Conquer Club

_42 wrote:HELLO
NICE MAP, GOOD WORK

only one thing that bothers me because i am from Montenegro

dont divide Montenegro to Podgorica and Niksic.. theese are only 2 cities in 30 km ..

my sugestions :

Sjever ( north ) & Jug ( south )
or
Sjever ( north ) & Primorje ( Coastal Area )
or
Sjever ( north ) & Boka ( Bay of Boca )


If you insist to put town names - then southern part should be caled - KOTOR ( that is the oldest city in montenegro..once, it had its own military force and navy )

I'm perfectly open to making changes - which of those options do you think is best/most accurate? I can do any of them.

ZeakCytho wrote:Okay, so if we plop a starting neutral down in Slovenia, Bosnia, and Macedonia, we're down to 49 starting territories, a bad number.

agreed.

ZeakCytho wrote:Which is more important - the chance of a drop being bad on some games, or the guarantee of the drop being unfair to whomever goes first in others?

ZeakCytho wrote:Ideally, we wouldn't have either problem, but given the size constraint (I don't think I can fit any more territories in), I think we have to pick one or the other, no?

i think i have a solution of sorts, killing a few birds with one stone.

as mentioned by [player]_42[/player], montenegro does not split neatly into two parts, so let it be a neutral-starting single-territory bonus, like kosovo. give an extra territory to slovenia, with the names in the unplayable area. let euboea be part of greece as a tenth territory. this will preserve the nice starting count of 52 territories. further, code both parts of bosnia (fbih and republika srpska) as starting positions, so that there is a maximum 6.25% chance of the first player starting with the bosnia bonus in 2v2 (and no chance in 1v1). if the 3-territory countries (albania, macedonia, turkey and now slovenia) are coded as starting positions in addition to bosnia, then i believe we can have both fair drops and a good number of starting territories. how does that sound?

by the way, kudos to u for taking on this politically-difficult region of the world and for managing to side-step the kosovo issue.

ian.

iancanton wrote:as mentioned by [player]_42[/player], montenegro does not split neatly into two parts, so let it be a neutral-starting single-territory bonus, like kosovo. give an extra territory to slovenia, with the names in the unplayable area. let euboea be part of greece as a tenth territory. this will preserve the nice starting count of 52 territories. further, code both parts of bosnia (fbih and republika srpska) as starting positions, so that there is a maximum 6.25% chance of the first player starting with the bosnia bonus in 2v2 (and no chance in 1v1). if the 3-territory countries (albania, macedonia, turkey and now slovenia) are coded as starting positions in addition to bosnia, then i believe we can have both fair drops and a good number of starting territories. how does that sound?

A very elegant solution! I like it! My only concern is that Montenegrans might be offended that their country is just one territory - so I'd like some feedback from locals before committing to this 100% - What do you think, _42 (if you're still following this thread)? I'm not sure what territory I'd add to Slovenia, but I can use Wikipedia to try to find one. Any Slovenians around here that could lend a hand, by chance?

In any case, if I don't here anything from anyone soon, I'll make a new version that incorporates everything you said above.

iancanton wrote:by the way, kudos to u for taking on this politically-difficult region of the world and for managing to side-step the kosovo issue.

Thanks! And thanks for all the gameplay feedback

yes man, i am still here

1.
well, altough, personally i would love to see my hometown's name in a game like CC, it still depends on many factors in a gameplay..

maybe the best thing would be to make montenegro neutral on starting.

2.
i have a suggestion for croatia also.
in reallity, croatia is geographicaly divided on sub-regions called - Zupanije
you can use names of those zupanija's for teritory names
kick out "gorski kotar" teritory as that does not exist..only as a small willage
croatian teritory can be divided on - Dalmatia, Zagorje, Lika, Srijem, Krajina and Istra ...
ok, gotta go out,
you can PM me for any explanation
i'll be back later

make this map accurate and rock, cause i am gonna play it ....a lot

ps

teritories in slovenia can be named Koruska, Stajerska and Kranjska
but
too many letters for such a small country

ZeakCytho wrote:Things I Really Need Feedback On (in rough order of importance)

• Number of territories. Can we squeeze 2 more in? We're at 52 starting territories now, and would like to be at 54 (I think)
• Title and Legend Suggestions. Do we want to follow what qwert suggested for the legend in his post on page 7?
• Stripes on Kosovo good now?
• Bridge graphics - people happy with them? I'm not really...

