*[Abandoned] Feudal England and Wales

[The Bison King]

why you "must" go with Heptarchy or AngloSaxon England? with all problems about dividing England? why you can not go with later Englad? also one notice - Heptarchy/AngloSaxon England is rather Dark Age, when people hear Medieval Britain they imagine later England, I think.

You've completely missed the point of my post. I'm saying that I AM going to bump the timeline forward and model this off of England at a later date.

these coat of arms are quite off reality.

What does this mean?

[Oneyed]

You've completely missed the point of my post.

as I said, I have sometimes problem to explain my ideas in English. and also sometimes to undersand in English

I'm saying that I AM going to bump the timeline forward and model this off of England at a later date.

looks as good decision

What does this mean?

Northumbria has another one, and for Wessex is better wyvern. but if you will go with later England they are off theme.

Oneyed

[Neato Missile]

Change the name to Indeterminate Era Britain, then turn one of the castles into a dinosaur and another one into a spaceship.

*inditierminate

[AndyDufresne]

Change the name to Indeterminate Era Britain, then turn one of the castles into a dinosaur and another one into a spaceship.

*inditierminate

I'd like to see a map with a dinosaur and spaceship on it.


--Andy

[guttorm]

Norman times would be great.. it is what most people think about when it comes to great castles.

The preceding "anglo-saxon" centuries were politically weak times and the Danes controlled much of England - sometimes all of it. Such a map should include more than Britain imo and require a lot more research than the famous classic Norman theme.

[nolefan5311]

Change the name to Indeterminate Era Britain, then turn one of the castles into a dinosaur and another one into a spaceship.

*inditierminate

[koontz1973]

TBK, I know we have talked about this but just wanted to quote nobodies on the issue of size. This was his post in kabs map (Age of Buccaneers).

Sorry for the delay mate.
For the size of the map it's better if you can stay within the guidelines if possible, if you can't please use every extra pixel in a thoughtful manner!
Even if for the large I'm not asking to stay within strict limits, for the small I kindly ask to you to produce the smaller map you can produce. More smaller, more closer to the 630x600, better it is.
If you need you can make them different (same gameplay, I mean just simpler graphics to fit everything)

Nobodies

As I said, we will see what happens later.

[The Bison King]

TBK, I know we have talked about this but just wanted to quote nobodies on the issue of size. This was his post in kabs map (Age of Buccaneers).

Sorry for the delay mate.
For the size of the map it's better if you can stay within the guidelines if possible, if you can't please use every extra pixel in a thoughtful manner!
Even if for the large I'm not asking to stay within strict limits, for the small I kindly ask to you to produce the smaller map you can produce. More smaller, more closer to the 630x600, better it is.
If you need you can make them different (same gameplay, I mean just simpler graphics to fit everything)

Nobodies

As I said, we will see what happens later.

I agree that the small should be as possible as it can possibly be, and to do this I've maximized space as much as possible. By moving the map to the right I can stretch it out as much as possible and have maximized my Legend space to the left. Even still I can't shrink it down much past 880x838. I could probably get it down to 840x800 If I enlarge certain territories, though the words will have to be pretty small. It seems fair that a small super-sized can be the size of the large on a regular. It's not like I'd be presenting anything larger than what most players are already used to.

Click image to enlarge.

Also I combined the lower Eastern bonuses on this version. The colors suck right now but I just whipped this out to give you something to look at, that'll all be re-done later.

[Oneyed]

what does this has to do with medieval? except castles?

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

what does this has to do with medieval? except castles?

Oneyed

what are you talking about? Why are you asking this now? You are the one who told me to combine bonuses.

[Oneyed]

what are you talking about?

I still think you have much regions which were created and named later as your time era.
there is nothing about medieval. as I said, just castles. why you have not there County palatinates for example?
Wales is totaly off historic reality. it needs more centres of power...
London should has any extra role - it was seat of Kings...

Why are you asking this now? You are the one who told me to combine bonuses.

yes, because balancing gameplay and also because you left Anglo Saxon theme.

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

what are you talking about?

I still think you have much regions which were created and named later as your time era.
there is nothing about medieval. as I said, just castles. why you have not there County palatinates for example?
Wales is totaly off historic reality. it needs more centres of power...
London should has any extra role - it was seat of Kings...

