Conquer Club

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Actually, right now i am working in illustrator to put new proper rail lines on Rail Europe....now that i know how to do it.

Do I hear a Rail Europe minor revamp coming soon!?

Well, yes, only the rail lines at present, but if there is other things that need attending to i could be up for the challenge if they are given to me quickly.

Back to topic...
While i contemplate my navel...and the changes i have to make...i have addressed iancanton's issues in this latest update

iancanton wrote:in the +11 bonus description, it's a monarch's commander. in the losing conditions text, it's a commander's monarch. which is it meant to be?

iancanton is one word!

ian.

They should all read Monarch's Commander...

Version 24b

cairnswk wrote:They should all read Monarch's Commander...

except in Conditional Borders
Any Monarch's Commander can be ...

pamoa wrote:

cairnswk wrote:They should all read Monarch's Commander...

except in Conditional Borders
Any Monarch's Commander can be ...

I have changed this to read...makes much more sense to me the way i read it.
Conditional Borders: * A Monarch position (M) can be assaulted only if one region of the same Monarch Commander's Vessel is held

I've had a think about sizes...

Small - 1023W x 864H
Large - 1200W x 1110H

Suitable???... too big????

Mmmm, seems no-one is interested in giving feedback on the size...
anyway, we'll push on.

Version 26

I've downsized the bottom corners to normal border size...which enables me to move the Treasury section down...thus giving more space to the map itself.
So i moved things around (mainly down) so that the top of the map wasn't so cramped.
Hope this is an improvement.
I've also decided not to put this through PS, as i've redone all the major straight lines so they are good and shouldn't have the blur issue.

cairns, why do some of the territ lines have different opacity? Bridgewater to Bristol looks different to Bridgewater to Poole Land and again different from some of the others. The same goes for the beacon paths. Left side of the board looks lighter than the right side. Is their a reason for this that I missed?

Either way, all looks rather splendid to me.

koontz1973 wrote:cairns, why do some of the territ lines have different opacity? Bridgewater to Bristol looks different to Bridgewater to Poole Land and again different from some of the others. The same goes for the beacon paths. Left side of the board looks lighter than the right side. Is their a reason for this that I missed?

Either way, all looks rather splendid to me.

koontz...good pickup, thank-you...pls refresh the above image. all should be better now

Better thanks, but some of the attack lines for the beacons now show in the boxes.
Thuro land base, black line at the to middle. I know it is for the sea but my eye is now drawn to it.

koontz1973 wrote:Better thanks, but some of the attack lines for the beacons now show in the boxes.
Thuro land base, black line at the to middle. I know it is for the sea but my eye is now drawn to it.

Yeh, not worried anout the attacklines in the beacon boxes...i'll fix later
truro land base black line top middle is coastline...not important...

Why are there neutral 2s in the southern regions?

DoomYoshi wrote:Why are there neutral 2s in the southern regions?

Ah Doom....this is the balancing aspect of the gamplay...to make it a little harder to conquer these terts as an attack line to opponents command vessels
iancanton has done superb work in this regard

Version 26 with neutrals

The 2 on La Manuela does not achieve this.
The other ones do make sense, I will go back and look at his reasons for that.

EDIT:So it slows yellow from taking Paxat San Estobel as easily, but it doesn't stop teal from taking Santa Ana so easily.

Triumph and Revenge have no such block between them.

I realize Gameplay is closed, I just want to look at these last things.

Iancanton, do you have a comment?

DoomYoshi wrote:The 2 on La Manuela does not achieve this.
The other ones do make sense, I will go back and look at his reasons for that.

EDIT:So it slows yellow from taking Paxat San Estobel as easily, but it doesn't stop teal from taking Santa Ana so easily.

Triumph and Revenge have no such block between them.

I realize Gameplay is closed, I just want to look at these last things.

Iancanton, do you have a comment?

Doom...gameplay is not really closed until quench
I have added some neutrals and sea impassables between smoe more vessels that puts at least 3 in the path of any opponent from capturing CVs.

isaiah40 wrote:...
How's this going cairns?

Can you give it going over isaiah40 please, i'd like to get on with the large.

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:...
How's this going cairns?

Can you give it going over isaiah40 please, i'd like to get on with the large.

Doing that now as I type this!

nolefan5311 wrote:I'd like to see some graphic input on this one from the blue boys...I've got the XML almost done, except for the small coordinates, and think once we get this graphically stamped we can push it through FF pretty quickly.

nolefan5311, i have asked for isaiah40's input. as soon as that is done i will produce the large.
sorry for the re-arrangment of the treasury and general enlargement, but i beleive it is much better now with a little more eyespace in the english vessel area.

A few things, small, but needed for extra clarity.

