Conquer Club

1. the ottoman empire or at least the portion that you created on the map was not an european power. in fact the ottoman terit that you have there is entirely in asia. so labeling it as a european power is wrong

Yeah we've been over this before. Turkey has always had ties to the European nations, dating back to roman times, and especially in this era, just before WWI. The Ottoman empire did extend into Europe through the Balkan Penninsula (although those territories are neutral for the sake of Gameplay). It also extends into Africa, through Egypt. Yes the map focuses on Europe and Africa but the Ottomans had their fingers in both pies so I think that more than justifies their presence in this map. Besides I need 8 European powers and The Ottomans had more African aspirations than the Austrian Hungary empire. True it's not geographically located with in Europe (which is a pretty arbitrary land mass to begin with) but do you really want me to write "European powers (and Turkey!)"

2. all colonizing countries must have the same flag backgrounds as the landing territories for easier recognition. i can say which flag belongs to what country but maybe others can't.

No they "Mustn't". I'll add the flag on at some point but not as a background. That'll make it confusing as to what African bonuses go with which nation. So long as the flag is present on the European terts. in some fashion it should be clear which landing points connect to which.

The Bison King wrote:

1. the ottoman empire or at least the portion that you created on the map was not an european power. in fact the ottoman terit that you have there is entirely in asia. so labeling it as a european power is wrong

Yeah we've been over this before. Turkey has always had ties to the European nations, dating back to roman times, and especially in this era, just before WWI. The Ottoman empire did extend into Europe through the Balkan Penninsula (although those territories are neutral for the sake of Gameplay). It also extends into Africa, through Egypt. Yes the map focuses on Europe and Africa but the Ottomans had their fingers in both pies so I think that more than justifies their presence in this map. Besides I need 8 European powers and The Ottomans had more African aspirations than the Austrian Hungary empire. True it's not geographically located with in Europe (which is a pretty arbitrary land mass to begin with) but do you really want me to write "European powers (and Turkey!)"

i wasn't questioning the presence of the ottoman empire i was just questioning it being called a european power. the solution is actually as simple as a name change. instead of european powers just say colonising nations or something like that.

The Bison King wrote:

2. all colonizing countries must have the same flag backgrounds as the landing territories for easier recognition. i can say which flag belongs to what country but maybe others can't.

No they "Mustn't". I'll add the flag on at some point but not as a background. That'll make it confusing as to what African bonuses go with which nation. So long as the flag is present on the European terts. in some fashion it should be clear which landing points connect to which.

potato potato tomato tomato.
the idea was that you need to somehow incorporate the flags so that they corresponding countries are easy to recognize.

The more I look at the sgameplay of this map, the more I like it and can't wait to play.

one thing that I think needs to be specified is that the flags in Africa are the landing points. I see already in the legend that the mechanics of the landing point is described, but it doesn't say where exactly landing points are.

also, I think you might be a neat feature to have a decay on the nonessential territories, I such as Austria-Hungary and Russia and and and Arabia.

also I think that a better for the location of the British would be Cape town instead of Zululand.

Also on the minimap, I think you should change the phrase "(colony bonus with European power)" with "( colony bonus with an corresponding European power)" that way I doesn't appear that someone can hold Germany with French Sahara of and still get eight troops instead of five.

Industrial Helix wrote: one thing that I think needs to be specified is that the flags in Africa are the landing points. I see already in the legend that the mechanics of the landing point is described, but it doesn't say where exactly landing points are.

the landing points have white terit names while the other terits have black names.
i could spot this right away along with the white being used in the legend but maybe it's too easy to miss.

I see it now that you mention it.

I think replacing the flourishes at either end of "Landing Territories" in the legend with bundles of flagpoles with the flags being used would emphasize the position of the Landing Territories.

i wasn't questioning the presence of the ottoman empire i was just questioning it being called a european power. the solution is actually as simple as a name change. instead of european powers just say colonising nations or something like that.

Oh ok. How about "Colonial power"

The more I look at the sgameplay of this map, the more I like it and can't wait to play.

Glad to hear it!

one thing that I think needs to be specified is that the flags in Africa are the landing points. I see already in the legend that the mechanics of the landing point is described, but it doesn't say where exactly landing points are.

