Conquer Club

The New World [Quenched]

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:24 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:i think the colors should be more clear to distiguish
Is it that hard? Where is the most trouble? Need to know before we can help.
Last edited by Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby Unit_2 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:26 pm

how about you chnage it to "Louisania" since that was what it was called, there where only about 50 native american tribes there and none were stronge, and if you do change it to "Louisania" or "French" change the "French" to "Iroquois", where the French are on your map is where the Iroquois were in real life and the French owned the top thats not on the map.(and the landing point on your map is right but below there is where the Iroquois were)
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class Unit_2
 
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, U.S.A, North America, Earth, Milky Way, Universe.

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:28 pm

That would break what we are trying to do though. Lets say this is earlier then Louisania.

The Souix are more western, I'd still want it to be a Native American alliance of tribes. Beyond Souix and Iroquois I'm not sure of what most people know though. I don't want to grab another abstract name like the Mapuches.

Besides, the change of movement by the French in this reality may have pushed the Iroquois west.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby Unit_2 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:31 pm

You could use the Comanche, they had some good power.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class Unit_2
 
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, U.S.A, North America, Earth, Milky Way, Universe.

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:32 pm

Unit_2 wrote:You could use the Comanche, they had some good power.
If gimil isn't loathe to change I'd run with that. I'm not sure how much it solves your complaint, but I do know that the Iroquois are supposed to be where we put the French which is probably frustrating you.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:46 pm

Version 5

Changes
    Iroquois to Comanche
    Fixed some neutrals.
    Border adjustment for Aztecs
Image
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby wcaclimbing on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:53 pm

try making the continents lighter than the ocean brown. make them pop out a bit more.
Image
User avatar
Private 1st Class wcaclimbing
 
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: In your quantum box....Maybe.

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:54 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:try making the continents lighter than the ocean brown. make them pop out a bit more.
They are already, do you mean even brighter then? I'm not sure how that would work, guess that's a gimil level suggestion I can't help with.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby gimil on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:57 pm

wcaclimbing wrote:try making the continents lighter than the ocean brown. make them pop out a bit more.


Increase brightest is an easy possibility, i could also increase the outer shadow instead to help the continets stick out. If i make them to light some on the colors may not stick out.
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:02 pm

I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.

I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.

Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.

We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. :? Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.

I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.

EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby owenshooter on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:12 pm

i like it, cool idea... is sacajwea going to be her own bonus territory?-0
User avatar
Lieutenant owenshooter
 
Posts: 13051
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx

Postby gimil on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:13 pm

Coleman wrote:I see something, we need to bump Aztecs 1 up by 1.

I think a drop in Aztec 3 to 3 would be fine to compensate.

Reason is a 10v10 situation pops up if Aztecs homeland rushes for Comanche homeland first turn or vice versa.

We could also bump up that dock... Docks maybe should be 4 anyways. :? Would slow a Mapuches rush for Aztecs or Comanche if we did.

I don't like rushes you know. People should be safe for at least 1 round.

EDIT: Comanche 1 should be 2 not 4.


I rather keep it even. Give me a number of neutrals and ill rework the terrs so that there is a minimum number of neutrals between any two homelands
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)

Postby Lone.prophet on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:14 pm

uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear
Image
Captain Lone.prophet
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:37 pm
Location: Your basement Muahaha

Postby gimil on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:15 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:uhhh i didnt even see the names behind the territoria maybe make them more clear


I plan on redoing these at some point since i personally dont like there blandness atm :)
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)

Postby yeti_c on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:35 pm

Loving this - not quite sure about the brown - but it might grow on me!!!

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby Chirondom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:41 pm

In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Corporal Chirondom
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:51 pm

Postby gimil on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:45 pm

Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?


Not likely, with a high number of neutrals to go through. There a few placement unbalanced ive going to fix in the next update.
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:46 pm

Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby tim02 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:13 pm

gimil wrote:
Coleman wrote:First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.


there was lots of kissing . . .

(im not gay either, although coleman was rather tender)


:shock:
Highest/Current
Score: 2900
User avatar
Colonel tim02
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:51 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:49 pm

Still not gay, Version 6

Image
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby gimil on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:58 pm

Coleman wrote:Still not gay


No one said you where . . .
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)

Postby oaktown on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:58 pm

As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand

Postby Coleman on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:01 pm

oaktown wrote:As you have probably already figured out, I'm a fan of the antique map look!

there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.

In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(
Possibly, It should be more obvious in live play. Are the watermark names not visible for you?

Back to the cut off, not sure what to do there, gimil level response required again.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Postby gimil on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:06 pm

oaktown wrote:there's a port on the eastern coast of S. America - can it attack the port in eastern canada? Same ocean, but the way the map cuts off it suggests that there is no route.


This is an issue ill look into.

oaktown wrote:In looking at the map I'm unclear about the landing areas... which one is which? Maybe this is one of those color blind things. :(


This is a concern, are you confused with all of them oaktown? Or is there jsut paticular one that confuse you?
What do you know about map making, bitch?

natty_dread wrote:I was wrong


Top Score:2403
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class gimil
 
Posts: 8599
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom (Scotland)

Postby Chirondom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:28 pm

Coleman wrote:
Chirondom wrote:In a two player game, couldn't the first player eliminate the other one on his first turn?
Not likely. The landing zones are auto deploy, they would each have 3, there is no telling where they would be. They wouldn't have enough territories to place more then 3 on their own. It would be like normal only 2 of the starting zones would be retarded (not getting another 3 to deploy).
Oh, the European territories can't attack each other?
Corporal Chirondom
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users