Why are you asking this now? You are the one who told me to combine bonuses.

yes, because balancing gameplay and also because you left Anglo Saxon theme.

Oneyed

I know but you've been commenting on this map since it's creation, and you just now make a comment on it saying "how is this medieval?" like you just looked at it for the first time???? If you have idea's on how to make it more "medieval" please clue me in. How can I make Wales more historically accurate? What extra role should I give London? That's what's actually going to help me make this map! I've been asking for new territory names since you made that comment the first time. I'd love to hear them.

[Oneyed]

I´ve look at history of Norman conquest of England and here are some finds.

on this map you can see shires, you can see County Palatinates (yellow regions) - these were ruled by Marcher lords to secure west and north borders. the black squares are castles - represent the Earldoms established during 1066 AD to 1135 AD, the reign of House of Normandy. the red square is London.

lets make map from Normans view. Wales is not ruled by Normans for longer time. only later become treaty which area of Wales is under Normans and which is Welsh. therefore there are 3 castles in Wales - Normans earldoms in Wales.

Click image to enlarge.

gameplay? lets see your opinion on this map

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

Ok now we're talking! This is something to digest.

I've given it a little time and here's what I've thought of. Withing the already delineated regions we assign an even greater region which encompass everything except Wales, Cornwall, and parts of North Cumberland , that is referred to as "The King's Dominion". So long as someone holds the territory "London" he receives a +1 bonus for ANY 2 REGIONS held ANYWHERE within "the Kings Dominion".

[Oneyed]

So long as someone holds the territory "London" he receives a +1 bonus for ANY 2 REGIONS held ANYWHERE within "the Kings Dominion".

there will be only one bonus, if I good understand... not the best opinion.

I´ve moved time to 1139/1140 AD - it was start of civil war, but to this time it was about Normans conquering the land, establishing their reign...

Click image to enlarge.

red square: London, capital, can bombard any castle? -1 with each Marcher lordship?
black squares: castles +1 auto (inside not coloured area (this depends if there will be enough space for numbers and names)
not coloured areas: shires, together with castle inside makes Earldom, +1 for each/ +1 for each two?
red areas: shires under Kings control, +1 for each two/three with London
yellow areas: shires/Marcher lordships, +2 for each together with castle inside? (Marcher lords were more powerfull and independent as other lords)
green areas: Wales, +3 for Wales? OR forgot Wales and make only this bonus - Marcher lordship with castle inside +1, +1 for each two regions in Wales (Marcher lords often attacked Welsh areas and were independent in politics with Wales)
blue: rivers, impassable (there should be any mountains in Wales or on the border between Wales and Marcher lordships.

little complex, but I only wrote all possibilities which I see... and have on mind - this era was not easy and simple with all relations...

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

Eh I think you're getting a little carried away. You have some neat idea's but that's a completely different map you're developing there.

Let's start with this:

there will be only one bonus, if I good understand... not the best opinion.

No, there will Not be only one bonus. All the old bonuses will still exist however for whomever holds London he receives +1 for any 2 regions in the King's Dominion and not just in the Eastern region. The Bombarding idea may not be bad. Or maybe if you hold London and a certain number of castles (or all of the Kings dominion) you win.

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

Oh! Oh! Can you do losing conditions for this? Pleeeease??

-Sully

[Oneyed]

Eh I think you're getting a little carried away. You have some neat idea's but that's a completely different map you're developing there.

my map is different because I follow historic areas (macher lordships), because I follow historic dividing of England, because I try to follow historic relations... if you leave Anglo Saxon England and do map from later era you ignore historic reality with dividing England as you have now. so sorry but your map still has a little with Medieaval England...

No, there will Not be only one bonus. All the old bonuses will still exist however for whomever holds London he receives +1 for any 2 regions in the King's Dominion and not just in the Eastern region.

so London will be valid for Eastern region and also for all England? make another castle for East region.

The Bombarding idea may not be bad. Or maybe if you hold London and a certain number of castles (or all of the Kings dominion) you win.

Bombarding idea signify that if player holds London he become king and can take titles (and castles) from "unruly" Barons. but for this must be London extra castle. and I would like more to have: -1 for each castle with London, you should be king or Baron, not both...

Oh! Oh! Can you do losing conditions for this? Pleeeease??

