Conquer Club

The1exile wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:And I think the lakes being playable will make this map very interesting, somewhat similar to Alexander the Great's Empire map, but as the lakes are a central figure, I think they will play much more of a strategic role for everyone than the seas in that map.

Just on a side note - I would disagree that the seas in Alex's empire aren't strategic - on the contrary, med and aegean seas are very hotly contested territories for control of Ptolemy and Kassander (unsurprisingly due to their significant reduction of borders).

I didn't say they weren't strategic...they are, but they aren't such a central issue as the lakes are in this map.


--Andy

Wait, I'm a little confused about where the lakes can attack, since in some places you have arrows and some places you don't. For example, can Lake Michigan attack the Grand Rapids?

yeah those arrows are a bit confusing since they are used to gross rivers as well as attack lakes.

I think they are significantly less confusing than the anchor thing he had going on before. I don't see how you could confuse the bridge arrows with the ones clearly in open water. Unless I'm missing something obvious...

I think it's very clear what can lakes attack or not. There wouldn't be arrows going to adjacent territories for nothing..

Lakes might be beside a lot of territories, it's obvious they can only attack from the arrows.

I'd hate to see him have to add a 'lakes can only attack and be attacked via the arrows' down by the equally obvious fact that the rivers are impassible.

Coleman wrote:I'd hate to see him have to add a 'lakes can only attack and be attacked via the arrows' down by the equally obvious fact that the rivers are impassible.

I am not going to add text for the arrows. TOO many people complain about text and how it is hard to understand.

An arrow is a clear indicator of direction. Many other maps have these and they are easy to understand. If someone can truly come up with a reason they cannot understand the arrows let me know and we can discuss the change. Until then they stay.

In regards to the suggestion by Andy. I will look into fixing some of them soon.

WidowMakers wrote:

Coleman wrote:I'd hate to see him have to add a 'lakes can only attack and be attacked via the arrows' down by the equally obvious fact that the rivers are impassible.

I am not going to add text for the arrows. TOO many people complain about text and how it is hard to understand.

An arrow is a clear indicator of direction. Many other maps have these and they are easy to understand. If someone can truly come up with a reason they cannot understand the arrows let me know and we can discuss the change. Until then they stay.

In regards to the suggestion by Andy. I will look into fixing some of them soon.

maybe you can remove the black border that separates the lakes from the lake border territories, i know you have removed it in places, but perhaps remove the rest of it as well... might help.

mibi wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

Coleman wrote:I'd hate to see him have to add a 'lakes can only attack and be attacked via the arrows' down by the equally obvious fact that the rivers are impassible.

I am not going to add text for the arrows. TOO many people complain about text and how it is hard to understand.

An arrow is a clear indicator of direction. Many other maps have these and they are easy to understand. If someone can truly come up with a reason they cannot understand the arrows let me know and we can discuss the change. Until then they stay.

In regards to the suggestion by Andy. I will look into fixing some of them soon.

maybe you can remove the black border that separates the lakes from the lake border territories, i know you have removed it in places, but perhaps remove the rest of it as well... might help.

It was removed before. It was suggested that it looked bad and that a faded border would look better. That is why we have this now. The old border can be seen on page 11.

AndyDufresne wrote:And I recall you mentioning a long while back ago in the post that eventually you'd fix up the names and align them, or at least I think I recall reading that

I said I was going to fix it but there have been several people who requested that it stay. I guess if there is a big issue I can make 2 and we can vote.

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, I'm jumping around, but the way the Title is currently, looks a little odd. It hink it may be the graphics...it feels a little out of place and pasted on almost like. The rest of the map blends nicely together, but I don't get that same meshing feel. The same may be true of the Mini-map also.

Fixed

AndyDufresne wrote:And the non-gameboard water also looks a little odd when comparing it to the lakes, but that may not be a bad thing, it just caught my eye.

They actually have the same texture but I did want to differentiate the two type, playable and non-playable.

AndyDufresne wrote:Something to consider, perhaps making the 'hold' descriptions a little more noticeable. How? I am not sure, maybe the use of some colors could do that. Maybe a blue on the 'lake' words...I don't know. Just a small idea.

Fixed

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm and lastly, the compass also looks and feels a little odd to me. I'm not sure why, I can't quite put my finger on it...Ah oh well!

I desaturated it a bit. It does not "stand out" as much now.

WidowMakers wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Something to consider, perhaps making the 'hold' descriptions a little more noticeable. How? I am not sure, maybe the use of some colors could do that. Maybe a blue on the 'lake' words...I don't know. Just a small idea.

Fixed

I think what Andy meant was to make the words 'Lake' blue, not 'Hold', since the emphasis is really on the Lakes for those bonus descriptions.

anamainiacks wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Something to consider, perhaps making the 'hold' descriptions a little more noticeable. How? I am not sure, maybe the use of some colors could do that. Maybe a blue on the 'lake' words...I don't know. Just a small idea.