I think We're all agreed here.

lso, I think you might be a neat feature to have a decay on the nonessential territories, I such as Austria-Hungary and Russia and and and Arabia.

Hmm, I think not. I think that they are already going to play as highly ignorable territories, to give them a decay would just ensure that no one ever uses them.

also I think that a better for the location of the British would be Cape town instead of Zululand.

Hmm Maybe, we'll see.

Also on the minimap, I think you should change the phrase "(colony bonus with European power)" with "( colony bonus with an corresponding European power)" that way I doesn't appear that someone can hold Germany with French Sahara of and still get eight troops instead of five.

I'm not sure if I know what you are saying here?

I think replacing the flourishes at either end of "Landing Territories" in the legend with bundles of flagpoles with the flags being used would emphasize the position of the Landing Territories.

This is a very good idea!

have u given any thought to where u'll put egypt's neutral start? cairo or luxor are the two positions that will not block off ottoman empire.

extending the river congo slightly eastward, so that it cuts off central africa from orientale, will give some extra protection to both belgium's only colony and the largest bonus on the map. an extra desert impassable will do likewise for namibia by making skeleton coast an interior region, so that u don't have to reinforce all three namibian regions (maybe the starting neutral can move to skeleton coast). consider splitting luanda into two, so that angola starts with no neutrals.

the new main title, the colonization of africa, has reverted to implying a straight historical map, which defeats the point of changing it in the first place. reversing order of the titles, so that the colonization of africa is the subtitle, will work, so that dark continent appears in the game search instead.

i'll post on ur bonus values later.

ian.

have u given any thought to where u'll put egypt's neutral start? cairo or luxor are the two positions that will not block off ottoman empire.

Probably Luxor.

extending the river congo slightly eastward, so that it cuts off central africa from orientale, will give some extra protection to both belgium's only colony and the largest bonus on the map.

I don't want to do that because I feel that that will make the center of the map too much of a bottle neck. Besides it doesn't change the defend-ability of the French Saharan bonus really at all since you'd probaby be reinforcing Central Africa no matter what.

an extra desert impassable will do likewise for namibia by making skeleton coast an interior region,

I'm not sure I understand, where would the impasse go? between Skeleton Coast and Luanda? Is that what you mean by "interior region"?

consider splitting luanda into two, so that angola starts with no neutrals.

Hmm I will, I could most certainly fit one. The question is does that help Portugal by giving it a bigger bonus or hurt it by giving it another territory to defend?

the new main title, the colonization of africa, has reverted to implying a straight historical map, which defeats the point of changing it in the first place. reversing order of the titles, so that the colonization of africa is the subtitle, will work, so that dark continent appears in the game search instead.

How would you have it read?


"the colonization of"
"the Dark Continent"
"Africa"

Or something similar?

One thing... The words "Africa" and "Europe" on the legend should be curved to match the banners they're on.

The Bison King wrote:

extending the river congo slightly eastward, so that it cuts off central africa from orientale, will give some extra protection to both belgium's only colony and the largest bonus on the map.

I don't want to do that because I feel that that will make the center of the map too much of a bottle neck. Besides it doesn't change the defend-ability of the French Saharan bonus really at all since you'd probaby be reinforcing Central Africa no matter what.

that's a good point. putting in a lake-and-river impassable between kivu and uganda instead achieves the aim of protecting belgian congo without making west sudan a bottleneck (lake edward, lake kivu and lake tanganyika are connected by a river).

The Bison King wrote:

an extra desert impassable will do likewise for namibia by making skeleton coast an interior region,

I'm not sure I understand, where would the impasse go? between Skeleton Coast and Luanda? Is that what you mean by "interior region"?

exactly.

The Bison King wrote:

consider splitting luanda into two, so that angola starts with no neutrals.

Hmm I will, I could most certainly fit one. The question is does that help Portugal by giving it a bigger bonus or hurt it by giving it another territory to defend?

if it was the only portuguese bonus, then i'd be wary about making the bonus more difficult. however, the existence of mozambique as a small portuguese bonus means we don't need to worry about this.

The Bison King wrote:

the new main title, the colonization of africa, has reverted to implying a straight historical map, which defeats the point of changing it in the first place. reversing order of the titles, so that the colonization of africa is the subtitle, will work, so that dark continent appears in the game search instead.

