Forum

by **ZeakCytho** on Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:51 pm

The red background for the top bit of the map (with the title, etc.) is very strong. I don't like the sharp contrast between that and the ocean/land right below it, but maybe others do? Personally, I'd make it a less bold red.

Also, the pictures of people in the title bar (I assume Hannibal and Scipio?) look a bit odd, with one having a white background and the other a grey one. Could you make them constant, preferably both with that grey background? And maybe label the pictures underneath, since you have room.

Someone mentioned this before, and I think I agree now. It looks a bit odd that the sea gets darker closer to land, when real oceans have the opposite effect. I'd keep the deep water the same color it is now and try to lighten the coasts. There's a good chance it will look like crap, though.

Nice job on making the font uniform - it's all legible to me. I'd still like to see it bigger, but you do have some very tight areas, so if you don't think you have room, then keep it as is.

I'm not a huge fan of the purple color used for the Carthaginian territories...is there a specific reason why it's purple? Some other color may work better...maybe green? I like the Roman red.

by **Ruben Cassar** on Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:33 pm

ZeakCytho wrote:The red background for the top bit of the map (with the title, etc.) is very strong. I don't like the sharp contrast between that and the ocean/land right below it, but maybe others do? Personally, I'd make it a less bold red.

I toned it down already from the original red. I think I like it as it is.

ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the pictures of people in the title bar (I assume Hannibal and Scipio?) look a bit odd, with one having a white background and the other a grey one. Could you make them constant, preferably both with that grey background? And maybe label the pictures underneath, since you have room.

I think I can make the background similar yes. Hadn't actually thought about that. I can also add the names.

ZeakCytho wrote:Someone mentioned this before, and I think I agree now. It looks a bit odd that the sea gets darker closer to land, when real oceans have the opposite effect. I'd keep the deep water the same color it is now and try to lighten the coasts. There's a good chance it will look like crap, though.

Hmm I am very satisfied with the sea as it is in this new version. The colour and texture are ideal for me and I don't think I will be touching them anymore. Of course I am sure not everyone will like them. It's a matter of personal taste at the end of the day.

ZeakCytho wrote:Nice job on making the font uniform - it's all legible to me. I'd still like to see it bigger, but you do have some very tight areas, so if you don't think you have room, then keep it as is.

Thanks. I'd like it to be bigger as well but I don't think I can. Once I have the XML ready with the army numbers in their appropriate territories I will check if I can increase the size a bit more.

ZeakCytho wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the purple color used for the Carthaginian territories...is there a specific reason why it's purple? Some other color may work better...maybe green? I like the Roman red.

Hmm many of the historical maps I checked out seemed to use red and purple. Romans are most of the time depicted in red. I assume that's because the legions used to wear red. I don't know if the Carthaginians had any specific colour but as I told you many maps depict their territories in purple and I like the colour. Definitely more than green!

Thanks for your comments Zeak. No one has commented on the gameplay so far but I guess that will come at a later stage.

by **Ruben Cassar** on Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:12 am

Gimil any chance of moving this one to an advanced idea to get a bit more exposure?

I mean I don't like to complain or anything but I think I have all the requirements to get the idea stamp already on this one and I still haven't reached advanced ideas stamp!

by **gimil** on Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:48 am

Rubean your such a windge some times!

[adv. idea]

by **Ruben Cassar** on Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:16 am

gimil wrote:Rubean your such a windge some times!

[adv. idea]

*pondering what windge means* Gimil...I am still trying to evaluate whether you spell my name wrongly on purpose or whether it's a genuine spelling mistake. I'm sure I will come up with an answer one of these days!

by **gimil** on Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:32 am

Ruben Cassar wrote:
gimil wrote:Rubean your such a windge some times!

[adv. idea]

*pondering what windge means* Gimil...I am still trying to evaluate whether you spell my name wrongly on purpose or whether it's a genuine spelling mistake. I'm sure I will come up with an answer one of these days!

maybe one day ill tell ya

by **TaCktiX** on Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:25 pm

I think the one bone I have is that the entire legend mentions starting neutrals and whatever else. People will be able to SEE the starting neutrals when they join a game. People will be able to SEE where everybody else started. It seems like the legend is making concessions for people with observation skills nonexistent (a bad problem in a game like CC).

