Conquer Club

I'd like to help with the bonus calculations, but most filesharing sites (fileden, ripway, etc.) have (recently?) become blocked here at work, so I can't get the spreadsheets. Maybe this evening from home I can check things out.

this map might get pretty much deceided by drop while two capitols are adjacent to eachother....

maybe make some kinda stop between them in the sea to make up for it?

You mean Reykjavik & Faroe?

That can be balanced by adjusting the iceland bonus. Or a higher neutral count on Faroe.

Here's v20:

[bigimg]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2482/northeuropev20.png[/bigimg]






I just noticed a potential problem... Two territories next to each other, one named Götland and the other Gotland. This could present a lot of problems wrt. misdeploys...

But, I have a solution.

Since the Götland territory is merged from the west and east Götlands (Västergötland and Östergötland) I was thinking of renaming the Götland territory into the plural form: Götlandar (=Götlands).

Does that solution seem feasible?



PS. Where's that guy from Norway? I'd like him to check all the new territory names for misspellings... (but before you start with the "that's not how the regions are really" let me say I had to merge several regions, and divide some others - particularly in the north - in all of the countries, for gameplay reasons. Hell, Northern Finland would be one big territory if I were to use actual regions as they are!)


PPS. OOPS! Århus is missing it's territory label... gotta fix that quick before anyone notices

natty_dread wrote:

Peter Gibbons wrote:I like this a version a lot, but do have a few suggestions:

1) I think the divisions between north/south Norway, Sweden and Finland need to be MUCH clearer visually. Until I looked over at the mini-map, I forgot they were separate bonuses at all. And then I had a hard time figuring out exactly where the divisions were supposed to be.

Agree. Maybe reducing the opacity on the territory borders or increasing the opacity of the bonus area bevel could do it... I'll try tweaking them for the next version.

I see the changes you've made. I think Sweden is a lot clearer, Finland is a little clearer, but I still don't catch the division in Norway right away. Really, though they are more visible--none of them stand out. I hate--on any map thread--to push my own agenda if there's no support for my point. So hopefully others will weigh in (I'm sure they will later when this makes it to the next stage) with suggestions or to say that it's fine as is.

2) I think Denmark needs a very different color to distinguish from Sweden (and even Norway). Yes, anyone with geographical knowledge certainly would know Copenhagen is part of Denmark--but the map has to be made for the least knowledgeable. Perhaps some sort of "cool" orange that makes it stand out but not totally upset the scheme?

Orange is not wanted on the colour scheme, sorry... I tried it before and it didn't work.

I don't see the problem, besides. Copenhagen is marked as a capital, sweden already has a capital so logically it must connect to denmark. Also since it is connected to the nearest swedish territory by a sea connector it should be obvious that it can't be connected to it otherwise.

You don't see a problem and I don't see a problem either (though I personally would like a little more color diversity--but that's just my own aesthetic opinion) , but maps do need to be relatively idiot-proof. Plus there's also the color-blind issue that lurks. I know orange was rejected before, but that was when everything was more "fruity" or "tropical" in nature. An orange with a deep hue might complement the map well--or even like a mustard color. Or if you wanted to go to the other side of the color spectrum, maybe a pinkish shade? Again, I could be way off here, so I wouldn't make any wholesale changes based on my input. Just letting you know what I see at the moment.

3) I know it was my idea, and I still like it, but I think Faroe Islands needs to be explained a bit more AND have a distinct color. As it stands, it's not on the mini-map by itself and it has a color somewhere between Iceland and Denmark. I think that could lead to a lot of confusion. I think it needs to appear on the mini-map somehow (and I realize this is tough since it's an auto-deploy) and there needs to also be a note on the map... something along the lines of "Faroe Islands not part of any other bonus region." I'm really not sure, but something will definitely need to be done.

All in all, very good update, though.

A note on the map, sure. Will do for next v. Putting it on the minimap though, why? This would be even more confusing. The minimap only shows bonus regions. Since Faroe is not a part of any bonus region it's only logical that it doesn't show up on the minimap.

