Conquer Club

Minister X wrote:We had a vote to replace the guy Andy prefers because so many folks disliked him. Now let's vote (or at least get an opinion or two) on this choice:
.

Yeah, grayscale for sure, though I think you could lighten him just a tad so the arms/head aren't so dark.

I'll replace the senator with a monochrome version (slightly lighter than as shown) but that one change is hardly enough to justify a whole new draft. ANYTHING ELSE?

There is still the issue of the extra spaces in and around the legend. And something added artistically for greater Roman flavor.

RedBaron0 wrote:There is still the issue of the extra spaces in and around the legend. And something added artistically for greater Roman flavor.

I don't think there are "extra spaces" and I can't think of any way to increase Roman flavor except to change the title to "Rome: Civil War" so the word "Rome" is more prominent. That name change, however, would mean loss of the gladius, loss of the cool dead guy, and a re-write of the upper left blurb. I'm unwilling to do this unless a lot of people express the opinion that it would be an improvement.

It's not that I'm not trying. I just tried this:



But I don't like it.

Minister X wrote:It's not that I'm not trying. I just tried this:



But I don't like it.

I agree, but how ever in ancient Rome the Laurel wreath were symbols of martial victory, crowning a successful commander during his triumph, so it do fits as a theme object, I just cant see where it should be placed

I also support your unwillingness about change the title, I like as it is now

is it possible to have the title as Rome: Civil War (or 44BC) with your current title as a subtitle, that way you don't lose anything.

Also your thread title is simply ROME, and perhaps that needs to change to identify more with the map and leave open the option for others to do a current Rome map as capital of Italy.

I like the laurel effect, but i think it needs a drop shadow similar to your other icons.

Minister X wrote:I'll replace the senator with a monochrome version (slightly lighter than as shown) but that one change is hardly enough to justify a whole new draft. ANYTHING ELSE?

I do, but they are mostly nitpicky and you don't seem to like those comments. :)

However, I think your map is close enough where you need to start addressing the little details so people can see the finished product as a whole. Its a frustrating process, but it will get this where it needs to go.

Whether or not you change the title, I think it needs a drop shadow. It looks weird to have it on the gladius, but not the title it goes through.

Why would changing the title result in a loss of the gladius? You could easily flip it around and put it through the O in Rome.

I personally don't mind the title, though I think it would be better in Latin. (Something like Caesaris mortem). I think any title you choose would be better in Latin, as it would give you more of that 'Roman flavor'. (If you can't find the Latin translation online, I might be able to help).

I also didn't mind the laurel in the corner. Its a little strong, but just tone down the opacity on it or add a textured effect and it might fit just fine.

My main nitpick now is that your font looks a little jaggedy on the small version. Make sure you are resizing the font to the nearest whole number when you are sizing down the large version.

Lastly, I still don't understand why you need color coded bonuses when you have the icons, but that's just my opinion. :)

lostatlimbo wrote:I do, but they are mostly nitpicky and you don't seem to like those comments.

Smilie noted, but to quote myself from page 12:

Minister X wrote:It's time to get REALLY picky about small adjustments like moving an army number one pixel's-worth one way or another. I am honestly looking forward to seeing how detail-oriented y'all can get.

Regarding the jaggies you see on the reduced fonts: I see some degradation of quality moving from the full to the small map, but nothing I'd call jaggies. But I wear glasses and have to squint - so I'll trust your eyes. I've adjusted the fonts on the small map from 8.68 points to an even 9, as you suggested. You'll have to tell me if you see an improvement. I know a little bit about font technology and I don't believe using even point sizes should make any difference at all, but I could well be wrong. In any case, the increase in size is easily managed.

Regarding the drop shadow on the Gladius and title: I see your point. The problem is that the title, using the incised font, is intended to simulate the letters carved in stone, and such things can't have drop shadows. Nevertheless, I applied a drop shadow just to see what it would look like. It's awful. Solution: remove the drop shadow from behind the gladius. In some ways this looks worse than before, in some ways better. I kind of like it; it's stark but the gladius stands out more. We can easily overdo it with drop shadows.

