Conquer Club

oaktown wrote:

cairnswk wrote:What do others feel about inserting this link into the map to make the Russian Empire more vulnerable if someone holds O. Europe terts? The attack route would be bothways.

As there hasn't been much discussion about this here, either before or after you brought it up, it doesn't look to be a major concern of players. I'd say this is your call, mapmaker.

cairnswk wrote:What do you think of this idea oaktown.
Have you played the map?
Would it benefit the overall play having that link?

cairnswk wrote:And sorry, but i haven't really had time to chase people up about this.

cairnswk wrote:

mpxy wrote:The name of one of the regions, Constantinopole, is wrong. It used to be the old name which was being used before the Ottoman conquest (which was many years ago before 1914). The correct name should be Istanbul.

Thanks for the feedback mpxy...do you equate with abts...sorry only joking. ...me doing algebra at present at uni.

I researched this quite well, and .44 above has provided most of the references. Therefore i would prefer to stick with Constantinople.

MrBenn wrote:I've just ( ) got around to playing my first game on this map, and I have to say the thick grey borders between the regions caused by a little bit of confusion... I got it into my head that they were impassable borders

I wonder if anybody else had the same random thought? If so, it might be worth making those lines a bit thinner! Now that I've sorted out my grey matter, I don't think it's a big issue - but if others think the same, it might be worth a tweak...

cairnswk wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I've just ( ) got around to playing my first game on this map, and I have to say the thick grey borders between the regions caused by a little bit of confusion... I got it into my head that they were impassable borders

I wonder if anybody else had the same random thought? If so, it might be worth making those lines a bit thinner! Now that I've sorted out my grey matter, I don't think it's a big issue - but if others think the same, it might be worth a tweak...

Does it say anything on the map about anything being impassable???
This is what i was talking about with oaktown recently....no impassable notation mean nothing is impassable.
Seems like nobody picks anything up anymore

cairnswk wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I've just ( ) got around to playing my first game on this map, and I have to say the thick grey borders between the regions caused by a little bit of confusion... I got it into my head that they were impassable borders

I wonder if anybody else had the same random thought? If so, it might be worth making those lines a bit thinner! Now that I've sorted out my grey matter, I don't think it's a big issue - but if others think the same, it might be worth a tweak...

Does it say anything on the map about anything being impassable???
This is what i was talking about with oaktown recently....no impassable notation mean nothing is impassable.
Seems like nobody picks anything up anymore

Ruben Cassar wrote:....
I played a couple of games on this map and everything seems fine in my personal opinion. Two colours are a bit similar but I remember I did not give enough feedback when this one was in developmental stage so it's my fault. However I can still distinguish between them when I look closely.

I don't think there is need for any changes. It's a pretty straightforward map...actually one of the few made by cairns that I can play! Hehe. Well done mate.

P.S. - Do Edirne and Gelibolu form part of a bonus?

Ruben Cassar wrote:Two colours are a bit similar but I remember I did not give enough feedback when this one was in developmental stage so it's my fault. However I can still distinguish between them when I look closely.

saaimen wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Two colours are a bit similar but I remember I did not give enough feedback when this one was in developmental stage so it's my fault. However I can still distinguish between them when I look closely.

I bet you're talking about Italian Colony and Hussein of Mecca?

By the way, cairns... Is it possible you missed my previous post? It was the last one on p23.
If you deliberately ignored it, you can tell me now

Gilligan wrote:I don't know if this has been brought up, but the Medina Akbah connection is hardly noticeable (I didn't know until someone used it on me)

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I don't know if this has been brought up, but the Medina Akbah connection is hardly noticeable (I didn't know until someone used it on me)

You normally follow my maps, why didn't you this time??

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I don't know if this has been brought up, but the Medina Akbah connection is hardly noticeable (I didn't know until someone used it on me)

You normally follow my maps, why didn't you this time??

saaimen wrote:Nice map, cairnswk

Just one thing. I don't know if this has been discussed before because I didn't read the whole 23 pages.
But the one thing that really caught my eye was the lower left corner. The placement of the soldiers' image and the symbol legend doesn't seem right to me. My feeling tells me the soldiers should be moved up and left a bit in that grid, and maybe the text should be centered with the symbol above it.
But that's just my feeling. Maybe you can understand, it seems a bit randomly placed in an otherwise so well-balanced map.
My 2 cents

Ogrecrusher wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I don't know if this has been brought up, but the Medina Akbah connection is hardly noticeable (I didn't know until someone used it on me)

You normally follow my maps, why didn't you this time??

I didn't even know there was a connection there to make clearer!
You could move the crown or draw and arrow surely?

Gilligan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I don't know if this has been brought up, but the Medina Akbah connection is hardly noticeable (I didn't know until someone used it on me)

You normally follow my maps, why didn't you this time??

Normally... Except maybe Forbidden City and your Poison Rome...

But I didn't even see a connection, and got attacked at Medina from Akbah.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Cairns...the neutral region below Italian Abyssinia, shouldn't it be called Abyssinia instead of Abyssina?

cairnswk wrote:

saaimen wrote:Nice map, cairnswk

Just one thing. I don't know if this has been discussed before because I didn't read the whole 23 pages.
But the one thing that really caught my eye was the lower left corner. The placement of the soldiers' image and the symbol legend doesn't seem right to me. My feeling tells me the soldiers should be moved up and left a bit in that grid, and maybe the text should be centered with the symbol above it.
But that's just my feeling. Maybe you can understand, it seems a bit randomly placed in an otherwise so well-balanced map.
My 2 cents

How is this guys.

saaimen wrote:...
Well... It's better already But still I think the soldiers (with the now better centered text) should be moved up and left. It just looks a bit weird.
I'm guessing maybe the whole soldiers-on-the-grid thing is one image and you can't change their relative positions? In that case, you might zoom in a bit, align the right and bottom side, and cut away on the left and the top.

Or am I being naggy ?

Ruben Cassar wrote:Baghdad is spelt wrongly as well...I'm amazed no one noticed those 2 spelling mistakes before.

cairnswk wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Baghdad is spelt wrongly as well...I'm amazed no one noticed those 2 spelling mistakes before.

Ruben, it'll have to wait again now. I'm in the middle of studying for uni exams. Thanks.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Baghdad is spelt wrongly as well...I'm amazed no one noticed those 2 spelling mistakes before.

Ruben, it'll have to wait again now. I'm in the middle of studying for uni exams. Thanks.

Good luck for your exams!

Ogrecrusher wrote:Love the update.