I like the note on the map. And you are right about the minimap--I conceded that adding it could lead to confusion because it is not a bonus region. Still, it just feels odd having it on the real map but not showing whatsoever on the minimap. Do you (and others) think that having it show on the minimap with "+0" is totally unnecessary?

I thought of one other thing (and now see an additional point to address)...

1) What I thought of has to do with naming. If you're using the native names on the cities, shouldn't you be doing the same for the countries? "Suomi," "Norge," "Svierge," etc.? Also, for consistency, shouldn't "Foroyar" actually be "Tórshavn?" It's the capital, not the country, after all.

2) I'm reading your new note that says "capitals connect to territories under them..." and I've got to say it has me thoroughly confused. I think I know what you mean, but the way the map is laid out doesn't make it easy to follow. As an example... Stockholm is a separate territory from Uppland, right? And they are adjacent and can attack each other? But there is a connecting line from Aland that goes directly to the Stockholm army circle. So is Aland adjacent to Stockholm and Uppland? If so, that's going to potentially lead to a lot of confusion. If not, you need to redraw the lines that look like they connect to Stockholm, Helsinki, Copenhagen and Reyjkavik so that they connect to the regions but not the capitals. Unless you actually want them to connect to the capitals only. Is that what you're going for? Looking at it more and more, I'm starting to think that's your desire. I'm not sure how good of an idea that is; I've got to tell you, when I look at this map I see Aland connecting to Uppland, Sjaelland connecting to Skane, and Foroyar connecting to Vesturland.

Thanks again for a whole bunch of feedback! I love it when people get so interested in my maps that they take the time to write such long, well thought-out posts. Really awesome.

I see the changes you've made. I think Sweden is a lot clearer, Finland is a little clearer, but I still don't catch the division in Norway right away. Really, though they are more visible--none of them stand out. I hate--on any map thread--to push my own agenda if there's no support for my point. So hopefully others will weigh in (I'm sure they will later when this makes it to the next stage) with suggestions or to say that it's fine as is.

I do see your point, and I do see how Norway could be hard to figure out. On Sweden and Finland there are the colour edges that show the borders of the bonus areas. But on Norway, the northern part is so thin that the colouring doesn't show up properly. Perhaps I should make the colour edge on north norway thinner, so it would show better, but then it wouldn't be uniform with the rest of the map. However, form must follow function, so I will be addressing this issue one way or another.

And yes, I would also love to hear other opinions on the issue. A broader spectrum of opinions and feedback helps to develop a map that satisfies more players.

You don't see a problem and I don't see a problem either (though I personally would like a little more color diversity--but that's just my own aesthetic opinion) , but maps do need to be relatively idiot-proof. Plus there's also the color-blind issue that lurks. I know orange was rejected before, but that was when everything was more "fruity" or "tropical" in nature. An orange with a deep hue might complement the map well--or even like a mustard color. Or if you wanted to go to the other side of the color spectrum, maybe a pinkish shade? Again, I could be way off here, so I wouldn't make any wholesale changes based on my input. Just letting you know what I see at the moment.

I will try out some things for the next update. Personally I just love the current colours and am a bit reluctant to change them, but you do have a point about the idiot-proofness. I would hate my map to be one that "requires BOB" or one that makes newbs post confused threads on the Q&A forum...

I like the note on the map. And you are right about the minimap--I conceded that adding it could lead to confusion because it is not a bonus region. Still, it just feels odd having it on the real map but not showing whatsoever on the minimap. Do you (and others) think that having it show on the minimap with "+0" is totally unnecessary?

Again personally, I think it would be unnecessary. After all, the neutral (non-playable) lands don't show up on the minimap either.

1) What I thought of has to do with naming. If you're using the native names on the cities, shouldn't you be doing the same for the countries? "Suomi," "Norge," "Svierge," etc.? Also, for consistency, shouldn't "Foroyar" actually be "Tórshavn?" It's the capital, not the country, after all.

Good points again. I'll try to answer the best I can... I used English country names, since they are more recognizable than the local ones. This seems to be how it's done on most maps, anyway. The regions in local languages is due to the simple reason that most of the regions do not have a separate name in english, so it seemed best to name them all in local languages, for consistency.

