Conquer Club

There are shields now, excellent.

Also along with Malta the army circle on Emirate of Beleares should be shifted on the small map because with armies it will be hard to see the color of the territory.

It gets better every time keep up the great work.

-aequitas08

Looks like a nice, Medieval: Total War kind of map. Looking forward to see it develop further!

Regarding the discussion on whether Denmark should be connected with Norway... well, maybe. Gamewise, it would make the top of the map less static, and in a way even reflect the warfare and changing borders of the time.

On another note (and sorry if I'm only repeating what somebody else has already pointed out), the Scandinavian Kingdoms didn't look quite like they do on your map, in 1099. The southern half of the Swedish area below the lakes (Scania), was actually Danish. You might consider making that into an area in itself, or redraw the borders? Also, Norway was bigger. Their border ran approximately from the small bay on the Swedish west coast, past the western tip of the bigger lake, and straight northwards. No biggie, just a minor cosmetic issue.

Good luck with your project! Definitely a map I'd like to try out.

Sardauk wrote:Looks like a nice, Medieval: Total War kind of map. Looking forward to see it develop further!

Regarding the discussion on whether Denmark should be connected with Norway... well, maybe. Gamewise, it would make the top of the map less static, and in a way even reflect the warfare and changing borders of the time.

On another note (and sorry if I'm only repeating what somebody else has already pointed out), the Scandinavian Kingdoms didn't look quite like they do on your map, in 1099. The southern half of the Swedish area below the lakes (Scania), was actually Danish. You might consider making that into an area in itself, or redraw the borders? Also, Norway was bigger. Their border ran approximately from the small bay on the Swedish west coast, past the western tip of the bigger lake, and straight northwards. No biggie, just a minor cosmetic issue.

Good luck with your project! Definitely a map I'd like to try out.

Yep I know that issue of Denmark/Sweden borders, but it's easiers to distinguish territories this way.

Cheers!
Thanks for your comments and your time

For starters, this map looks great. The colors in the legend will need to be more opaque for colorblind users (like me) but this map is going in the right direction visually.

A map of the Crusades would be fantastic, but this (as your title reflects) isn't really a map of a crusade, but a map of Europe in that era, to which my first reaction is "Don't we have a enough maps of Europe?" Of course, we can always have another map of Europe provided it is unique; this map is unique in theme and the graphics are coming along very well, but I'd love to see the gameplay be pushed to further reflect Rome's interest in regaining Iberia and the Holy Land. For example, there are two historical problems I see...

First, the one-way attacks across Spain seem a bit heavy-handed. Catholic forces were pushing into Spain, but it would be another 400 years before they would expel the last Muslim kingdoms. (And on a purely gameplay note, the four-way border has to go as they are confusing - can Cordoba attack Portugal?)

And second, the ports seem way too powerful. What fascinates me about the crusades is the overland travel that many did from western Europe through the near east, but the sea routes allow instant passage from France to the holy land. The sieges of Jerusalem and Antioch are the big moments in this first crusade, yet on this map you don't have to lay siege to them because you can just knock Jerusalem out from France and then roll into Antioch.

You've given power to the Christian centers of power - why not do the same for the Muslim strongholds? Cordoba, Jerusalem, and Antioch need some kind of bonus/protection to suggest that they are walled bastions that don't bend over for nobody.

Rhodes would be a nice addition (wasn't it taken for the Byzantines during the first crusade, or was it later?), as would some incremental moves across the sea rather than the direct shot from France to the holy land.

Antioch is missing an army circle (small map).

keep at it!

I've took everything you said in consideration. What if ports connected with Antioch or Cyprus? I think a bonus to main islamic places would be very nice too .

About "Oh... But there are a lot of Europe maps...Well I guess with half dozen maps of WWII, a medieval map is not too much.

Cheers:)

maybe think of someway where yhere could be a siege. Got an idea how bout like area around jerusalem or at least the city which restarts at a certain amount of units after each round or something along those lines? and i agree you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.

miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.

I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.

The Neon Peon wrote:

miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.

I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.

I don't think they were that succesful where they? just saying nothing from stopping them attacking

Beko the Great wrote:Yep I know that issue of Denmark/Sweden borders, but it's easiers to distinguish territories this way.

Yeah, was mostly nitpicking. You're taking the grander view of things and I like that! Following this project with interest. Keep up the good work!

miniwally wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.

I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.

I don't think they were that succesful where they? just saying nothing from stopping them attacking

At their height during the 11th century the Almoravids(a Moorish dynasty) covered roughly half of the Iberian Peninsula, and the Moors had a presence there between the 7th and 15th centuries.

Anyway, nice map....keep it up.

Gypsys Kiss wrote:

miniwally wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.

I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.

I don't think they were that succesful where they? just saying nothing from stopping them attacking

At their height during the 11th century the Almoravids(a Moorish dynasty) covered roughly half of the Iberian Peninsula, and the Moors had a presence there between the 7th and 15th centuries.

