Conquer Club

Current version 3:

show: older versions

The Angevin Empire ca. 1154, within the setting of the Kingdom of the French. The border territories in the east are regions that were nominally part of the Holy Roman Empire but in practical terms were controlled by the French king.

86 regions.
16 bonus regions. 7 non-bonus regions (German terits in the east).
Paris, Anjou, Deheubart, Noyon, Reims and Langres to start with 3 neutral. Which leaves 80 starting locations.

Now we're talking...

What are the Seigneuries ecclastatiques in terms of significance and why do they have a different bonus structure?

A lot of the bonuses are too small so they would have to have starting neutrals on them... Are you willing to combine a few of the tiny bonuses or would you rather leave them? It would certainly make France more powerful and contested than Britain.

Lastly... you're graphics are all pixelated, which is a shame because I like where this map is going. What software are you using?

Industrial Helix wrote:What are the Seigneuries ecclastatiques in terms of significance and why do they have a different bonus structure?

They are counties held by the church, they would have been treated differently during feudal wars. And they were goverened with a large degree of autonomy from the French crown.

Industrial Helix wrote:A lot of the bonuses are too small so they would have to have starting neutrals on them... Are you willing to combine a few of the tiny bonuses or would you rather leave them? It would certainly make France more powerful and contested than Britain.

I would rather not combine any of the bonus areas, unless absolutely neccessary. Maybe I could add some more regions to them?
France was by far more powerful than Britain. Both Henry II and Richard I, at the height of the Angevin Empire, spent practically all their time in France. In Britain power should be in England, the rest of the bonus regions should be more marginal.
The bonus reinforcements I put down are mostly just random numbers, just to write something, I haven't given them much thought yet.

Industrial Helix wrote:Lastly... you're graphics are all pixelated, which is a shame because I like where this map is going. What software are you using?

I'm using photoshop 7. but I'm not very technically experienced with it.

Well... then you're going to have to clog up the smaller bonuses with player starting points or starting neutrals if you're unwilling to change the bonus sizes... adding territories could work as well but I think its congested in places enough...

As for the graphics... photoshop 7? Isn't that the ancient version from the 90s? If so, you might have to get an update somewhere as I'm unfamiliar with its capabilities. I'm on CS2, so I can at least help you get the graphics up to snuff and walk you through trouble spots you're having.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well... then you're going to have to clog up the smaller bonuses with player starting points or starting neutrals if you're unwilling to change the bonus sizes... adding territories could work as well but I think its congested in places enough...

As for the graphics... photoshop 7? Isn't that the ancient version from the 90s? If so, you might have to get an update somewhere as I'm unfamiliar with its capabilities. I'm on CS2, so I can at least help you get the graphics up to snuff and walk you through trouble spots you're having.

The border lines are the only thing that looks "off". It looks like a pencil, instead of a brush was used.

porkenbeans wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:Well... then you're going to have to clog up the smaller bonuses with player starting points or starting neutrals if you're unwilling to change the bonus sizes... adding territories could work as well but I think its congested in places enough...

As for the graphics... photoshop 7? Isn't that the ancient version from the 90s? If so, you might have to get an update somewhere as I'm unfamiliar with its capabilities. I'm on CS2, so I can at least help you get the graphics up to snuff and walk you through trouble spots you're having.

The border lines are the only thing that looks "off". It looks like a pencil, instead of a brush was used.

I probably did...
I guess I could draw them again using a brush. That wouldn't take too much.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well... then you're going to have to clog up the smaller bonuses with player starting points or starting neutrals if you're unwilling to change the bonus sizes... adding territories could work as well but I think its congested in places enough...

what does it mean to clog up the bonuses with player starting points?

Industrial Helix wrote:As for the graphics... photoshop 7? Isn't that the ancient version from the 90s? If so, you might have to get an update somewhere as I'm unfamiliar with its capabilities. I'm on CS2, so I can at least help you get the graphics up to snuff and walk you through trouble spots you're having.

Yeah, it's pretty old. never had any reason to upgrade it.

Well, if you're happy working with photoshop 7 then no need to complain I guess.

As for starting positons, the XML allows for the mapmker to write in, well, starting positions on a map. So essentially, you can pick eight territories and the game engine thing will assign those randomly, 1 position to each player. This prevents players from dropping a bonus before the start of their turn and gaining an unfair advantage over other players.

I like this concept. There are a lot of little areas where the text gets mixed up in the borders. Could you lose the black borders and maybe border each territory with the color of the bonus? Despite the pixilation it's not a bad rough draft.

good theme... and I like map. also bonuses looks interesting.
yes, it is a little pixelated but why all maps must have the same style?

I´m only afraid how the map will looks in small version. there are some very small areas and names of territories too close...

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, if you're happy working with photoshop 7 then no need to complain I guess.

As for starting positons, the XML allows for the mapmker to write in, well, starting positions on a map. So essentially, you can pick eight territories and the game engine thing will assign those randomly, 1 position to each player. This prevents players from dropping a bonus before the start of their turn and gaining an unfair advantage over other players.