Just my 2 cents.

Number of territories: with 8 players, 52 would give 6 territories, which is rather high. If you really wanted to add two more, you could probably add Euboea (the island north of Attica) and since the map isn't entirely limited to the Balkan peninsula (the only part of Bulgaria that is part of the Balkans would be your Dobrudja and Bucuresti territories) you could add Asian Turkey into the fold. The big one for me though is Euboea... being a big grey blob in the middle of the playable map doesn't look right to me, graphically.

Personally, for geography's sake, I'd like to see the map limited to just the Balkan Peninsula, by removing the Greek Isles, most of Bulgaria, northern Croatia, Vojvodina, and Stajerska, but that would make the continents weird, so I understand their being there!

Title and Legend Suggestions. Do we want to follow what qwert suggested for the legend in his post on page 7? I agree that the legend is weird, and qwert's suggest could work. However, just making the the legend be a copy of the actual map and just putting the bonuses, instead of continent names could work too.

Stripes on Kosovo good now? I don't like them... it kind of goes along with a problem I have with the coloration. I like the soft colors, but some of the neighboring continents are too similar, such as Serbia/Macedonia, and Bosnia/Montenegro. The stripes on Kosovo are kind of hard to see, and as the only border between Serbia and Macedonia that isn't blocked by mountains, the stripes really blend the two together... it took me some detective work just to find Kosovo on the map because of the color issues. The similar coloration is really brought out in the legend, some of them are really hard to tell apart at quick glance.

Bridge graphics - people happy with them? I'm not really... - I didn't really notice them at first, but I looked at them so I could offer feedback, they do indeed look bulky. Maybe shorten them a little and use a slightly thinner line for them? I don't know why, but the right side line of the center bridge really stands out, as if it has a shadow or something.


Overall, I really like the map. It's a geographical region that interests me and I think it looks really well done graphically! I'll be excited to see this one progress along. But yeah, definitely gotta do something with Euboea, it really looks out of place by not being a playable territory.

_42 wrote
teritories in slovenia can be named Koruska, Stajerska and Kranjska
but
too many letters for such a small country


It can be split in that 3 territories but it would be difficult, the best way it will be to ask somebody from Slovenia. I live 10km from Slovenian border but i don't want to offend somebody from Slovenia.To split Slovenija in Koruska, Stajerska and Kranjska was also my idea, but now I find it very difficult.


[/quote]

_42 wrote:

i have a suggestion for croatia also.
in reallity, croatia is geographicaly divided on sub-regions called - Zupanije
you can use names of those zupanija's for teritory names
kick out "gorski kotar" teritory as that does not exist..only as a small willage
croatian teritory can be divided on - Dalmatia, Zagorje, Lika, Srijem, Krajina and Istra ...

Names in Croatia r perfect and there's no need to change them, I'm from Croatia so...
croatia is geographicaly divided on sub-regions called županije but there is no room for 21 territotry (Croatia has 21 županija's), and it would be very wrong to give them such names.
Also, I don't see Gorski kotar on the map, but _42 u r absolutely wrong. Gorski kotar exists, and it's a name of the region and it's not a village as u said.
All teritorry names r perfect except Središnja Hrvatska cuz there's a several subregions and that's the best name I think. It can be divided in Zagorje, Međimurje, Prigorje, Kordun, Banovina and so on. I live in Središnja Hrvatska,, and now I'm in Zagreb and Zagreb is neither in Zagorje, neither in any other region.
And u made on more mistake, Krajina does not exists, Croats don't call it Krajina. That name is used only by Serbs which occupied that territory in last war. And it will be completely wrong to use it anywhere. War it's really a painful subject and the best way is to put conversation about it on minimum.

I hope that map will be soon finished cuz I can't wait to play it.

I've been swamped with schoolwork lately, but I'll try to get a response in to all the above comments later this week. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for all the comments!