Anyway, nice map....keep it up.

exactly so castillo and leon still under spanish control.

1) The region borders are rough
2) The territory borders are pixilated
3) The picture behind the legend makes the legend harder to see, maybe lower the opacity on it?
4) I cant tell, but are Al-Gharb, Cordoba, Emirate of Baleares, & Granada part of the same bonus as Magreb, Tnis, Tripoli, Al-Iskandariah, Al-Qahirah, Al-Madinah, and Damascus? I cannot tell, and the legend is so hard to see the region colors for that its no help
5) The D of Damascus is hard to read since it is on a border. Maybe move it over a tad bit?
6) Same with Al-Qahirah, except its not as hard to read, just a little annoying having the white glow behind it
7) The Al-Iskan. and Al-Qahirah border ends a little earlier than the borders for Tripoli/Al-Iskan and Magreb/Tripoili
Can Al-Qahirah attack Al-Madinah? You might want to make that clearer if it can or not
9) Same with Granada/Magreb
10) Just noticed, but Armenia, Normandy, & Constantinople are also a little harder to read (esp. Armenia and Constantinople). Maybe adding a slight white glow behind all the names?
11) Constantinople is a nittle confusing, maybe move the army circle to cover that little area between the two sides of it? (almost directly under the Co of Constantinople)
12) It may be easy for some people to think that Rome and Jerusalem are part of the Asia Minor bonus, maybe change the color slightly, or add stripes or something, so that it is easy to tell they are not?
13) The border for the title and legend box doesn't really seam to fit
14) The army circles are... strange on the inside. Kinda rough? Idk what exactly to call it
15) The.. compass? in the ocean across from normandy (and other territs) doesn't fit that well. Maybe lower the opacity, or make a new one?
16) You have 2 attack arrows from Castilla to Cordoba
17) What are the strange holes inside of Sweden? (just curious, cause I can't tell what they are )


Overall I think you've done an excellent job on this map so far, good job

bryguy wrote:17) What are the strange holes inside of Sweden? (just curious, cause I can't tell what they are )


Overall I think you've done an excellent job on this map so far, good job

I think they're lakes he forgot to colour in

bryguy wrote:1) The region borders are rough
2) The territory borders are pixilated
3) The picture behind the legend makes the legend harder to see, maybe lower the opacity on it?
4) I cant tell, but are Al-Gharb, Cordoba, Emirate of Baleares, & Granada part of the same bonus as Magreb, Tnis, Tripoli, Al-Iskandariah, Al-Qahirah, Al-Madinah, and Damascus? I cannot tell, and the legend is so hard to see the region colors for that its no help
5) The D of Damascus is hard to read since it is on a border. Maybe move it over a tad bit?
6) Same with Al-Qahirah, except its not as hard to read, just a little annoying having the white glow behind it
7) The Al-Iskan. and Al-Qahirah border ends a little earlier than the borders for Tripoli/Al-Iskan and Magreb/Tripoili
Can Al-Qahirah attack Al-Madinah? You might want to make that clearer if it can or not
9) Same with Granada/Magreb
10) Just noticed, but Armenia, Normandy, & Constantinople are also a little harder to read (esp. Armenia and Constantinople). Maybe adding a slight white glow behind all the names?
11) Constantinople is a nittle confusing, maybe move the army circle to cover that little area between the two sides of it? (almost directly under the Co of Constantinople)
12) It may be easy for some people to think that Rome and Jerusalem are part of the Asia Minor bonus, maybe change the color slightly, or add stripes or something, so that it is easy to tell they are not?
13) The border for the title and legend box doesn't really seam to fit
14) The army circles are... strange on the inside. Kinda rough? Idk what exactly to call it
15) The.. compass? in the ocean across from normandy (and other territs) doesn't fit that well. Maybe lower the opacity, or make a new one?
16) You have 2 attack arrows from Castilla to Cordoba
17) What are the strange holes inside of Sweden? (just curious, cause I can't tell what they are )


Overall I think you've done an excellent job on this map so far, good job

Holes are lakes... Thanks for all your considerations! Cheers! I'll see what I can do.

It's hard to comment on this map, your vision is so different from what I'd have done. Anyway, in 1099 the Antioch and Tripoli on your map most certainly belonged to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and not some vague Asia Minor faction (Turks?). Also, you should consider adding Edessa, which was a major conquest of the time, the loss of which even triggered the 2nd crusade.

It's not about game balance, it's about credibility. And yes, this map has huuuge promise. Otherwise I wouldn't even continue to nag.

Sardauk wrote:It's hard to comment on this map, your vision is so different from what I'd have done. Anyway, in 1099 the Antioch and Tripoli on your map most certainly belonged to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and not some vague Asia Minor faction (Turks?). Also, you should consider adding Edessa, which was a major conquest of the time, the loss of which even triggered the 2nd crusade.

