Conquer Club

koontz1973 wrote:

Oneyed wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed, Trench warfare, change to Static warfare as the sites setting of the same name will cause this a lot of confusion.

I do not understand here... btw, what is confused on Trench warfare when it was Trench warfare?

Trench warfare may be just that, but with the sites setting called Trench, I can guarantee that you will be asked more than once why they cannot attack past this point when they are not playing trench games. Trench warfare may of been slow progress but progress was made so to have trenches as impassables would not be correct anyway.

They are passable through the armies though, so I think it's still a valid idea.
How about calling them "trenches" rather than "trench warfare"?

Love the map, by the way. Keep it up.

There is an inconsistency between names rendered in English (Moscow, Naples) and name rendered in local language (Wien.) I would go either all English (Moscow, Naples, Vienna) or all local (Moskva, Napoli, Wien.)

Personally I would prefer the local variant for flavour, but all-English works okay too. As long as it's one or the other, consistent, either would be acceptable to most people.

Also, during WWI Petersburg was renamed Petrograd. This is valid in both English and Russian.

I would like to see a city in Belgium and in general 2 or 3 more cities in Western Europe. I realize it is a crowded area and they will be hard to fit, but for historicity I think it's important to give weight to the economic importance of the industrialized West relative to the agricultural East.

If you could somehow squeeze in Montenegro I think that will give some historical feel, considering how amazing was the Montenegrin performance in the first year of WWI despite its tiny size and eventual doom. Again, I realize it's a crowded area, but I think with some twiddling it can be done.

Dukasaur, I was just about to post the same thing about the names. Also, Oneyed, first post, please only have the most current version on display. If you want people to decide over different versions, direct them to it with the title of the thread.

Have you decided on which direction you are going with the armies?

tokle wrote:They are passable through the armies though, so I think it's still a valid idea.
How about calling them "trenches" rather than "trench warfare"?

Trenches sounds good. renamed.

tokle wrote:Love the map, by the way. Keep it up.

thank you. I think this not needs to be the final version, I am realy open to extra ideas. for example I have still quandary what about Battle sites as they were in previous version. hold them? kick them?

Dukasaur wrote:Also, during WWI Petersburg was renamed Petrograd. This is valid in both English and Russian.

renamed. also Vienna. thanks.

Dukasaur wrote:I would like to see a city in Belgium

me too. but there is realy not space.

Dukasaur wrote:and in general 2 or 3 more cities in Western Europe. I realize it is a crowded area and they will be hard to fit, but for historicity I think it's important to give weight to the economic importance of the industrialized West relative to the agricultural East.

will think about this. I can see 1 for France and maybe 1 for Germany...

Dukasaur wrote:If you could somehow squeeze in Montenegro I think that will give some historical feel, considering how amazing was the Montenegrin performance in the first year of WWI despite its tiny size and eventual doom. Again, I realize it's a crowded area, but I think with some twiddling it can be done.

Montenegro is in

koontz1973 wrote:Have you decided on which direction you are going with the armies?

I found another possibility - I like it the most


thank you guys for advices.

Oneyed

I like that idea. Clean and simple. One thing, it might be nice to see it in the legend as well to clear it all up for players.

Here is a sticky for you. But get that first post tidied up please. Oneyed, wit the new abandoned maps policy, are you ready for this to get stamped or would you like it here for a bit longer?

koontz1973 wrote:I like that idea. Clean and simple. One thing, it might be nice to see it in the legend as well to clear it all up for players.

thank you. yes I also thought about this and I found how to add this to legend.

koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed, wit the new abandoned maps policy, are you ready for this to get stamped or would you like it here for a bit longer?

as you can see I am not sure about Battle sites (for example). I need some more opinions and advices about this (and also more). because I want to do this map (as you and nobodies mentioned) very special. so this map could wait for a while here BUT it looks that Drafting Room is not visited too often and by much people. so moving this map could helps for more opinions and interest. I have no fear because new abandoned policy - this map will be finished .

so if you also think that moving this one could helps, please move it.
btw, could you delete poll? thanks.

the main question is if go with Battle sites (version 02) or without Battle sites (version 01). do not look at worst graphics in the version 02 (I will change it if the decision will be that version 02 is better).

version 01


version 02


Oneyed

some last noticed added



Oneyed

Nice job.

I'm glad the Montenegrins got their country back...

Dijon and Munich are good choices for extra cities.

I like the armies facing each other. Originally I thought they should all be different, to reflect different war zones (machineguns in France, horses in Russia, and so on) but I think what you've done actually looks neater.

I was going to say that Constantinople should be Istanbul, but then I checked and that doesn't become official until 1930, so you're right again!

When I have more time I'll try to improve some of your English in the legend. Probably not this week, but it's probably not important until late in the process, anyway.

Dukasaur wrote:Nice job.

thanks

Dukasaur wrote:I like the armies facing each other. Originally I thought they should all be different, to reflect different war zones (machineguns in France, horses in Russia, and so on) but I think what you've done actually looks neater.

"neater" is exact word for current version because I´ve tried different look of armies, but I do not like it:

Dukasaur wrote:When I have more time I'll try to improve some of your English in the legend. Probably not this week, but it's probably not important until late in the process, anyway.

looking forward. thanks for your input.

Oneyed

Here you go Oneyed.

Good luck in the MF.

koontz

thanks koontz

Oneyed

One suggestion I have about the armies is that you should try turning one of them on its axis, so that they face each other.

tokle wrote:One suggestion I have about the armies is that you should try turning one of them on its axis, so that they face each other.

good point



Oneyed

new graphics, new fonts.



Oneyed

Looks good, but I think your last version was actually better, IMO. Personally I liked the solid colors especially for the water, I also think the solid background made the legend text more legible. Although, I do think if you go back with the previous version the legends could use to be a little lighter in color.

Seamus76 wrote:Looks good, but I think your last version was actually better, IMO.

thanks. not everything was better...

Seamus76 wrote:Personally I liked the solid colors especially for the water, I also think the solid background made the legend text more legible.

the better readable legend was because another font. will see if will be needed to change current font.

Seamus76 wrote:Although, I do think if you go back with the previous version the legends could use to be a little lighter in color.

I "united" both versions to this one:


thanks for your input Seamus

Oneyed

Honestly I can't read the text in the legends, and I do think the English needs to be fixed before the GP stamp can be issued.

Why no uboats?

nolefan5311 wrote:Honestly I can't read the text in the legends, and I do think the English needs to be fixed before the GP stamp can be issued.

I work on new version and I will also edit current one with better font in legend. hm, wait with GP stamp for new vesion.

zimmah wrote:Why no uboats?

maybe I add them to new version. but to be honest there could be much more things, but there is not enough space for everything.

thanks guys for your inputs.

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:maybe I add them to new version. but to be honest there could be much more things, but there is not enough space for everything.

Oneyed

Oneyed, you where allowed to go larger, why not use that extra space?

koontz1973 wrote:Oneyed, you where allowed to go larger, why not use that extra space?

I work on new version where will be more things.
I not use supersize because I am not sure if I want it. there ae also much people who dislike supersized maps...
to be honest I could use supersize more for WWII map.

Oneyed

Question, is the Soviet Union a one territory bonus?

Industrial Helix wrote:Question, is the Soviet Union a one territory bonus?

no. you need hold Petrograd, Moscow, Samara and Russia. if this is not clear I am open to any advice how to do it more visible

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:

Click image to enlarge.

I haven't really commented on this map because I loved it. I think this version is far better then the recent updates. You don't need the land patterns or coastline shadows or anything.

I think I'm in agreement with RJ's post above.


--Andy