Conquer Club

iancanton wrote:cau u make the smithy a bit bigger, so that the S doesn't go round the corner?

ian.

The territories names are only there to make the version playable and easier to comment on, they will probably be redone many times before this is finished.

MrBenn wrote:Please could you update the first post with your latest version (it took me a little while to find)

I will contact Marv

MrBenn wrote:Anyway, I really like the look of this. You've done a good job while sticking to your original vision...

Thanks.

MrBenn wrote:-I'm not convinced by the territory names/labels - although I think that is something you've said you're going to be working on?

Indeed, they are far from finished

MrBenn wrote:-Are any of the territories going to start neutral? If so, could you make a note of them somewhere?

Most of them are going to start neutral i think, i forgot that it might be need to be mentioned on the legend.

MrBenn wrote:-The tower bombard routes may need to be made a bit clearer

Clearer in what way? i have just noticed that i need to change all the ARs to As

MrBenn wrote:-It would be nice to see a small version - even if it is just a shrunken-down one - to get an idea how that will work

Ok, i will see how it will fit together.

MrBenn wrote:The current image is getting there in terms of playability: [Advanced Draft]

Cheers.

K1 should be able to attack into the yard area below with it's archers?

C.

Yeti you comment is more in marvs line of duty so i wont answer...
But i do have a small update with a few things to be discussed, also i have just noticed how far this map has come since the first version was posted, as i was comparing the two.

[bigimg]http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/240/siege43dv1.png[/bigimg]
With demo-army numbers

Previous Version
Original

What You Need To Know

1a.Starting Territories - 42
1b.Total Territories - 68
2. Continents -
3. Other Gameplay Features - Autodeployed bonuses, neutral starting territories, Bombard Routes

Changes in this Update

1. Updates to legend
2. Arrows on 1 way attack routes
3. Added Missing Names and Army Numbers

To Do List

1. Finalise Legend graphics
2. Unify attack route colours
3. Finalise the territories names
4. Small map
5. Keep Graphics
6. Army circle for inner gate

Points to Discuss

1. Which colour is better for the attack routes, left or right?
2. What needs doing on the legend and title?
3. What needs doing to the territory names?
4. Anything else?

1. Which colour is better for the attack routes, left or right?
Right, though a slightly darker right might look better. The left is too muddy in tone.

2. What needs doing on the legend and title?
Come up with some simple rules for the bombards. As it is right now, I look at that part of the legend and immediately think "well screw reading that, what's BOB tell me?" If you need to add visual trajectory aids on the map proper, that could make simpler rules easier to pull off. The title proper looks a bit pixellated, particularly on the big "B". Touching the title up with a small brush should do the trick.

3. What needs doing to the territory names?
Take advantage of the different look of defender rallies and attacker rallies. The D, A, DL, and AL aren't necessary (only numbers) if you define in the legend about the look of defender and attacker flags. So instead of the very small territory names in sans serif that remind us all of Conquer Man, you could have in a faintly medieval font "Legion 3" or simply "6" on the banner of the attacking force.

Also, instead of simply black and white territory names that seem to be switched in for greatest visibility, try a little bit of color on generic territories like K4 and OB1. Perhaps a little bit of text color-coding to distinguish different types of bonuses. And the red dotted lines have GOT to go for something more medieval-looking.

Finally, spell checks and such. Where's the Armoury? I looked all over the map, and I couldn't find said territory. Siege is misspelled at the bottom of the map (but not on the actual territory, that's correct). Smithy just looks wrong with the "bend" in it. Lengthen the building a smidge if you need to to make that fit.

4. Anything else?

Right now the Keep will not ever enter into play, even if there's a fairly ridiculous (and unbalancing) bonus associated with it. Cutting it down to one territory and/or adding a few more attack routes to it (catapults can bombard, maybe) will make it actually have a point. Mull over the Keep's role in play, as a map of this awesomeness shouldn't be known for "well nobody bothers with [X] territory".

I think that's all I see for right now. Best of luck on the next version.

TaCktiX wrote:3. What needs doing to the territory names?
Take advantage of the different look of defender rallies and attacker rallies. The D, A, DL, and AL aren't necessary (only numbers) if you define in the legend about the look of defender and attacker flags. So instead of the very small territory names in sans serif that remind us all of Conquer Man, you could have in a faintly medieval font "Legion 3" or simply "6" on the banner of the attacking force.