DimnjacarStef wrote:

_42 wrote:ps
teritories in slovenia can be named Koruska, Stajerska and Kranjska
but
too many letters for such a small country

It can be split in that 3 territories but it would be difficult, the best way it will be to ask somebody from Slovenia. I live 10km from Slovenian border but i don't want to offend somebody from Slovenia.To split Slovenija in Koruska, Stajerska and Kranjska was also my idea, but now I find it very difficult.

i prefer stajerska (styria, north-east), kranjska (carniola, central) and primorska (littoral, coastal) because the shape of slovenia makes this combination better for gameplay, especially if u tweak kranjska's borders so that it can be attacked by sredisnja hrvatska, which makes slovenia a +2 bonus, like albania. koruska (carinthia) is very small and its borders don't suit our map so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sloregions.png

to protect both serbia and bulgaria a bit, how about some mountains along the whole eastern border of nisava? bulgaria then becomes +3, but serbia remains a good +4.

the greece and croatia bonuses can be bumped up to +6 and +4 respectively.

u've done extremely well with showing bosnia correctly and it's difficult to see how we can improve that bit further.

ian.

Major apologies for the ridiculously long period of inactivity on this! But here's the next version. I think I incorporated all the comments mentioned above that regard gameplay. I've read everything, but have not made changes to the minimap, title, bridges, or Kosovo stripes yet. Those can be saved for later.

The only gameplay change I did not make was the mountains along the Nisava - Bulgaria border, because there aren't really mountains there in real life, as far as I can tell. The satellite images I find show the area as relatively flat, so I'm reluctant to add mountains. There isn't a major river in the area, either. Regardless, adding mountains does not affect the number of Bulgarian borders - Montana and Kystendil are both still borders, so the Bulgarian bonus should remain the same, I think. Protecting Serbia would be nice, but I think geographic accuracy trumps that.

Major changes: Split Slovenia into three (there's barely room for 88s in Primorska, but I think they'll fit) and merged Montengro into one. Added Euboea as a territory and had it connect to Attica and Kyklades. Are the attack routes clear?

[bigimg]http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/ZeakCytho/CC/Balkans/Balkans-V13.png[/bigimg]

at the moment, the only problem i have is with the minimap, and the attack routes. i know you are planning on changing the minimap so for the attack routes, i was thinking that you could make the dotts smaller, and closer together, i think that that would look better.

LED

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:i was thinking that you could make the dotts smaller, and closer together, i think that that would look better.

The dots became too invisible when I made them smaller, but I liked the look, so I also darkened them. I think they're better now. But the change is too minor to warrant a new version.

Gameplay thoughts?

ZeakCytho wrote:The only gameplay change I did not make was the mountains along the Nisava - Bulgaria border, because there aren't really mountains there in real life, as far as I can tell. The satellite images I find show the area as relatively flat, so I'm reluctant to add mountains. There isn't a major river in the area, either.

these are good enough reasons! the sava river runs between bosnia-herzegovina and vojvodina (as shown by the bottom left-hand corner, to the right of brcko, of the image below from a stanfords map), so that forms a natural border to protect serbia a touch. u can even extend the river westward halfway along the southern edge of slavonia for aesthetic purposes (a river the length of an army circle doesn't look brilliant).

https://static.stanfords.co.uk/images/o ... 033227.jpg

ZeakCytho wrote:merged Montengro into one.

since u are using native names for regions on the map where possible, how about calling the montenegro region crna gora, which means black mountain in serbo-croat? this also serves to differentiate the actual region from the country bonus (which can continue to be called montenegro, since all country names are in english).

http://www.talas-m.cg.yu/montenegro.php

ZeakCytho wrote:Added Euboea as a territory and had it connect to Attica and Kyklades. Are the attack routes clear?

not only does euboea have a road bridge to central greece, but there is always going to be some doubt as to whether euboea connects to central greece, so u might as well add a land bridge of the vojvodina variety. i'm not too keen on the ferry link to kyklades, which looks a tad forced.

http://www.toplink.gr/greek/network/gre ... index.html

the central macedonia name doesn't make sense on ists own, since east and west aren't there. greek macedonia is more logical - or maybe makedonia with a k.

ian.

The bonus for bosnia and Herzagovna should probably be 2 cause Ot has 2 boarders and 6 territories that can attack it, and so It will be hard to hold.


Nice map!



~

Ian, your analysis is spot on as always! I'll change all that for the next version. My only concern is the land bridge from Attica to Euboea - I don't think there's room now. I might have to fudge the Attica border with Central Greece further west.

Captainwalrus, I was reluctant to do this earlier because of the chance of dropping with it, but now that both parts of that continent will be starting positions, I could do this. The problem is that by holding Montenegro and Vojvodina, you can grab a bonus of +8 for 13 territories and two borders. By bumping Bosnia's bonus up, this becomes +9 for 13 territories, which I think is too high.

