Israel (V3.0)

by **natty dread** on Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:36 pm

Personally I think rotating it would be better, as it would reduce the scrolling. I have to scroll the current image and I don't even have a widescreen...

After rotating you'll have to re-trace the map and redraw the graphics, but that's something you're going to have to do anyway.

by **crazymilkshake5** on Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:08 pm

At the current size of the image, you would have to get it supersized, which it wouldnt pass the supersize standards, so the size would have to get changed... I could help if you want? i could do the graphics and you could do the XML?

cheers.

by **pitrules88** on Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:09 pm

I have been pm'ing with crazymilkshake5 - I just want to make it clear that he's going to play a significant role in the map-making process. So between the two of us, the map is going to be created.

by **natty dread** on Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:15 pm

crazymilkshake5 wrote:At the current size of the image, you would have to get it supersized, which it wouldnt pass the supersize standards

Milkshake, did you become a CA when I wasn't looking?

You have no business telling mapmakers that their map "won't pass supersize". That's up to the CA:s to decide.

by **crazymilkshake5** on Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:28 pm

Well sorry natty, god.

They would just say that it can fit within the normal map size, I'v been here long enough to know at least that much.

by **natty dread** on Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:19 pm

No need to apologize, but you shouldn't confuse new mapmakers - if you give advice about the foundry protocols you need to be sure it's correct.

As the map is currently, it would likely require some supersize. And the supersize guidelines aren't very strict anymore - maps have been given supersize for purely graphical reasons, it's always judged on a map-to-map basis.

Anyway, you do have a point, in that there are ways to make the map size more comfortable - overly long maps are annoying in that they require scrolling up & down... rotating the map slightly would get rid of this problem.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:49 pm

Hey, pitrules,

I've got some gameplay suggestions:

1) If one holds all the Palestinian terries, they get an extra bonus.

It might make the gameplay more interesting for 2-4 player scenarios.

2) If not all Palestinian terries, how about giving an extra bonus for holding an incremental amount of cities? (+2 for 3 cities, or something like that)?

3) Perhaps, have the Sinai Desert be represented by a "Bedouin base," which connects to all terries bordering the Sinai Desert?

That might make the map less static, or bottle-necked.

4) This one might be crazier, too complicated, or not useful enough:

Have checkpoints in between each territory. If you control the checkpoint, you control access in between the two territories.

For example, player 1 holds Hebron, and the Hebron-Shemesh checkpoint. Player 2 holds Dimona and the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint. Player 1 can only attack Shemesh (via the checkpoint), but can't attack Dimona from Hebron--unless Player 1 controls the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint.

by **natty dread** on Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:26 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:For example, player 1 holds Hebron, and the Hebron-Shemesh checkpoint. Player 2 holds Dimona and the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint. Player 1 can only attack Shemesh (via the checkpoint), but can't attack Dimona from Hebron--unless Player 1 controls the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint.

If I read this right, you'd want the borders between territories to be dependent on holding a checkpoint. This would require conditional borders which are not possible as of yet.

Or if you mean that there's simply a checkpoint between each territory and the territories don't border directly but only via the checkpoints, then that's doable.

by **crazymilkshake5** on Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:54 pm

First off, Ya'll do know that im doing the grafics for this map, right? and i like the checkpoint idea, ill run it by Pit

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:12 pm

natty dread wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:For example, player 1 holds Hebron, and the Hebron-Shemesh checkpoint. Player 2 holds Dimona and the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint. Player 1 can only attack Shemesh (via the checkpoint), but can't attack Dimona from Hebron--unless Player 1 controls the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint.

If I read this right, you'd want the borders between territories to be dependent on holding a checkpoint. This would require conditional borders which are not possible as of yet.

Or if you mean that there's simply a checkpoint between each territory and the territories don't border directly but only via the checkpoints, then that's doable.

This.

But it means that a checkpoint counts as a terry. And each original territory (before this checkpoint idea) should be represented with a central "checkpoint HQ," so to speak.

by **pitrules88** on Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:15 pm

I like the checkpoint idea, we'll see how it looks printed out. Crazymilkshake has taken over the design work as I think I ran into too many small issues along the way that would take a lot of time to correct - and as natty pointed it, it was too narrow and when I rotated it the whole thing it looked horrible. So basically I would have had to start from scratch with all the labelling. As I said, very time consuming, but I think crazymilkshake is on the right track.

by **Dukasaur** on Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:22 am

pitrules88 wrote:I like the checkpoint idea, we'll see how it looks printed out. Crazymilkshake has taken over the design work as I think I ran into too many small issues along the way that would take a lot of time to correct - and as natty pointed it, it was too narrow and when I rotated it the whole thing it looked horrible. So basically I would have had to start from scratch with all the labelling. As I said, very time consuming, but I think crazymilkshake is on the right track.

