Conquer Club

[Abandoned] - Castle Battle

Abandoned and Vacationed maps. The final resting place, unless you recycle.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby ZeakCytho on Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:22 am

I like the new layout :)

I do not like the new attack lines :(. I think the general idea (having brown lines on the ground) is good, they're just not done right in this version. Maybe make them flatter and wider, more like dirt roads?

Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd. I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.
User avatar
Captain ZeakCytho
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:36 pm

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby Mr. Squirrel on Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:00 am

I like the map a lot but I do have one question. Why aren't the shadows under the flags consistent? I am mainly speaking for the back row of the attacker flags. All of the shadows there go off at weird angles like they each had a different light source.
pmchugh wrote:If I wasn't lazy, I would sig that :lol:
User avatar
Lieutenant Mr. Squirrel
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: up a tree

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby bryguy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:23 am

LOVE the update!


only thing i have time to comment on right now tho, is that the water... looks.. wrong to me. If im correct, your having a waterfall up there. only thing is it looks like u can see right through it, and it doesnt look like its a waterfall. It looks like a twisted lake
Corporal bryguy
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:50 am
Location: Lost in a Jigsaw

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - New attack route and cavalry

Postby Telvannia on Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:55 am

Androidz wrote:laslo the 2 areas on the bottom with just 1 man should probbably be alot of armies as the others, also some armies on some other places on the map good work=)

I know this is one of the things i need to deal with. But first i need to decide if it is worth redoing the base model used to make the attacking army.

Androidz wrote:And add some windows at the castle it looks so emety. Or some paintings/who made the map just something.

The castle is planing to be split down into a few territories, so there is no need of windows on the front.

Androidz wrote:The attacklines on briges on wall need to be more ligher i dont see them at all almost.

I know, i will see what i can do to make them more obvious.

ZeakCytho wrote:I do not like the new attack lines :(. I think the general idea (having brown lines on the ground) is good, they're just not done right in this version. Maybe make them flatter and wider, more like dirt roads?

I will see what i can do, but making them wider will run the risk of making the map look too crowded

ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd.

That was not meant to be a waterfall it was meant to look like the water was flowing down the mountain side, but for some reason it never looked right, though luckily the legend will be going over that bit, so it wont be visible.

ZeakCytho wrote:I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

It is not flat, but there is really no way of showing that, because of the angle that i have rendered it at means that it will always look flat :?

Mr. Squirrel wrote:I like the map a lot but I do have one question. Why aren't the shadows under the flags consistent? I am mainly speaking for the back row of the attacker flags. All of the shadows there go off at weird angles like they each had a different light source.

I know, i realised that, and the reason for that stems from the fact i have 3 different files that all have to mesh together in order to give me the completed image, otherwise it slow my computer down too much. And the file with the attacking army in has still got the layout of the old rally points, meaning the shadows are wrong. This will be fixed.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby iancanton on Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:30 pm

telvannia

u're on to a good thing with this tasteful map, which does inspire a sense of siege.

Telvannia wrote:
ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd.

That was not meant to be a waterfall it was meant to look like the water was flowing down the mountain side, but for some reason it never looked right, though luckily the legend will be going over that bit, so it wont be visible.

try putting some specks of white in the water, so that it looks as if it's moving. the shadows can also do with being a bit more wobbly. below are examples of what i mean, both by monet.

http://www.nga.gov.au/monetjapan/Detail ... rkID=W1094
http://www.masterpiece-paintings-galler ... epte-5.htm

Telvannia wrote:
ZeakCytho wrote:I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

It is not flat, but there is really no way of showing that, because of the angle that i have rendered it at means that it will always look flat :?

maybe a narrow brown band of varying (sometimes zero) width, with areas of dark shadow (to represent vertical parts of the bank), between the far bank of the moat and the water, will help? at the moment, the moat looks full to the brim, so that attackers can easily climb out after swimming across.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't know what this means for your map, but I have AOL dail-up and your map killed it. I can't view the new map at all, and the old one took 7 minutes for the image to load.

can u save each image both as .png and as .jpg, then load only the .jpg version to this thread? this might make each page load more quickly.

the attacking army still looks robotic. i think this is because the soldiers are standing in dead-straight columns, instead of being slightly offset from the man in front.

i have concerns about how things will look on the small map. cairnswk, among others, normally does his initial work on a small map, since upsizing to a large map usually produces no readability or space issues (such as borders, names or attack lines being obscured by army counts), while this is not true for downsizing a large map to a small one. have u considered doing this? as a bonus, u might even be able to work on the small map image without splitting the file into three.

ian. :)
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby Telvannia on Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:27 am

iancanton wrote:
Telvannia wrote:
ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd.