Regarding the color-coded bonuses: you may have forgotten or you may have missed it, but there was a somewhat protracted discussion of how much color should be in the map. Some wanted more; some less. The compromise solution was to have some color in the terts but not under the legend. What you're in essence asking is that we reopen that debate. I'd really rather just live with the result of the previous one, which until your post above seemed to be acceptable as a compromise to everyone.

Regarding using Latin for the title: according to Google Translate, it would be "Caesar Mortuus Est". I'm more concerned by the question of whether the increase in "Roman flavor" would outweigh the fact 1) that only one in forty CC players would know what it means (though more than that could make a good guess), and 2) it would be harder to remember. "Mortuus" is a very awkward word. Because there are more letters than in "Caesar Is Dead" the font must be reduced, which isn't fatal but isn't great. I've placed the gladius where I think it makes the most sense, but it is somewhat distracting there (though still pretty cool). I just don't know. I've made the changes but I consider them temporary and I'd like to hear from as many voices as possible: is this better or worse?

Cairnswk asked, "is it possible to have the title as Rome: Civil War (or 44BC) with your current title as a subtitle, that way you don't lose anything." First for 44BC: the map contains many landmarks built long after 44BC. I couldn't pick one date where Rome actually contained every one of these landmarks. Thus the note at the bottom of the map that says, "Map features date from 400BC to 330AD". Next, as to title plus subtitle: I just think it would be too crowded and confusing; the simpler the better. Let's see what people think of the Latin title.

The wreath.... eh was something, but I agree was out of place.

Perhaps a Roman coin?



Or how about a Roman Standard?

How's this?



I think it's unnecessary and gratuitous but if it will solve the "Roman flavor" problem I can live with it.

this is what you must read and apply: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3312424#p3312424

and this is roughly how the result should look like:

DiM wrote:this is what you must read and apply: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3312424#p3312424

Mostly disagree.


--Andy

DiM wrote:this is what you must read and apply: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3312424#p3312424

and this is roughly how the result should look like:

DiM, I'm going to take your post as a vote against this game/map - you don't like it and don't think it should go any further. It's entirely your right to so vote and I respect your opinion (though of course I feel otherwise). You carry some weight in the Foundry and I suspect some people agree with you but haven't voiced their opinion. Others have complimented my map. Somehow these conflicting opinions get sifted and decisions are made. I don't know how that works, but I suspect that a single negative vote won't stop a map.

I don't wish to go farther if enough people feel as you do and will eventually express their opinion and kill this project. I'd like to know right now if anyone else thinks this map is not worth pursuing as it is with only minor adjustments. What I'm not going to do is start over from scratch, which it seems to me your post is insisting I do.

I love old maps and have designed many variant maps for a game called Diplomacy with old maps as the background/base. I've played around with doing the same for a CC map but it's difficult. As I look through the existing published games I see none that use an old map in any visible way. Not Ancient Greece or Austro-Hungarian Empire or Celtic Nations or Conquer Rome or Flanders 1302 or France 1789 or Gilgamesh or Holy Roman Empire or Indian Empire or Napoleonic Europe or South Africa 1885... none of the historical games use a historical map. The closest is Austerlitz, but it's a very simple map and not at all like the ones you posted. As I look through all the city-based games I see none that use a real map as a base (except for my own Mafia game!); not Berlin 1961, Charleston, Chicago, Forbidden City, Hong Kong, Montreal, NYC, San Francisco, Stalingrad, Sydney Metro or Vancouver.

I've created a CC map called "The Twelve Tribes" which I've not posted. It uses an historical map of the Holy Lands as its base, but it has about half as many terts as Caesar Mortuus Est, and depicts a region, not a city. And when I first started working on a Rome map I tried to use the Shepherd map as a base but found it impractical. So it's not that I argue with the intent behind your suggestion, it's just that it's very hard to make a CC map over an historical one (no one has yet done so) and there's no way that after 24 drafts I'm going to go back and change the base.

