Conquer Club

I'm thinking of the ones between Nord-Deutscheland and Munster, I always figured they were to represent the Rhine as an impassable. I guess it would be more around Dusseldorf and Koln if it were.

I agree that the gameplay is not right for Germany, but I still think the design is pretty good.

The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?

Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.

My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.

porkenbeans wrote:The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?

Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.

My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.

I'll just let you know right now that your map will be ineligible for the competition. Read the title, thanks.

the.killing.44 wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?

Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.

My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.

I'll just let you know right now that your map will be ineligible for the competition. Read the title, thanks.

MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.

I know how to read 44. It clearly says that there is leeway. Like I said, I have kept the same territs and bonus areas the same, but in order to bring the map in to line with the proper geography, some things will have to change. Take a close look at a real map of Germany. You will see that this map is utterly void of reality. My revamp WILL be geographically correct. The mountains will be where they are supposed to be, and the same goes for the rivers. This map is in need of a revamp not just because it is butt-ugly, but also because it is "fantasy-land". My revamp will be a map of GERMANY, ...thank you very much.

porkenbeans wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?

Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.

My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.

I'll just let you know right now that your map will be ineligible for the competition. Read the title, thanks.

MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.

I know how to read 44. It clearly says that there is leeway. Like I said, I have kept the same territs and bonus areas the same, but in order to bring the map in to line with the proper geography, some things will have to change. Take a close look at a real map of Germany. You will see that this map is utterly void of reality. My revamp WILL be geographically correct. The mountains will be where they are supposed to be, and the same goes for the rivers. This map is in need of a revamp not just because it is butt-ugly, but also because it is "fantasy-land". My revamp will be a map of GERMANY, ...thank you very much.

You do what you want. I'm just telling you that during the competition, Benn doesn't want names, borders, or impassables changed.

In your earlier post, you said that "connections will need to be altered". Like it or not, the connections have to remain the same, that's the fundamental tenet of revamps. Just worth bearing in mind, I'd hate to see you waste a lot of time and effort on a cool map that doesn't meet the guidelines.

Heh, fastposted by 44.

MrBenn wrote:Competition Rules:
2. The competition is for a graphical revamp only: territory names and border connections must be unchanged from the current live version of the Germany Map.

Let me say that 44 and Inca are just trying to help you by pointing out the rules of the competition. If you won't listen to them, listen to me. pork, I'm sure your map will be great, but it will not meet the criteria for this competition if you change the gameplay(territory connections/borders/impassibles) in any way.

You've shown excellent ability with the graphics of map making, I'm sure you can come up with ways to make the current gameplay mesh with your... vision of Germany. Good luck.

MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.

Well, I am confused. Mrbenn says very clearly that "flexibility" WILL be allowed.

WHICH IS IT ?????

I wish you guys would get your act together. How can anyone be expected to work on these projects, when this kind of crap is going on ?

Why don't you guys figure it out, and then with a single voice, Lay out the requirements, instead of these BS contradictory rules.

Mr. Benn is talking about moving army circles and the physical location of borders.

People think you are saying changing the actual gameplay (eg: you make Berlin and Dresden connect when currently they do not)

I'm unsure as to what you mean.

porkenbeans wrote:MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.

Well, I am confused. Mrbenn says very clearly that "flexibility" WILL be allowed.

WHICH IS IT ?????

I wish you guys would get your act together. How can anyone be expected to work on these projects, when this kind of crap is going on ?

Why don't you guys figure it out, and then with a single voice, Lay out the requirements, instead of these BS contradictory rules.

What REVAMP so far has ever changed the gameplay? Circus Maximus, Indochina, Montreal, Midgard, British Isles, Brazil, even pep's Germany?

In my opinion, I think that they are going at it wrong. I totally understand that it would be nice to do a revamp without changing any code. In most cases I would go along with this, but this map is in need of more than just a graphic revamp. The geography is wrong in many places. Why on Earth would you just make up rivers and mountains, and place them willy nilly, when it is just as easy to use the actual rivers and mountains that Germany has plenty of.

I suspect that they might be looking for a clean transition for the games that are already in progress.

I believe that there is a simple solution that will sidestep this whole problem.

Why is it not possible to just roll out this new revamp when it is ready. The games that are already in progress on the old map, can just be allowed to finish without changing the map. The start a game on the old map can be disabled. But the games that are going can finish on out. Then when they are finished, the old version can be disabled or deleted or whatever you need to do.

the.killing.44 wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.

Well, I am confused. Mrbenn says very clearly that "flexibility" WILL be allowed.

WHICH IS IT ?????

I wish you guys would get your act together. How can anyone be expected to work on these projects, when this kind of crap is going on ?

