Conquer Club

yeti_c wrote:

oaktown wrote:

yeti_c wrote:that would eliminate the bottle neck on the left hand side?

yeti, let me know specifically where you identify a bottleneck and I'll see if something else can't be done about it.

By bottleneck, are you actually referring to a dead-end? Because i see three dead-ends: brit, american, and russian; opening up the airfields to more attacks only addresses one of them.

I was referring to the Dead-end that Incandenza identified... between Gatow and Wannsee...

He said you could put a bridge between the two - I thought that this might be a way round it... feel free to ignore though!!!

C.

right, I'm troubled by the dead-ends as well, but there are already so many border terits between the brit and american sectors that I hate adding another yet another attack route.
• The british sector dead-end I will eliminate on the next update by moving the gatow border north of the bridge to westend, making the attack routes in that part of the map a five territory loop going gatow-westend-charlottenberg-siemenstadt-spandau. No dead-ends.
• I may add a bridge in the southern part of the russian sector where there are essentially two dead-ends, one you can hold at kopenick and one you can hold at treptow. A Grunau-Muggelheim bridge takes care of both.
• American sector may have to end up with one dead-end at Wannsee. It could be eliminated by moving the Wannsee border up and in, but personally I think the central part of the region is so wide-open that it's fine. And the right side of the American sector will begin with dead-end behind the neutral airfield, so the player who starts on the left side of the territory deserves a gift.

oaktown wrote:Color: I've been working for the past month to get the monotone look right - I don't think I'm adding color now.

I am afraid it will shy potential players away from an otherwise interesting piece of history and map.
It won't appeal to the players as much as it would if it'd be having some colouring.

What is it that gave you the idea of leaving colours out then ?

lt_oddball wrote:I am afraid it will shy potential players away from an otherwise interesting piece of history and map.
It won't appeal to the players as much as it would if it'd be having some colouring.

If somebody won't play a map because they want colors, so be it. I can't make everybody happy. I guess the same players won't play the middle east map, which in my opinion is a great map both in terms of play and, with the redo, design.

lt_oddball wrote:What is it that gave you the idea of leaving colours out then ?

I started with color, but my hope all along was to give it a look that instantly made people think of the era the map represents. Could that be done with color? Perhaps, but I think that this style is the most effective.

It would be very easy to make a 42 territory map with six straightforward continents and primary colors... but if that's what you want you can play classic. As a map maker my goal is to make a map that has some original aspects to both its gameplay and design. I hope that I've done both with this map.

A huge draw for many maps initially are the tematic elements in the gameplay and the graphics.

It's okay to have a couple of dead ends.

As far as the colors go, I looooove the revamped Middle East. In fact, late in the final forge process, mibi posted a black-and-white version of D-Day during a debate about the color-blind-friendliness of the map, and I thought it was pretty much the cat's pajamas.

But some people hate the new middle east, just as some people will hate this map. So it goes. Not even the classic map has a 100% approval rating.

Incandenza wrote:It's okay to have a couple of dead ends.

Whew! because i'll have at least one.

Incandenza wrote:As far as the colors go, I looooove the revamped Middle East.

yeah, it may have the best game play of the maps I've played... sadly, people avoid middle east because the graphics used to be awful, but now it's quite complete.

private middle east games, anyone??? no escalating.

oaktown wrote:private middle east games, anyone??? no escalating.

No escalating? What are you, some kind of communist?

Latest large and small maps.



What's new in this update:
• Yet another stab at the wall. I think this is cleaner than anything we've had.
• Moved border of Gatow/Spandau north of the bridge; Gatow is no longer a dead end.
• Added a bridge to the Russian sector; Grunau is no longer a dead end.
• Added arrows to the two land attack points through the wall; the other attack points have bridges which I think makes them obvious, but we could lose the bridges and put in arrows for the sake of consistency. It's very busy having both an arrow AND a bridge.
• Footnoted the wall, just in case anybody wonders what the heck it is.

To do:
• Update the XML to reflect the adjustments to some british and russian sector attack routes.
• Clean up additional places where the small map gets a bit muddy - like the hard-to-see bridge under "British" on the far left.
• Army coordinates (after everything else is done!).

I'm really liking the thematic look to this map. The visuals are appealing, and I don't have much to critique about that.

I'd maybe consider moving the 'French" text on the continent. Would it look better perhaps more down through Tegel and Wedding?

The wall graphic...hm...still could use some work. It is difficult to probably create a good representation, but I think somehow you should make it even clearer what it is, throughout the map. (Though the footnote is a good idea (probably different font after all is said and done)).

Regarding the airfields, is there any reason in the legend it doesn't just say "+1 / Per Airfield" Is it more of a thematic thing to detail the way you currently have it?

