Conquer Club

WidowMakers wrote:Here are the updates. I fixed most of the suggested names and recolored the different states/province to help distinguish. I was going to try a more solid border line but it was too harsh and interfered with the text.

I also removed the bridges and added arrows. At the size I needed to draw them, the bridges did not look good.

Wow. Now it looks much better and I can distinguish the continents. Good job.

Gilligan wrote:So any lake can attack any port?
And, can lakes attack adjacent land? Say, Windsor and Lake Erie?

I see where that confusion came from but no. This is why I still think there should just be white dashes or something connecting the land to the lakes instead.

How about Ports can attack all adjacent lake territories and vice versa. People that don't know what vice versa means can then be shot.

Looks great. Good job.

Coleman wrote:

Gilligan wrote:So any lake can attack any port?
And, can lakes attack adjacent land? Say, Windsor and Lake Erie?

I see where that confusion came from but no. This is why I still think there should just be white dashes or something connecting the land to the lakes instead.

So, is it any lake <-> any port territory, or lake -> adjacent port territories and vice versa? The latter would require a lot of intersecting dashes...
If it's the former, didn't someone suggest docks? They would serve as a visual attack route between water and land, like the dashes, but would fit better thematically.

I think the anchors are a bit too dark at the bottom, so they don't stand out very well. I don't think that would clear up the confusion much though.

I liked the paler colours better, because the majority of CC maps tend to be doused in rich colours. However, it certainly is much easier to distinguish the colours on this version, so I won't argue for changing it back if most people prefer this.

The text legend (the state/province names) looks a bit segregated from the rest of the map, mostly because of that perfectly straight left edge and the heavy shadow under it. I wonder if it might look better with a slightly lighter shadow, and a colour fade towards the left as well. Something like having the colour darkest under the second letter or thereabouts, and then having it fade away a bit at the left edge (like it does on the right side) so it's not such a clear, straight line. Not sure if I described that well...

Looking good! I don't see why Windsor connects to Saginaw though. Would make more sense for Windsor to connect to Detroit since they have much greater ties and are right across the Detroit River from each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor-Detroit

Saginaw on the other hand is over 100 miles away from Windsor.

I know WM could do better, but the 9 dashes needed seems to be a lot more intuitive then the wall of text at the bottom of the map.

OK. Even thought the current poll is in favor of the anchors, I will ditch the anchors and make docks or some sort of connection from land to lake and I will also move the Detroit /Windsor bridge back. We can then see if it is really better.

Then in the space currently used for the anchor and lake<>land text i will put the impassable borders (rivers/mountains) and attack routes (arrows/docks). Then I might be able to skinny the map up a bit too.

Plus I will lighten up the shadow under the bonus text gradient

I'd prefer to see impassable borders around the lakes, with openings at ports, to a bunch of docks. Also, the arrows are . . . tacky? I don't like them.

Docks are good, that would work on this map

WidowMakers wrote:OK. Even thought the current poll is in favor of the anchors, I will ditch the anchors and make docks or some sort of connection from land to lake and I will also move the Detroit /Windsor bridge back. We can then see if it is really better.

Then in the space currently used for the anchor and lake<>land text i will put the impassable borders (rivers/mountains) and attack routes (arrows/docks). Then I might be able to skinny the map up a bit too.

Plus I will lighten up the shadow under the bonus text gradient

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the anchors or anything. It is just that a lot of people don't seem to understand it even after you explain it.

the confusion's understandable, if you look at other maps with ports all the parts can attack each other, so docks may be a good way th show the borders on this map

WidowMakers wrote:OK. Even thought the current poll is in favor of the anchors, I will ditch the anchors and make docks or some sort of connection from land to lake and I will also move the Detroit /Windsor bridge back. We can then see if it is really better.

Then in the space currently used for the anchor and lake<>land text i will put the impassable borders (rivers/mountains) and attack routes (arrows/docks). Then I might be able to skinny the map up a bit too.

Plus I will lighten up the shadow under the bonus text gradient

If the anchor option is getting more votes, you'd just need a clearer explanation. Something like:

- Port territories can attack land and lakes
- Lakes can attack port territories and other lakes
- Attacks must be made to an adjacent territory/lake

I think that's less confusing, but maybe a bit wordy. It's also not great that the adjacent condition isn't mentioned until the third line, so the reader has to go back and re-think the other two conditions in relation to the third. Maybe someone else can think of better wording though.

Also, if you change it to a Windsor-Detroit bridge (which does make more sense), you should probably change the bonus for either Ontario or Michigan. As it is, they're both +6, Ontario having 9 territories with 5 to defend, Michigan 7 and 5. A Windsor-Detroit bridge removes the need to defend Saginaw, so Michigan would be 7 and 4, which is a huge difference from Ontario.

I still would prefer to see Michigan colored Blue, but that's probably just the Wolverine fan in me talking.

Other than that, can't wait to play!

I don't know about the slanted writing. It's kind of hard on the eyes, I find.

I love the new coloring for the continents. That is a much improved look I think.

I also like the idea of impassables surrounding the lakes and docks connecting the territories that can attack. It will make the map much more intuitive and eliminate the need for any text describing those attack routes (just an impassable border in the key).

If you change the one bridge back so it connects Detroit-Windsor keep in mind you have to change to XML so that detroit can attack Lake Huron (unless you put the docks in) because moving the arrow/bridge will change to border of Erie and Huron.

I'm still having trouble looking at this map and I can't put my finger on why exactly. I just find it hard to gain a perspective on it.. still as if I want to "zoom out"

I think you should make examples of each option and redo the poll. I don't know who the hell is voting for the first option, but either they aren't posting or they didn't bother reading the poll. Damn near everyone agrees it isn't clear enough what lakes can and cannot attack, I don't see how you could say that and vote for the first one.

I dislike the anchors, and i think docks will better show that a port can only attack the adjoining lake...

I also dont like the arrows...they dont match the 'realistic' feel of the map...I liked the bridges better...

I think the lakes could maybe have a better effect on them...it seems to much like a random noise effect to me now...

the river that goes into the northern most lake (unnamed one, or is that a bay?) doesnt look like it quite blends in correctly with the lake...

Geographically, Syracuse, or even Binghampton, would be more apropriate

current playability A++

map looks amazing!

poll option 3

how about port can attack other ports?

Geographical wrote:how about port can attack other ports?

But then people think the lakes can be passed through. Basically the port system is where the water/land meet. If a player has a lake territory then they must attack a port touching that lake to get to land and vice versa.

If the lakes were not territories then port to port would work.

I like the arrows - huge improvement over bridges.

I didn't have any problems with the port explanation, but I don't have problems with walls of text like many others do. The question is, what would make for the simplest explanation?

If I have time today I will try to make a newer looking bridge and dock. There was a suggestion earlier ( i need to find it) of how to explain the port/water issue. I will use that text and see what everyone thinks.

haven't made it back to this thread in awhile, sorry.

the central new york region should remain Syracuse. the reasons for this are many:
1) the catskills are in the mountainous region you have on the map, in the southeast corner of the state, not in central new york. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nort ... ansMap.jpg
2) Syracuse is a major city--and the only major city--in the central new york region of the map.
3) Syracuse is larger than many of the other cities on the map which name their regions.
4) Very few (if any?) other areas are named for topographical features, rather than municipalities. Since there is a major city there, why make this exception?

As far as the Adirondacks go, they are certainly the dominating feature of northern new york state, in a way the catskills are not of central new york. however, if you wanted to stay in keeping with the municipal theme of naming, watertown is a large city in that region.