Fixed

I think what Andy meant was to make the words 'Lake' blue, not 'Hold', since the emphasis is really on the Lakes for those bonus descriptions.

Actually I'd think it would be cool if that effect was on all the words in that bonus description.

Coleman wrote:

anamainiacks wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Something to consider, perhaps making the 'hold' descriptions a little more noticeable. How? I am not sure, maybe the use of some colors could do that. Maybe a blue on the 'lake' words...I don't know. Just a small idea.

Fixed

I think what Andy meant was to make the words 'Lake' blue, not 'Hold', since the emphasis is really on the Lakes for those bonus descriptions.

Actually I'd think it would be cool if that effect was on all the words in that bonus description.

other than editing the "Hold X Lakes for X bonus", are there any other suggestions? Andy? Keyogi? Just askign becasue the XML is done and the map has not been given much more graphical criticism. Final Forge maybe?

WidowMakers wrote:other than editing the "Hold X Lakes for X bonus", are there any other suggestions? Andy? Keyogi? Just askign becasue the XML is done and the map has not been given much more graphical criticism. Final Forge maybe?

You know you've just delayed FF by two weeks by asking for it!

The map is looking pretty solid. I agree with edbeard about the number of territories though, 48 is preferable to 49.

KEYOGI wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:other than editing the "Hold X Lakes for X bonus", are there any other suggestions? Andy? Keyogi? Just askign becasue the XML is done and the map has not been given much more graphical criticism. Final Forge maybe?

You know you've just delayed FF by two weeks by asking for it!

The map is looking pretty solid. I agree with edbeard about the number of territories though, 48 is preferable to 49.

if 48 is better then pick which territory should be removed...

Molacole wrote:if 48 is better then pick which territory should be removed...

New York City, what the hell is that, I've never heard of it!

Molacole wrote:if 48 is better then pick which territory should be removed...

Well assuming there has to be a merge somewhere...

I just did a bunch of math and the best removal looks to be merging two of the Ohio territories together without changing the number of border territories. Doing this barely changes the worth of the continent so it can still be 4.

The more popular merge in Illinois (East St. Louis and Mt. Vernon) would actually make Illinois worth the exact same as New York math wise, so I think it is a bad idea if the 3 bonus for Illinois is to be preserved.

ok on page one there are red circles on the next updates there are arrows did i miss something because i like the red circles

unlike the arrows on every other map

plysprtz wrote:ok on page one there are red circles on the next updates there are arrows did i miss something because i like the red circles

unlike the arrows on every other map

You missed the typical user not understanding the wall of text at the bottom correctly. Also at one point before that the ugly (and they were ugly) red circles became anchors.

Coleman wrote:

Molacole wrote:if 48 is better then pick which territory should be removed...

Well assuming there has to be a merge somewhere...

I just did a bunch of math and the best removal looks to be merging two of the Ohio territories together without changing the number of border territories. Doing this barely changes the worth of the continent so it can still be 4.

The more popular merge in Illinois (East St. Louis and Mt. Vernon) would actually make Illinois worth the exact same as New York math wise, so I think it is a bad idea if the 3 bonus for Illinois is to be preserved.

Or merge Greenstone and Thunder Bay in Ontario.

hmm... Greenstone and Thunder Bay would leave a rather huge territory there, and it wont be aesthetically nice.

i prefer the Illinois merge, though of course the bonus has to be brought down to 2...

I saw Andy so I'm running around bumping maps I want him to comment on. Do I think it will accomplish anything? No. But I'm doing it anyway, because I'm neurotic.

anamainiacks wrote:hmm... Greenstone and Thunder Bay would leave a rather huge territory there, and it wont be aesthetically nice.

i prefer the Illinois merge, though of course the bonus has to be brought down to 2...

Thunder Bay split into Greenstone and Thunder Bay from my first draft. If I remove one from Illinois, I will need to reduce teh bonus. If I remove one from Ontario, I won't.

WidowMakers wrote:

anamainiacks wrote:hmm... Greenstone and Thunder Bay would leave a rather huge territory there, and it wont be aesthetically nice.

i prefer the Illinois merge, though of course the bonus has to be brought down to 2...

Thunder Bay split into Greenstone and Thunder Bay from my first draft. If I remove one from Illinois, I will need to reduce teh bonus. If I remove one from Ontario, I won't.

Well let's do it!

New XML: http://members.cox.net/gyrigo/CC/TheGreatLakes_02.xml

Only thing in there left to change is the Thunder Bay coordinates if need be.

Here are the maps with the combined Greenstone and Thunder Bay
Sorry Coleman you will need to move the armies for Thunder Bay.