I'd also maybe consider altering the river color/American color, just to add a little more variation throughout the map.

As for Gameplay...this is a unique map.

I kind of like the bonus idea you have going...the option to choose which territories from the continent you'd like to hold for the bonus.

The infamous 'No-Man's Land Continent' isn't necessarily a central feature as it is in some maps.

Hm, I remember there was some discussion about the bottleneck at the central wall area...but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing...not yet at least!

Hm, I suppose I'll have more to say after I mull the map over for a while.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I'm really liking the thematic look to this map. The visuals are appealing, and I don't have much to critique about that.

Thanks, I know it's not for everybody, but what can you do.

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd maybe consider moving the 'French" text on the continent. Would it look better perhaps more down through Tegel and Wedding?

Yeah, I'm also unhappy with where "British" falls - I'd like to avoid putting either label through an army circle, but it may come to that.

AndyDufresne wrote:The wall graphic...hm...still could use some work. It is difficult to probably create a good representation, but I think somehow you should make it even clearer what it is, throughout the map. (Though the footnote is a good idea (probably different font after all is said and done)).

This has been the thorn in my side on this map. It's better than it was, but it still needs to be more prominent as it is the central feature of cold war Berlin.

AndyDufresne wrote:Regarding the airfields, is there any reason in the legend it doesn't just say "+1 / Per Airfield" Is it more of a thematic thing to detail the way you currently have it?

Actually it's a gameplay issue, but if you had to ask i guess it still isnt' clear enough. The idea is that the airfields are to receive a territorial bonus, not a continent bonus. If I read the territorial bonus tag right, it applies the army directly to the territory rather than giving you an extra army to drop, yes?

XML Tutorial wrote:You can also add some optional tags to a territory. If you want a bonus to be added to that territory each round, add a <bonus> tag.

It needs to be clear that the +1 will be applied directly to the airfield, so just saying "+1 per airfield" won't fly... if anybody can suggest better language I'd be all over it.

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd also maybe consider altering the river color/American color, just to add a little more variation throughout the map.

You're the second person to mention the river color... I can play with it.

AndyDufresne wrote:As for Gameplay...this is a unique map.

Aw shucks, you're making me blush.

Suggestions:
For French Text -
What if you pivoted the word French so that its "ch" was higher, which would at the same time drop the "Fr", making them both less obstructed
(This might require you to then move them a millimetre or two to the east to keep the F within the left side boundary)

For British Text -
What about inverting the bend on the word British,
or; moving it a couple of millimetres to the west, or south-west
(their discreeteness is a good concept too)

For Wall -
Two black outlines (i.e. on outside of white),
or; bring out the whiteness a little more - as there isn't anything else on the map that is so white, would definitely show up more,
or; darker grey mimicking the colour/texture of the continent/sector names (i.e. british/russian etc.) - though this might conflict with the french territory.
or; it's probably way to late for this one, but maybe the east-west sides of the map could be squeezed out from the wall a millimetre or so - i.e. to make the wall just a fraction wider to gain some prominence.
(Also: While it would be nice for it to be more pronounced (visually) - gamelplay wise confusion over the wall is only a preliminary matter - once people have sussed out the wall there wouldn't be much confusion over where it can and can't be passed) - the footnote overcomes this, though personally i think it detracts from the well-roundedness of the map's dwelling in empty space {and a well textured empty space at that}

Language for Airfields -
"Auto Deployment of 1 Army Per Turn"
"One Reinforcement added to Each Airfield Per Turn" (added is the word used when you use cards in any game and get armies "added" for owning that territory - everyone would be savvy with that terminology) - so maybe this or a variation with the word "added" would be clear in the way your after

... hope there was at least something helpfull in there - other wise sorry for taking up all the space.

Good on you Oaktown - all looking good, can't wait to play

FONTS: somebody made a comment about the font, so in this post every territory in the French and British sectors is in a different typeface. To me it's 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, but I've been looking at the map too long to judge anymore. Thoughts??

What else is different, you ask?
• Legend language re. airfields - thanks to ASL80
• Wall is a bit lighter and a couple of pixels wider
• "West Berlin" and "GDR" at top/bottom of wall makes more sense than the previous label
• played with location of some pieces a bit

i like the heilginsee font.

My vote would be with tegel or charlottenburg.

The Wall is really close, if not already there. It's definitely the best design yet.

One problem with the airfield wording is the possible assumption that neutral armies will be added to the airfield each turn. In fact, I can only assume that the xml is written such that neutral armies are not in fact added to the airfields each turn.

Incandenza wrote:My vote would be with tegel or charlottenburg.

The Wall is really close, if not already there. It's definitely the best design yet.

One problem with the airfield wording is the possible assumption that neutral armies will be added to the airfield each turn. In fact, I can only assume that the xml is written such that neutral armies are not in fact added to the airfields each turn.