That was not meant to be a waterfall it was meant to look like the water was flowing down the mountain side, but for some reason it never looked right, though luckily the legend will be going over that bit, so it wont be visible.

try putting some specks of white in the water, so that it looks as if it's moving. the shadows can also do with being a bit more wobbly. below are examples of what i mean, both by monet.

http://www.nga.gov.au/monetjapan/Detail ... rkID=W1094
http://www.masterpiece-paintings-galler ... epte-5.htm

I know the water will look very flat and still, there is a way of fixing this in my 3D file, so i might go and look into it.

iancanton wrote:
Telvannia wrote:
ZeakCytho wrote:I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

It is not flat, but there is really no way of showing that, because of the angle that i have rendered it at means that it will always look flat :?

maybe a narrow brown band of varying (sometimes zero) width, with areas of dark shadow (to represent vertical parts of the bank), between the far bank of the moat and the water, will help? at the moment, the moat looks full to the brim, so that attackers can easily climb out after swimming across.

I see what you mean about easily climb out, i might go and lower the water level, perhaps that will help with the problems.

iancanton wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't know what this means for your map, but I have AOL dail-up and your map killed it. I can't view the new map at all, and the old one took 7 minutes for the image to load.

can u save each image both as .png and as .jpg, then load only the .jpg version to this thread? this might make each page load more quickly.

Yeah, that could work, although it is not as nice to look at, i think it really depends on how many people have this problem, if it is only one person then it would seem pointless.

iancanton wrote:the attacking army still looks robotic. i think this is because the soldiers are standing in dead-straight columns, instead of being slightly offset from the man in front.

I know about this and im currently remaking the attacking armies.

iancanton wrote:i have concerns about how things will look on the small map. cairnswk, among others, normally does his initial work on a small map, since upsizing to a large map usually produces no readability or space issues (such as borders, names or attack lines being obscured by army counts), while this is not true for downsizing a large map to a small one. have u considered doing this? as a bonus, u might even be able to work on the small map image without splitting the file into three.

I have considered the problem of downsizing, i think what will happen is when i make the small one the scaling will all be lost, because the people will need to be large enough to be seen while the walls are not as important so will be left small. But i will cross that bridge when i come to it.
As for getting rid of the 3 files, making the small map will not do that. The problem is that the image is a rendering of a 3D mesh, and the mesh has over 5,000,000 faces, so it slow down my computer whatever i do. Though i do plan to get rid of 1 of the files which should deal with the shadow problems.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby danfrank on Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??
Corporal 1st Class danfrank
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:19 am

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby bryguy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:43 am

danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??


in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...
Corporal bryguy
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:50 am
Location: Lost in a Jigsaw

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby Telvannia on Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:06 pm

bryguy wrote:
danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??


in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...


I think it is to do with my slow updates, and the fact the draft is not usable :?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby bryguy on Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:08 pm

Telvannia wrote:
bryguy wrote:
danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??


in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...


I think it is to do with my slow updates, and the fact the draft is not usable :?


hmm... that may be


considering its been a while since the last update... and as such people arent coming very often :)
Corporal bryguy
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:50 am
Location: Lost in a Jigsaw

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby Telvannia on Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:27 pm

bryguy wrote:
Telvannia wrote:
bryguy wrote:
danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??


in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...


I think it is to do with my slow updates, and the fact the draft is not usable :?


hmm... that may be


considering its been a while since the last update... and as such people arent coming very often :)

Im working on another update. Just this one has taken a lot more time, because i have completely redone the attacking soldiers, hopefully to reduce the robticness, and make them look better :D
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby ManBungalow on Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:21 am

This map could work...
I'd play it :)
Is this map going to be one where you are preset with certain terits, or random placement?
Image
Colonel ManBungalow
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:02 am
Location: On a giant rock orbiting a star somewhere

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby Telvannia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:55 pm

Here is a bit of a big update. I have made a map that is 'playable', as in it has all the names and the legend. Somethings are still not finished though...