Besides, all the maps you posted are circa 14th to 17th century - they don't depict an ancient city and using something like that would give a medieval feel, not an ancient one.

the images i posted to suggest the overhead view with streets and houses and monuments. you don't have to make it medieval style you can do it in a roman fashion. it's just that the style you have now is overdone. almost every map uses the type of terits that you have with a faint glow and a 2px black border, and frankly after seeing dozens and dozens of maps done in this fashion i'm getting tired of it. if this map were to appear in the foundry back in 2007 i would not probably object too much to it and go along with the style but we live in different times now and (in my opinion) we must always strive to improve.

if you want to create something bland that easily gets lost in the crowd then it's your choice. it doesn't mean it's crap or that people won't play it.
i always think new maps should bring something new both in gameplay as well as in graphics not just recycle the same ideas over and over again.
your map brings absolutely nothing new neither in gameplay nor in graphics. while many more conservative people won't mind this, i'm the type that probably won't even bother playing it once.

there's no way that after 24 drafts I'm going to go back and change the base

i've deleted more advanced maps than this. sometimes no matter how much you work on a map you just can't get it through and the best solution is to start over. and i'm not the only one that did this, many other map makers scratched their work and started new either to pursue a new style or to correct some errors made in the beginning.

This is my first effort to make a CC map; I used existing ones as guides and as examples of the accepted characteristics of maps. You're holding me to a standard it hadn't occurred to me might be applied. If that's the standard, that's the standard, and my map doesn't meet it. It's no better than existing ones; the graphics are only so-so and it brings no new gameplay elements to bear. My goal as a newbie cartographer was to make a map as good as those that exist here. It didn't really occur to me that achieving that would constitute failure. That said, I can't blame you for wanting all new maps to exceed all previous standards - it's an ambitious but worthy goal. I'm truly sorry that I've not met this very high standard for new maps, but I gave it my best shot and learned some good Photoshop stuff in the process.

Keep it up minister x. I think your map does offer unique graphics and theme.


--Andy

There's a lot of different people on conquer club from all over the world and with it comes a lot of different tastes and preferences. I've seen a lot better maps come out of the foundry and a lot worse.

While I do agree with DiM that your map is fairly basic, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As long as there are some different, creative maps coming out of the foundry, its okay to do some in a classic style too. Some people will love it, others will hate it, many won't care one way or the other.

You will never please everyone and, in the end, you're doing all the work and you are doing it for free, so as long as you are having fun with the process and are proud of what you are submitting, then stick with it. For the record, I think the gameplay is unique and I'm intrigued as to how it will play out.

HOWEVER, I feel its worth noting that I've been in your shoes fairly recently. With my first map, I felt I'd put together something pretty decent in relation to other maps on CC and thought it was 'good enough'. I tweaked it and tweaked it, but the feedback was similar to this - "Something's missing..." "I'm not feeling it..." and like you, I was reticent to start from scratch. Instead, I took some time off from it and considered giving up on it.

But after some time away, I came back and started seeing what others were seeing. I didn't start from scratch, persay, but I gave it a significant face lift. And I'm glad I did. Its still not great, but it fits now and it was worth that extra effort, despite my reservations.

So maybe thats where you are? Maybe you need to look at it with some fresh eyes. If you still love it and think it suits the theme, then carry on. Or maybe you'll see another angle - a way to take this map to the next level. If you do, I guarantee it will be worth your trouble. But either way, don't be discouraged. We can't all be DiM, but that doesn't mean we can't bring our own level of skill and creativity to the table and still have fun with it.

Minister X wrote:Regarding the jaggies you see on the reduced fonts: I see some degradation of quality moving from the full to the small map, but nothing I'd call jaggies. But I wear glasses and have to squint - so I'll trust your eyes. I've adjusted the fonts on the small map from 8.68 points to an even 9, as you suggested. You'll have to tell me if you see an improvement. I know a little bit about font technology and I don't believe using even point sizes should make any difference at all, but I could well be wrong. In any case, the increase in size is easily managed.

It seems a little better, but still choppy. You might need to adjust the kerning a little and try some different anti-alias settings. Try "Strong" or "Smooth". If you tell me what font you are using, I can play with the settings and suggest some options for you.

Whole numbers do make a difference, btw, but I won't get into why.

Minister X wrote:Regarding the drop shadow on the Gladius and title: I see your point. The problem is that the title, using the incised font, is intended to simulate the letters carved in stone, and such things can't have drop shadows. Nevertheless, I applied a drop shadow just to see what it would look like. It's awful. Solution: remove the drop shadow from behind the gladius. In some ways this looks worse than before, in some ways better. I kind of like it; it's stark but the gladius stands out more. We can easily overdo it with drop shadows.

