A Capital Competition -- It's over!

[Evil DIMwit]

Not yet.

[ender516]

Working on it.

[MrBenn]

Working on it.

Err... until territories have been named and coordinate locations confirmed, this seems a little but futile

[ender516]

Working on it.

Err... until territories have been named and coordinate locations confirmed, this seems a little but futile

Arbitrary placeholder labels can be used and easily changed with global search-and-replace commands when the time is right.

[RedFlyingGolf]

The gameplay scheme as is set above has to be followed. We can tweak bonuses and territories after the winner is crowned, but for now, in the interest of fairness, every map will have the same gameplay scheme.

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean there can't be a victory objective, or a main assaulting territory, like P.A.F. in WWII Poland?

[Evil DIMwit]

The gameplay scheme as is set above has to be followed. We can tweak bonuses and territories after the winner is crowned, but for now, in the interest of fairness, every map will have the same gameplay scheme.

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean there can't be a victory objective, or a main assaulting territory, like P.A.F. in WWII Poland?

No objectives, no new elements. There can't even be a single territory connection that's different from the contest scheme. In theory, if a group of players start up any one of the contest entries, they are playing the exact same game, and just seeing different pictures.

[RedFlyingGolf]

The gameplay scheme as is set above has to be followed. We can tweak bonuses and territories after the winner is crowned, but for now, in the interest of fairness, every map will have the same gameplay scheme.

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean there can't be a victory objective, or a main assaulting territory, like P.A.F. in WWII Poland?

No objectives, no new elements. There can't even be a single territory connection that's different from the contest scheme. In theory, if a group of players start up any one of the contest entries, they are playing the exact same game, and just seeing different pictures.

Oh wow. I'm not entering then

[Evil DIMwit]

If you've got an idea for something that's similar but with new gameplay features, you're welcome to take it to the Melting Pot for discussion.

[RedFlyingGolf]

If you've got an idea for something that's similar but with new gameplay features, you're welcome to take it to the Melting Pot for discussion.

Sounds like a plan

[ender516]

I presume that the starting positions have underlying neutrals, so that games with 3, 5, 6, and 7 players have the unused starting positions removed from the random drop.

[Evil DIMwit]

Capitals are coded with 9 neutrals. The containing territories can be safely added to the random drop, if my math is right, so I think that's what should happen.

[Evil DIMwit]

Ladies and gentlemen, the entries have all been entered, and us on the Cartography staff have made all the tough decisions, putting together a shortlist just three entries long from a wide open field of three entries. What's going to happen now is, the CC public is going to get a week for comments and suggestions to make these three maps even better than they are now. Mapmakers are still anonymous, but of course they'll be able to read all the comments and, if they see a good suggestion, tweak their map accordingly. This period will end next Friday, November 19, at which time the voting will start. I think we've got some pretty solid entries in this, so take a look:

Entry A: Castle World

Click image to enlarge.

Entry B: Kingdroms

Click image to enlarge.

Entry C: Title TBD

Click image to enlarge.

[Leehar]

putting together a shortlist just three entries long from a wide open field of three entries.

Lol!
But after seeing the maps, I don't really regret not entering, since I doubt I'd come up with anything remotely close to as good as these.
With Entry A, idk if that was the intention, but it looks a bit too doodle earthy? I think it could maybe use some work with the borders etc
Entry B, I guess similar concerns with the borders, tho over here I think they look clunky/pixelated(?) so if there's some way to make it a bit smoother? (Maybe entries A and B could look at each others to improve both?)
Entry C looks to have a nice concept, I haven't really seen anything similar before, while A and B look similar to doodle and tamriel respectively for some reason

[Ffraid]

Wow, love Entry C. Just a couple of points.

I assume the cities are to be differentiated by the colors of the palaces but, since that might be a little ambiguous, there is a main square in each city, and the city names are all short, I would suggest renaming each "Main Square" by the city name. For example, "Tayt Square", "Aery Square", etc. That way, the cities would be easier to tell apart but you wouldn't have to find room somewhere else in the city to "label" it.

Also, in the legend, "The palace can be assaulted only through the main square of the city where the building" is not a complete sentence. In fact, I'm not sure you even need this instruction, since the only road to the palace is from the main square.

Oh, as for a title, how about something along the lines of "Middle Ages"? I actually don't think that's a very exciting title, but that's certainly the feeling that I get from this map.

