Conquer Club

Mrbenn,its clearly that you give me foggy sugestion,because even you dont know what is wrong on map,and you dont know how to describe Alpes Roma and other boxes.
If you have better word to present -Alpes Provinces-Roma Defence Map-Each Town bonus,i will apply these.

new update,add box for Town Bonuses.

Deleted.

cairnswk wrote:Qwert
I do not usually comment on gameplay, because i do not think i am qualify to understand gameplay good.
I will however, comment on the graphics.
There are several things i think could be better on yours map.
1. in bonus legend, you have white design for separation, but in Alpes/Roma legend you have black. I think black would be best on both. It looks awkward having those two different items.
2. "B...Pontus" text near IBERIA seems lonely out there by self, like it is just stuck there. maybe you make bonus legend outline bigger and put text and symbol in as part of legend or maybe make it own legend there
3. I should have mentioned this one before, but some of the army circles like on Classis Britannica are behind the text. This mean that 888 digit may run over text and you know this is not good. could you move the army army to in front of text so that text sit behind circle like on Classis Ponitca.
4. the color of the Germania Iberia Sarmatia area is different from the Phazania Gaetulia area...perhaps make them the same -> t-o-m
5. The
CA
LA
LO
TA....
items for each town bonus are not straight in alignment...could you make them all left align in straight line.
6. Germania Inforior...Superior...etc could look better if they were all same alignment.

i think these were all good opinion's did you notice this post.
what are the blue dots on some territories?

multiplayertim wrote:what are the blue dots on some territories?

Qwert.. You really need to explain the blue dots a little better.

are they just to say the name is not in full ie. TA->Tarraco because thats about all i can figure out from legend

Qwert - I have two ideas for you that I think will solve a lot of the issues that have been raised. Like you, I think both of these things are obvious either way, but everybody has to be able to understand them.

First, I think you should put a blue dot in the town bonus legend, perhaps right before the word "each." It would make the meaning of the blue dots as obvious as humanly possible.

Second, I think if you label the insets as "Insets," you'll clear up some of the repeatedly mentioned confusion in that area. If in stead of "Alpes Provinces" and "Roma Defence Map" you had "Alpes Inset" and "Roma Defence Inset," that could go a long way to clarifying that they are, in fact, insets.



Other things I noticed:

- I like the idea from the most recent draft of adding numerals to the Legio Romanum banners, but those characters are tiny. Cool though they are, if you can't make them bigger, I think the map looks better without them.
- I think you have room in Bithynia et Pontus to write out the names. Put the army circle where the purple symbol currently is, and write "Bithynia et Pontus" on two lines in the Black Sea so that it intersects the territory. Sorry I don't have time to give you an image; I'll try to post what I mean tomorrow.


Nice work, as always.

multiplayertim
i think these were all good opinion's did you notice this post.
what are the blue dots on some territories?

Its good that you notice Cairnswk post,i also notice hes post and i also apply several hes sugestion,its bad that you dont notice mine reply to cairnswk sugestions.

Qwert.. You really need to explain the blue dots a little better.

I explane these,but again people dont read mine post.

by BrianHoef

Qwert - I have two ideas for you that I think will solve a lot of the issues that have been raised. Like you, I think both of these things are obvious either way, but everybody has to be able to understand them.

First, I think you should put a blue dot in the town bonus legend, perhaps right before the word "each." It would make the meaning of the blue dots as obvious as humanly possible.

Second, I think if you label the insets as "Insets," you'll clear up some of the repeatedly mentioned confusion in that area. If in stead of "Alpes Provinces" and "Roma Defence Map" you had "Alpes Inset" and "Roma Defence Inset," that could go a long way to clarifying that they are, in fact, insets.
Other things I noticed:

- I like the idea from the most recent draft of adding numerals to the Legio Romanum banners, but those characters are tiny. Cool though they are, if you can't make them bigger, I think the map looks better without them.
- I think you have room in Bithynia et Pontus to write out the names. Put the army circle where the purple symbol currently is, and write "Bithynia et Pontus" on two lines in the Black Sea so that it intersects the territory. Sorry I don't have time to give you an image; I'll try to post what I mean tomorrow.


Nice work, as always.

Insted-Alpes provinces to put Alpes Insets,and instead Roma defence map put Roma defence insets.If you belive that these will solve these "problem"then i will put these.

Bithynia et Pontus,its very long name,and if i put like you say,then i will have problem with 3 digit numbers,so i thinking that all things what is concerne Army Circle and names stay like now,and when i start XML,i will know better what can,and what can not stay.

Banner names-I have 12 banners,so i dont know how will these look without names,because hes give bonus,and he overlap with others names,let these stay for now and we will see when i start XML,its only a minor issue,and i can remove these later,ok.

New update,i apply three sugestion of BrianHoef -Insted Aples Provinces and Roma Defence Map-put Alpes Inset and Roma Defence Inset,and add blue dot to Each Town Bonuses.

Hey qwert, sorry to have been away for so long... after next week I should be able to make more regular appearances.

For starters, I'm looking at your first post and I've gone back a coupleof pages, but I don't know what you've settled on for starting territories/neutrals. Could you include your final decision about the start on your first post?

Other concerns that have been raised are similar to concerns I had weeks ago: the I, II, and III in the main map (the alpes territories) need to somehow better indicate that they are represented in the inset map. If this can't be done, I think you should get rid of them altogether and just make on territory called Alpes Provinces (or just "Alpes" on the map because there is no room). By making that little space three different territories you really aren't adding anything to the play of the game, because there are still six different ways into Italia, and Italia still presents a bottleneck for players trying to get into Rome.

Plus, having two pull-out style sections on one map leaves room for confusion, especially since you insist on placing them next to each other.

