Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:02 am**

Antananarivo is the 47th most populous city in Africa (keep in mind, that most cities in Africa are not overwhelming in population to begin with). It is not important politically, socially, or anything else. And I doubt any new player will have heard of Antananarivo and be able to find it on the map. So no, I'm not going to add that city just because it sits within an arbitrary land mass, especially when a large well known city is a perfectly viable option. Making switches to the unknown cities would make gameplay much more difficult, especially for new recruits and others who don't use clickable maps.

Evil DIMwit wrote:I'm sorry, but Magadan just has no business being in this map. Could Vladivostok take its place without being too crowded? That city has about six times the population and fifty times the historical significance. If northeastern Asia looks a bit too sparse after that then: (A) Good. That's reality. (B) Try shifting the title rightward.
Anchorage is a little awkward too, particularly because Tokyo has a special connection to such a globally insignificant city. You might try shifting Anchorage -> Vancouver -> Denver or Anchorage -> Vancouver -> Los Angeles -> Honolulu, or even Anchorage -> Vancouver -> Los Angeles -> Mexico City -> Managua/Panama City/San Salvador/Tegus
Otherwise I'm rather fond of the latest city arrangement and especially glad to see the awkward Astana-Chengdu-Novosibirsk V is gone.

Moreover I absolutely agree that the flags need to come back.

That awkward V was just a mistake with the previous connections. I had a mislabeled city on the paper copy I use to determine the layout.

As for Vladivostok, I don't think that's an option because of the proximity to Beijing and Tokyo. If I wanted to put a city there, I would prefer Seoul any day (yes Seoul is a tighter squeeze but a much more important city).

As for Anchorage, I know it is a small city but people are familiar with it (at least Americans, and yes that is the primary user base). I think it makes sense to match the cities to their respective locations on the original Classic when possible and when it doesn't detract from the gameplay.

Back to the Athens/Istanbul debate: For no better reason, I think I prefer Athens because it is 2 letters shorter. Istanbul is crowding the neighbors a bit, but if others aren't concerned about that then I don't care either.

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:30 pm**

You still need to change the title font to something more appropriate.

Like this,

not this,

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:06 pm**

That title looks nice mibi... You could do this too:

(I was trying to do something similar to the planes on the original classic, but rushed this to show what I was thinking of... You could put some ships in the water too... don't forget the random blob in Canada :lol:

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:56 pm**

Istanbul/Athens is representing Southern Europe from the original map, why no shift the circle over a smidgen, and get it close enough to the Italy to call it Rome. You'll probably have to push Berlin up a little, Stockholm too. You could then shift the circle for Dubai up and to the left enough to be Baghdad. (6.5 million vs. 2.25 million for Dubai) That might still be too close together to Tehran and Cairo.

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:39 pm**

Nice titles mibi and Benn! Simple but definitely effective. Much cleaner than the stuff I've produced of course. I still like the idea of including the conquer club font, logo, colors in the title. I also share your concerns about the title fitting with the rest of the map. I'll play around with it to see if I can reach a compromise.

As for ships, planes, bullet holes etc. Wouldn't that just be adding clutter? And is copying the original classic in so many regards really a good idea? I think we are quickly devolving to a map that is not unique in any way and that scares me.

RedBaron0 wrote:Istanbul/Athens is representing Southern Europe from the original map, why no shift the circle over a smidgen, and get it close enough to the Italy to call it Rome. You'll probably have to push Berlin up a little, Stockholm too. You could then shift the circle for Dubai up and to the left enough to be Baghdad. (6.5 million vs. 2.25 million for Dubai) That might still be too close together to Tehran and Cairo.

Rome is all the way over on the West side of the boot, which makes it way too close to Madrid and Berlin. I tried different combinations in the early drafts to include Rome and Paris, but that region is far too cramped to get all the world players.

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:41 pm**

sully800 wrote:As for ships, planes, bullet holes etc. Wouldn't that just be adding clutter? And is copying the original classic in so many regards really a good idea? I think we are quickly devolving to a map that is not unique in any way and that scares me.

