Conquer Club

the connection between Europe and Africe is still unbalanced. what about to do Naval Superiority also in Mediteraean See, these could revert to neutral and one way attack from Europe to Africa and from Europe to Europe. and do all borders in Europe imassable...
if the European bases will be starting points (also starting points)...

TaCktiX wrote:The overall idea is solid and there's a good foundation for Gameplay. I'd say my only complaint is the relative mess that the connecting lines and impassables look like. I realize that you do a watercolor draft with a near-finished graphical look, but if you could make the lines cleaner I'm cool with it rolling on into the Gameplay Workshop.

Wait seriously? this is being held back because of line cleanliness? As long as you can tell what attacks what, that's all that matters at this point, right? what parts specifically are causing confusion for you?

theBastard wrote:the connection between Europe and Africe is still unbalanced. what about to do Naval Superiority also in Mediteraean See, these could revert to neutral and one way attack from Europe to Africa and from Europe to Europe. and do all borders in Europe imassable...
if the European bases will be starting points (also starting points)...

A fair point but I don't think another Naval Superiority is the answer. I think maybe South Africa having a 2 way connection with Great Britain would be good.

Also the European terts. will be start positions but they will not be your sole start position. You will also be assigned random African regions.

I think Tack just wants and idea of the graphic direction you plan on taking this. You don't have to do a full blown watercolor, but something that conveys the feel of what the map will look like.

looking at my other maps should give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.

I'm not making a 3rd "sample" version of the map, I don't have that kind of time any more. There will be this flexible, easily modified map to hammer out gameplay, and then when we get to graphics I'm going to create a very large (25x30ish) Water color version. I'll import that to photoshop where I'll make final adjustments on the final version.

I think it might be symbolic if you include Liberia, as it's one of the few countries that remained independent during colonialism on the continent (Ethiopia being the other one, and I've seen you've had it up there already.
I'm not sure about the Middle East part of the map, are they part of the "Scramble for Africa" too?

The Bison King wrote:looking at my other maps should give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.

I'm not making a 3rd "sample" version of the map, I don't have that kind of time any more. There will be this flexible, easily modified map to hammer out gameplay, and then when we get to graphics I'm going to create a very large (25x30ish) Water color version. I'll import that to photoshop where I'll make final adjustments on the final version.

Unfortunately working in watercolor may become a hindrance then.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

The Bison King wrote:looking at my other maps should give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.

I'm not making a 3rd "sample" version of the map, I don't have that kind of time any more. There will be this flexible, easily modified map to hammer out gameplay, and then when we get to graphics I'm going to create a very large (25x30ish) Water color version. I'll import that to photoshop where I'll make final adjustments on the final version.

Unfortunately working in watercolor may become a hindrance then.


--Andy

How so? It hasn't been on any of the 3 other maps I've worked on. In fact this time it's way smarter cause usually I work exclusively off the watercolor, this time I had the foresight to do a sloppy comp first which I can change around with out hurting anything.

This happens every single time I make a map, people say "oh, I think doing it in watercolors is a bad idea", but I do it any way and it turns out fine. Can we please skip the non-sense and put this in gameplay so I can get to work already?

After speaking with the Cartos, it seems we've arrived at a consensus. What we would like to see is some sort of graphical theme at this point, though not a full blown watercolor. Theme needs to match the concept and period depicted to create a cohesive map. Many feel that continued use of the dreamy tufts of translucent color are not suitable for the theme of Colonial Africa.

That said, I don't think you won't be able to use watercolors as all. I much prefer the medium to photoshop colors and the sterility of computer perfection... but I think you should experiment with style a bit on this map to give it a theme that reflects the colonial world. Personally, my inclination is to go the military route and drive hard the symbols and stylings of 19th century political and military maps. But that's just what I'm thinking, hopefully it will jog some ideas for you.

There was also some mention of the map's gameplay resembling Eastern Hemisphere or South Africa 1885... for me, at least, this isn't a huge problem but I figure you ought to know how the others are feeling about the gameplay at this point. You might want to change some things around and experiment.

The Bison King wrote: In fact this time it's way smarter cause usually I work exclusively off the watercolor, this time I had the foresight to do a sloppy comp first which I can change around with out hurting anything.

I completely agree that your approach in making a 'sloppy' draft first before doing the watercolor is far better for the Foundry process.

As Helix said, however, there is some concern about the 'dreamy' watercolor style that you use, when done in connection with imperial adventures in Africa. Also, for my part, I don't want this map to be a re-hash of Eastern Hemisphere/South Africa 1885 (particularly the former) although I think that some minor changes could make the gameplay more distinct- so don't worry overly much about that.