However, I'd like to hear more opinions. If more people think I should change the country names to local languages, I can do it, but I somehow suspect that most would like to keep them in english.

Föroyar... well, this is an exception to all rules
Actually, since it's such a small part of the map, only a single territory, I thought it best to name it after the country, since it kinda represents the whole of Faroe islands instead of any single city on them. And this one is in the local Faroean language since it is a territory, even though it is a country name...

2) I'm reading your new note that says "capitals connect to territories under them..." and I've got to say it has me thoroughly confused. I think I know what you mean, but the way the map is laid out doesn't make it easy to follow. As an example... Stockholm is a separate territory from Uppland, right?

Right.

And they are adjacent and can attack each other?

Yes.

But there is a connecting line from Aland that goes directly to the Stockholm army circle. So is Aland adjacent to Stockholm and Uppland?

No, only Stockholm.

Unless you actually want them to connect to the capitals only. Is that what you're going for? Looking at it more and more, I'm starting to think that's your desire. I'm not sure how good of an idea that is; I've got to tell you, when I look at this map I see Aland connecting to Uppland, Sjaelland connecting to Skane, and Foroyar connecting to Vesturland.

Yes, they connect to capitals, except at places where ther is no capital, like the connection between Austurland and Bodö. And Sjaelland connects to Fyn, but Köbenhavn connects to Skåne. Well, I can see now how that could be a bit confusing...

If you think it needs to be made more clear... I'll do what I can. Perhaps tiny arrows pointing to the capitals? Or maybe I could make all the lines connect to the army circles, so you can see where they mean the capital and where they mean the region...

Again, thanks for all your awesome feedback, and I will be posting a new update later today.

OK so I tweaked the colour of Denmark a bit, made it a bit to the green side, but now it contrasts beautifully to sweden.

Also tweaked the colour of N. Norway, unfortunately I had lost the original texture file so I had to make a new one that hopefully is similar enough that it doesn't matter.

Fixed the sea connections so that they all connect to army circles, hopefully this makes them less confusable.

Changed Götland -> Götlandar, to prevent misdeploy between it and Gotland. Two little dots on a letter might be too small a difference for some people to comprehend, especially when the territories connect...

Tweaked the title a bit.

Changed the minimap texts and numbers.

Anywho, without further ado, I present to you Version 21:

[bigimg]http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1646/northeuropev21.png[/bigimg]

ps. funny optical illusion: I didn't change the colour for the text outline on Denmark, but the colours are similar enough that the eye tricks you into thinking I did!

I can't tell whether Aaland Islands are a part of Sweden or Finland or Niether. So that's a good thing. I don't think it'll need much just a bit of clearing up so to speak.

Another point of criticism is the separation point between north and south Norway seems less clear than for Sweden and Finland. I'm guessing they're the same width just isn't as clear as on the other sections (but that's probably caused by the fact it's so thin in comparison.

Also, for the countries with shields that have lines going to them I personally am not too sure (for example) whether Foroyar connects to Reykjavik or to Vesturland. The same applies slightly to Helsinki and Uusimaa

Otherwise I really do like this map a lot and as to the Gotlandar and Gotland issue, why not rename Gotlandar Ostergotland as the province is named, it will prevent mis-deployment entirely as it starts with a different letter and people often just go off the first few letters.

max is gr8 wrote:I can't tell whether Aaland Islands are a part of Sweden or Finland or Niether. So that's a good thing. I don't think it'll need much just a bit of clearing up so to speak.

Look at the territory name text colour...

Another point of criticism is the separation point between north and south Norway seems less clear than for Sweden and Finland. I'm guessing they're the same width just isn't as clear as on the other sections (but that's probably caused by the fact it's so thin in comparison.

I did try to make it more clear in this version.

Also, for the countries with shields that have lines going to them I personally am not too sure (for example) whether Foroyar connects to Reykjavik or to Vesturland. The same applies slightly to Helsinki and Uusimaa

If that's still unclear, do you have any suggestions on how to make it more clear? Look at the connections. They all go between army circles now, so it should be obvious which territories they mean.