How would you have it read?


"the colonization of"
"the Dark Continent"
"Africa"

Or something similar?

the dark continent, followed by the colonization of africa, was what i had in mind, with the second part written on two of those curved ribbons.

ian.

Ok, changes have been made to the legend (Colonial powers vs. European powers). I added the flags onto the Colonial powers and into the legend where it discusses Landing territories. I added a territory to Angola and bumped it up to (+4 with Portugal). I added an impasse between Skeleton Coast and the Angola bonus region. Instead of a sand dune I used a river. As it turns out that little strip just happens to be divided by the Kunene naturally.

I'm not so crazy about the new header... I don't think it looks or reads as natural, especially where "the colonization of Africa" is squeezed in. I'm not so sure the name change is working or is justified either.

Hmm... let me get my thoughts in order.

I'm honestly fine with either name. Both have there pro's and con's. Calling it Colonial Africa really makes sense because that's what this map is really about, there's no denying it. However like you pointed out that name might lead players to think that this is supposed to be completely 100% historically accurate which it really isn't. That being said it is pretty darn accurate, and give or take 1 or 2 discrepancies all the borders on here were true for at least some period of time. I really don't think the name "Colonial Africa" is going to miss lead anyone as to what they should truly expect from this map.

I also like the name Dark Continent. I like the dated sound to it. No one would call it the Dark Continent today. By it's nature it makes you think of a time ago when there were still unexplored regions being carved up by European leaders who really knew nothing of those distant lands. The cons of course being that any dated term being looked at by modern people can be judged as politically incorrect. Honestly I'm not so worried about that personally and I think most of the flak there would come from people who don't really understand where the name came from, and are judging it from a misguided context. However, I really miss the aesthetic of having "AFRICA" In big bold letters in the center of the header. Dark Continent just doesn't pop the same for me.

My proposal: I have my cake and eat it too.

The header remains:

"The colonization"
"of"
"AFRICA"
"The Dark Continent"

but the maps title and search tag remains:
"Dark Continent"

I know that sounds crazy, but allow me to site precedent. Eastern Hemisphere (which was an early inspiration for this map) is seen no where on the map, which addresses Itself as "The End of Empires" In my own way I've really got that beat because at least it'll say "The Dark Continent" somewhere on the map.

Oh yeah and here's the map:

[bigimg]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1976/colonialafricasmalluplo.jpg[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/76/colonialafricaupload.jpg[/bigimg]

I think the flags on the col. powers could use some wind to them... maybe drop a little shadow too.

As for name, I think Colonial Africa would be just fine for the map. I don't think any map on CC can be 100% accurate, as gameplay considerations must always be first priority... I also don't think anyone really expects that on CC. (Well, most people don't.)

Colonial Africa is also much more descriptive than "Dark Continent". People will know instantly what the map is about. So if anything I think Colonial Africa should be the main title and "Dark Continent" the subtitle if you must have it at all, and have the map listed as Colonial Africa in the map browser.

How about: Colonial Africa - The Conquest of the Dark Continent

(in the form: main title - subtitle)

Also, you're missing the update date and page number from your thread title. As a foundry assistant you should show a better example

natty_dread wrote:I think the flags on the col. powers could use some wind to them... maybe drop a little shadow too.

As for name, I think Colonial Africa would be just fine for the map. I don't think any map on CC can be 100% accurate, as gameplay considerations must always be first priority... I also don't think anyone really expects that on CC. (Well, most people don't.)

Colonial Africa is also much more descriptive than "Dark Continent". People will know instantly what the map is about. So if anything I think Colonial Africa should be the main title and "Dark Continent" the subtitle if you must have it at all, and have the map listed as Colonial Africa in the map browser.

How about: Colonial Africa - The Conquest of the Dark Continent

(in the form: main title - subtitle)

For the most part this is how I feel. The old title had it all (and I must have it all), and looked good. I think I'll just revert back to that.

natty_dread wrote:Also, you're missing the update date and page number from your thread title. As a foundry assistant you should show a better example

*cough cough* Yeah I kind of lost track of what version I was on...

The Bison King wrote:*cough cough* Yeah I kind of lost track of what version I was on...