1. In the top legend: Can you increase the text spacing on (PTL)?
2. Battle of Gravelines: The outline of the area can be made a tad smaller, or, moved so that the tail on the "G" isn't covered.
3. The story, the text looks blurry. It looks like you have a shadow on it like the title.
4. Does TF(A) and TF(B) connect? If so then I suggest that the rive be shortened to make it clearer.
5. Under the Impassables legend: The Spanish command ship, the bottom yellow triangle can not be seen. Maybe (if possible) outline both yellow areas to make them clearer.
6. I'm a little concerned that the 888's will be too close together in the Monarch Treasury regions. Can you place some 888's so I can look at it please. My initial observation is that we might have to go a little wider to make sure they fit in properly.

Other than these few things this is really close!! Great work cairns!

isaiah40 wrote:A few things, small, but needed for extra clarity.

1. In the top legend: Can you increase the text spacing on (PTL)?

Done. i have increased the kerning on all of those abbreviations to 10 for consistency across the legend

2. Battle of Gravelines: The outline of the area can be made a tad smaller, or, moved so that the tail on the "G" isn't covered.

Done

3. The story, the text looks blurry. It looks like you have a shadow on it like the title.

Fixed.

4. Does TF(A) and TF(B) connect? If so then I suggest that the rive be shortened to make it clearer.

Yes they connect and fixed.

5. Under the Impassables legend: The Spanish command ship, the bottom yellow triangle can not be seen. Maybe (if possible) outline both yellow areas to make them clearer.

Done and all impassables increased in size slightly

6. I'm a little concerned that the 888's will be too close together in the Monarch Treasury regions. Can you place some 888's so I can look at it please. My initial observation is that we might have to go a little wider to make sure they fit in properly.

The squares are 27x27. as you can see from the brit side i have done, there is plenty of room for 888s in there. i paid considerable attention in design to ensure these were wide/high enough to pass over each other, but unless someone gets into the 1000s that shouldn't be a prob. I have also tested these spaces on a dummy xml and they fit perfectly

Other than these few things this is really close!! Great work cairns!

Cool. and thank-you for promptness.
Posting Version 28...



I have also done this Version 28 with 88s generated from the xml and posted it on front page under a spoiler

This is version 28 no numbers...
I've moved Penzance around a little and added some flame to the Lit beacons, mainly spacing and clarity...

Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

cairnswk wrote:Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

Hmmm .... I think something like Sir Francis Drake Treasury 1, 2 etc. This would mean that you would have to add the numbers on the map as well T1 T2 etc.

The Beacon naming as you suggested is good IMHO.

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

Hmmm .... I think something like Sir Francis Drake Treasury 1, 2 etc. This would mean that you would have to add the numbers on the map as well T1 T2 etc.

The Beacon naming as you suggested is good IMHO.

I'd rather not add any more to the map re numbers...so i suggest simply using what is there

Sir Francis Drake M+1
Sir Francis Drake T+1
Sir Francis Drake T+3
Sir Francis Drake T+4
Sir Francis Drake T+5
Would that suffice?...or even leave out the + sign.
Sir Francis Drake M1
Sir Francis Drake T1
Sir Francis Drake T3
Sir Francis Drake T4
Sir Francis Drake T5

And would that have to be clarified on the map amywhere?

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Now....talking nomeclature

Question: how are the names for the Monarch and treausry being listed in the xml.
For the beacons, i would suggest they be listed as "Beacon Penzance, etc" with Beacon up front to differentiate them from the land terrs.
Any other suggestions welcome, or to hear from Nolefan5311

Hmmm .... I think something like Sir Francis Drake Treasury 1, 2 etc. This would mean that you would have to add the numbers on the map as well T1 T2 etc.

The Beacon naming as you suggested is good IMHO.

I'd rather not add any more to the map re numbers...so i suggest simply using what is there

Sir Francis Drake M+1
Sir Francis Drake T+1
Sir Francis Drake T+3
Sir Francis Drake T+4
Sir Francis Drake T+5
Would that suffice?...or even leave out the + sign.
Sir Francis Drake M1
Sir Francis Drake T1
Sir Francis Drake T3
Sir Francis Drake T4
Sir Francis Drake T5

And would that have to be clarified on the map amywhere?

Without the + and should be obvious. Also, can you darken the names of the Commanders' Treasury that are highlighted in gray. Bit hard to see.

Nola_Lifer wrote:...
Without the + and should be obvious. Also, can you darken the names of the Commanders' Treasury that are highlighted in gray. Bit hard to see.

Ah. just checked...as i suspected the gray was overlaying the texts. nice pick-up.. thank-you
i'll adjust the image above...check shortly <- adjusted now