Conquer Club

nole, will add the Nile and try to bring the regions in question out some so that becomes really clear. As for the shadow, not to worry. We all make mistakes when moving things around.

Seamus, now that is a bridge, but wood will be a lot better. Thanks for that idea.

koontz1973 wrote:Seamus, now that is a bridge, but wood will be a lot better. Thanks for that idea.

Certainly, I'll post how I did it, I'm pretty sure there is an easier way that you or someone else might have.

Does it need to be stated that when blue borders close, red borders open? I get it, but not sure if others will be confused.

Seamus76 wrote:Does it need to be stated that when blue borders close, red borders open? I get it, but not sure if others will be confused.

Like you, I get it and I doubt it will be needed, but as this is the first of its kind, it might be better to have it on the map itself. If I put a line under the conditional border heading saying:
All borders open or close depending on region counts.
That should satisfy 99.9% of people.

Been thinking about the winning condition, do we really need one? Whilst I have one, with the funny borders and the multiplier on the map, I have been thinking that having a winning condition may be an extra to many. Either have no winning condition or I will have a second set of symbols on the map and use that to win.

I was thinking the same thing about the winning condition, especially since holding 21 regions might mean you're already onto a win. For me I would say no winning condition, and maybe add more symbols as bonus opportunities instead of a winning condition.

This should sort out all known problems.
New winning condition (Hold all 6 minarets (3 are behind single coloured borders)
Urns are now the multiplier and have not auto deploy to stop that becoming a part of the multiplier bonuses.


The way that the conditional borders will work for this will be done via holding a continent. So when a continent is held or lost, borders will open or close automatically. So when a player starts his turn and has 20 regions, as soon as he takes one more region, the red borders will close and blue will open up.

So 4 continents that are called

• Under ten regions
• Blue is open Red is closed
• Red is open Blue is closed
• Over 30 regions

<territory>
<name>CAI</name>
<borders>
<border condition="Under ten regions">Sheraton</border>
<border condition="Under ten regions">Heliopolis</border>
<border condition="Under ten regions">Nasser City</border>
<border condition="Under ten regions">Ain Shamus</border>
<border condition="Blue is open Red is closed">Sheraton</border>
<border condition="Blue is open Red is closed">Heliopolis</border>
<border condition="Red is open Blue is closed">Nasser City</border>
<border condition="Red is open Blue is closed">Ain Shamus</border>
<border condition="Over 30 regions">Sheraton</border>
<border condition="Over 30 regions">Heliopolis</border>
<border condition="Over 30 regions">Nasser City</border>
<border condition="Over 30 regions">Ain Shamus</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
...
</coordinates>
</territory>

Same gameplay, different graphics.

I like the new graphics. but my feelings is that you tried to do map about old (ancient, medieval) Cairo. just you use modern Cairo (squares, names). am I wrong?

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:I like the new graphics. but my feelings is that you tried to do map about old (ancient, medieval) Cairo. just you use modern Cairo (squares, names). am I wrong?

Oneyed

No, I did a map of modern Cairo using ancient graphics. Old Cairo is to small for a map and this is something I have not done before.

Wood backing, did not like the white or grey coming through.
Sorted out the territ lines.
Blue is now blue in the legend.
More ware and tear on papyrus.
Removed curl from corners.

Looking good bud. I like the papyrus, but I'm not a fan of the edges and holes. Or the wood background. I think it would be better with a full papyrus image or one with less holes, etc. If you do go with holes or something maybe just use the CC grey as your background so it just blends in. Just my thoughts, but great work so far.

Yes to removing the wholes apart form the large one. With the grey, it is too bright but will try that again.

koontz1973 wrote:Yes to removing the wholes apart form the large one. With the grey, it is too bright but will try that again.

The grey might look weird now, but once all of the image tags are removed and it's in the site it should look good.

Again, nice work on the new direction, the style is pretty much what I like, as you can tell from my maps.

The bold outermost region border is bad.

It doesn't burn well into the parchment.

And remember that you can get some great public domain wood textures instead of the tiled GIMP default wood fill for the background.

ManBungalow wrote:The bold outermost region border is bad.

It doesn't burn well into the parchment.

And remember that you can get some great public domain wood textures instead of the tiled GIMP default wood fill for the background.

Removed both. Seamus said the same thing. Still not sure about using the plain sites backing but will post it again. And yes, it was GIMPS own wood. I just wanted to try it.

About the line which goes around the edge of the regions..the dark one which doesn't look quite right:

I'm not sure you are already, but you should try out the layer filters. At the moment - correct me if I'm wrong - that line is just a layer with the opacity turned down. There's a dropdown menu just below the opacity slider; it has formats such as 'overlay', 'burn' etc. Try some of them out and see if it looks any more healthy.

No, the line is a burn layer. None of the layers on this apart from the backing are normal layers. All layers filters have been utilised from burn to merge to dodge to overlay. Only then have layers had the opacity turned down or increased.

Changed the outline. Having the curvy outline with straight borders did not sit well. The straight lines now all sit together.
Finished of the GP.
Sorted out the holes.

Maybe I'm late with this, but I don't really like the new look of the map. The playable area doesn't stand out at all from the background.

nolefan5311 wrote:Maybe I'm late with this, but I don't really like the new look of the map. The playable area doesn't stand out at all from the background.

Still very early nole. Tried the stone, tried papyrus, if they do not work for you, then what would you like to see? Happy to try anything.

I liked the stone a lot more.

Will have another go at the stone then.

koontz1973 wrote:Will have another go at the stone then.

If this is the one you mean, then I don't approve:

ManBungalow wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Will have another go at the stone then.

If this is the one you mean, then I don't approve:

Click image to enlarge.

Never asked your permission ManB.
But yes, that one is a no go now.

Is this one not the stone one?



This is the version I was referring to, and I like it a lot more than the papyrus.

Cheers nole, I liked that one to, and in a way it is still valid. But I am not sure it is the way to go. Reason for the change to papyrus in the first place. Will have a think about it and see what I can come up with.

After a couple of days and this is by far no way complete, here is the new route taken. Legend is going to go back to papyrus as I do like that look but the map has more of a stone feel to it.
Other things done is to make the centre of the board larger while the two sides have been shrunk. Thanks to cairns for that idea. The territ lines have now gone from blue/red to green/red. The Nile is blue and may cause players confusion. Legend has had to be split up because of the new size of map and also this allowed an increase of text size. Kept some things from previous images that I did like. Like the legend font and bridges.