Right, I don't think this map needs very much for added fluff. Planes in the title like MrBenn created is about the limit of extra fluff I'd like to see.

--Andy

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:25 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
sully800 wrote:As for ships, planes, bullet holes etc. Wouldn't that just be adding clutter? And is copying the original classic in so many regards really a good idea? I think we are quickly devolving to a map that is not unique in any way and that scares me.

Right, I don't think this map needs very much for added fluff. Planes in the title like MrBenn created is about the limit of extra fluff I'd like to see.

I think we're all agreed... my mistake was to leave the <sarcasm> tags out of the following statement:

MrBenn wrote:You could put some ships in the water too... don't forget the random blob in Canada

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:19 pm**

And away we go!

Click image to enlarge.

Changes

Reformatted Asia as stated earlier (switching out Chengdu and adding Yakutsk). I also switched Singapore to Bangkok to increase the space between Asia and Oceania
Reformatted Oceania, switching Melbourne to Perth and Auckland to Manila. This was done because the connections to Auckland always looked awkward with only 4 Oceania territories. I chose Manila because there are no exceptionally large cities in New Guinea that I could think of.
Turned off the globe bonuses and added in a simple list in the Pacific Ocean. This was possibly in part due to Auckland's disappearance which allowed me to shift the whole map to the right (and not cut off Alaska so much).
New title in the style suggested by mibi and Benn. Let me know what you think, I understand that I probably worked 10 times as hard as they did to produce an inferior product.

I'm going to be away for the next 4 days (going backpacking in the Finger Lakes of upstate New York!) so I won't be responding to comments for a bit. Just the same, keep the conversation flowing!

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:32 pm**

Nice clean, crisp, readable. I like it!

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:45 pm**

Yes, nice. 'cept for no paris.

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:52 pm**

Looking closer and closer to the board game map... At what point are we vulnerable to copyright issues again?

Otherwise it's looking quite good, though I can't say I'm a fan of the planes. Weren't you going to redo the flag borders with the official flag icons? I'd've liked to see that.

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:39 pm**

I won't get into the "should this really be the new classic" debate right now. Just offer my thoughts on the map as is:

I think Africa and South America are done. They look fine and I can't think of any changes or suggestions to improve them, really.

For North America, just a minor cosmetic change: invert the curve of either the Edmonton-Montreal or Edmonton-Chicago connection.

For Europe, I'm really not sure what to do. The Berlin-Istanbul connection isn't totally clear because of how close they are (that should signal to everyone how much worse Paris or Rome would make it!). I know there's not much room to maneuver, but something does need to be done there.

Asia and Oceania is definitely where the action is and where the debate needs to be had...

My first point is that Dubai should be Mecca. I know there will be differing opinions there, but I think a straight vote would lead to Mecca.

Second, Manila is a distinctly Asian city. I don't think it should be part of Oceania. For that matter, even Jakarta is questionable insofar as strict geography--but since Indonesia was clearly labeled in Oceania on the original Risk board, I don't think that's as big an issue (and yes, I know some Risk boards draw the Philippines into Oceania).

Third, the other issue I raised in the old thread is that using Magadan is a joke. It's just not a world city by any standard.

So, what are the solutions to these final two points? Again, I'm not totally sure.

For Oceania, I think you can either change Manila to Port Moresby (the simple solution) OR if people aren't too concerned about having the geographic correspondence to the old Risk map, you make Perth the entry point, then you use Sydney, Darwin and Auckland as the other three Oceania territories (or Darwin could be the entry point).

As for Asia itself, there are a number of possibilities. If you take my above suggestion about Australia, that frees up Jakarta and Manila to be used in Asia, which would then open up all sorts of options. You could then slide everything down south, make Seoul the connection to Anchorage, and play around with the internal Asian cities to see what would work best insofar as minimizing clutter (Shanghai, Dhaka and Lhasa could all be in play, depending on what you would want to remove and what connections would need to be made).

Anyway, that's just my (extended) 2 cents. In short, I'd say Africa and South America are done, North America is essentially done, Europe has one small problem that needs to be addressed, and the focus should really be on Oceania and Asia. Asia's the problem (I have a preference for Oceania, but I'll be honest and say that there are a number of viable options that work).