-Sully

good idea here.

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

my map is different because I follow historic areas (macher lordships), because I follow historic dividing of England, because I try to follow historic relations... if you leave Anglo Saxon England and do map from later era you ignore historic reality with dividing England as you have now. so sorry but your map still has a little with Medieaval England...

Why? Because I've divided England the way I have? The way you told me to? because I've divided it along lines that existed before the Norman era, and have persisted to the modern era? Just because these divisions weren't created in 1066 doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can divide a modern map all sorts of ways and no-one get's on your case about every last detail. You have to realize that there's a difference between a medieval map of Britain and your medieval map of Britain.

so London will be valid for Eastern region and also for all England? make another castle for East region.

I may have to make it an un-associated territory.

Bombarding idea signify that if player holds London he become king and can take titles (and castles) from "unruly" Barons. but for this must be London extra castle. and I would like more to have: -1 for each castle with London, you should be king or Baron, not both...

I'm not adding a -1 bonus, in fact I was thinking about doing the opposite +1 for every 2 Castles held with London.

And regarding defeat conditions, No. I'm not doing that.

[Oneyed]

Why? Because I've divided England the way I have? The way you told me to?

I told you this from gameplay view, not historic.

because I've divided it along lines that existed before the Norman era, and have persisted to the modern era? Just because these divisions weren't created in 1066 doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can divide a modern map all sorts of ways and no-one get's on your case about every last detail. You have to realize that there's a difference between a medieval map of Britain and your medieval map of Britain.

ok, so if you will do USA map from 20th century, will you divide it as was in 18th century?

I may have to make it an un-associated territory.

and any second castle for East Anglia?

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

I told you this from gameplay view, not historic.

on this we see eye to eye, I've always counted Gameplay as more important than historical accuracy.

ok, so if you will do USA map from 20th century, will you divide it as was in 18th century?

In a sense yes. Of the states that existed back then, their borders have changed very little, the same is true of England. Regions change hands while the big denotations of East, West, North, and South, and Central, remain relatively unchanged.

and any second castle for East Anglia?

Yes.

[Oneyed]

on this we see eye to eye, I've always counted Gameplay as more important than historical accuracy.

I think if mapmaker make historic map he should care about history. some changes for gameply are fine, but you can not create regions which were not exist.

In a sense yes. Of the states that existed back then, their borders have changed very little, the same is true of England. Regions change hands while the big denotations of East, West, North, and South, and Central, remain relatively unchanged.

so your USA map from 20th century will have only 13 states? ofcourse you can divide "your" map as you can, but then it would has a little with reality and history... but why then you call map Medieaval Britain if it has a little with medieaval era?

Oneyed

EDIT: I do ones more attempt for made this map historic. try this position:

Click image to enlarge.

[Orchestra Spy]

It wasn't me! It was the one-eyed man! trollolol..

[koontz1973]

TBK.
Is this the current large version as it is different from the one in the first post?

Click image to enlarge.

Over the size issue.
The large version is fine at this size but will need some rearranging so there is not one wasted pixel in site. So crop the left and right up to the land. Think about reducing some of the territ sizes. Mainly in the north where the counties are large.

The small version, and this is where you will need to use some of that creative thinking. When I say creative thinking, you can try to think about some things.
Lose a territ or two if needed.
Resize and reshape all territs to fit the new size.
Text, although it is nice to have a map that is identical to the large map, that has now been overruled.
The current guidelines for this are 630/600, this you already know. You can use some extra (50 more only) and only if you really need to. If you find the need to go larger, then you need to PM nobodies for that permission. But I will say that if he can find a way to do it, you will not get it. Might be an idea to think about the small map now and how you will get it all in.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but it is what I have to get you to do.

[generalmighty]

Just seen this map, think it could be great to play Bison King. And many thanks to yourself and Oneyed on the effort to get the history of England so accurate.

I believe Cumbria was pretty much under Northumbrian rule by 700, in reality if not by name. Cornwall is trickier, they had a king till around 900 I think. But Wessex's influence was strong. I don't think that any map set after 900 would be taking a big liberty by including Cumbria in a Northumbria region and Cornwall in Wessex for gameplay reasons. I would question Windor as a castle though if it's going to be Anglo Saxon? It's right next to London in reality and was only first there after 1066.