Version numbers are irrelevant, I don't bother with them either... but I'm not talking about those. Just look at the other threads: You need the date of last update, and the page number where the latest update is found. This is stipulated in founrdy guidelines.

Fixed^

Oh yeah about the flags waving and having a drop shadow. That's something I'll save for after I receive the GP stamp.

The Bison King wrote:Oh yeah about the flags waving and having a drop shadow. That's something I'll save for after I receive the GP stamp.

I will remember your words. <ominous silence>

The Bison King wrote:all the borders on here were true for at least some period of time. I really don't think the name "Colonial Africa" is going to miss lead anyone as to what they should truly expect from this map.

u'd be furious if ur watch was only 99% accurate (fast or slow by 14 minutes each day). we do have a bit more latitude with historical maps than with modern ones, simply because people are more familiar with the modern borders and are less likely to be annoyed or offended by borders or being deliberately changed more than the strictly-necessary cc elements (such as changing a region's ownership).

The Bison King wrote:However, I really miss the aesthetic of having "AFRICA" In big bold letters in the center of the header. Dark Continent just doesn't pop the same for me.

My proposal: I have my cake and eat it too.

The header remains:

"The colonization"
"of"
"AFRICA"
"The Dark Continent"

but the maps title and search tag remains:
"Dark Continent"

I know that sounds crazy, but allow me to site precedent. Eastern Hemisphere (which was an early inspiration for this map) is seen no where on the map, which addresses Itself as "The End of Empires" In my own way I've really got that beat because at least it'll say "The Dark Continent" somewhere on the map.

that actually sounds rather good.

after the latest update above to add benguela plus a river, i'm happy for u to work on graphics in the knowledge that i shall not be asking u to change any connections or borders for the purpose of the gameplay stamp (just balancing bonuses to go). increase the neutrals on lourenco marques from 2 to 3 to deal with the 65% chance in 1v1 that, if someone has lourenco marques, then south madagascar will be either friendly or neutral, which gives a protected bonus. a starting neutral is also needed on french congo.

ian.

iancanton wrote:u'd be furious if ur watch was only 99% accurate (fast or slow by 14 minutes each day).

I wouldn't, I'd just toss the watch.

But that's kind of a flawed analogy... it's more like if you spent your money on an antique sundial, or a fancy 15th century mechanical clock, and then were furious that they don't tell the time accurately... valid complaint, yes, but most people don't buy those things for the purpose of telling time.

I seem to remember there being a discussion about this at an earlier stage, and there might have been a new one that I've missed. But "Greece" is a very wrong label for that territory. I would suggest Rumelia or Balkan.

And again, is there no-one else who think it looks wrong to have the present-day flags for historical countries?

tokle wrote:I seem to remember there being a discussion about this at an earlier stage, and there might have been a new one that I've missed. But "Greece" is a very wrong label for that territory. I would suggest Rumelia or Balkan.

And again, is there no-one else who think it looks wrong to have the present-day flags for historical countries?

I think you're right on the territory name, but the name Rumelia was falling out of favour by the era of this map, so I would support "The Balkans".

I also agree that flags of the time period might be nice. I know Britain and France are fine, and from what I can see in Wikipedia, I believe Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the Ottoman Empire are as well. Germany would need the black/white/red tricolour of the German Empire: [bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Flag_of_the_German_Empire.svg/220px-Flag_of_the_German_Empire.svg.png[/bigimg]
Italy had a flag which was slightly different from the modern one:
[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Flag_of_Italy_%281861-1946%29.svg/800px-Flag_of_Italy_%281861-1946%29.svg.png[/bigimg] .

On the map, you have the German and Belgian flags mixed up anyway.
Otherwise I agree with the previous suggestion of using late 19c flags instead.

I think the Spanish and Ottoman flags need a slight change too, to make them period.




And if we're talking late 19th century then Portugal should be changed too. It changed to the current one in 1910.

tokle wrote:I seem to remember there being a discussion about this at an earlier stage, and there might have been a new one that I've missed. But "Greece" is a very wrong label for that territory. I would suggest Rumelia or Balkan.

At that time Rumelia wasn't the whole Balkan, so I support the label to be changed to Balkan.

Bosnia and Herzegovina was in Austria and Hungary from 1878, and southeastern half of Romania was never part of Austria and Hungary(and with that Austria and Hungary didn't had access to black sea)