Conquer Club

gimil if you screenshot your image and then paste it into paint and save as a png after cropping you could probably post the full size. But that may be more work then you want. I'm sure we'd all like to see it though.

It ok the boarders image is full size. DiM will post the full image once he inserts that layer

Im to lazy for that kind of work

The image is so hugh because the res DiM has is hugh lol

v5.

made the bridges and docks browner and added gimil's borders

how many terits are there?? i'll also modify some because they are too small.

why arnt the boarder red

gimil wrote:why arnt the boarder red

because they looked like a washed pink on my pc
so i colored they black

but they were pretty in red
well they were red with a touch of outer glow in cream

one or two things.

1. i like the new bridges and docks.
2. THE MOUNTAINS
3. paths, i think there should be a direct path between resource pairs. The would be in real life, and it makes it easier to spot the pairs.
4. i like the new territories nowhere near as complected
5. the corn mill, should have a big round tower that looks like a windmill
6.most of the building in hte resource pairs look the same, just different colours.
7.bottom left castle still looks liek there are trees in it
8.island in the northern river delta still to pointy
9.island still look cut out if the old land
10.beaches, try added some random sandy colours to them to make them more realistic
11.top left castle seems detached from the map slightly.
12.in some places territory lines go over the beaches, in others they dont, (see top left beach for example)

one or two

should be enough there for now.

(by the way, just because i did not mention something to say i like it or disliked it, means i have liked it since the beginning and never complained about it )

gimil wrote:but they were pretty in red
well they were red with a touch of outer glow in cream

i'll make them red with a touch of cream. is that whipped cream or sour cream?

Telvannia wrote:one or two things.

1. i like the new bridges and docks.
2. THE MOUNTAINS
3. paths, i think there should be a direct path between resource pairs. The would be in real life, and it makes it easier to spot the pairs.
4. i like the new territories nowhere near as complected
5. the corn mill, should have a big round tower that looks like a windmill
6.most of the building in hte resource pairs look the same, just different colours.
7.bottom left castle still looks liek there are trees in it
8.island in the northern river delta still to pointy
9.island still look cut out if the old land
10.beaches, try added some random sandy colours to them to make them more realistic
11.top left castle seems detached from the map slightly.
12.in some places territory lines go over the beaches, in others they dont, (see top left beach for example)

one or two

should be enough there for now.

(by the way, just because i did not mention something to say i like it or disliked it, means i have liked it since the beginning and never complained about it )

1. good.
2. will do
3. but there are paths. all the resources have paths. if i make direct lines between them i'll just clutter the map.
4. thank gimil
5. will round
6. yep. i made them like this for easier recognition
7. there ARE trees inside it. many castles have trees in the courtyard. it can be easily removed but i don't see the point.
8. will tweak
9. will do
10. will randomise sand
11. what do you mean?? all the castles have the same effects on them.
12. i will tweak borders because in some places they don't go all the way (like the beaches) and in some places the terits are too small to fit armies.


as always thanks for the feedback.

DiM wrote:

Telvannia wrote:one or two things.

1. i like the new bridges and docks.
2. THE MOUNTAINS
3. paths, i think there should be a direct path between resource pairs. The would be in real life, and it makes it easier to spot the pairs.
4. i like the new territories nowhere near as complected
5. the corn mill, should have a big round tower that looks like a windmill
6.most of the building in hte resource pairs look the same, just different colours.
7.bottom left castle still looks liek there are trees in it
8.island in the northern river delta still to pointy
9.island still look cut out if the old land
10.beaches, try added some random sandy colours to them to make them more realistic
11.top left castle seems detached from the map slightly.
12.in some places territory lines go over the beaches, in others they dont, (see top left beach for example)

one or two

should be enough there for now.

(by the way, just because i did not mention something to say i like it or disliked it, means i have liked it since the beginning and never complained about it )

1. good.
2. will do
3. but there are paths. all the resources have paths. if i make direct lines between them i'll just clutter the map.
4. thank gimil
5. will round
6. yep. i made them like this for easier recognition
7. there ARE trees inside it. many castles have trees in the courtyard. it can be easily removed but i don't see the point.
8. will tweak
9. will do
10. will randomise sand
11. what do you mean?? all the castles have the same effects on them.
12. i will tweak borders because in some places they don't go all the way (like the beaches) and in some places the terits are too small to fit armies.


as always thanks for the feedback.