So then, coding Wales, Normandy, Brittany and Blois as eight starting positions and having Anjou and Paris start as neutral would solve those issues?

theBastard wrote:good theme... and I like map. also bonuses looks interesting.
yes, it is a little pixelated but why all maps must have the same style?

I´m only afraid how the map will looks in small version. there are some very small areas and names of territories too close...

I added a small version.

GSP JR wrote:I like this concept. There are a lot of little areas where the text gets mixed up in the borders. Could you lose the black borders and maybe border each territory with the color of the bonus? Despite the pixilation it's not a bad rough draft.

I'll look into it. See if I can find anything that works better.

Cut down the number of territories. You have the army circles of 7 territories in your legend. While this may seem like a neat trick to cram in lots of territories in a small area, in practice it will be very frustrating for players.

An inset would be better, but that may be hard/impossible to do since those territories are so spread out.

Cut back the territories, nobody cares if the map isn't 100% geographically accurate.

Cut back the territories, nobody cares if the map isn't 100% geographically accurate.

Actually, some of us really do and play these maps exactly because we enjoy historical accuracy.

That being said, the problem of the size of the eccelsiastic teritories is real.

You could do this:

Raskholnikov wrote:

Cut back the territories, nobody cares if the map isn't 100% geographically accurate.

Actually, some of us really do and play these maps exactly because we enjoy historical accuracy.

Ok, ok. A very small minority cares if the map isn't 100% geographically accurate. Most of CC just enjoys a good gameplay.

Better?

Also, that solution doesn't really work IMO - a huge inset like that looks kinda horrible.

I kind of liked the idea of having the army circles in the legend. Are you sure that it's not at all a feasible option?

As for the inset idea, Langres and Velay are probably large enough to allow the inset to only cover the terits in the north.

tokle wrote:I kind of liked the idea of having the army circles in the legend. Are you sure that it's not at all a feasible option?

I know how it is... when making a map, you often get a "great" idea you want to implement right away, without stopping to think how it will affect the gameplay.

A good rule of thumb is to imagine yourself playing a map with this feature. For example the army circles in the legend - imagine that you don't know the map at all, and come to it for the first time, would you really like having army circles in the legend for territories that are represented by numbers on the map?

Remember the KISS rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

As for the inset idea, Langres and Velay are probably large enough to allow the inset to only cover the terits in the north.

I'm sorry but you will just have to cut down the territories. The army circles in the legend aren't the only problem... the whole area around those territories is a mish-mash of colours and lines, everything blending together... You have army circles overlapping borders, territory names overlapping borders, army circles overlapping territory names... that just won't do. And it will be even more horrible on the small version.

I can't see any feasible solution here except streamlining the map with a heavy hand. When you can fit an army circle and a territory name inside each territory (well, if you have long territory names they can overlap borders occasionally but never in such a way that they cover important connections) then you have a suitable territory count.

Natty has a point... you need to be able to fit comfortably both army circles and name within the territory.. with perhaps a few exceptions. But most do in fact need to fit.

As for the inset, I think it a good idea, but you're going to have to redraw it rather than cut it and enlarge it.

as natty also Helix are right. the map is too small and too much territories.
I agree with Raskholnikov that for many players are important maps based on history and their accuracy...for me too

what about do map like this one. I think that England (with Wales, Scotland, Ireland) were under Plantaganet reign "for ever", but what was important was fight between them and French Kingdom in the France.

map is smaller and focused on France...

I think the unruly vassals in the north and west were an important part of the empire too. I'm not going to lose the british isles.

Here's an idea:
I could increase the size of Velay and Langres, while changing the font from 18 to 14 (like it is in the legend). And then create an inset for the area between Vermandois and Champagne.
Would that be acceptable?
Are there any other areas that are unacceptable?

i think you can do away with the imperial borderlands. they really played no role in the Agenvin Empire's struggle with France. Keep the British Isles and Ireland, as they played a big role, esp. under Henri II.

Raskholnikov wrote:i think you can do away with the imperial borderlands. they really played no role in the Agenvin Empire's struggle with France. Keep the British Isles and Ireland, as they played a big role, esp. under Henri II.

they are quite marginal, true. Though I'm not sure how much space i could save by removing them. I'll have a look at it.

You'll save space, be able to enlarge your map, have more place for inserts and legends, and be more historically accurate - without losing key parts like the British Isles.

Something else you could do: have the entire British Isles on a smaller scale, because they are so much simpler, and a bigger France. You can still connect British and French ports. And you will have enough space for legends.

You know a trick that might get rid of that Pixilation. Simply shrink you're map by a small fraction, then enlarge it back to the correct size.

The Bison King wrote:You know a trick that might get rid of that Pixilation. Simply shrink you're map by a small fraction, then enlarge it back to the correct size.

Not a very good trick for large images. Convolution filters work better.

Anyway, my advice is to not worry about the graphics right now, get the gameplay sorted first.

Second draft.

I've made the insets that were suggested, and increased the size of France. I've made some of the smaller terits bigger, and split some of the bigger ones.