Otherwise I really do like this map a lot and as to the Gotlandar and Gotland issue, why not rename Gotlandar Ostergotland as the province is named, it will prevent mis-deployment entirely as it starts with a different letter and people often just go off the first few letters.

Because the province is merged from the provinces (called landskap in sweden) of Östergötland and Västergötland, East and West Götland respectively. Thus renaming the merged region as "Götlands" (Götlandar in swedish) seems logical to me. It's more accurate as well. Östergötland is also a long name that wouldn't fit as well as Götlandar.


Are there any more people who think the division between the bonus areas is too unclear? I could make north and south parts of the countries different colours, if it comes to that. Maybe just suffle the colours so that North finland gets North Sweden's colour, North Sweden gets North Norways and North Norway gets North Finlands colour...??

natty_dread wrote:
Because the province is merged from the provinces (called landskap in sweden) of Östergötland and Västergötland, East and West Götland respectively. Thus renaming the merged region as "Götlands" (Götlandar in swedish) seems logical to me. It's more accurate as well. Östergötland is also a long name that wouldn't fit as well as Götlandar.

sorry but I have never heard the word Götlandar/gotlandar and I live there..
and the borders are all wrong... Värmland has absolutely no west coast.

I was waiting for some Swede or Norwegian to come and complain about the territories... Here we go

snufkin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:
Because the province is merged from the provinces (called landskap in sweden) of Östergötland and Västergötland, East and West Götland respectively. Thus renaming the merged region as "Götlands" (Götlandar in swedish) seems logical to me. It's more accurate as well. Östergötland is also a long name that wouldn't fit as well as Götlandar.

sorry but I have never heard the word Götlandar/gotlandar and I live there..
and the borders are all wrong... Värmland has absolutely no west coast.

As I have explained before, due to gameplay reasons I had to merge several regions, divide a few in two, so if something is not accurate that's probably because it has some smaller regions merged into it.

Before you start arguing, let me tell you, some of the people in the Foundry wanted me to put in borders that have nothing to do with actual regions, and to hell with accuracy... I personally think my solution is better.

Whether you have heard the word Götlandar or not, is also irrelevant. It is merged from the landskaps of Västergötland and Östergötland, so I was going to simply call it Götland, but it would be too confusing to have Götland and Gotland side by side.

Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I had to merge regions in Finland too. Mikkeli is actually merged from regions of Mikkeli and Kymi, for example.

I like the Denmark color change.

As for the connections to capitals... I think the problem is that on no other map (at least that I'm aware of) is the capital a separate territory from the region it's contained in. Look at Europe 1914 or Fractured America (in development). That's not to say that your idea is a bad one, just different. And, as such, it's going to have to be thoroughly debated by all sorts of people. I will say that the lines you've added to the other army circles are an improvement for now.

As for the other stuff (north/south boundaries, +0 on the mini-map, and the naming), I defer to you or to the will of the majority. This is a really good start to the map, but I'm sure it will undergo a lot of changes in future stages, so it's not worth nit-picking now.

That's not to say that your idea is a bad one, just different. And, as such, it's going to have to be thoroughly debated by all sorts of people. I will say that the lines you've added to the other army circles are an improvement for now.

I know. It's always hard to do something new. People are so stuck up to how they are used to things being done... look at the reception of the new classic map. Anyway, I think the separate capitals work. I hope people will like them, but if not, it's no big deal...

As for the other stuff (north/south boundaries, +0 on the mini-map, and the naming), I defer to you or to the will of the majority. This is a really good start to the map, but I'm sure it will undergo a lot of changes in future stages, so it's not worth nit-picking now.

Agreed 100%. Thanks again for your feedback.

The +0 on the mini-map might be on the list of idiot-proofing features. But are all those plus signs necessary? And would it be more or less clear if for example it said 4 for South Norway, 4 for North Norway and +1 for Norway?

ender516 wrote:The +0 on the mini-map might be on the list of idiot-proofing features. But are all those plus signs necessary? And would it be more or less clear if for example it said 4 for South Norway, 4 for North Norway and +1 for Norway?