Why not use family/clan names for the legions, with a different style to each side? ie Montgomerie, La Sarre, Guienne, Poyanne, etc. on one side and Heinberg, Liebenau, Imhoff, Holstein etc. on the other?

TaCktiX wrote:1. Which colour is better for the attack routes, left or right?
Right, though a slightly darker right might look better. The left is too muddy in tone.

I can give it a go, though i was trying to get the same colour as the one used in the path leading up to the gate, but maybe the slightly dark one will stand out better.

TaCktiX wrote:2. What needs doing on the legend and title?
Come up with some simple rules for the bombards. As it is right now, I look at that part of the legend and immediately think "well screw reading that, what's BOB tell me?" If you need to add visual trajectory aids on the map proper, that could make simpler rules easier to pull off.

The problem with adding bombard routes onto the map, tends to make the whole thing look crowed, maybe if i could come up with a easier way to explain the bombard routes? Something like:
Catapults can attack 2 nearest towers, and the nearest oil barrel?
But i would really prefer not having bombard routes actually shown.

TaCktiX wrote:3. What needs doing to the territory names?
Take advantage of the different look of defender rallies and attacker rallies. The D, A, DL, and AL aren't necessary (only numbers) if you define in the legend about the look of defender and attacker flags. So instead of the very small territory names in sans serif that remind us all of Conquer Man, you could have in a faintly medieval font "Legion 3" or simply "6" on the banner of the attacking force.

i had the numbers only on a older version, but the problem was the graphics in the legend really made it crowed, and currently i dont think that the names on the rallies look too bad.

MrBenn wrote:Why not use family/clan names for the legions, with a different style to each side? ie Montgomerie, La Sarre, Guienne, Poyanne, etc. on one side and Heinberg, Liebenau, Imhoff, Holstein etc. on the other?

Interesting idea, but since we have to make sure that this map is understood by everyone on this site we might not be able to do it, because no doubt if i did give them names rather than calling them attacking legion 1, then somebody will stop and complain that they did not realise that Heinberg was a legion and it made them loose a game

TaCktiX wrote:Also, instead of simply black and white territory names that seem to be switched in for greatest visibility, try a little bit of color on generic territories like K4 and OB1. Perhaps a little bit of text color-coding to distinguish different types of bonuses.

ummm, i dont think it would look very good, i think what is best if i try to keep the user interface as discrete as possible, and i think the coloured names would just stand out and look horrible.

TaCktiX wrote:And the red dotted lines have GOT to go for something more medieval-looking.

Agreed, it was only there so people could see it easily to discuss gameplay. I will play around to see what i can find that is better.

TaCktiX wrote:Finally, spell checks and such. Where's the Armoury? I looked all over the map, and I couldn't find said territory.

That was my fault, it was called the armoury, but i changed the name the smithy, and forgot to change the legend. Thanks for pointing that out.

TaCktiX wrote:Siege is misspelled at the bottom of the map (but not on the actual territory, that's correct).

Good catch.

TaCktiX wrote:Smithy just looks wrong with the "bend" in it. Lengthen the building a smidge if you need to to make that fit.

already got a plan to do that.


TaCktiX: Your comment about the keep, should be dealt by marv, as it is to do with gameplay not graphics

The lines are giving me a problem when I look at the map as a whole, and I just realized why. They're the same width everywhere. But since this is a 3D perspective, they should be smaller in the background. I know that must be a pain to handle, but it's also a pain to look at

InkL0sed wrote:The lines are giving me a problem when I look at the map as a whole, and I just realized why. They're the same width everywhere. But since this is a 3D perspective, they should be smaller in the background. I know that must be a pain to handle, but it's also a pain to look at

I can make the attack lines within the castle thinner than the ones outside, but i dont think i can easily make it get progressively thinner.

This is an interesting map for sure.

My first impression is that its quite dark. I understand that it fits with the medieval/castle mojo, but it also sharply contrasts with the water. Perhaps the background could be ever-so-slightly lightened to allow the colors of the flags and details to stand out. Similarly, some moves toward more realistic water features would be good.

I also agree that the Bombardment rules are way too intense. I'll try to report back with some constructive thoughts on simplification.

