Conquer Club

zimmah wrote:

lostatlimbo wrote:Could the 3rd Artillery bombard the Supply Caravan back?

Seems like if you were trying to take a castle by siege, you would want to cut off their supply too.

I'm not sure if that would improve gameplay or not, but I'm a stickler for story.

realism-wise it'd make a whole lot more sense for an attacker to attack a supply caravan then vice versa but gameplay wise i'm not so sure.

you're both right

realism-wise the attacker would have huge forces and even get reinforcements while the defender would slowly starve until defeated or until it surrenders. but as we all know gameplay trumps realism. if i were to make this as realistic as possible the defender would probably have to lose the game each and every time

DiM wrote:

zimmah wrote:

lostatlimbo wrote:Could the 3rd Artillery bombard the Supply Caravan back?

Seems like if you were trying to take a castle by siege, you would want to cut off their supply too.

I'm not sure if that would improve gameplay or not, but I'm a stickler for story.

realism-wise it'd make a whole lot more sense for an attacker to attack a supply caravan then vice versa but gameplay wise i'm not so sure.

you're both right

realism-wise the attacker would have huge forces and even get reinforcements while the defender would slowly starve until defeated or until it surrenders. but as we all know gameplay trumps realism. if i were to make this as realistic as possible the defender would probably have to lose the game each and every time

and games would take months/years. oh wait, some games do.

but ye, you can only go so far with realism.

This si the first map in a in ages I cannot wait for!!

As interesting as this looks, the image doesn't need to be quite so big IMO.

ManBungalow wrote:As interesting as this looks, the image doesn't need to be quite so big IMO.

I think I tend to agree with ManB.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

ManBungalow wrote:As interesting as this looks, the image doesn't need to be quite so big IMO.

I think I tend to agree with ManB.


--Andy

as long as the interface does not change, all maps with a complex legend will give the false impression that they could be smaller.
if lack would go with something similar with landgrab or major command where the legend is separate and it pops-up only if needed and the terit names appear only on mouse hover then our maps would be much smaller, or fit much more terits within the same size.

take out the legend and terit names and i can make the small map at 500*450 and the large at 700*630.

anyway, i don't think the map is too big and here's why.
my small image will be 800*800 and it will look like this:

notice how the text already looks small, but i have some wiggle room and it can be arranged so that it is visible.
also see how some terit names are within millimetres of each other but still they don't clash and they're perfectly legible.

now if that image of 800*800 would be the large image then i'd have to go for a small one that's just 600*600

notice how the legend is impossible to read despite having an all caps very clear font.
and see how the terit names would have to be enlarged to the point where they'd clash in each other.


on almost all maps the image can be shrunk much more than the text. i can make the city half the current size and you'll still know it's a city. the houses will be smaller, the streets narrower, but it will still look like a city.
but the text can't be halved because while on an image you can miss details and still get the big picture, with text you have to see everything.

so i can probably reduce the large to 1000*1000 and make the small at 800*800 but anything bellow that will have huge legibility issues.

I personally prefer the bigger image ...

I think what Andy & Manboy are trying to say is that the territories are so far apart from each other, that it creates lots of unnecessary space. Especially in the sea. Maybe if you moved all the troops a bit closer to the center from the edges, and cropped the image a bit, you could save some space.

natty_dread wrote:I think what Andy & Manboy are trying to say is that the territories are so far apart from each other, that it creates lots of unnecessary space. Especially in the sea. Maybe if you moved all the troops a bit closer to the center from the edges, and cropped the image a bit, you could save some space.

i thought they might have thought of that but i'm not gonna do it. moving the ships around is pretty easy but what sort of bombardment is that if the ships are all grouped together?

also the main problem with making this smaller is the legend. even if i bring the ships closer and shave of a few pixels from the right side i'll still have the same amount of text in the legend

DiM wrote:also the main problem with making this smaller is the legend. even if i bring the ships closer and shave of a few pixels from the right side i'll still have the same amount of text in the legend

The middle part of the legend has lots of empty space on the sides though. You can make it narrower.

DiM wrote:what sort of bombardment is that if the ships are all grouped together?