This is more of a game system check really - I'm pretty sure Lack hasn't coded it to add Neutrals at the beginning of each game turn... only to add armies at the beginning of each player turn...

C.

Incandenza wrote:One problem with the airfield wording is the possible assumption that neutral armies will be added to the airfield each turn. In fact, I can only assume that the xml is written such that neutral armies are not in fact added to the airfields each turn.

I would think that armies are added as part of someone's turn, and that because the neutrals don't get a turn, they only get aded after it's been taken.

Fonts - my favourite is that used for Reinickendorf - although it would need to be smaller and have smaller character spacing.

Wall - much nicer - could perhaps be even thicker (by a pixel or 2) - but not sure you need the West Berlin / GDR text - seems a bit superfluous to me

yeti_c wrote:

Incandenza wrote:My vote would be with tegel or charlottenburg.

The Wall is really close, if not already there. It's definitely the best design yet.

One problem with the airfield wording is the possible assumption that neutral armies will be added to the airfield each turn. In fact, I can only assume that the xml is written such that neutral armies are not in fact added to the airfields each turn.

This is more of a game system check really - I'm pretty sure Lack hasn't coded it to add Neutrals at the beginning of each game turn... only to add armies at the beginning of each player turn...

C.

Juuuuuust checkin'. By all appearances, xml is a fickle mistress.

Incandenza wrote:My vote would be with tegel

me too

what's wrong with the old font?

anyway. tegel, grunewald, wilmersdorf, charlottenburg, tiergarten, reinickendorft or the old font are all fine to me.

cairnswk wrote:

Incandenza wrote:My vote would be with tegel

me too

I'd have to double check, but I think Tegel and Charlottenburg are still in the original font!

As for the bonuses and neutrals, I have been working under the assumption that as a neutral gets no turn it receives no armies. I took that into consideration when changing the text, which could be misinterpreted but players will figure it out by the top of round two.

benhikat wrote:Wall... not sure you need the West Berlin / GDR text - seems a bit superfluous to me

Sure, but isn't it better to overstate the obvious when it comes to a gameplay feature? This way nobody will capture the tank and be pissed that he/she can't hit Mitte. I think it is a subtle enough feature that it's worth keeping for the sake of clarity.

... i.e. the old font is good

right, original font it is...



Just little tweaks on this one, but I figured I should post the latest update complete with the preferred typeface.

XML has also been updated to reflect changes in attack routes.

What next, peoples? It has been suggested that the river color change... your thoughts? Darker or lighter? Right now it has no pattern, which I think is good to keep it distinct from the sectors.

In testing the XML I am receiving three errors, on the <bonus> tags for the airfields. Has the XML tester not been updated to reflect the addition of territorial bonuses? Or is the tag - which I got from the XML tutorial - incorrect?

I'm satisfied with the visuals and gameplay as they are.

If there's overwhelming demand for a river change, I'd go a touch darker... but IMHO it's fine as is.

Nice work, oaktown. I'm looking forward to playing on this one.

oaktown wrote: In testing the XML I am receiving three errors, on the <bonus> tags for the airfields. Has the XML tester not been updated to reflect the addition of territorial bonuses? Or is the tag - which I got from the XML tutorial - incorrect?

If i remeber correctly yeti_c and lack either updated the XML tester for hte latest XML tags or are currently working on it. PM one of them and im sure they can update you better than i can.

yeah, in aggreement with incandenza, the river's actually not to bad (though i wouldn't mind seeing what it's like a little darker)
{have one other suggestion but that might be a bit of a spanner throw and not that necessary- oh too bad; what about if the river boarders in the bottom left of the big map were smoothed up a little? - and river darker there even if not in other places}
+ the no pattern contrast is good

p.s: sorry, must agree with benjikat that the "west berlin" "gdr", writting seem a little superfluous and out of place (might be the vertical/rounded writing that detract from the style of the other text on the board)
- poss. find another way of representing this, or at least just have one set, i.e. top or bottom

ooo... actually ... [have no experience with graphics creation but; is there any function in your program to make a kind of white "light shadow" (kind of blurry maybe) along either side of the wall - though very very subtely, so the shadow looked like it was "carpeting" the millimetre or two either side of the wall - possibly to give a bit of a more 3D effect to the wall? - this might look abolutely ridiculous, {i.e. one of those things you've just got to give a go in private that are to be kept secret if they go horribly wrong}, but the idea, mostly to bring a little more focus to The Wall, could also reflect the "no-go zones" or "dead land" (especially on the east) that acted as a buffer, keeping people back from the wall.]

any mod's been in here lately - wonder what they're thinking?
[been mostely positive progressions for the last few pages]