I just want to add that these suggestions are to save you (and us) a lot of frustration down the road, especially when you get to Graphics. So hopefully they don't come off as obstructive but rather constructive.

Marshal Ney

I suppose all that is fair. With out spending too much time on detail here's what I'm thinking. The legend will be be enclosed in a fancy frame off to the left. Similar to how it was done on Thyseneal but neater. For inspiration I'm referencing the Great map maker Joan Blaeu (2nd map below). His work predates this era by about 200 years but his details and flourish is timeless. On previous maps I've always completely filled a territories shape with color. With this one I'll layer the inside border with color but leave the interior mostly blank. A good example of this is how I did Germany on the third map below. I'll also use the same technique that I used on the water for this map. Muddy Earth and Sepia tones will dominate the color scheme.







I see what you are saying about similarities to Eastern Hemishpere and South Africa. The name "Naval Superiority" is a pretty obvious one. Of course in Eastern hemisphere you can only bombard with it and in this one you can actually invade. Granted I've been using Eastern hemisphere as an inspiration for this map, but I believe there will be more than enough that will keep this map from feeling like a re-hash.

I think a coloring style more like the second style, with the interior outlines, would suit the map better. The Thyseneal style is a bit over used at the moment. Why don't you try something like I did for South Africa in Photoshop... just a generic mock up of what it is that you're intending to do.

Industrial Helix wrote:I think a coloring style more like the second style, with the interior outlines, would suit the map better. The Thyseneal style is a bit over used at the moment. Why don't you try something like I did for South Africa in Photoshop... just a generic mock up of what it is that you're intending to do.

What about if TBK did it the way he suggested but included a think inside line as well, as per your South Africa map? TBK is pretty talented with watercolors, I doubt you will be disappointed with his product. Besides, you gotta give him a little elbow room, graphics are largely subjective, so I think the mapmaker should have the final say, no?

Industrial Helix wrote:I much prefer the medium to photoshop colors and the sterility of computer perfection...

On the other hand (just to provide an alternate view on the issue)...

You still have to scan anything you do by watercolour (or oil paint, or charcoal, or ink) and the result will be pixels in a graphics file... just like what you can create in photoshop or gimp. So in principle, you can't really create anything with conventional methods that is not at least theoretically possible to create digitally.

For example... I have this nice software ArtRage that came free with my drawing tablet... it's a sort of "painting simulator", which gives you a canvas and a choice of virtual brushes and paints, and the results actually look a lot like conventionally painted & scanned images.

Anyway, my point is that hand-drawn is not necessarily always better, especially when the medium is digital graphics. You inevitably suffer a loss of quality and detail when you transfer your art from manual to digital. And working with digital medium gives you a certain preciseness: you get to measure stuff by the pixel, and you'll know exactly where each pixel ends up in...

All this said, I'm not against working with watercolours and scanners, but I think you should be using the watercolour as an asset instead of a limitation. For example: use of layers. Don't paint everything at once on one paper. Instead, paint the sea on one paper, then scan it and set it to a background layer. Then paint the land area on another paper, scan it and alpha mask it, then put it on a second layer. IMO it is foolish to do the whole graphics on one paper, discarding the #1 benefit you get from working in digital media - the use of layers.

Another thing that can be done: draw the shape of your land area digitally first. Then print the outline of your land on paper. Then fill the land area with watercolour, following the outlines. Scan, and alpha mask it with the land shape you drew digitally, and you're done. Simple!

Well, I think watercolor is an asset. Inevitably, the final product is at least half digital half 'real.' Things like borders and names are best done via photoshop. Texture and color, I find you can get a better product via paint. When I did SA, I did the completely digital version of SA, printed it, traced it and painted it and then scanned it in where I cloned out my mistakes. I think of it more as an asset as you describe than really any limitation. If you plan with a sort of digital cartoon of the final product, I think its a major help... which is what I'm encouraging BK to do.

Vic - Bk is talented with watercolors but there are those who are not happy with the way California has ended up. Rather than encourage BK to waste his time we're trying to deal with potential issues as early as possible. And technically the mapmaker has the final say on his map, but CC has the final say on whether they will host it or not.

Industrial Helix wrote:I think a coloring style more like the second style, with the interior outlines, would suit the map better. The Thyseneal style is a bit over used at the moment. Why don't you try something like I did for South Africa in Photoshop... just a generic mock up of what it is that you're intending to do.

How's this. Does this help?

Well for me it is heading in the right direction, much better!

Ivory Coast - Why the dark blue stripes? They don't correspond to anything...