Well I think keeping the image at a compact size should take priority - supersize is only supposed to be granted for maps that can't fit everything in normal size, not for giving the map more "realistic" graphics...

Although these days they seem to just pretty much give supersize to whoever asks for it so I'm sure you have no problem getting the map through as is

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:also the main problem with making this smaller is the legend. even if i bring the ships closer and shave of a few pixels from the right side i'll still have the same amount of text in the legend

The middle part of the legend has lots of empty space on the sides though. You can make it narrower.

DiM wrote:what sort of bombardment is that if the ships are all grouped together?

Well I think keeping the image at a compact size should take priority - supersize is only supposed to be granted for maps that can't fit everything in normal size, not for giving the map more "realistic" graphics...

the little space i have in the legend will be filled to the brim in the small map. take a look at the images i posted above and you'll see how much the text needs to be scaled up to be made visible. so regardless how much space i save by cramping the ships together it won't mean anything because i can't make the legend much smaller.

here's a resize of the map to 800*800 (my small) notice how the text in the legend fills everything up?
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/ClashofKings-L.jpg

now ofcourse i could jam al the ships together but that wouldn't help a bit. in fact it would jut cause the map to look imbalanced with a lot of unused space in the lower part and filled to the brim in the upper part. the way i have it now makes use of space in a very balanced manner.

Well, you could always redraw & rearrange the legend to make it fit in the new image... I'm sure you'd manage.

natty_dread wrote:Well, you could always redraw & rearrange the legend to make it fit in the new image... I'm sure you'd manage.

i can reshape and rearrange the legend all i want, the text still needs to fit and what i take from the width i must add to the height. so instead of a nice rectangular map i'd end up with a rectangular tall map. of all the types of maps, rectangular tall is the worst cause it involves the most scrolling since most displays are wide.

No, what I mean is you have lots of extra graphical stuff in the legend you can scrap to make the legend more compact. Have one box, instead of 3, and cut down on the fancy clip art a bit... You could easily reduce the image size by around 100 pixels both width & height.

natty_dread wrote:No, what I mean is you have lots of extra graphical stuff in the legend you can scrap to make the legend more compact. Have one box, instead of 3, and cut down on the fancy clip art a bit... You could easily reduce the image size by around 100 pixels both width & height.

yeah and i also have some fancy sea and grass and walls.
i could maybe replace all the graphics with 40 circles for terit names and some arrows showing the connections.
could probably fit it all in 200*200 px.
then we'd call it IMAGINATION map cause you'd have the chance of imagining whatever theme and setting you feel like

if first nations americas got approved with over 40% dead space then i surely won't start erasing my fancy title and legend to save a few pixels.
800*800 for small map is the bare minimum i need in order to preserve theme aspect and legibility.

This one looks good enough for a sticky.

DiM wrote:yeah and i also have some fancy sea and grass and walls.
i could maybe replace all the graphics with 40 circles for terit names and some arrows showing the connections.
could probably fit it all in 200*200 px.
then we'd call it IMAGINATION map cause you'd have the chance of imagining whatever theme and setting you feel like

No, the grass and walls would stay. You wouldn't have to remove any other graphics, just make the title more compact. I don't see why you act like I'm suggesting something other than what I'm actually suggesting.

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:yeah and i also have some fancy sea and grass and walls.
i could maybe replace all the graphics with 40 circles for terit names and some arrows showing the connections.
could probably fit it all in 200*200 px.
then we'd call it IMAGINATION map cause you'd have the chance of imagining whatever theme and setting you feel like

No, the grass and walls would stay. You wouldn't have to remove any other graphics, just make the title more compact. I don't see why you act like I'm suggesting something other than what I'm actually suggesting.

i was making a point. i'm not gonna cut the fancy frames and make a squishy title and cramp all the ships and troops together just to save 50 pixels on either side when a map like first nations americas has 40% of his surface with nothing but dead space. that indian image is as big as the fortress on this map. if tisha was allowed to do that, then i can surely have my title and frames

DiM wrote:i was making a point. i'm not gonna cut the fancy frames and make a squishy title and cramp all the ships and troops together just to save 50 pixels on either side when a map like first nations americas has 40% of his surface with nothing but dead space. that indian image is as big as the fortress on this map. if tisha was allowed to do that, then i can surely have my title and frames

Listen... this is nothing personal against you. But when I was making the Antarctica map, I asked if I could get 40 extra pixels of height for the map, above the standard 800 pixel limit. The answer was that I could do it without, all I had to do was fudge up the geography of the map and move the northernmost island south a bit.