6.ok, seems sensible, but i still think each building should look individual, maybe if you leave the roof colouring but make their shape different

7.trees inside the castle are fine, but it makes it look like you have just drawn the walls on with out making a gap in the trees for it. For example the top right castle looks right with the trees because of the way they are positioned, and the trees surrounding it are smaller and a lighter green, whereas the trees around the bottom left look exactly the same as the ones inside the castle.

11.the top left one i think is because of the lighter line around the bottom of the castle, after a bit of looking the center right one looks rong because it is sticking out over the edge of the slope to the sea.

I'm concerned with how the castle +5 works, it seems this system gives way to much of an advantage to the player moving first. Are the castles starting neutral?

V6

1. made borders complete where they had gaps. made them red with creamy glow
2. made beaches more sandy
3. tweaked islands in northern delta
4. tweaked outer small islands
5. removed trees from bottom left castle.

Telvannia wrote:

DiM wrote:

Telvannia wrote:one or two things.

1. i like the new bridges and docks.
2. THE MOUNTAINS
3. paths, i think there should be a direct path between resource pairs. The would be in real life, and it makes it easier to spot the pairs.
4. i like the new territories nowhere near as complected
5. the corn mill, should have a big round tower that looks like a windmill
6.most of the building in hte resource pairs look the same, just different colours.
7.bottom left castle still looks liek there are trees in it
8.island in the northern river delta still to pointy
9.island still look cut out if the old land
10.beaches, try added some random sandy colours to them to make them more realistic
11.top left castle seems detached from the map slightly.
12.in some places territory lines go over the beaches, in others they dont, (see top left beach for example)

one or two

should be enough there for now.

(by the way, just because i did not mention something to say i like it or disliked it, means i have liked it since the beginning and never complained about it )

1. good.
2. will do
3. but there are paths. all the resources have paths. if i make direct lines between them i'll just clutter the map.
4. thank gimil
5. will round
6. yep. i made them like this for easier recognition
7. there ARE trees inside it. many castles have trees in the courtyard. it can be easily removed but i don't see the point.
8. will tweak
9. will do
10. will randomise sand
11. what do you mean?? all the castles have the same effects on them.
12. i will tweak borders because in some places they don't go all the way (like the beaches) and in some places the terits are too small to fit armies.


as always thanks for the feedback.

6.ok, seems sensible, but i still think each building should look individual, maybe if you leave the roof colouring but make their shape different

7.trees inside the castle are fine, but it makes it look like you have just drawn the walls on with out making a gap in the trees for it. For example the top right castle looks right with the trees because of the way they are positioned, and the trees surrounding it are smaller and a lighter green, whereas the trees around the bottom left look exactly the same as the ones inside the castle.

11.the top left one i think is because of the lighter line around the bottom of the castle, after a bit of looking the center right one looks rong because it is sticking out over the edge of the slope to the sea.

6. will change in V7
11. will look into this matter.

Coleman wrote:I'm concerned with how the castle +5 works, it seems this system gives way to much of an advantage to the player moving first. Are the castles starting neutral?

well i'm still pondering on this matter.
first i thought making every bonus neutral and people start with the lands.

but then i wanted everything to be neutral and everybody start just with the castle. this would be most consistent to the story. i'm still thinking. i don't know. i don't think a +5 is such a big advantage when around you are only neutrals.

DiM wrote:but then i wanted everything to be neutral and everybody start just with the castle. this would be most consistent to the story. i'm still thinking. i don't know. i don't think a +5 is such a big advantage when around you are only neutrals.

I agree with that, especially when everyone has at least one castle. My worry was more along the lines of people starting with 2 or more castles randomly. Or even all the castles. I know people argue the odds are against that, but there are games of King of the Mountains where people start with all the kings.

The only real problem with starting only with the castles is that you need to make sure that every castle has the potential to win, and that there isn't a castle with a huge advantage over all the others.

Coleman wrote:

DiM wrote:but then i wanted everything to be neutral and everybody start just with the castle. this would be most consistent to the story. i'm still thinking. i don't know. i don't think a +5 is such a big advantage when around you are only neutrals.

