Forum

by **Evil DIMwit** on Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:59 pm

Not yet.

by **ender516** on Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:50 pm

Working on it.

by **MrBenn** on Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:03 pm

ender516 wrote:Working on it.

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

by **ender516** on Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:15 pm

MrBenn wrote:
ender516 wrote: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.

by **RedFlyingGolf** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:00 am

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?

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:12 pm

RedFlyingGolf wrote:
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.

by **RedFlyingGolf** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:19 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:
RedFlyingGolf wrote:
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

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:25 pm

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.

by **RedFlyingGolf** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote: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

by **ender516** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:33 pm

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.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:39 am

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.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:29 am

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.

by **Leehar** on Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:03 am

Evil DIMwit wrote: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

by **Ffraid** on Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:29 am

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.