The plus signs are there because I kinda like how they, combined with the arrows, make the minimap look like a weather report

But if they need to go then they need to go.

About that +1 thing... I don't know, somehow I have a feeling it would make things more confusing... "what, you get 4 from either part but if you hold both you only get +1?" I could imagine this being posted...

natty_dread wrote:

ender516 wrote:The +0 on the mini-map might be on the list of idiot-proofing features. But are all those plus signs necessary? And would it be more or less clear if for example it said 4 for South Norway, 4 for North Norway and +1 for Norway?

The plus signs are there because I kinda like how they, combined with the arrows, make the minimap look like a weather report

But if they need to go then they need to go.

About that +1 thing... I don't know, somehow I have a feeling it would make things more confusing... "what, you get 4 from either part but if you hold both you only get +1?" I could imagine this being posted...

True enough, but I can also see people saying "+4 and +4 and +9 equals +17!". That's why I thought using the plus signs only on the combined bonuses might make that clearer, but it is hard to determine the polarity of the stupidity in advance.

Hmm ... what to do...

Should we have a poll on it?

If they think that you will get 17 from holding two continants with four each, they deserve to lose any points that they do from the game.

skeletonboy wrote:If they think that you will get 17 from holding two continants with four each, they deserve to lose any points that they do from the game.

Good point. I'll leave the minimap alone for now until I get some further feedback on it.

Are there any gameplay issues on the map? Can anyone see any? I'm thinking concentrating on the gameplay for now would be the best thing for this map as well.

Territory count: 55 regular territories
6 capitals (start neutral, autodeploy)
1 glacier (start neutral, decay)

total: 62 territories, of which 55 are starting territories.

Hmm...

natty_dread wrote:
Whether you have heard the word Götlandar or not, is also irrelevant. It is merged from the landskaps of Västergötland and Östergötland, so I was going to simply call it Götland, but it would be too confusing to have Götland and Gotland side by side.

I understand about merging territories for gameplay (although youve done a lot more - you have moved large parts of one territory to another) .. but anyway it can hardly be irrelevant that you made up a word that doesn´t exist in the swedish or english language..
it´s as crazy as calling helsinki = hellsunkur or something..

the traditional name is Götaland (or Götland hundreds of years ago) - götlandar is a word you made up. It doesn´t mean anything in any language afaik.
any word that actually exists is an improvement. If you don´t like Götaland which is the proper modern name then perhaps the latin Gothia?
Götaland is already plural and if you wanted to use the definite article then it would be Götalanden or götaländerna. (but this is very uncommon)

snufkin wrote:

natty_dread wrote:
Whether you have heard the word Götlandar or not, is also irrelevant. It is merged from the landskaps of Västergötland and Östergötland, so I was going to simply call it Götland, but it would be too confusing to have Götland and Gotland side by side.

I understand about merging territories for gameplay.. but it can hardly be irrelevant that you made up a word that doesn´t exist in the swedish or english language..
it´s as crazy as calling helsinki = hellsunkur or something..

the traditional name is Götaland (or Götland hundreds of years ago) - götlandar is a word you made up. It doesn´t mean anything in any language afaik.
any word that actually exists is an improvement. If you don´t like Götaland which is the proper modern name then perhaps the latin Gothia?
Götaland is already plural and if you wanted to use the definite article then it would be Götalanden or götaländerna. (but this is very uncommon)

I'm sorry, my swedish is a bit rusty...

The problem is that is should be sufficiently distinctive from Gotland. For you and I, the scandic letters are no problem - we know the difference between Å and A, Ö and O, but from the viewpoint of the english-speaking people the names Götland and Gotland would be 100% sure to cause confusion.

Götaland might be a viable option, at least it has one letter different, but it might still be too close to Gotland, especially since the territories are side by side... I also am reluctant to change the name to another language, since every other territory is in the local language of the country...

In the gameplay perspective, Götalanden would work best IMO, but you tell me, is it proper language to write it like that?