Victor Sullivan wrote:Ivory Coast - Why the dark blue stripes? They don't correspond to anything...

agree. maybe do all regions of Ivory Coast bonus witht he same colour?

I saw you sea in Non CC maps (do not remember accurate name). I want to see your beautifull see also here

Come on guys read the legend. It's listed TWICE why Ivory coast has dashes. Maybe there's a better way to express it visually though.

What I'm trying to convey is that While Ivory coast is adjacent to another French bonus, it is not a part of the larger bonus but is it's own smaller bonus independent of the +5 it sits next to.

I saw you sea in Non CC maps (do not remember accurate name). I want to see your beautifull see also here

I assume you're referring to how I handled the ocean in this map?:


That's actually what I had in mind.

The Bison King wrote:Come on guys read the legend. It's listed TWICE why Ivory coast has dashes. Maybe there's a better way to express it visually though.

What I'm trying to convey is that While Ivory coast is adjacent to another French bonus, it is not a part of the larger bonus but is it's own smaller bonus independent of the +5 it sits next to.

see now. than made it another colour. the stripes in all map means +1 to any bonus or required for bonus.

yes this is the picture. and all colours looks better for me. the Colonial Africa map has too light.

What you need to do in order to get this into gameplay:
1) Figure out something different than Naval superiority. Maybe sea territories? Direct connections (France to Algeria, Madagascar, maybe colonial captials).
2) Figure out something different for the metropole/colony bonus than doubling it. One option would be to have a unified empire bonus... for example, Hold Germany and Kameroon +2, Hold Germany, Kameroon and SW Africa +4, ect. Another option would be Hold Britain and receive +1 per British territory in addition to any other bonuses held (still keeping +3 for South Africa, +1 for Nigeria, ect).
3) Approach your graphics very cautiously. Obviously you don't want to make a giant watercolor and have to overhaul it.

Best of luck figuring something out. I think the idea is a solid one and I hope to play this map!

1) Figure out something different than Naval superiority. Maybe sea territories? Direct connections (France to Algeria, Madagascar, maybe colonial captials).

Why? Is it because of the fact that Eastern Hemisphere has a territory that's called Naval superiority? The functions are similar but they are different, if that's the concern shouldn't changing the name suffice?

2) Figure out something different for the metropole/colony bonus than doubling it. One option would be to have a unified empire bonus... for example, Hold Germany and Kameroon +2, Hold Germany, Kameroon and SW Africa +4, ect. Another option would be Hold Britain and receive +1 per British territory in addition to any other bonuses held (still keeping +3 for South Africa, +1 for Nigeria, ect).

I'm leaning more towards the top options. It wouldn't be to hard to figure out but it would take up a lot more Legend space (but I've got some of that to spare any way.

3) Approach your graphics very cautiously. Obviously you don't want to make a giant watercolor and have to overhaul it.

This is wisdom that shall be heeded.

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure the current "naval superiority" works. You've got two types of sea connections... NS and the dotted lines. Why not get rid of both and just use some sort of one way attack symbols. That would be much smoother, imo. it would also free up some space in the legend and in the south Atlantic.

On a side note, wasn't Djbouti French?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure the current "naval superiority" works. You've got two types of sea connections... NS and the dotted lines. Why not get rid of both and just use some sort of one way attack symbols. That would be much smoother, imo. it would also free up some space in the legend and in the south Atlantic.

Well I like that it gives additional powers to the European Colonies that the African territories don't have. Thus symbolizing the fact the Europe did have the superior naval capabilities that allowed them to Colonize Africa in the way they did. Europeans could land wherever they wanted on the African continent. The Africans could not sail back up to Europe. However Which ever European power has the strongest navy has the ability to prevent the other powers from landing where they want. That being said, I still need certain territories to have 2 way connections because otherwise Europe has too much of an advantage. That is why I have it as I do.

Also this was your idea, maybe you remember writing this:

Industrial Helix wrote:The only major gameplay element that I think you ought to add is a European one way attack on at least one of their major colonies. I'm thinking Britain to SA, Germany to German East Africa, Belgium to Congo, and Portugal to Angola. This way you get the Europeans able to land and conquer Africa, but Africans stuck in Africa... true to history and also makes some of the more harder to achieve bonuses, such as Portugal, easier to achieve. Maybe, even consider killer neutral ocean territories, giving European players a chance to make landings, ect. In fact, I think killer neutral sea territories would really liven up the gameplay.

Or this:

Also, if you have room, a Mediterranean/Suez Canal/Red Sea Naval Superiority might be pretty cool as well.

On a side note, wasn't Djbouti French?

You might be right about that actually.