Otherwise, I really like the map concept and I think you could go lots of places with it, provided there are a few neutral adjustments here and there (I think they're all too steep right now).

by **Ruben Cassar** on Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:02 am

TaCktiX wrote:I think the one bone I have is that the entire legend mentions starting neutrals and whatever else. People will be able to SEE the starting neutrals when they join a game. People will be able to SEE where everybody else started. It seems like the legend is making concessions for people with observation skills nonexistent (a bad problem in a game like CC).

Otherwise, I really like the map concept and I think you could go lots of places with it, provided there are a few neutral adjustments here and there (I think they're all too steep right now).

Hi Tacktix. I prefer to add more info in the legend so that all people who play the map understand it. Personally I don't usually play this style of map and I always have a difficulty to understand the more complex maps. Some extra info won't do any harm.

I agree with you that the neutrals need some adjustment but so far I haven't had any input on the gameplay aspect from the community. Hopefully when this gets into the main foundry more people like oak and gimil will make gameplay comments and we'll be able to look into that issue.

by **gimil** on Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:40 pm

I dont want you in here anymore.

by **Kaplowitz** on Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:49 pm

Gimil! Have some consistency! I understand your argument that Ruben is a great mapmaker (and don't get me wrong. I love the map, its gorgeous!) but a lot of newbies get confused when a map is moved so fast. Since [adv. idea] there has been one comment, a reply and a stamp! Couldn't you at least wait for another update?!

Well anyway congratz.

Some small gfx things:
-the purple dots from Cartenna to P/Cornelius Scipio look too big, fuzzy, and close together. Same with the one from Zama.
-I really dont like the thick border around the islands, could you make it thinner? It's just my opinion though.
-Could you enlarge Melita a bit? It took me a while to see.
-Could you make the attack lines through the water a little easier to see?
-Can you make the border between Tarraco and Massilia a little more noticeable?
-Can you make the BG of the picture of Hannibal the same is the picture of Cornelius?

Its looking great!

by **edbeard** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:18 pm

the terrain looks really good. How long did it take to do all that?

don't you think some of the starting points are too close together? Numantia and Derdosa for example. you almost have to try to take each other out early in the game. Especially if someone gets bad dice to start.

same thing with the Pirates and the bottom right start.

The worst is Ticinus and Illyria. Ticinus must take out Verona to do anything. Either can probably take out the other player without them taking a turn

by **oaktown** on Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:12 pm

welcome back to the foundry Ruben. I'll give this map a good look in the coming days, and I'll be stamping this one myself when the time comes.

by **oaktown** on Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:57 am

Ruben Cassar wrote:This map will be part of what I hope to be a three part series... I also plan to make two versions of each map. One version of the maps will be utilising a conquest/objective gameplay while the other will be using a classic gameplay.

So, this is going to be six maps when all is said and done? I think I'd settle on either the conquest or the classic version.

Overall it sounds interesting. I both like and dislike the idea of escalating neutral values; I like the fact that it might get players off their duffs and force them to start fighting earlier, but I'm concerned that slow games could be made even slower if those neutrals get too large and clog up the works. But since this idea isn't XML-ready anyway it may not matter.

One little thing that would make it far easier to analyze the gameplay on this map is if you could put the starting neutral values on the circles themselves... right now I'm constantly referring back and forth between the map, the legend, and the first post.

by **Ruben Cassar** on Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:04 am

Hi guys. Just wanted to let you know that I have been reading your feedback and that I will comment / post updates in the coming days.

Unfortunately right now I'm swamped with real life matters but keep that feedback coming. It's much appreciated. Thanks.

by **Blitzaholic** on Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:04 am

Ruben Cassar wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Ruben, I am excited you are attempting another map with more than a handful of territories. Good luck,

--Andy

Hehe.

It's hard to put in more territories with the current map size restrictions!