[TheSaxlad]

I like entry A.

it has that south africa feel to it

[MrBenn]

Some nice entries.=here. I was going to have a go, but only had time to put together a nice background (that I may or may not use on another map at some point).

Map A: I'd agree with the above comment that a slightly more accurate border to the land would make the map feel less doodle-earthy; it just needs roughening up a bit and not being quite so smooth

Map B: The bonuses are too difficult to work out from the colour-bar. Either similar values need to have similar colours, or you need to find a clearer way of matching the area to a square.

Map C: The title is obviously unfinished, and may benefit from a sky-ish feel to it? It would be nice to have each village/town named somehow.

[Victor Sullivan]

My vote goes to A. I say let's stick to the basic world map for the first capitals map.

B I find extremely unappealing. It's just a generic land mass made-up that seems too symmetrical and man-made (unlike Thyseneal, which seems more legit). The names are also bad. Idk... It's hard top relate to and therefore play a map like this.

C is alright and fairly unique, but I'm not convinced the palaces are in evenly guarded spots. It overall is a bit overwhelming at first glance.

Like I said, I think we should stick with the basics for the first capitals map.

-Sully

[MrBenn]

C is alright and fairly unique, but I'm not convinced the palaces are in evenly guarded spots.

All the maps have identical gameplay :-/

[Victor Sullivan]

(I'm posting the maps here so we don't have to keep flipping between pages)
Entry A: Castle World

Click image to enlarge.

For A (though I suppose it applies to all of them), I wanted to look at some of the bonuses:


There. My thoughts. In Excel form. Yay.

-Sully

[Victor Sullivan]

C is alright and fairly unique, but I'm not convinced the palaces are in evenly guarded spots.

All the maps have identical gameplay :-/

Okay, I see it now. Still like the basic World format best.

[benga]

I would really love seeing C in play.
Reminds me of all those wasted years.

[dolomite13]

I have to say I love all three... any chance all three could be advanced to the foundry after a winner is declared. While the gameplay is the same a few tweaks to any of the three could make them completely play completely differently. Regardless of who wins I hope that the all of the map creators submit their maps though the standard process.

A) a classic style map that stuck to the sample really well. The small castles almost seem out of place and will take some work to fit units on them.

B) I like the way the creator of this map moved the western continents (americas) to the east side of the map and skewed it while keeping the connections in tact. I would like to see the map toned down a bit color wise. I like how all the territories in a continent start with the same letter.

C) Love the concept but the graphics look like they come out of some sort of fantasy mapping software program.

As for the bonuses I think Sully is right and I noticed that the west africa area on the sample map doesn't have a territory marked to start neutral like all other territories. To make it so there can be no bonus drop at all one of those should start neutral.

=D=

[Evil DIMwit]

Entry A: It's not clear that castles only connect to the territory they're in. Also, the legend looks rather crowded on the right side. Maybe you should move the Madagascar-Australia connection up some, and the ship can be smaller or go somewhere else.

Map B: The bonuses are too difficult to work out from the colour-bar. Either similar values need to have similar colours, or you need to find a clearer way of matching the area to a square.

Perhaps put the continents' initial letters on the bonus value diagram for easy identification. Then you don't even have to worry about colorblindness.

Entry C: Should Tower F be connected to Tower E? Also, I agree that each city should have its name on the map, not just in the legend, so people don't have to keep looking back and forth. Particularly colorblind people.

As for the bonuses I think Sully is right and I noticed that the west africa area on the sample map doesn't have a territory marked to start neutral like all other territories. To make it so there can be no bonus drop at all one of those should start neutral.

I think that messes up the starting territory counts, though. In any case it's only a bonus of 2 and it's not too easy to hold, as it is, which I think is fine given how it fits with the rest of the map.

[fumandomuerte]

I like option C but it doesn't make sense that markets on the other side of the map attack each other. Why not catapults, alchemists or evil witches instead?

[ender516]

Three very interesting entries to the competition, each bringing a novel touch.

Entry A has made a very likable version of the example map.

Entry B has twisted and stretched the world in very interesting ways. However, it has added a territory to what the example depicts as South America.

Entry C has some interesting graphics, but as has been noted already, has ambiguous labels. (Because of this, I cannot easily check if the gameplay has stayed true to the original specifications.)