OK, latest version with Götlandar changed to Götalanden. I hope this solution satisfies all

Also some work done on the land areas: texture modifed a bit, colours a bit brighter. The legend text changed a bit: added the bit about Mountains being impassable, for idiot-proofing



[bigimg]http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/5140/northeuropev22.png[/bigimg]

Some graphics stuff:

The army circles look rather huge. Not sure how you made them, but the way I do is just a 22px brush (minimum size for the circles) and just click wherever I want one. (Sorry, I know I said it before) Btw, Army circles are supposed to lighten the area, not darken it. (there is a black outline around the army numbers)

Would it be possible to get rid of the border that the mountains make impassable?

The minimap is looking rather fuzzy, and I am not a fan of the text you used on it (#s and Names). Just stick to the one you have on the main map, it looks great.

Not a fan of either texture you've got. Sorry.

Gameplay:

What is the purpose of the Glacier? It doesn't change the gameplay at all (other than being probably use it for a card spot in escalating)

The extra amount of troops when you combine the two sections of a country needs to be larger. I don't think 1 troop for Norway and Finland will make any difference in the bonus the people decide to take.

It is unclear whether the lines connecting Stockholm to Aland connect just Stockhold to Aland, Stockhold and Uppland to Aland, or just Uppland to Aland. I would go with the first, but the conventional connector lines go only to the border of the territory, not the army circle, so some might guess the second, and the legend only says that capitals connect to the territories under them (one could interpret that as "only" connect)

The Neon Peon wrote:The army circles look rather huge. Not sure how you made them

viewtopic.php?f=466&t=105906

Btw, Army circles are supposed to lighten the area, not darken it.

Says who?

There are actually several maps where the army circles are darker than the surrounding area. The land area on this map is so light that dark army circles bring a nice contrast to it.

Army numbers have a black outline, true, but they have a colourful inside. The method I use to make the circles ensure that the numbers look good in the circles. So you shouldn't worry about the circles.

Would it be possible to get rid of the border that the mountains make impassable?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean?

The minimap is looking rather fuzzy, and I am not a fan of the text you used on it (#s and Names). Just stick to the one you have on the main map, it looks great.

Thanks for that offhanded compliment
There will be time to change the fonts for the minimap many times, when the bonuses will be adjusted. So remind me again when we start working on them...

Not a fan of either texture you've got. Sorry.

Meh, can't please everyone. Still, I can try different types of textures to see which gets the best response. Do you have anything particular in mind, what kind of texture would you like to see here?

What is the purpose of the Glacier? It doesn't change the gameplay at all (other than being probably use it for a card spot in escalating)

Well, it was either that or make it an impassable non-territory. A killer neutral would also be a possibility. I just wanted to represent the glacier of Iceland in the map somehow.

The extra amount of troops when you combine the two sections of a country needs to be larger. I don't think 1 troop for Norway and Finland will make any difference in the bonus the people decide to take.

Good point. It was a +1 in the old version which had less territories and smaller boni. I guess I will have to make it bigger here.

It is unclear whether the lines connecting Stockholm to Aland connect just Stockhold to Aland, Stockhold and Uppland to Aland, or just Uppland to Aland. I would go with the first, but the conventional connector lines go only to the border of the territory, not the army circle, so some might guess the second, and the legend only says that capitals connect to the territories under them (one could interpret that as "only" connect)

This issue again... d'oh! The connections are between army circles, so if the line goes to the capital then the connection is only to the capital. I thought it'd be obvious enough... And the lines originally went only to the border of the territory, but were put to go between the circles everywhere due to this very issue.

I guess I should explain them in the legend somehow, but how to word it conveniently, so that it wouldn't make a huge wall of text? Any ideas?

Btw, thanks for all your feedback! Appreciate it.


edit. Maps that have darker army circles:

Ancient greece
Asia
Australia
BeNeLux
Discworld
Europe
Haiti

.. well, I got to letter H, I'm sure there's more. The point is, there's no rule saying army circles need to be lighter than the map. And, depending on the circumstances, it can really look good on some maps.

Here's a version with fancy artistic texture... I don't think I'll go with this one, but just wanted to show it as it looks kinda cool.

[bigimg]http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2970/northeuropev22a.png[/bigimg]