A) I thought the shield looked better than the blank white space. If you don't end up going with it, I think something else would be cool with a lot of color to draw attention. Maybe the Royal Standard? http://blogs.cornell.edu/jamie-abroad/f ... ndard1.jpg

B) I don't understand the debate about London being in the UK or not. Of course it is. And it seems pretty well-established that it's the capital of England. Note that it's never been confirmed--via statute--that London is even the capital of UK. It's just de facto. The royal court moved to London, ergo, it became the capital. It's an interesting history, and not worth getting deeply into right now, but London is the capital of both England and the UK.

C) As the racism issue. Sorry, but give me a break. There are, I'm sure, people around the world that view the UK standard as being racist, just as I'm sure there are people who are offended by the American flag. If a fringe tries to co-opt a symbol, you don't acquiesce by branding the symbol immediately racist. You take it back and you use it in its proper historical, geographic and national context. I'm fine if you don't want to use it for aesthetic reasons or thematic reasons. That's fine but don't do it because there are a few jackasses out there that happen to use the symbol. (and I'm writing WAY more about this than I want to, but kneejerk cries of racism really irritate me).

D) I'd note, yet again, that it's not just the flag of England. It's also the coat of arms for the city of London! So, in that regard, I also don't understand the argument that it can't be used because this is a "British" map. At its core, it's a London map. And we're talking about the coat of arms for the city of London.

In summation... I've got no problem if you don't want to use it for aesthetic or thematic reasons. I won't argue, even though I thought it looked good. But the other reasons are foolish, in my opinion. Just wanted to offer that defense.

Peter Gibbons wrote:Since I suggested its use, I just want to weigh in pretty quickly here...

A) I thought the shield looked better than the blank white space. If you don't end up going with it, I think something else would be cool with a lot of color to draw attention. Maybe the Royal Standard? http://blogs.cornell.edu/jamie-abroad/f ... ndard1.jpg

I agree, having somthing is better than nothing.

B) I don't understand the debate about London being in the UK or not. Of course it is. And it seems pretty well-established that it's the capital of England. Note that it's never been confirmed--via statute--that London is even the capital of UK. It's just de facto. The royal court moved to London, ergo, it became the capital. It's an interesting history, and not worth getting deeply into right now, but London is the capital of both England and the UK.

Yes and no, you said it yourself, London has never been confirmed as the capital and never will.

C) As the racism issue. Sorry, but give me a break. There are, I'm sure, people around the world that view the UK standard as being racist, just as I'm sure there are people who are offended by the American flag. If a fringe tries to co-opt a symbol, you don't acquiesce by branding the symbol immediately racist. You take it back and you use it in its proper historical, geographic and national context. I'm fine if you don't want to use it for aesthetic reasons or thematic reasons. That's fine but don't do it because there are a few jackasses out there that happen to use the symbol. (and I'm writing WAY more about this than I want to, but kneejerk cries of racism really irritate me).

On the racism issue, I only brought it up because it may be viewed that way.

D) I'd note, yet again, that it's not just the flag of England. It's also the coat of arms for the city of London! So, in that regard, I also don't understand the argument that it can't be used because this is a "British" map. At its core, it's a London map. And we're talking about the coat of arms for the city of London.

It is not the coat of arms for London, this is...

and this is the one for the mayors office. Not the political one but the ceremonial mayor.

It will have something. It will have an army number.

natty_dread wrote:It will have something. It will have an army number.

Yes, once there is an army number of that territory I don't think it will require anything else.

[bigimg]http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7526/londonn7n.jpg[/bigimg]

So. Are there any gameplay changes I need to do?

City starts neutral 3, all others regular, giving the map 32 starting territories. That's 10 each in 2-3 player games and 4 each in 8 player.

One minor point on game play might be to add the Blackwall tunnel between Tower Hamlets and Greenwich.

With the City of London starting out neutral, it leaves the East and SouthEast with only 2 territs to defend if it is not taken, (I can imagine it not being taken for certain games). This opens up Tower Hamlets to attack which when and if the city is taken does not increase the borders but also allows a new way around.

