Conquer Club

koontz1973 wrote:Done.

Click image to enlarge.

Let me just first say that I didn't think all changes were bad , making sarsfield and floresta into one territ looks better. And I like the "new" colours on the old city better. But the houses, skyscrapers and is it huts down there in the old city? I didn't like any of that! (which I'm sure you suspected lol) Aren't there any rivers going through Buenos Aires that you can use? I understand if you don't want to pound the entire map with trees as impassables but there must be some other form of border decreaser you can use! The water still needs some work I think as it doesn't quite do the job of looking like water yet.
If you twist the name "coghland" 90 degrees and move it up a bit and I think it's in it's natural place.

I don't have any advice, but this looks great.

Gillipig wrote:...Aren't there any rivers going through Buenos Aires that you can use?...

If koontz1973 did a map of the greater area of Buenos Aires, there are several river systems that could be used.
But in the city area, any are most likely to have been turned into storm water drains and covered in cement as apart of city infrastructure.

I realy likes all the types of houses, the style fit the rest of map nicely, also the trees suits better with the houses.

Gillipig wrote:Let me just first say that I didn't think all changes were bad , making sarsfield and floresta into one territ looks better. And I like the "new" colours on the old city better. But the houses, skyscrapers and is it huts down there in the old city? I didn't like any of that! (which I'm sure you suspected lol) Aren't there any rivers going through Buenos Aires that you can use? I understand if you don't want to pound the entire map with trees as impassables but there must be some other form of border decreaser you can use! The water still needs some work I think as it doesn't quite do the job of looking like water yet.
If you twist the name "coghland" 90 degrees and move it up a bit and I think it's in it's natural place.

Not all changes are going to be looked at favourable by all. I added the houses as it was a suggestion. You are right in thinking the brown ones are wooden huts, they are in the earliest part of the city and therefore fit. The coloured houses popped up around the turn of the centary and the flats in the 40/50's. So they fit the idea of the map. Had some "dice" on the map for the modern houses but took them off. Not really any rivers, only one could be used and it runs along the outskirts of the city.

cairnswk wrote:But in the city area, any are most likely to have been turned into storm water drains and covered in cement as apart of city infrastructure.

Will have a look into this and see if they can go on. Maybe start them of as a river in the old part of the city and then turn them into drains in the modern part.

Finished of my buildings, but will keep on working on them to get them super nice.
Removed the duck pond in the south west. Idea - should a compass go in?
Played around with the territ lines.
Made some territs bigger for legibility.

wow very nice you have talent my friend

Thanks CAPK, any GP that needs to be added or removed. I looked into the rivers/drainage systems, and there is one that could be used but it would be a new impassable and also a very long one. So will not add it. I know houses are not the bog standard map impassables but so what.

koontz1973 wrote:Thanks CAPK, any GP that needs to be added or removed. I looked into the rivers/drainage systems, and there is one that could be used but it would be a new impassable and also a very long one. So will not add it. I know houses are not the bog standard map impassables but so what.

Houses doesn't make sense any sense as impassables. Mountains are impassables because they are hard to pass with armies, so are rivers and forests. Houses are never lined up so orderly that they form an impassable line several hundred miles long! There are forests that can't be passed by armies, there are rivers that can't be passed by armies, there are certainly mountains that can't be passed by armies. This is not really a minor reality check error, it's a major one! You might just as well line up pencils for several hundred miles. Houses can't be impassables on large scale maps! Sorry for ranting about this but I feel like you need to hear it!

Gillipig wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Thanks CAPK, any GP that needs to be added or removed. I looked into the rivers/drainage systems, and there is one that could be used but it would be a new impassable and also a very long one. So will not add it. I know houses are not the bog standard map impassables but so what.

Houses doesn't make sense any sense as impassables. Mountains are impassables because they are hard to pass with armies, so are rivers and forests. Houses are never lined up so orderly that they form an impassable line several hundred miles long! There are forests that can't be passed by armies, there are rivers that can't be passed by armies, there are certainly mountains that can't be passed by armies. This is not really a minor reality check error, it's a major one! You might just as well line up pencils for several hundred miles. Houses can't be impassables on large scale maps! Sorry for ranting about this but I feel like you need to hear it!

I think your beeing to nick picking here, the houses koontz made are very nice for impasables, Again (I have to say again) gameplay comes in first, and the houses makes sense in that matter, mountains in a city does not, we got so many city maps with rivers or neutral/blank impasables, but thise houses bring a different and butifull addon to this very nice map.