And now I see the standards for supersize map are pretty much "ask and you shall receive". It used to be that supersize was only granted when the map could not be done in regular size. There had to be a gameplay justification for the increased size, ie. it wasn't granted just to make the graphics fancy.

Even Tisha's map, it has empty space and Indian images only because of the shape of the land mass. It doesn't have supersize just to add extra graphics to the map, but the extra graphics are added to the empty spaces between land areas.


Anyway, more to the point... this map is one I think can well be done with smaller size, even keeping the fancy graphical elements of the map. What if you make the legend narrower & higher, then reduce the width & height of the image, and then arrange all the territories in the space you have? That way you'll have a more compact image and you don't have to sacrifice your graphics for it.

I made this mock-up to show what I mean. It has 100 pixels less of both dimensions.

Here's the same in 80% size, which is a 760 * 776:

zimmah wrote:

lostatlimbo wrote:Could the 3rd Artillery bombard the Supply Caravan back?

Seems like if you were trying to take a castle by siege, you would want to cut off their supply too.

I'm not sure if that would improve gameplay or not, but I'm a stickler for story. :)

realism-wise it'd make a whole lot more sense for an attacker to attack a supply caravan then vice versa but gameplay wise i'm not so sure.

Would it really hurt to have a two way bombardment there? I don't think it changes that much.

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:i was making a point. i'm not gonna cut the fancy frames and make a squishy title and cramp all the ships and troops together just to save 50 pixels on either side when a map like first nations americas has 40% of his surface with nothing but dead space. that indian image is as big as the fortress on this map. if tisha was allowed to do that, then i can surely have my title and frames ;)

Listen... this is nothing personal against you. But when I was making the Antarctica map, I asked if I could get 40 extra pixels of height for the map, above the standard 800 pixel limit. The answer was that I could do it without, all I had to do was fudge up the geography of the map and move the northernmost island south a bit.

And now I see the standards for supersize map are pretty much "ask and you shall receive". It used to be that supersize was only granted when the map could not be done in regular size. There had to be a gameplay justification for the increased size, ie. it wasn't granted just to make the graphics fancy.

Even Tisha's map, it has empty space and Indian images only because of the shape of the land mass. It doesn't have supersize just to add extra graphics to the map, but the extra graphics are added to the empty spaces between land areas.


Anyway, more to the point... this map is one I think can well be done with smaller size, even keeping the fancy graphical elements of the map. What if you make the legend narrower & higher, then reduce the width & height of the image, and then arrange all the territories in the space you have? That way you'll have a more compact image and you don't have to sacrifice your graphics for it.

There's plenty of former restrictions that have been loosened in the spirit of making more involved maps. There's no reason to restrict something solely on previous guidelines. DiM's small seems like a perfectly reasonable size to me and everything is clear. Thats all that matters, imo.

lostatlimbo wrote:DiM's small seems like a perfectly reasonable size to me and everything is clear. Thats all that matters, imo.

It's not really. A map that is unnecessarily large is simply inconvenient for the players. There's more scrolling, etc. So from an ergonomics point of view, map images should only be as big as necessary to portray the gameplay clearly.

natty_dread wrote:

lostatlimbo wrote:DiM's small seems like a perfectly reasonable size to me and everything is clear. Thats all that matters, imo.

It's not really. A map that is unnecessarily large is simply inconvenient for the players. There's more scrolling, etc. So from an ergonomics point of view, map images should only be as big as necessary to portray the gameplay clearly.

I dont have to scroll to look at it?
Is it being clear to every player LESS important?
Funny here you want maps to look perfect BUT when they do you want to shrink them so they dont?