The Roman numerals in the legend should perhaps go before the other information instead of after it, but by writing "Hold Classis Romanun III" it isn't entirely clear that you want somebody to hold 3 of that type of territory.

The Cohors graphic needs to be simplified - it looks muddy in its small version on the Rome inset map.

Somebody was concerned about how the ships attack each other, but I think this is self-explanatory.

In general I think you should try to make some of the borders wider between territories; for example Dalmatia to Italia, Lugidunesis to Alpes I.

And i have to agree with the earlier comments about the text - all of the territory names are at different angles even when they don't have to be, which just looks like you're being sloppy.

oaktown

Hey qwert, sorry to have been away for so long... after next week I should be able to make more regular appearances.

For starters, I'm looking at your first post and I've gone back a coupleof pages, but I don't know what you've settled on for starting territories/neutrals. Could you include your final decision about the start on your first post?

-------
You have decision on first page.move down to option poll.The Option 1 is final decision for Gameplay.Do you not see?
--------

Other concerns that have been raised are similar to concerns I had weeks ago: the I, II, and III in the main map (the alpes territories) need to somehow better indicate that they are represented in the inset map. If this can't be done, I think you should get rid of them altogether and just make on territory called Alpes Provinces (or just "Alpes" on the map because there is no room). By making that little space three different territories you really aren't adding anything to the play of the game, because there are still six different ways into Italia, and Italia still presents a bottleneck for players trying to get into Rome.

-------------
No i dont want to change these,and create something what is wrong,instead I II III,i will put three difernt colour dots.
----------------------

Plus, having two pull-out style sections on one map leaves room for confusion, especially since you insist on placing them next to each other.
--------------------

What confusion?
-------------------

The Roman numerals in the legend should perhaps go before the other information instead of after it, but by writing "Hold Classis Romanun III" it isn't entirely clear that you want somebody to hold 3 of that type of territory.

-----------------
Not understand,please explane better.
-------------------------------------

The Cohors graphic needs to be simplified - it looks muddy in its small version on the Rome inset map.

---------------
How you mean simplified?
--------------------------------

In general I think you should try to make some of the borders wider between territories; for example Dalmatia to Italia, Lugidunesis to Alpes I.

--------------
I will se what can i do with these. Also aim glad that you very good se Alpes I.
----------------------------------

And i have to agree with the earlier comments about the text - all of the territory names are at different angles even when they don't have to be, which just looks like you're being sloppy.

----------------------
well like i explane for Milion time,these is Ancient historical map,and its normal that names go to all angles and directions.

Ok,if i understand oaktown you want to see first numbers then names(in bonus legend).
Also i fix "problem "with borders.
And like i say,i put colour dots to show where you can attack,and now without any problem can find Alpes and where is start for roma attack.

any comment?

- The background on the Hold dialog makes the Cohors Praetoria etc. text fairly hard to read. Mute it on that part?
- I don't like the change in the germanic territories, where the names are. It looks very inconsistent and jarring.

by TaCktiX on Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:52 pm

- The background on the Hold dialog makes the Cohors Praetoria etc. text fairly hard to read. Mute it on that part?
- I don't like the change in the germanic territories, where the names are. It looks very inconsistent and jarring.

What changes? Where you see that i change something in germanic terittories.

you get 1 army for the blue dot, i think! but still bottom legend is confusing. osrt it out if you want to, if you dont then, well then dont!

Qwert....some more feedback....
1. black border on both inset legends looks much more consistent
2. like the small inlay for Pontus icon
3. good coloured dots association for smaller territories - i can follow them easily
4. i know you said against it and perhaps TaCticX was looking at my version of the map in his post below, but i'd definitely like to still see the / / / / / arrangement for those Germanic territories - it would be so much neater on the eyes.

qwert wrote:

by TaCktiX on Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:52 pm

- The background on the Hold dialog makes the Cohors Praetoria etc. text fairly hard to read. Mute it on that part?
- I don't like the change in the germanic territories, where the names are. It looks very inconsistent and jarring.

What changes? Where you see that i change something in germanic terittories.

by hulmey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 am

you get 1 army for the blue dot, i think! but still bottom legend is confusing. osrt it out if you want to, if you dont then, well then dont!

I want to reply but i dont understand meaning of these red word.

Qwert....some more feedback....
1. black border on both inset legends looks much more consistent
2. like the small inlay for Pontus icon
3. good coloured dots association for smaller territories - i can follow them easily
4. i know you said against it and perhaps TaCticX was looking at my version of the map in his post below, but i'd definitely like to still see the / / / / / arrangement for those Germanic territories - it would be so much neater on the eyes.

1.thanks
2.thanks
3.good
4.Like i say in previous post,i want to create feel of Historical map,and if all names bee arange like you say,then these will be no good.

qwert wrote:

by hulmey on Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 am

you get 1 army for the blue dot, i think! but still bottom legend is confusing. osrt it out if you want to, if you dont then, well then dont!

I want to reply but i dont understand meaning of these red word.

He meant "sort it out..."

It was a typo.

He meant "sort it out..."

It was a typo.

Still i dont understand what he mean,need example explanation.(meaning of these i dont understand)

Ships should be able to attack each other

by max is gr8 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:40 pm

Ships should be able to attack each other

Why?

Anny comment?Its look that i must again to send PM to MOD

Oaktown and gimil will be around shortly when more time is available. I'm not sure why this map is lagging in feedback. Maybe it doesn't reach as wide an audience as you thought it would? Maybe the game play and presentation is too confusing...or even not interesting? Maybe something else?

I'm not sure. These are just thoughts and I am in no way trying to discourage you Qwert, I hope you understand.


--Andy