I agree with that, especially when everyone has at least one castle. My worry was more along the lines of people starting with 2 or more castles randomly. Or even all the castles. I know people argue the odds are against that, but there are games of King of the Mountains where people start with all the kings.

The only real problem with starting only with the castles is that you need to make sure that every castle has the potential to win, and that there isn't a castle with a huge advantage over all the others.

there are 6 castles 1 for each player in 6 player games everything else is neutral.
in 5 and 4 player games there will be neutral castles and in 3 and 2 player games each player will have 2 and 3 castles.

so there's no way somebody could start with more castles than somebody else. and the troops advantage is small because there are lots of neutrals so there's no way to hurt the other player in turn 1.

I really should have worded what I was trying to say better, but I guess it doesn't matter now that I think about it. Wish there was some way we could direct the random deployment a bit better via the xml to ensure you couldn't have more then 1 castle on your first turn so you wouldn't fill the map with neutrals.

Coleman wrote:I really should have worded what I was trying to say better, but I guess it doesn't matter now that I think about it. Wish there was some way we could direct the random deployment a bit better via the xml to ensure you couldn't have more then 1 castle on your first turn so you wouldn't fill the map with neutrals.

thats what we really wanted but until the XML allows you to start with all your armies in the one areas this is the next best thing. Also something DiM forgot to mention is that the castles bonuses will be deployed directly onto the castle.

(Or at least i think thats what we agreed)

lol

Coleman wrote:I really should have worded what I was trying to say better, but I guess it doesn't matter now that I think about it. Wish there was some way we could direct the random deployment a bit better via the xml to ensure you couldn't have more then 1 castle on your first turn so you wouldn't fill the map with neutrals.

i suggested something like that in the xml suggestions thread along with a dozen other things but nobody took a look at them

gimil wrote:

Coleman wrote:I really should have worded what I was trying to say better, but I guess it doesn't matter now that I think about it. Wish there was some way we could direct the random deployment a bit better via the xml to ensure you couldn't have more then 1 castle on your first turn so you wouldn't fill the map with neutrals.

thats what we really wanted but until the XML allows you to start with all your armies in the one areas this is the next best thing. Also something DiM forgot to mention is that the castles bonuses will be deployed directly onto the castle.

(Or at least i think thats what we agreed)

lol

yep. auto deploy on the castles. it's still valid. the only problem is with the adjacent fortifications. it would take ages to move them from one place to another.

but people still have the basic (terrs/3) deplyment to work with

DiM wrote:yep. auto deploy on the castles. it's still valid. the only problem is with the adjacent fortifications. it would take ages to move them from one place to another.

That's not a problem, it is a feature. This backlog seems like a great idea to me.

Coleman wrote:

DiM wrote:yep. auto deploy on the castles. it's still valid. the only problem is with the adjacent fortifications. it would take ages to move them from one place to another.

That's not a problem, it is a feature. This backlog seems like a great idea to me.

i like it too. but i'm sure people will complain

Hi DiM...I'm liking this idea the more i get used to it
Is there any chance, at this early stage with so many small terrs, to see a quick small image of what the map would look like at the outset with placement of armies....or even when a game is half way through in progress?

Also, what are you plans for the colours of the borders and connecting village roads....I find it graphically challenging with all those lines going everywhere - considering army numbers have to be placed yet.

And this is now up to version 6....about time to move it out of the "infants room" please Mods.

cairnswk wrote:Hi DiM...I'm liking this idea the more i get used to it
Is there any chance, at this early stage with so many small terrs, to see a quick small image of what the map would look like at the outset with placement of armies....or even when a game is half way through in progress?

Also, what are you plans for the colours of the borders and connecting village roads....I find it graphically challenging with all those lines going everywhere - considering army numbers have to be placed yet.

And this is now up to version 6....about time to move it out of the "infants room" please Mods.

i'm glad you like it mate.
the xml is not even started so no army numbers at this point. there's still a lot to do graphically and on the gameplay part. after that's settled yeti_c will take care of the xml.

about the roads. well those are for graphic reasons and can be ignored. i think the borders are distinctive enough with the red color and the creamy glow to make them stand apart.

i've made some resource building different and i'll put v7 later today after i play with the borders some more.