Thanks for letting out the steam

Gillipig wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Thanks CAPK, any GP that needs to be added or removed. I looked into the rivers/drainage systems, and there is one that could be used but it would be a new impassable and also a very long one. So will not add it. I know houses are not the bog standard map impassables but so what.

Houses doesn't make sense any sense as impassables. Mountains are impassables because they are hard to pass with armies, so are rivers and forests. Houses are never lined up so orderly that they form an impassable line several hundred miles long! There are forests that can't be passed by armies, there are rivers that can't be passed by armies, there are certainly mountains that can't be passed by armies. This is not really a minor reality check error, it's a major one! You might just as well line up pencils for several hundred miles. Houses can't be impassables on large scale maps! Sorry for ranting about this but I feel like you need to hear it!

When has BA been several hundred miles long?
Try walking through a house and see what the police say?
houses are very good impassables for a city map. Roads would also make good impassables (London and many more). So would rivers (in Jakarta and other maps). House tend to be lined up orderly, they are called roads, most of them tend to be straight. As for forests not being able to be passed by armies, the French thought that in WW1 and 2. Mountains have always been able to go through, have you not heard of paths or passageways.
All I am say gillipig, is why cannot houses be used? and why should I make maps that are so bog standard they are two a penny on the site.

koontz1973 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Thanks CAPK, any GP that needs to be added or removed. I looked into the rivers/drainage systems, and there is one that could be used but it would be a new impassable and also a very long one. So will not add it. I know houses are not the bog standard map impassables but so what.

Houses doesn't make sense any sense as impassables. Mountains are impassables because they are hard to pass with armies, so are rivers and forests. Houses are never lined up so orderly that they form an impassable line several hundred miles long! There are forests that can't be passed by armies, there are rivers that can't be passed by armies, there are certainly mountains that can't be passed by armies. This is not really a minor reality check error, it's a major one! You might just as well line up pencils for several hundred miles. Houses can't be impassables on large scale maps! Sorry for ranting about this but I feel like you need to hear it!

When has BA been several hundred miles long?
Try walking through a house and see what the police say?
houses are very good impassables for a city map. Roads would also make good impassables (London and many more). So would rivers (in Jakarta and other maps). House tend to be lined up orderly, they are called roads, most of them tend to be straight. As for forests not being able to be passed by armies, the French thought that in WW1 and 2. Mountains have always been able to go through, have you not heard of paths or passageways.
All I am say gillipig, is why cannot houses be used? and why should I make maps that are so bog standard they are two a penny on the site.

Hmm. looks like I made blunder ! I remember thinking this was a map of Argentina when I wrote that. I don't like the houses but it's not unreasonable to have them as impassables in a city map. So ignore that comment please. Some days I should just stay off the computer!

Gillipig wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Thanks CAPK, any GP that needs to be added or removed. I looked into the rivers/drainage systems, and there is one that could be used but it would be a new impassable and also a very long one. So will not add it. I know houses are not the bog standard map impassables but so what.

Houses doesn't make sense any sense as impassables. Mountains are impassables because they are hard to pass with armies, so are rivers and forests. Houses are never lined up so orderly that they form an impassable line several hundred miles long! There are forests that can't be passed by armies, there are rivers that can't be passed by armies, there are certainly mountains that can't be passed by armies. This is not really a minor reality check error, it's a major one! You might just as well line up pencils for several hundred miles. Houses can't be impassables on large scale maps! Sorry for ranting about this but I feel like you need to hear it!

When has BA been several hundred miles long?
Try walking through a house and see what the police say?
houses are very good impassables for a city map. Roads would also make good impassables (London and many more). So would rivers (in Jakarta and other maps). House tend to be lined up orderly, they are called roads, most of them tend to be straight. As for forests not being able to be passed by armies, the French thought that in WW1 and 2. Mountains have always been able to go through, have you not heard of paths or passageways.
All I am say gillipig, is why cannot houses be used? and why should I make maps that are so bog standard they are two a penny on the site.

Hmm. looks like I made blunder ! I remember thinking this was a map of Argentina when I wrote that. I don't like the houses but it's not unreasonable to have them as impassables in a city map. So ignore that comment please. Some days I should just stay off the computer!

Not to worry.

This map wasn't stamped with the draft stamp yet so, following our guidelines, it can't be labeled as a vacation project.
I'm going to move it to ideas.

Hey i live in Belgrano! haha. Cool map bro... and about the pretty girls.... you are ABSOLUTLY RIGHT! haha

love it!

This one will come back, as soon as one of the others gets to the final forge.