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:42 pm**

sully800 wrote:
Click image to enlarge.

First off... Have fun backpacking in the Finger Lakes, i assume the leaves are in full color now in upstate NY...
The reformatting is great... still wish we could have Seoul instead of Magadan, but can't see a way to do it...
Please lose the jets.... it's all such a professional map, and then BAM, so please... lose the jets...
I'm missing the globe bonuses and don't really like the simple list in the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps you could do the globes without writing the names of the continents... after all, there are just cities and the visual of the globe makes it very clear...
Consider swapping the bonus colors... oceania for South America should do the trick... will really help to keep the asia / oceania bonuses clearly seperated...
The lines connecting Magadan and Anchorage don't match... one is convex, the other is concave

Posted: **Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:47 pm**

I miss the globes, too. Would it satisfy the clutter-killers if the Western Hemisphere globe was moved from the Atlantic to the Pacific, leaving the Eastern Hemisphere globe in the Indian Ocean?

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:59 am**

This map looks like an awesome change, however, i think that it should have adelaide instead of perth

Stokesy

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:49 am**

stokesy7 wrote:This map looks like an awesome change, however, i think that it should have adelaide instead of perth

Stokesy

Adelaide does not work for Western Australia. Perth does though.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:05 am**

Bruceswar wrote:
stokesy7 wrote:This map looks like an awesome change, however, i think that it should have adelaide instead of perth

Stokesy

Adelaide does not work for Western Australia. Perth does though.

Nah, Cairns is the gateway to Asia...if you put Cairns on the map I'll love you forever of course, :lol:

Just get rid of Perth and Sydney and replace them with Port Morseby and Cairns. :mrgreen:

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:03 am**

cairnswk wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:
stokesy7 wrote:This map looks like an awesome change, however, i think that it should have adelaide instead of perth

Stokesy

Adelaide does not work for Western Australia. Perth does though.

Nah, Cairns is the gateway to Asia...if you put Cairns on the map I'll love you forever of course,
Just get rid of Perth and Sydney and replace them with Port Morseby and Cairns.

Port Moresby only has strategic value in real life, it's no population center like Sydney!

ender516 wrote:I miss the globes, too. Would it satisfy the clutter-killers if the Western Hemisphere globe was moved from the Atlantic to the Pacific, leaving the Eastern Hemisphere globe in the Indian Ocean?

I also liked the idea of globes, but perhaps make them like digital like in star wars when they're breifing the pilots on destroying the death star. It goes with the jets in the title.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:58 am**

Then again, we should get rid of the jets, so...
(I like the simple white fading lines without them actually being steam trails.)

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:49 pm**

I think I'm generally more in favor of the globes than not in favor of them.

Some excellent posts on this page with great feedback. Keep it coming.

--Andy

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:08 pm**

WoW sully, this is looking excellent, thank you for all your efforts and hard work, I know many will be proud of this map and may become CC's most popular over time. =D>

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:11 pm**

I am in favor of the globes and the old title (with or without jets).

I am also in favor of the flags, but there's no use beating a dead horse.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:27 pm**

The jets creative cognitive discord, being that they are about to smash into each other, creating a loss of life.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:34 pm**

sully800 wrote:I still like the idea of including the conquer club font, logo, colors in the title.

Shame, that. mibi's looks best IMO; you should rid the map of the chicken-playing planes.

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:36 pm**

The Neon Peon wrote:I am in favor of the globes and the old title (with or without jets).

I am also in favor of the flags, but there's no use beating a dead horse.

I didn't think the flags were gone for good yet. I would still like to see their return. If they seem too imposing, perhaps they could be reduced to half the old height, so that the entire set of flags could run across the top and bottom, instead of half on each. Of course, they might be too small to recognize then.

As far as the jets go, since this map roughly depicts air routes, perhaps they should be passenger jets, rather than fighters, and they could be shown flying outward rather than on a collision course.

Conquer Club

[Official] Classic Revamp [Quenched]

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V2, page 6, 10/8/09)

Re: [Official] Classic Revamp (V3, page 8, 10/9/09)