Why don't you guys figure it out, and then with a single voice, Lay out the requirements, instead of these BS contradictory rules.

What REVAMP so far has ever changed the gameplay? Circus Maximus, Indochina, Montreal, Midgard, British Isles, Brazil, even pep's Germany?

The geography on the maps that you have mentioned did not need to be corrected.

edbeard wrote:Mr. Benn is talking about moving army circles and the physical location of borders.

People think you are saying changing the actual gameplay (eg: you make Berlin and Dresden connect when currently they do not)

I'm unsure as to what you mean.

What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.

porkenbeans wrote:

edbeard wrote:Mr. Benn is talking about moving army circles and the physical location of borders.

People think you are saying changing the actual gameplay (eg: you make Berlin and Dresden connect when currently they do not)

I'm unsure as to what you mean.

What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.

In the case where you've got mountains and rivers mixed up that's pretty simple. when you've got impassable mountains and none really exist there then you've got a problem.

this is where you have to just get creative. In the Canada revamp we saw someone use clouds. There's more than one way to make an impassable border. you can go back to the old Germany and Brazil style where you've just got an impassable border for gameplay purposes. you've got no rules as to how you're going to do it. obviously, since you're trying to make a real representation of Germany, you've got a harder job.

bottom line is it's a graphics only revamp. that's all that can change.

porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.

Yes, because pepperonibread had to fit his revamped image to fit the exact gameplay of the old Germany map. All Revamps have had to follow the same template: absolutely no gameplay changes. When MrB was talking about "flexibility", he was referring to XML coordinates and the precise drawing of terits, NOT flexibility on gameplay.

The "no changed gameplay" rule has always been the case, with this and other revamps. While that's not necessarily the ideal situation in this case, that's the way it is. This is not policy set by the foundry, but rather by lackattack, so if you'd like to protest, don't blame the foundry, address all comments to the big turtle.

Incandenza wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.

Yes, because pepperonibread had to fit his revamped image to fit the exact gameplay of the old Germany map. All Revamps have had to follow the same template: absolutely no gameplay changes. When MrB was talking about "flexibility", he was referring to XML coordinates and the precise drawing of terits, NOT flexibility on gameplay.

The "no changed gameplay" rule has always been the case, with this and other revamps. While that's not necessarily the ideal situation in this case, that's the way it is. This is not policy set by the foundry, but rather by lackattack, so if you'd like to protest, don't blame the foundry, address all comments to the big turtle.

Thank you for spelling it out so that it is more clear.

Let me pose a scenario, and then tell me what the Foundry's position would be.

Lets say someone produced a Germany map, that is unique in both game play, and geography, from this current map in question.

Would there be room for 2 Germany maps ?

It's just that the map that I have made is an accurate representation of Germany. I am now finding it very hard to bring myself to ruin it, by making rivers and mountains where none exist, for the sake of keeping to an inaccurate map. I am not from Germany, but I would think that the German CCers, would appreciate a map that shows an accurate representation of their country.

porkenbeans wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.

Yes, because pepperonibread had to fit his revamped image to fit the exact gameplay of the old Germany map. All Revamps have had to follow the same template: absolutely no gameplay changes. When MrB was talking about "flexibility", he was referring to XML coordinates and the precise drawing of terits, NOT flexibility on gameplay.

The "no changed gameplay" rule has always been the case, with this and other revamps. While that's not necessarily the ideal situation in this case, that's the way it is. This is not policy set by the foundry, but rather by lackattack, so if you'd like to protest, don't blame the foundry, address all comments to the big turtle.

Thank you for spelling it out so that it is more clear.

Let me pose a scenario, and then tell me what the Foundry's position would be.

Lets say someone produced a Germany map, that is unique in both game play, and geography, from this current map in question.

Would there be room for 2 Germany maps ?

It's just that the map that I have made is an accurate representation of Germany. I am now finding it very hard to bring myself to ruin it, by making rivers and mountains where none exist, for the sake of keeping to an inaccurate map. I am not from Germany, but I would think that the German CCers, would appreciate a map that shows an accurate representation of their country.

There is room for more than one map of the same area... BUT the maps would have to be unique (more than just a few connections) and would probably require some interesting gameplay to warrant having two separate maps. And of course the worse news is that the new map would have to start at the beginning of the new map making process, and could not get a huge leg up from being a revamp (where gameplay is already set in stone and therefore does not need to be reapproved).