Not sure which solution you're going to end up using, but I would like to weigh in from a player's point of view: a map that requires scrolling is always annoying. Whatever you need to do to get it to fit on one screen, do it!

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:25 am

Dukasaur wrote:
pitrules88 wrote:I like the checkpoint idea, we'll see how it looks printed out. Crazymilkshake has taken over the design work as I think I ran into too many small issues along the way that would take a lot of time to correct - and as natty pointed it, it was too narrow and when I rotated it the whole thing it looked horrible. So basically I would have had to start from scratch with all the labelling. As I said, very time consuming, but I think crazymilkshake is on the right track.

Not sure which solution you're going to end up using, but I would like to weigh in from a player's point of view: a map that requires scrolling is always annoying. Whatever you need to do to get it to fit on one screen, do it!

or buy a bigger screen

by **BigBallinStalin** on Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:26 pm

So, any update on the Israel project?

by **crazymilkshake5** on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:04 pm

Not yet mate, I'm in the process of moving currently, so i dont have much time to do anything. sorry.

by **Industrial Helix** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:06 pm

This map would really benefit from some texture!

by **natty dread** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:18 pm

Why was this stickied?

by **pitrules88** on Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:57 am

because it's an awesome map idea

by **crazymilkshake5** on Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:29 pm

I sent pit the next version... just waiting for him to post it...

by **pitrules88** on Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:12 am

I have posted on the first page.

by **crazymilkshake5** on Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:38 am

So the next question, is how should we do the blockades?

by **joabl** on Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:52 am

pitrules88 wrote:It won't be easy to hold any of the bonuses because holding land in Israel has never been easy, just ask the Palestinians.[/b]

What do you mean just ask the Palestinians? If you're the one making this map, its probably best that you leave it up to someone who understands the history of the region. The Palestinians have never, not once, not for a second been in control of even several feet of land. The Jews on the other hand are the ones you should ask how difficult it has been to hold land. Israel was once called Israel before. But the Romans came in 70AD and destroyed Jerusalem, banished all Jews, and changed its name from Israel to Palestinia. Jews since then have often been called Palestinians. Legally in by documents, passports and ID cards. And by the obvious name change of the land. In fact Arabs refused to be called Palestinians and demanded they be called Arabs, not Palestinians until about the early 70's when they realized they needed a stronger cause to fight their position.

Also the Roman invasion of Israel in 70AD was not the first time the Jews have forcibly been taken from Israel. The Babylonians also came and destroyed everything taking during which the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon—conventionally 587–538 BCE.

So in short. Lets ask the Jews how difficult it has been to hold on land. And is there someone more capable of contributing to the creation of this map than pitrules88?

by **pitrules88** on Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Sure joabl, sounds like you're a candidate. If you want to write the xml for my map idea I am all for it. Go ahead and send me a paper on the history of Israel and we will try to include the key elements in the map.

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to improve this map for conquerclub gameplay, or changes in the graphics, we are very open to hearing this.

Thank you!

by **isaiah40** on Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:57 pm

joabl wrote:What do you mean just ask the Palestinians? If you're the one making this map, its probably best that you leave it up to someone who understands the history of the region. The Palestinians have never, not once, not for a second been in control of even several feet of land. The Jews on the other hand are the ones you should ask how difficult it has been to hold land. Israel was once called Israel before. But the Romans came in 70AD and destroyed Jerusalem, banished all Jews, and changed its name from Israel to Palestinia. Jews since then have often been called Palestinians. Legally in by documents, passports and ID cards. And by the obvious name change of the land. In fact Arabs refused to be called Palestinians and demanded they be called Arabs, not Palestinians until about the early 70's when they realized they needed a stronger cause to fight their position.

Also the Roman invasion of Israel in 70AD was not the first time the Jews have forcibly been taken from Israel. The Babylonians also came and destroyed everything taking during which the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon—conventionally 587–538 BCE.

So in short. Lets ask the Jews how difficult it has been to hold on land. And is there someone more capable of contributing to the creation of this map than pitrules88?

The Romans invaded Israel long before 70AD. They were in control of the area as early as 330 BCE, it was during the Great Jewish Revolt from 66 AD to 70AD that lead to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. But that is aside from the time frame and theme of this map. As was suggested earlier, it would be a good idea to have the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza not part of Israel, but make them as decaying neutrals - from fighting. Make sure that you have West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem to denote the Israeli-Arab division.