Click image to enlarge.
image



I'm off on a 3 week holiday tomorrow and wont be around to answer any graphical queries, so might be worth keeping it all comments to gameplay for now.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby Androidz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:05 pm

Telvannia wrote:Here is a bit of a big update. I have made a map that is 'playable', as in it has all the names and the legend. Somethings are still not finished though...

Click image to enlarge.
image



I'm off on a 3 week holiday tomorrow and wont be around to answer any graphical queries, so might be worth keeping it all comments to gameplay for now.


As for the gameplay the keep is a bit wierd. (Note this is both grapical and gameplay sug)

I would use 3 windows to set army numbers inside and you should call them: F1-F2-F3 (Floor 1, Floor 2. Floor 3. (or basement, first floor. Secound floor...)

Then i would add another terretorie on the topern tower on that map.
Image
User avatar
Private Androidz
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby iancanton on Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:36 pm

just a short comment from me on gameplay, as i have the gameplay stamp for castle battle after it moves out of the drafting room.

there are 42 non-neutral starting territories, just like classic, which is good. however, the +1 legion bonus can lead to an unfair game-winning advantage for the first player in 1v1 games. we can correct this by changing the bonus to +1 for each legion in excess of 5; in other words, +1 for holding 6 legions, +2 for 7 legions and so on.

ian. :)
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby Telvannia on Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:08 pm

two comments in the 3 week period i was away #-o

As for the comments, iancanton will have to be dealt with by marv, and as for Androidz, the keep is not finished inside yet, it is not always going to be empty, im planning to add things inside it, but you idea might work better, as for the names, with 2 rooms per floor i cant call them floor 1, 2, 3 ect.

Now im interested on idea for the graphics, of the territory names and legend.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby Androidz on Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:53 pm

Hmm im not big fan of the C in Castle Battle.


Could you try give the letters a feel that their made of wood? Just for testing?

Any thing warish would be cool anyways
Image
User avatar
Private Androidz
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby The Neon Peon on Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:41 pm

An outer gate without an inner gate? Is that a mistake in the name, or are you planning to add something in?
User avatar
Lieutenant The Neon Peon
 
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:49 pm

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby Telvannia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:41 am

The Neon Peon wrote:An outer gate without an inner gate? Is that a mistake in the name, or are you planning to add something in?

Oops, i forgot to name the inner gate. :oops: It is the one that is to the right of the smithy.


Androidz wrote:Could you try give the letters a feel that their made of wood? Just for testing?

I can give it a try, i think i know what you mean.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby Androidz on Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:01 am

One more thing which i belive would be cool as i just see the attackarmy which can attack k7. I would really like to see a door there so it looks like they goes in.;)
Image
User avatar
Private Androidz
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby Telvannia on Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:27 am

Androidz wrote:One more thing which i belive would be cool as i just see the attackarmy which can attack k7. I would really like to see a door there so it looks like they goes in.;)

There will be a door there, but i had not got time to put it on before i went away when marv asked for that extra attack route. I will put it in when i finish doing the inside of the keep.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Telvannia
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:19 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby Androidz on Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:43 am

Telvannia wrote:
Androidz wrote:One more thing which i belive would be cool as i just see the attackarmy which can attack k7. I would really like to see a door there so it looks like they goes in.;)

There will be a door there, but i had not got time to put it on before i went away when marv asked for that extra attack route. I will put it in when i finish doing the inside of the keep.


kk
Image
User avatar
Private Androidz
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:03 am

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby iancanton on Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:27 am

cau u make the smithy a bit bigger, so that the S doesn't go round the corner?

ian. :)
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2424
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: Castle Battle (aka Siege 2.0) - BIG defender update pg.7

Postby MrBenn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:52 pm

Telvannia wrote:
Click image to enlarge.
image


Please could you update the first post with your latest version (it took me a little while to find) ;-)

Anyway, I really like the look of this. You've done a good job while sticking to your original vision...

-I'm not convinced by the territory names/labels - although I think that is something you've said you're going to be working on?
-Are any of the territories going to start neutral? If so, could you make a note of them somewhere?
-The tower bombard routes may need to be made a bit clearer
-It would be nice to see a small version - even if it is just a shrunken-down one - to get an idea how that will work

The current image is getting there in terms of playability: [Advanced Draft]
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: Castle Battle - Keep Update, page 8

Postby ACC1231 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:15 am

I like it good work :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
User avatar
Cook ACC1231
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Recycling Box

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users