Regarding using Latin for the title: according to Google Translate, it would be "Caesar Mortuus Est". I'm more concerned by the question of whether the increase in "Roman flavor" would outweigh the fact 1) that only one in forty CC players would know what it means (though more than that could make a good guess), and 2) it would be harder to remember. "Mortuus" is a very awkward word. Because there are more letters than in "Caesar Is Dead" the font must be reduced, which isn't fatal but isn't great. I've placed the gladius where I think it makes the most sense, but it is somewhat distracting there (though still pretty cool). I just don't know. I've made the changes but I consider them temporary and I'd like to hear from as many voices as possible: is this better or worse?

I think it is better without the drop shadow. The title has no need to establish a foreground/background (which is essentially what a drop shadow does. I think its fine this way.

I like the Latin version (though I'm not sure I'd trust Google Translate). I don't think you need to worry about its comprehension, as it is clear in context. The first line of your story goes "The dictator is dead..." and Caesar is Caesar in any language. Mort- is the common root of "death" all Latin-based languages, but that is irrelevant. Your map will be the only one (so far) that has Caesar in the title. People will say "the Caesar map" whether it is in English or Latin.

Minister X wrote:Regarding the color-coded bonuses: you may have forgotten or you may have missed it, but there was a somewhat protracted discussion of how much color should be in the map. Some wanted more; some less. The compromise solution was to have some color in the terts but not under the legend. What you're in essence asking is that we reopen that debate. I'd really rather just live with the result of the previous one, which until your post above seemed to be acceptable as a compromise to everyone.

I recall the debate and I was always firmly against them. I think this is one element behind the requests for you to "Romanize" this map. Those colors simply do not fit the time and place and theme. There's no way around that. No one thinks about Rome and has highlighter colors come to mind. Does the map look a little flat and colorless without them? Yes, but that doesn't mean this is the solution to that problem. Maybe you don't need to change the entire perspective and layout in the way DiM suggests, but you could go a long way towards capturing the theme just by taking some inspiration from the colors in his examples.

Or just do a search on Google, you'll see a ton of reds, golds, taupes, olives, but very few cyans, magentas and yellows.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&nord=1&q=romans&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&ion=1&biw=1909&bih=1251&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=MsDdToLJBYjhiALGrqjSCA

I've already spent a bit of time typing this up, but tomorrow I will dig up my Latin books and double check that your title is accurate.

Well written up post, Lostalimbo.


--Andy

I don't think that the title is a problem. OMG It's just a title. It's written in the right way, it's a common latin phrase...so what's wrong with it?
I echo lost@limbo about the few adjustments he suggested. The font can be refined easily adjusting the anti-alias and the colors can be replaced easily.

there're other 4 things i think you should try to fix/chnage/modify on the map:

1. Both bridges in Trans-Tiberium should have a different perspective. It can be done easily.
2. Have more color blind friendly colors, you can do this when you search for different colors, as lost@limbo suggested.
3. Remove the semicolon in your bottom left legend, the phrase "the tiber river can be crossed..." is ok also without it imo.
4. More important find something else instead of the image of the dead caesar you have next to the title. This for two reason, the blood looks ugly, second the image is not free. That is a artwork made by Jean-Léon Gérôme and it's copyrighted, so it must be changed.

Except for those things I don't think that the map is so ugly or bad to not be added to the current map list on this site. Yeah, maybe it hasn't the best graphics of this world, but i think they fit with the theme.
I know that previously I suggested you to go in a different directions, but you have decided to follow a different development and the current result it's not bad and i think it works for this map.
Still think that this map could be a good addition to organize some fun tournaments.

Keep it up!
Nobodies

shouldn't this be in the bin seeing that it's been over a month since the last update?
it's been over a month since the map maker even posted here.

Consider what I wrote like a sort of last call

Bin it. I've tried but am unable to advance things enough from where the last substantive criticism was made. If I ever get a flash of creativity and am able to do so we can always un-bin the thing.

It's a shame.

Anyway if this is what you want I'm going to move this one into the bin. When and if you want to continue this project please post an update and send a pm to one of the foundry moderators.

[Moved]