Nah, I don't see that being beneficial to the gameplay. Southeast is fine having 3 borders, it's the only reasonably easy bonus on the east side of the map.

Another graphical idea - since the background is blue now, I figured I could give this a shot:

[bigimg]http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/2393/londonn8.jpg[/bigimg]

natty_dread wrote:Nah, I don't see that being beneficial to the gameplay. Southeast is fine having 3 borders, it's the only reasonably easy bonus on the east side of the map.

Fine, another point though to have it would be on the right side of the map you have 3 ways to go top to bottom, one in the centre and only one on the right, right at the edge of the map. This does seem a little unbalanced.

koontz1973 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Nah, I don't see that being beneficial to the gameplay. Southeast is fine having 3 borders, it's the only reasonably easy bonus on the east side of the map.

Fine, another point though to have it would be on the right side of the map you have 3 ways to go top to bottom, one in the centre and only one on the right, right at the edge of the map. This does seem a little unbalanced.

Ok I'm sorry but that doesn't even make any sense. Why would it matter to "balance" the amount of ways you can get accross the river along the horizontal axis of the map? The river is just an impassable, it has no gameplay significance.

koontz1973 wrote:

Peter Gibbons wrote:Since I suggested its use, I just want to weigh in pretty quickly here...

A) I thought the shield looked better than the blank white space. If you don't end up going with it, I think something else would be cool with a lot of color to draw attention. Maybe the Royal Standard? http://blogs.cornell.edu/jamie-abroad/f ... ndard1.jpg

I agree, having somthing is better than nothing.

B) I don't understand the debate about London being in the UK or not. Of course it is. And it seems pretty well-established that it's the capital of England. Note that it's never been confirmed--via statute--that London is even the capital of UK. It's just de facto. The royal court moved to London, ergo, it became the capital. It's an interesting history, and not worth getting deeply into right now, but London is the capital of both England and the UK.

Yes and no, you said it yourself, London has never been confirmed as the capital and never will.

C) As the racism issue. Sorry, but give me a break. There are, I'm sure, people around the world that view the UK standard as being racist, just as I'm sure there are people who are offended by the American flag. If a fringe tries to co-opt a symbol, you don't acquiesce by branding the symbol immediately racist. You take it back and you use it in its proper historical, geographic and national context. I'm fine if you don't want to use it for aesthetic reasons or thematic reasons. That's fine but don't do it because there are a few jackasses out there that happen to use the symbol. (and I'm writing WAY more about this than I want to, but kneejerk cries of racism really irritate me).

On the racism issue, I only brought it up because it may be viewed that way.

D) I'd note, yet again, that it's not just the flag of England. It's also the coat of arms for the city of London! So, in that regard, I also don't understand the argument that it can't be used because this is a "British" map. At its core, it's a London map. And we're talking about the coat of arms for the city of London.

It is not the coat of arms for London, this is...

and this is the one for the mayors office. Not the political one but the ceremonial mayor.

Right, sorry. Should have been more clear. The first image you posted is the one I linked to earlier. More correct for me to say "the cross of St. George also forms the basis for the coats of arms for the City of London."

As for the capital thing... this gets into a geo-political discussion, but... the fact that London hosts all embassies to the Court of St. James sort of confirms that it is the capital of the UK, at least under customary international law. As for the capital of England thing... historically, the capital was moved to London when the royal court moved there... like in the 1100s. So, as I think we both concede, no, it's not written down anywhere or in statute, like it is in many other countries. But it's a lot more yes than no on this one. To argue that London isn't the capital of England (or, perhaps more accurately, to argue that England has no capital) seems to be overly pedantic.

Fair enough on your point on racism. It just irks me a little that historical symbols get co-opted and people concede the point. But I repeat myself. Anyway, seems like a healthy debate and it seems like everyone thinks something needs to replace the blank white space, which was my initial argument. I've got no real dog in the fight regarding which symbol or design gets used. But I'm confident that natty will either incorporate one of the above ideas or come up with something on his own.