Best,
Laci

Telvannia wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:The lines are giving me a problem when I look at the map as a whole, and I just realized why. They're the same width everywhere. But since this is a 3D perspective, they should be smaller in the background. I know that must be a pain to handle, but it's also a pain to look at

I can make the attack lines within the castle thinner than the ones outside, but i dont think i can easily make it get progressively thinner.

I was thinking the same thing. Try it, maybe it'll pass.

You could also make the lines a little thicker in the foreground, that way you have more room to make it progressively thinner.

the legend says that towers can attack adjacent barrels, but can barrels attack adjacent towers too?

can u reverse the order of the oil barrels (ob4 on the left, ob1 on the right) and the attacker rallies (a1 on the bottom right, a21 on a bridge)? the current layout will cause some people to misdeploy occasionally, especially on the lower numbers: this happens a lot in feudal war, which also has adjacent territories that contain the same numbers.

laci_mae wrote:My first impression is that its quite dark. I understand that it fits with the medieval/castle mojo, but it also sharply contrasts with the water. Perhaps the background could be ever-so-slightly lightened to allow the colors of the flags and details to stand out. Similarly, some moves toward more realistic water features would be good.

the map is now so dark that i am wondering whether it is worth putting in the moon and changing the title to castle: night attack! or something similar. if so, then the water will obviously need to be blackened.

ian.

iancanton wrote:the legend says that towers can attack adjacent barrels, but can barrels attack adjacent towers too?

No the attack route is one way.

iancanton wrote:can u reverse the order of the oil barrels (ob4 on the left, ob1 on the right) and the attacker rallies (a1 on the bottom right, a21 on a bridge)? the current layout will cause some people to misdeploy occasionally, especially on the lower numbers: this happens a lot in feudal war, which also has adjacent territories that contain the same numbers.

ummm, i dont think i quite understand what the problem is, what is the difference if OB 4 is far left. Surely having the numbers running left to right and down the screem, makes more sense as that is how english (amongst other languages, but i could not think of a general name for them) is read?

iancanton wrote:

laci_mae wrote:My first impression is that its quite dark. I understand that it fits with the medieval/castle mojo, but it also sharply contrasts with the water. Perhaps the background could be ever-so-slightly lightened to allow the colors of the flags and details to stand out. Similarly, some moves toward more realistic water features would be good.

the map is now so dark that i am wondering whether it is worth putting in the moon and changing the title to castle: night attack! or something similar. if so, then the water will obviously need to be blackened.

firstly, i dont think it is that dark...
secondly i was originally thinking about doing that, but it would be harder to see the territories, and it is really hard to synthesis fire light so it looks good, otherwise i would just have flaming torches all over the place, and have the map set at night.

Telvannia wrote:

iancanton wrote:the legend says that towers can attack adjacent barrels, but can barrels attack adjacent towers too?

No the attack route is one way.

how about stating that towers can one-way attack adjacent oil barrels, which is similar to the wording on the american civil war map?

Telvannia wrote:what is the difference if OB 4 is far left. Surely having the numbers running left to right and down the screem, makes more sense as that is how english (amongst other languages, but i could not think of a general name for them) is read?

if ob4 is far left, then it means that ob1 won't be beside a1 and t1. it's not nearly as bad as feudal war, since each feudal war territory shows a number (and nothing else) for identification.

a tower also looks obviously different from an oil barrel, though it's just about possible that someone playing for the first time might mistake a round tower that has a lid on it for a barrel (but this mistake shouldn't happen more than once) - a thumbnail of each in the legend (for the auto-deploy) ought to fix that.

Telvannia wrote:

iancanton wrote:the map is now so dark that i am wondering whether it is worth putting in the moon and changing the title to castle: night attack! or something similar.

i was originally thinking about doing that, but it would be harder to see the territories, and it is really hard to synthesis fire light so it looks good, otherwise i would just have flaming torches all over the place, and have the map set at night.

the whole scene already almost looks, at the moment, as if it's bathed in moonlight (actually, my first thought was floodlights from a football stadium!), so i thought it wouldn't need much modification to make it a moonlit night. maybe it would after all. do what looks good to u!

ian.

Sorry about the lack movement on this map, i could do with marv having a discussion about the gameplay before i move any further with the graphics (as they mainly are cosmetic changes now) but marv seems a bit inactive, anyone know where he is?

Telvannia wrote:marv seems a bit inactive, anyone know where he is?