I expect that the northwest corner of the map will act as one supercontinent in many no-cards games, given how easy it is to defend the whole region once you capture enough of it.

The Kylades is so hard to figure out what it is and what it borders, could you make it a few less islands?
Cool map!

I see 2 of what seem to be army shadows in Plovdiv. Just pointing that out, 'cause it doesn't seem right. I like this a lot but I do think that Primorska seems very cramped. I would like to see that with the 88s on it to see it it all fits, but you could just use abbreviations.



< el-presidente >

I think the Kyklades connections are more understandable now that the path to Euboea is gone.

There are two army spots on Plovdiv

I'll throw up a version with 88s shortly. I believe they'll be able to fit on all territories, but we'll see. If they don't fit, I have room in the legend to add abbreviations.

does dubrovnik touch montenegro? it looks like it does, but it's not 100% clear

DarthBlood wrote:does dubrovnik touch montenegro? it looks like it does, but it's not 100% clear

Yes, it does. Anyone else have trouble seeing this? Should I exaggerate the border?

Here's the latest version, with the changes Iancanton suggested on the previous page. Below is a version with 88s, in blue, which I find the most problematic color, and with an 888 on Primorska for good measure.

[bigimg]http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/ZeakCytho/CC/Balkans/Balkans-V14-1.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/ZeakCytho/CC/Balkans/Balkans-V14.png[/bigimg]

I think everything fits okay. I'll play around with some numbers - Dubrovnik half-hanging off looks odd. But everything fits, at least. The only problem could be 3 digits on Istanbul. Does anyone know what happens if a 3rd digit goes past the edge of the map? Is the number cut off, or does it go into the whitespace where the right-side menus are? If the former, we have a problem; if the latter, everything is good, I think.

i would move the name tirana over a bit, because the a at the end blends in with the mountains a little to much

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:i would move the name tirana over a bit, because the a at the end blends in with the mountains a little to much

same with primorska.

and maybe move the numbers for kranjska (in top left corner) a little to the right, cuz the numbers look way too close to each other

iancanton wrote:not only does euboea have a road bridge to central greece, but there is always going to be some doubt as to whether euboea connects to central greece, so u might as well add a land bridge of the vojvodina variety.

ZeakCytho wrote:Added Euboea as a territory and had it connect to Attica and Kyklades. Are the attack routes clear?

ZeakCytho wrote:My only concern is the land bridge from Attica to Euboea - I don't think there's room now. I might have to fudge the Attica border with Central Greece further west.

actually, i wanted a bridge from central greece to euboea because the north-western end of euboea on our map almost touches central greece so, without one, players will still puzzle over whether they are adjacent regions. can u make the bridge a bit more horizontal and move the border to make attica smaller, so that the bridge goes from central greece instead of from attica?

an additional sea link from crete to attica will help the greek player to fort his troops, by reducing the distance from crete to most of greece.

ZeakCytho wrote:Montenegro and Vojvodina, you can grab a bonus of +8 for 13 territories and two borders. By bumping Bosnia's bonus up, this becomes +9 for 13 territories, which I think is too high.

i think u're right to keep bosnia at +1.

is it possible to redraw the danube so that it meets the black sea in the right place, with the dobruja on its right bank, not the left bank? this means u can remove the bridge from dobruja to bulgaria, but will necessitate one to the rest of romania.

ian.

does Central Greece border Epirus?
also, perhaps you could make Peloponnese adjacent to Central Greece(The Rio-Antirrio Bridge connects them in modern Greece)?

here is an attica map, which shows that chalkida (the location of the euboea bridge) is directly opposite the grey area (central greece), not attica itself.

http://www.travelinfo.gr/maps/attica.htm

below are maps of romania, from the romanian national tourist office. the first shows the true course of the river danube. the second is a map of the historical regions, from which u can see that dobrogea (dobruja) is on the wrong side of the river just now. it'll be nice if u manage to put in bucovina, the only one that is missing; if u do this, then kyustendil is a prime candidate for removal, since that was part of sofia province when bulgaria was divided into 9 oblasts - this will make bulgaria a slightly easier hold for someone who's stuck in the east, where the only small bonus is turkey.

http://www.romaniatourism.com/romania-m ... l-map.html
http://www.romaniatourism.com/romania-m ... s-map.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oblas ... vetkov.png

i'm still trying to find mountains in places that will help us!

ian.