Conquer Club

wcaclimbing wrote:Tri 12, neighboring two different 10 territories.
Hor 9, bordering two 7 territories.

Those are the only two that I see right now. I'd appreciate it if you would move one of the 10s and one of the 7s, so no territory borders ones that have matching numbers.

Yeah I pointed these out to gimil too - he's gonna change these - you'll notice that he did try to ensure this didn't happen on this map this time - but missed those 2.

C.

t-o-m wrote::D

One thing that ive already told you, i dont like the way that there's only one entrance to each castle

I agree with Tom. This is going to have one very clear set of strategies with only one entrance. If you move the castles up near the wall, you can then make a 1-way passage through the wall out of the kingdom into the adjacent plains. That would create a more "attack" friendly environment, and also eliminate some of the significance of catching a bad dice streak early in the game.

Alternatively, you can leave the castles where they are, and create a one way attack in through the wall (i.e., breached wall), which will create a more defensive challenge, but at the same time increase lead time to successful attacks because the would be assailant will need to have enough troops to plug two gaps rather than one to avoid being overrun by another player (could be less relevant for 1v1 but would be very interesting for >4 player games.

Here i will ask you set briges and such to make it no One way to citys:

Great Kingdom 4 to Hor 21.

Rebel 5 to Hor 20 or Tri 12.

Move Barbarian castle to Barbarian 3/6. Then Create a brige to the old Barbarian castle to Cen 14.

Consider moveing Hor Village to 13/16 if you do the one above.

Ga'h 9/10 to Tri 2/1.



If you to this there will only be 3 citites with with one way city but they aint so close to the willage so it isint a big problem. I hope you consider this gimil=)



Hmm maybe i should drop out that a name change would be good. What about Feudal Emperies, Fuedal Kingdoms or something? Fuedal War Kingdom of **** / Fuedal War Chapter 2. ???

I'm going to ask for the legend to be at the top of the map rather than the bottom...

MrBenn wrote:I'm going to ask for the legend to be at the top of the map rather than the bottom...

Why?

C.

It looks so much like the original..Cant you add some new features to make it slightly different, like the AoR series for example...

hulmey wrote:It looks so much like the original..Cant you add some new features to make it slightly different, like the AoR series for example...

The point of this was to give an 8 player option to the Feudal gameplay, while Realm was intended to be a series of maps that differ in gameplay from each other. my plan is to not add any new gimmicks to this map

yeti_c wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm going to ask for the legend to be at the top of the map rather than the bottom...

Why?

C.

Benn has a point. It's easier to scroll down past the legend once you know the map rather than have it clutter the bottom... I made the same request for drug war.

Incandenza wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm going to ask for the legend to be at the top of the map rather than the bottom...

Why?

C.

Benn has a point. It's easier to scroll down past the legend once you know the map rather than have it clutter the bottom... I made the same request for drug war.

It really ruins the aesthetics of the map though?

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm going to ask for the legend to be at the top of the map rather than the bottom...

Why?

C.

Benn has a point. It's easier to scroll down past the legend once you know the map rather than have it clutter the bottom... I made the same request for drug war.

It really ruins the aesthetics of the map though?

C.

Sorry to be a pain, but I'd have to agree on the legend being better up the top. Along with the points stated above, I personally think it would be more aesthetically pleasing to.

Edit: it would also keep consistency with Feudal War

Ethitts wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I'm going to ask for the legend to be at the top of the map rather than the bottom...

Why?

C.

Benn has a point. It's easier to scroll down past the legend once you know the map rather than have it clutter the bottom... I made the same request for drug war.

It really ruins the aesthetics of the map though?

C.

Sorry to be a pain, but I'd have to agree on the legend being better up the top. Along with the points stated above, I personally think it would be more aesthetically pleasing to.

Edit: it would also keep consistency with Feudal War

Completely disagree...

The legend is now above the title - this is shit.

C.

PS - you'll also have to ignore the faded landscape below the legend as that's from below.

better the legend at the bottom!!!

yeti_c wrote:



Completely disagree...

The legend is now above the title - this is shit.

C.

PS - you'll also have to ignore the faded landscape below the legend as that's from below.

Its better now on the top as long as you put the Title in the same "Legend Box" And on the top. And then the minimap below the legend as now. But the terretorie lines in legendbox is wrong now.


Again i had another suggestion above which you missed obliveously:(

Androidz wrote:Again i had another suggestion above which you missed obliveously:(

That's upto Gimil to respond to.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

Androidz wrote:Again i had another suggestion above which you missed obliveously:(

That's upto Gimil to respond to.

C.

kk:D thx for answearing:)

Androidz wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Androidz wrote:Again i had another suggestion above which you missed obliveously:(

That's upto Gimil to respond to.

C.

kk:D thx for answearing:)

Firstly, I see no real gain in moving the legends to the top, seems like extra work for no gain. It looks prettier and for inclusive at the bottom.