The thing about this current map though - most of the region names are derived from cities that reside within those regions. MANY of those cities are located on rivers, so with a bit of stretching and small redrawing you should be able to include all the current regions accurately with real rivers and maintaining the current gameplay. I would definitely advise this route instead of trying to create a new slightly different Germany II

Setting aside the fact that there is no such thing as a "foundry position" on anything (given that the foundry is just a collection of individuals who often disagree), I personally would say that a second, completely different Germany map would be a tough row to hoe, so to speak. Right off the bat, there's the issue of repetition. CC already has the notably-geographically-flawed Germany map, plus the proto-German Holy Roman Empire map, plus the German Unification map making its way thru the main foundry. Having two maps that only depict the exact same country (in the same thematic context) would be a first for CC, and that's a Rubicon that I'm not sure many people would be willing to cross. Certainly there are overlaps between maps, but they are different in either geographical scope (like the aforementioned Germany vs. HRE) or theme (USA vs. USApocalypse, or Australia vs. Rail Australia, or France vs. France 1789). The only thing that really comes close is Europe vs. Europa, and then we're talking about an entire continent of a half-billion people as opposed to just a single country. The problem with Germany is that there really isn't much more that can be done thematically with the country, since the country itself is still only, what 130 years old, with a decent portion of that history off-limits for obvious reasons. Given that its distant past (HRE), somewhat-less-distant past (German Unification), and present are taken care of, Germany's pretty well taken care of, and having a map that's simply more accurate geographically isn't a lot to hang your hat on.

You're obviously welcome to give the idea a whirl and submit the map to the usual foundry process, but there will certainly be resistance. German CCers may or may not cotton to the idea, but the fact remains that it's almost always necessary to suborn real-world geography to gameplay needs. Also, before you think that Germans would flock to your map, have a look at the absolute clusterfuck that was the British Isles revamp, which took over a year IIRC.

It sucks that you spent a lot of time and effort on a map that isn't currently eligible for the revamp competition, and I understand that you don't just want to turn your back on all that, but ask yourself if it's worth spending potentially another year on a map that, geographical accuracy aside, would merely duplicate something already in the CC map library.

EDIT: fastposted by sully, who makes some excellent points that I should have thought of

MrBenn wrote:3. The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.

Sorry for your confusion, this part "- although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary." refers to the XML coordinates ONLY. Meaning that placement of the armies by the XML on the map we would like to keep as close to the original as possible. You don't have to have a XML file ready when you finish. If your image is a slightly different size, or your "Berlin" is a different spot slightly then pep's this will require a change to the XML file.

"The general layout" part just means Germany should look like Germany. You can change the LOOK of the map, but not the gameplay as everyone in this thread has been trying to explain to you. If you want to make the physical appearance of a border different, go ahead, if a border needs to curve left instead of right for some reason, okay. Change the font, change the colors, etc... all okay. A mountain instead of a river..... eh alright, but it must still block the same territories!

porkenbeans wrote:It's just that the map that I have made is an accurate representation of Germany. I am now finding it very hard to bring myself to ruin it, by making rivers and mountains where none exist, for the sake of keeping to an inaccurate map. I am not from Germany, but I would think that the German CCers, would appreciate a map that shows an accurate representation of their country.

It is as sully says, it would not likely pass through because it won't be unique enough. If you like to go for some sort of Germany 2.0 it will have to have unique gameplay(i.e. 80-90 territories or more) you would have a better chance of getting through.

What about France 1989 and the France map?

They're reasonably similar and both are available, though 1789 purports to have a historical theme which it really doesn't.

Industrial Helix wrote:What about France 1989 and the France map?

They're reasonably similar and both are available, though 1789 purports to have a historical theme which it really doesn't.

and noticably different gameplay.

Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?

Industrial Helix wrote:Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?

I don't think that is a discussion for this thread.

Is anyone else as excited as me for this competition? A good competition always gets me going!

gimil wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?

I don't think that is a discussion for this thread.

Is anyone else as excited as me for this competition? A good competition always gets me going!

Yeah, me too.

Does anyone know just how the voting is going to take place ?
Is it going to be held in a Foundry "poll thread" ? Where the regular hand full of Elites get to decide for everyone, or Is it going to be more widespread, and seek to poll from the larger CC community ?

porkenbeans wrote:

gimil wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?

I don't think that is a discussion for this thread.

Is anyone else as excited as me for this competition? A good competition always gets me going!

Yeah, me too.

Does anyone know just how the voting is going to take place ?
Is it going to be held in a Foundry "poll thread" ? Where the regular hand full of Elites get to decide for everyone, or Is it going to be more widespread, and seek to poll from the larger CC community ?

A poll in the foundry is open to the entire CC community, not a "hand full of Elites". I think the foundry is a proper place for such a poll, but I'm not sure what the plan is for this revamp. (an announcement will probably be made to attract non-regulars to the foundry poll).