Peter Gibbons wrote:something needs to replace the blank white space

And something will: the army number.

why don't you push yourself a little bit more with this map. It looks very basic right now. You have a few maps under your belt now. Time to step it up. I realize it's still early in the game, but this map looks like you could knock it out in a hour or two. And the flag really makes it look unbalanced.

It's a personal preference, but I still don't like the floating maps, not unless they are done really well. Maybe it's the outer & inner glow you've added, but it looks like a floating bevel.

Do you have a referenece map you're looking at for graphic inspiration? Why not browse some map webpages to find something you would like to work towards.

I know you'll take this post the wrong way - I'm just trying to push you.

RjBeals wrote:It's a personal preference, but I still don't like the floating maps, not unless they are done really well. Maybe it's the outer & inner glow you've added, but it looks like a floating bevel.

For the most part, I've similarly disliked hovering/floating maps as well. I've always liked to see a map anchored.


--Andy

I have one major bone with this map: it has no soul. I don't get the feeling of London, or any other geographic region remotely related to England or the River Thames looking at this map. I see a brown splotch of territories that have names that may or may not be similar to burroughs in the capital of the United Kingdom. In this case, I don't think "window-dressing" by adding symbols to the exterior of the map (like Big Ben, and the UK flag) are going to do a thing toward evoking that spirit of London. While I'm sure the gameplay would be fine to play on, but right now it doesn't seem like it would be FUN to play on.

AndyDufresne wrote:For the most part, I've similarly disliked hovering/floating maps as well. I've always liked to see a map anchored.

The problem with that is that London is totally landlocked. So if you want, you can think of the background as the surrounding land area.

Does anyone have any gameplay input? Anything that needs to be fixed?

Haven't read through the whole thread quite yet, but my first critique is that the gray impassables look like little worms. Is there something else that can be done with those?

The impassables are temporary, I haven't figured out yet what I'm going to use for impassables...

natty_dread wrote:The impassables are temporary, I haven't figured out yet what I'm going to use for impassables...

Parks, highways, railways ?

Hi natty,

can I ask you to update the thread title with version and page number of updates to aid in people following the map?

Thank you.

I don't do version numbers anymore. They're tedious to keep track of, no one needs them for anything, and if anyone wants the latest "official" version of the map it can be found on the first page.

natty_dread wrote:I don't do version numbers anymore. They're tedious to keep track of, no one needs them for anything, and if anyone wants the latest "official" version of the map it can be found on the first page.

I can live without a version number, but the latest page of the most recent update is a must, so that development and discussion can be more easily followed from the latest version. It has always been a basic requirement of the foundry process:

General Mapmaking Rules wrote:3. List what page(s) the latest update is on (e.g. [p1/5])

This really helps me to keep on top of the latest discussion of map from the most recent update. I (and others) can navigate the map thread much quicker this way.

If you can't see the latest update on the last page, then it's on the first page. Why should you want to dig through the thread for an arbitrary page number when you can just as easily click page 1?

natty_dread wrote:If you can't see the latest update on the last page, then it's on the first page. Why should you want to dig through the thread for an arbitrary page number when you can just as easily click page 1?

Because if I have the page number of the last update then I can ready a thread from that update onward so I an follow the latest development. Sure I can look at page 1 and still leave feedback, but what if what I suggest something that has already seem suggested? or someone brings up an issue that I can give an opinion about?

I wouldn't ask for page numbers if they weren't necessary to help me keep track of the map maps that are in the foundry. They are useful and have been embedded in the foundry for years.

natty_dread wrote:If you can't see the latest update on the last page, then it's on the first page. Why should you want to dig through the thread for an arbitrary page number when you can just as easily click page 1?

Stop being an ass.

For what it's worth, I think a map of London deserves something better than the standard natty treatment, and would (as others have done) encourage you to raise your game.