Conquer Club

jonnybgood wrote:somehow the wall seems out of place compared to the other boundaries and the map altogether.Is it just me or should it be less 3-D?

It's just you.

ok just makin sure

i like the look, and I can live with the wall color. My trouble with the wall is that the mountains look very sharp, and the wall looks a bit fuzzy next to them. The graphics should be consistant.

I admit that I'm guilty of not reading all of the previous 19 pages of changes/suggestions, so maybe this has been addressed already: I'm troubled by the trade route also being an attack route. The idea of an army attacking another army several hundred miles away simply because there's a trail seems odd.

Have you considered making the trade route itself a territory?

i think that that was the reason why i thought the wall looked odd. I agree with Oaktown it just doesnt fit together

i also agree with the trade/attack route. I think that there should be a way to attack lhasa from samarkand and the other way around, but it doesnt have to be completely historically accurate. Remember, we play on this map, not learn from it. I thnk that it is close enough to the real thing that you can get away with adding a little stupid countryin India. Maybe put a little one-army bonus if you have both Lhasa and Samarkand, or something like that.

The trade route was added as a way of bridging the east-west bottleneck and opening up the board a little. I really don't think it needs a territory of its own. On the classic map armies attack from Brazil to n Africa! I know its a different scale, I think the trade route is the best way to deal with the east-west problem as close to being accurate as possible. If at all possible I'd like to avoid adding a country outside of the Mongol empire.

I'm happy with the trade route. My vote is to just leave it as is.

Nice Map, when are you planning to do it?

i guess your right. I just want this over with so that I can play on it!

oaktown wrote: I'm troubled by the trade route also being an attack route. The idea of an army attacking another army several hundred miles away simply because there's a trail seems odd.

Odd but accurate! Mongels had a mounted army that could cover great distances - 100 miles in a day; three times that in a hurry.

They rode around their known world - Asia - with their horses grazing and razing. That's what the Mongels did. From China to Mesopotamia to Hungary, anything that looked remotely civilised had to go.

The Mongols might not have crossed northern India from southern China but they did travel great distances to fight battle. In that sense a long distance connection is not an historical boo boo.

I say that wall look litle blurr.

i think that if you make the wall less blurry, itll become more shiny,and I dot thinkthats what we want

I think that the legend should be in order from most army bonuses to least.

I think the new one (4th March update) is absolutely excellent - far better than the 27 feb one showing at the start of the thread. i think you've finally found the wall graphic you've been searching for for so long - nice work guiscard.

jonnybgood wrote:I think that the legend should be in order from most army bonuses to least.

Thanks for the suggestion, but just thought I'd explain my reasoning for the current ordering. It's ordered geographically and so that the colours sort of go in a 'progression'. Bonus order would have green at the top then orange or yellow, which would seem out of place in my opinion. Anyone else have significant objections to the current ordering?

As for the wall, only real problem seems to be the blur / sharpness. Wouldn't mind getting some sort of consensus on this.

Oaktown, Johnny and Qwert all think its too blurred at the moment. Seems like a reasonable number, so I'll try and sharpen it up in the next update.

Talking of the next update what needs doing graphically? Got to wait till I've got a bit of free time to do the xml. Unis a bit hectic at the moment.

graphically, I think that the wall should match the mountains more, and maybe you should take out the pictures of the two western seas. The second is just my opinion because it seemes a little hectic around that area. Besides that I think its good!

The pictures didn't used to be there, but the consensus was that it looked unbalanced without.

Thanks for your comments though Johnny, thought I'd hit a bit of wall ith improvements and its great to have some new input.

this is, visually, one of the best maps i've seen on here. i really am looking forward to playing it.

anything to help

so when are you gonna start army circles?

jonnybgood wrote:so when are you gonna start army circles?

he already has amry circles

Maybe he think army numbers

ya army numbers

Ok man, a few quick suggestions...

1. Blurry or not or lack of consistincy this map is still already ten times more refined than half the maps on conquer club.

2. To solve the whole trade route issue and to provide historical inight,(Go ahead everyone hiss at me.) The lower left light brown region looks to be Timur the Lame or Tamerlane's Empire, and Tamerlane did conquer northern India right before he called the Ottoman Sultan's mother a Whore and began warring with them. So Northern India could be a territory of that region.

3. I don't think the mongols ever conquered Tibet. Just watched "Barbarians: The Mongols, and Kublai Khan: Fall of the Hordes" on The History Channel and they said the Mongols left Tibet alone. I don't think they even had a reason to attack a bunch of peacefull monks with little material possesions either. Maybe Tibet could be a nuetral region with no bonus.

All in all a superb map and I must commend you on an excellent job.

Thanks for the comments, and just to answer your points...

1) Cheers

2) You are indeed right in saying Tamerlane invaded northern India, but the maps I am basing it upon are from when the Mongol empire was at its greatest extent. Jusing Tamerlane's time (early 1300s) much of the empire was split up and other regions had become independant, so it would be a more fragmented map.

3) As for Tibet, they did attack (although not a full scale invasion) but you are right in saying they left Tibet alone for the most part. It was, however, a dependant region still within the empire just as much as many other areas. The Tibetan leader was subservient to the Mongols. It was also important in that Tibet brought Buddhism to the Mongols. This quote from wikipedia might explain it better:

In 1240, the Mongols marched into central Tibet and attacked several monasteries. Köden, younger brother of Mongol ruler Güyük Khan, participated in a ceremony recognizing the Sa-skya lama as temporal ruler of Tibet in 1247. The Mongol khans had ruled northern China since 1215. They were the emperors of the Yuan Dynasty. Kublai Khan was a patron of Tibetan Buddhism and appointed the Sa-skya Lama his "Imperial preceptor," or chief religious official. Tibetans viewed this relationship as an example of yon-mchod, or priest-patron relationship. In practice, the Sa-skya lama was subordinate to the Mongol khan.

And for more detailed info check out this essay:
[url]
http://www.tibet.com/Status/mongol.html[/url]

Thanks again for the comments, and as a general notice I must let everyone know I'm pretty busy at the moment but I'll try and iron out the wall at the weekend if at all possible.