On your double entrance idea, at the moment I thing that people are sitting 50/50 on the subject, for this reason I will stick with the 1 entrance, since that was my intention from the start

gimil wrote:

Androidz wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

Androidz wrote:Again i had another suggestion above which you missed obliveously:(

That's upto Gimil to respond to.

C.

kk:D thx for answearing:)

Firstly, I see no real gain in moving the legends to the top, seems like extra work for no gain. It looks prettier and for inclusive at the bottom.

On your double entrance idea, at the moment I thing that people are sitting 50/50 on the subject, for this reason I will stick with the 1 entrance, since that was my intention from the start

Okey Well if you ever change you mind about those attackroutes you got my post in here somwhere.^^

Btw you got a terretorie in Hor not named above 12 and 11:O

Looks good

1) I dont really like how there is so much water
2) the villages look different somehow than the ones in the original feudal.
3) I dont like the cliffs that much right now.... they just dont seem as good as the ones in the original
4) Maybe instead of being able to bombard non-adjacent territories in their kingdom, maybe have 1 catapult territory in each kingdom that can bombard some areas in the valley below the cliff right on the edge of their kingdom?
4) Cen rocks!

bryguy wrote:Looks good

1) I dont really like how there is so much water
2) the villages look different somehow than the ones in the original feudal.
3) I dont like the cliffs that much right now.... they just dont seem as good as the ones in the original
4) Maybe instead of being able to bombard non-adjacent territories in their kingdom, maybe have 1 catapult territory in each kingdom that can bombard some areas in the valley below the cliff right on the edge of their kingdom?
4) Cen rocks!

1) Their is hardly any water?
2) Becasue its a new map...
3) There are by far an improvement, these ones look ALOT more like cliffs than any previous attempt.
4) You wouldnt have your catapult outside the castle, thats just silly!

legend at the bottom is no big deal here because the legend isn't that big. the gain is very minimal.

in ODW it made sense because the legend is significantly larger when compared to the playable area of the map.




I'd like to see discussion on something gameplay-wise.

With the two west, the two central, and two north castles, you can hold the entire areas with two territories. With the southeastern castles, this is not possible. Not even close actually. In the north, the two territories you have to hold are right next to each other. It's also interesting to note that Imperial Dynasty only has to take over one more territory to get to the Ga'h village than to get to the Hor village (hehe). Obviously neutral territories will make some of these things naught but they're still things to think about because I think we'd all prefer not to have to put 20 neutrals in a few spots.

1. I'm not sure how big a deal these things are gameplay-wise

2. I'm not sure these are possible to be 'fixed' unless the map is re-drawn which I'm not looking to suggest.

.....................[adv. idea]

[/list]

gimil wrote:

bryguy wrote:Looks good

1) I dont really like how there is so much water
2) the villages look different somehow than the ones in the original feudal.
3) I dont like the cliffs that much right now.... they just dont seem as good as the ones in the original
4) Maybe instead of being able to bombard non-adjacent territories in their kingdom, maybe have 1 catapult territory in each kingdom that can bombard some areas in the valley below the cliff right on the edge of their kingdom?
4) Cen rocks!

1) Their is hardly any water?
2) Becasue its a new map...
3) There are by far an improvement, these ones look ALOT more like cliffs than any previous attempt.
4) You wouldnt have your catapult outside the castle, thats just silly!

for that reason i still suggest you change castle names. actually keeping one as feudal empire and changing the rest would give it that sequal feel you are looking for?
i love the graphics, and i think the gameplay "rules" shouldnt be changed (ie 2 neutrals on kingdom terrs, 10 neutral on kingdom entrance terrs, castle bombards non-adjacent kingdom terrs, +1 for every two same-kingdom terrs etc.) the only thing i am still unsure about is the one entrance thing, which i can really only judge after having played a few games on it...
but in general i say leave it as it is. correct the two instances where two territories border two territories with the same numbers (haha, i checked for that but didnt see it on the first look ) and then its already good to go.

i have also noticed (just as a btw thing) that this version of feudal is not as good for 1on1 players as the old one, because you will still only receive two castles. (3 players start, including the neutral, 8 castles, makes 2 per player and 2 extra, making a total 4 neutral and 2 for each player) at least it wont support my way of playing as much anymore

t-o-m wrote:.....................[adv. idea]

[/list]

I certainly hope not. has there even been an update? I know that that's not an official criteria for being stickied but it's being used as a criteria unofficially so to use it in some cases and not others is arbitrary and could be interpreted as favouritism. I know that sometimes this affects an experienced mapmaker negatively because there's a higher chance of their maps being less in need of updates. Again, I'm sorry for putting this here but I think your thread can take a few slightly off topic posts, gimil.

I know there hasnt been an update, ive been watching.
But i think we all see this going places, and i and i think i speak for others, am waiting for this map with excitment.