It's not about game balance, it's about credibility. And yes, this map has huuuge promise. Otherwise I wouldn't even continue to nag.

how would the kingdom of Jersalem (Catholics from the Crusades) be there before even the first one? and if you included them you'd also need to include the principality of Antioch and would mess up this map anyway

miniwally wrote:how would the kingdom of Jersalem (Catholics from the Crusades) be there before even the first one? and if you included them you'd also need to include the principality of Antioch and would mess up this map anyway

There never were many Catholics - or "Latins" as they were called - in the area, at any time. One of their main problems was that they needed a constant influx of crusaders, and received far too few immigrants from the west. The first crusade started in 1095, actually. 1099, the starting date for this map, is the year they took the city of Jerusalem. But yes, the kingdom wasn't established until a year or two later, and stood on very unsecure ground for years to come. Still, it's there on the map, so... The principalities or crusader states of Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli (formally a county in the kingdom of Jerusalem, but acted rather independent) were already formed or at least being formed at that time.

Antioch is included on the map, as a part of the Asia Minor faction. Sure, all three should ideally be there, but considering that the loss of Edessa triggered the 2nd crusade fifty years later, I reasoned that it might be good to have at least that one in. And make Antioch part of some other faction than "Rum", the Seljuk Turk name for what is marked as Asia Minor on the map. Tripoli could probably be left out altogether.

Sardauk wrote:

miniwally wrote:how would the kingdom of Jersalem (Catholics from the Crusades) be there before even the first one? and if you included them you'd also need to include the principality of Antioch and would mess up this map anyway

And make Antioch part of some other faction than "Rum", the Seljuk Turk name for what is marked as Asia Minor on the map. Tripoli could probably be left out altogether.

I won't:

In 1078, Armenians seized power until the Seljuk Turks captured Antioch in 1084, but held it only fourteen years before the Crusaders arrived.

So, if this is a map about the crusades it must represent the situation by the time pope Urban made his belic speech.

I'm happy to see your map is going better day by day.
Now routes are nice.But the england to flanders one is useless in this way (only a point)
The map seems a little bit brighter than old version.
I suggested for the second time to fix the bonus color in the legend, less trasparency on the litlle squares could be a good chioce, the yellow colors are similar on legend.
In some point territory borders are pixelous.
The new africa territories look great!

You are doing a map focused on crusades, in first post you say:

In the time when everything was for the Glory of God and everything was the Will of God,Pope Urban II made a speech encouraging the conquest of the Holy Places.

Why don't you think about add an objective, like "conquer holy places", to take the victory?
Obviously if you like, all this will cost you some hard changes on bonuses, and probably future games could be focused in the lower-right side of your map.

On the whole is a grerat map and i hope to find you in the main foundry soon.

Beko the Great wrote:So, if this is a map about the crusades it must represent the situation by the time pope Urban made his belic speech.

Er... but it is set in 1099, around a year after Antioch was taken by the crusaders, right? Or are you aiming at an earlier date, say around 1096, when the people's crusade went off early and the knights started marching east? If so, I think you should rename the map. It'd be cool to take part in the prelude and build-up, so to speak, if this is your intention. Another idea could be to skip the whole year-naming, 1st Crusade thing altogether and just call it the Age of Crusades, or something. Historic detail would be less relevant then, IMO.

By the way, no main crusading army sailed to the Levant until Richard I. So an idea might be to place ports near the merchant city states of Venice, Genoa and Pisa, if you want to include them. The Italians didn't really fight much (if at all) themselves, but they ferried latecomers, reinforcements and supplies for insane fees. Would be interesting to see some variant of that in the game.

Edit: Um... wasn't Cyprus Byzantine since way back? Could be wrong, but fairly sure it wasn't in Seljuk/Muslim control at the time.

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm happy to see your map is going better day by day.
Now routes are nice.But the england to flanders one is useless in this way (only a point)
The map seems a little bit brighter than old version.
I suggested for the second time to fix the bonus color in the legend, less trasparency on the litlle squares could be a good chioce, the yellow colors are similar on legend.
In some point territory borders are pixelous.
The new africa territories look great!

You are doing a map focused on crusades, in first post you say:

In the time when everything was for the Glory of God and everything was the Will of God,Pope Urban II made a speech encouraging the conquest of the Holy Places.

Why don't you think about add an objective, like "conquer holy places", to take the victory?
Obviously if you like, all this will cost you some hard changes on bonuses, and probably future games could be focused in the lower-right side of your map.

On the whole is a grerat map and i hope to find you in the main foundry soon.

Dont like "hold the objective" maps thats why holding jerusalem is not an objective and because, no one in Europe or other place else won definetly nothing with the holy lands:) I'll try to solve the pixelate problems.

yeh cyprus was byzantine but i think you misunderstood me before as you were on about antioch being under kingdom of jerusalem before where it wasn't it was ruled by a seperate principality the principality of Antioch and having 3 region s to one continent doesn't make much sense

Asia Minor is not an Empire like the Holy Roman or Bizantine is a region which holds the most important states by the time.

still cyprus was held by the byzantines and should be shown on this map

miniwally wrote:still cyprus was held by the byzantines and should be shown on this map

True! I got to change it