Conquer Club

well, i had already done most of the xml prior to the cross trick, so i figured i would post this so you guys could tell me which ones to focus on.

cairnswk wrote:*The water looks interesting!

good or bad, interesting?

OK...here it is, i didn't want to say it all in one go in case I offended...my first impression was that somone had run a scourer across a piece of metal....I'm still not sure on it.

well, first, the railhead is actually in Mississippi. second, yes, that is right...one railway can attack another, but only one station up the track.
i.e. Montanas -> Disputed North and Montanas -> Iowa Territory, but Montanas cannot attack Mexico City or Mississippi.

So it is in Mississippi...sorry bout that....i think I like the "x is a railroad, and attack other railroads, but only in the path shown" story. I understood that better.

Gemineye wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Gemineye....good job on those mountains.
*Can you attack from Montanas to Lago Grande or are the mountains going to be used as unpassable barriers?

unpassable barriers--with the exception of the railway.

Perhaps, if i could suggest to open up the mountains just around the rail line so that it is clear you can attack across those broders.

So any X can attack any X?

Gilligan wrote:So any X can attack any X?

Yes, it's a railway. Joining countries together meaning they can attack each other.
I think it's like that, kind of like a water connection or an airport.

the legend needs loads of work it is out of place

here are some suggestions...

-the english on the railroad station legend needs to be re-written. something like 'is a railroad station, can also attack any connected station' you make it sounds like they can only attack other railroads...
-ocean needs a less metal like texture
-legend seems a little to removed from the map, maybe try to blend it in a little more? remove the bevel? something...
-'unorganized' is certainly not the best name for an area dominated by native americans. they were definetly organized...
-should it be sierra nevada, instead of serra nevada?
-im not a big fan of the squiggly arrows for attacks over rivers...maybe put some bridges on them?

i think that Mexico is too big to only get 6 armies... but thats just me

really? I thought mexico should be possibly 5, its right in the left hand corner not in the middle of the map so its excluded from the rest of the map and the fighting grounds nearer texas

Skittles! wrote:

Gilligan wrote:So any X can attack any X?

Yes, it's a railway. Joining countries together meaning they can attack each other.
I think it's like that, kind of like a water connection or an airport.

no.....

ive put this example in a few times now, but Montanas can attack all countries it touches, just like normal, but the railway allows it to attack either Iowa Territory or Disputed South, but because it is not directly connected to mississippi or Mexico City, it CANNOT attack those.

johloh wrote:-the english on the railroad station legend needs to be re-written. something like 'is a railroad station, can also attack any connected station' you make it sounds like they can only attack other railroads...

well, i want to make it clear that the railroads only attack a connected railroad...who wouldnt understand that they also attack adjacent territories?

johloh wrote:-'unorganized' is certainly not the best name for an area dominated by native americans. they were definetly organized...

every map that you will find of the N.American continent during the mid 1800's, when this territory existed, states that this is 'unorganized' territory. the only reason i added any territories in that region is because i was asked to. there were just not enough territories on the map. if you guys think this is an inappropriate name, even though it is accurate, please suggest something else.

johloh wrote:-should it be sierra nevada, instead of serra nevada?

no, it was Serra Nevada at the time, from the maps i found.

johloh wrote:-im not a big fan of the squiggly arrows for attacks over rivers...maybe put some bridges on them?

well, if this is a mass opinion, i can do it, but i find bridges are just so boring. i will run a poll on it soon.



as far as Mexico and the number of bonus....it only has 4 borders, hence i dont think there should be MORE bonus, but it does have a lot of territories, which is why i think 6 is perfect. all thoughts/ideas will be considered.


thank you all for feedback, please continue.

I don't really like the railroad system, to be honest. Now lemme ask something. The rivers in "New" mexico are unpassable borders Because I think that the mountains are enough.

Otherwise, Excellent work

well, about the railroads.....


not to be mean, but i really dont understand what the confusion is. its simply a linear attack system:

X<--->Y<--->Z<--->A<--->B

X can attack Y, Y can attack X or Z, Z can attack Y or A, A can attack Z or B, B can attack A. a railroad can attack through the railway, but only a connected station--meaning it cant "skip" a station. in following w/ this example, Y cannot attack A, because it does not directly connect.

hereje888 wrote:The rivers in "New" mexico are unpassable borders--Because I think that the mountains are enough.

you know, i think you are probably right here, for the big river that cuts through new mexico, it needs to be passable in all areas. the main reason for it is to keep w/ the accurate cosmetic appearance.

The railroad tracks need to be railroad tracks, not dots, and the stations need to be stations. You need to change the wording to read "Each railroad station can attack the next railroad station in either direction on the tracks."

You need to consolidate all the rivers east of Texas into one river that runs along that entire east Texas border. If you feel you still need more divisions in S. and N. United States, use mountains.

Eliminate the river between Disputed South and San Antonio, it divides nothing (not even those two territories).

Eliminate the entire river that runs between Montana and New Mexico (and other areas), it divides very little and that portion of the map is too isolated as is.

Shorten the river between New Mexico and Disputed North so that it stops just above the Disputed North-Disputed South border.

Move the text for "Los Angeles" over to the ocean side so that we can see what's going on with the borders there.

so, i guess what you are saying Samus, is that it isnt that important to be geographically accurate?

im happy to make all these changes, as long as we understand that most of them require the accuracy to decline.

Why won't Andy post here?

keep it geographically accurate in regards to rivers + mountains if u can

maybe you could add a line around the map. i don't like way it ends in the east...

further things: dont make to many teritories...

Gilligan wrote:Why won't Andy post here?

maybe Andy don't like it

is andy the biggest treath for every mapmaker?

instead of dots for the railroad..Why dont you make a proper looking railroad..It would be much nicer!!!!

yea, you can put real railroad track in map.

I watch topics a while before I post. The Foundry Process is at hand.


--Andy

I dont understand vote question, its these map finish for play?

i will be glad to make the minor changes that have been set out, but to be quite honest, i am very much a novice w/ Photoshop. i am really unsure how to make good looking railroad tracks. i have tried a few things, but they look like crap. if anyone can give me a few pointers on how i could, it would be appreciated.

otherwise, i am working on the updates.

qwert wrote:I dont understand vote question, its these map finish for play?

he is getting ahead which is a good thing and trying to see if it is worth doing the xml now which will save the tedious co-ordinate debates later however i still think there are a few tweaks like the railroads to be made

There must be a site somewhere that you can download stuff etc....

Mibi must know but i think he will want to keep it secret

I mean where does he get the images for the trees and paving of the castle!!!