No idea, I'm afraid...

I'd still like to see some creative names (my personal preference ), as it helps to bring the battle alive in the mind...

I have to say that I LOVE this map idea and the 3d render. Keep going on this =)

the connection lines look a little weird to me, like ropes or something. Can they be worn paths instead of brown things?

Ok, lets go for some playability coments.

iancanton wrote:there are 42 non-neutral starting territories, just like classic, which is good. however, the +1 legion bonus can lead to an unfair game-winning advantage for the first player in 1v1 games. we can correct this by changing the bonus to +1 for each legion in excess of 5; in other words, +1 for holding 6 legions, +2 for 7 legions and so on.

Well, this map is not designed to 2 players in a specific way. And in fact, even with 7 armies in 1st turn player cant take thaaat advantage, I think. But, if we put more territories, maybe we can adjust the territories armies rate.

MrBenn wrote:-Are any of the territories going to start neutral? If so, could you make a note of them somewhere?

Yep. From all territories that have bonuses, just legions will start with players. And they will be equally splitted. Hmmm, I think I need to learn how to use the new xml tools. Where is the thread about it?

Oh, and how much armies should we put on the neutral territories? Im thinking about 3, but maybe more for the buildings (smithy, etc).

TaCktiX wrote:Right now the Keep will not ever enter into play, even if there's a fairly ridiculous (and unbalancing) bonus associated with it. Cutting it down to one territory and/or adding a few more attack routes to it (catapults can bombard, maybe) will make it actually have a point. Mull over the Keep's role in play, as a map of this awesomeness shouldn't be known for "well nobody bothers with [X] territory".

You are wrong, friend, lol. I thought the same about that little island in Montreal map, that one with 1 bonus. And its still a target for most players in the early game. I bet that with proper bonus it will be playable.

yeti_c wrote:K1 should be able to attack into the yard area below with it's archers?

Thats an interesting point. Maybe it should. I want to know what do you think, but Im inclined to it.

Oh, and something we never discussed properly. The hidden passage: Im thinking better about it now. It could be in place of DL2. That legion disappears, we put a simple territory there, but it can attack (one way), for example, A21. Any thoughts?

welcome back, marvaddin!

Marvaddin wrote:

iancanton wrote:there are 42 non-neutral starting territories, just like classic, which is good. however, the +1 legion bonus can lead to an unfair game-winning advantage for the first player in 1v1 games. we can correct this by changing the bonus to +1 for each legion in excess of 5; in other words, +1 for holding 6 legions, +2 for 7 legions and so on.

Well, this map is not designed to 2 players in a specific way. And in fact, even with 7 armies in 1st turn player cant take thaaat advantage, I think.

on every cc map, i believe 1v1 is the most popular game type (can u think of any map where something else is more common than 1v1?), so it's always a good idea to balance the map for 2-player games. there are 11 legions. in a 2-player game, the initial distribution of legions among the three players (1st player, 2nd player and neutral player) is likely to be a permutation of 4-4-3, 5-3-3 or 5-4-2. the players are therefore very likely to receive different legion bonuses at the start; if the 1st player starts with a bigger bonus then, with similar ability and similar dice luck, he will have only a very small chance of losing. this is why i recommend that there is a legion bonus only for holding 6 or more legions.

ian.

Boo for deadbeating maps!!

C.

maybe there could be a little more banner variety.

also, instead of A4, D3, etc., yo ucould give names like Elite Archers, Gatesmen or things like that

yeti_c wrote:Boo for deadbeating maps!!

C.

Its alright, i have not missed 3 consecutive turns so im not kicked out, though when i do play i will get my armies for the missed turns and it will be a big update.

I'd beg to disagree... It takes a maximum of 24 days to deadbeat, and it has been longer than that since an update to the map... Off to the recycling bin with you

On a sidenote, I really hope you post an update soon - I think this map has loads of potential. When you're ready to continue, post your update, and let one of the CAs know so we can get you back into the system.

MrBenn wrote:I'd beg to disagree... It takes a maximum of 24 days to deadbeat, and it has been longer than that since an update to the map... Off to the recycling bin with you

Its 32 days actually, but that is hardly important.
What is important is that I start work on a update.

Telvannia wrote:What is important is that I start work on a update.

Agreed - fresh from your victory in the desert - I think you should be spurned forever onwards and upwards.

C.