Conquer Club

LET ME KNOW IF YOU GUYS WANT ME TO START THIS BACK UP!





update 9


update 9
changed Railway
cosmetic adjustments
added ship
moved image from Gulf of Mexico
added Stations to the railway
took out the black abyss in the NE corner
adjusted New Mexico's bonus



Update 8:
Changed Legend
Changed Bridges

Update 3:
Changed Railway from dashes to dots. [update 2]
Removed The Alamo. [update 2]
Changed width of Rivers. [update 2]
Changed border width of Regions and Territories
Added another Region (unorganized), with Indian Territories.
Darkened the red in the Unorganized region.
Added Textures to the entire map.
Toned down the "plastic/rubbery" effect.

Update 4:

Changed the effect of the water.
Changed the Legend.
Re-worded the railroad explanation.
Added Mountains
Added "one way" attacks from Choctaws.
Changed the Railway to red, to help from blending in.

Update 5
Removed "extra" rivers.
Changed Legend Art.
Changed Railroad.
Added Art to the Gulf of Mexico.
Changed Railroad description.
Moved the Los Angeles script to the ocean border.
Changed ocean graphic.
Fine tuned a few of the circles/numbers.

Update 6
Changed Bridges.
Added info on one way attacks.
Lightened ocean color to help match w/ the Gulf of Mexico.
Cleared a path in the New Mexico Mountains for the railway.


1st draft:

yes, continue, but it will need some work. I vote either making it just the Alamo, or the American Mexican war.

I've in favour of an American-Mexican war. There's something about having a building the size of Texas that bothers me.

havent you heard?

everything's BIGGER in Texas! (Texan speaking)

lol

in all seriousness, i have started an edit, taking the Alamo out, it should be up soon.

here is the updated map, taking out the Alamo. i also toned the rivers down a bit, they seemed a bit much, as well as adjusted the "railway".

thoughts/suggestions please.

My initial thoughts:

I count 29 territories. For playability sake, I feel the minimum any map should have is 8 territories per player. For a 4 player map, that would be 32 territories, so you need to add at least 3 territories. I feel 36 or more would be much better, and I know others agree.

You have a lot of rivers that serve no purpose as boundaries, I would limit them to only the ones that divide territories.

The railroad will need some work graphically. Make it actual railroad tracks and railroad stations.

Figured i could post the breakdown.


New Mexico - 7 territories - 4 borders
Mexico - 8 territories - 4 borders
Texas - 4 territories - 3 borders
S US - 6 territories - 3 borders
N US - 4 territories - 3 borders


also, if you guys think it would be a good idea, i can add territories to "unorganized territory" and "Oregon country"....just to add more to the board.

Gemineye wrote:also, if you guys think it would be a good idea, i can add territories to "unorganized territory" and "Oregon country"....just to add more to the board.

Yes, I definitely do. Five regions is rather few anyway, and you need more territories.

Samus wrote:You have a lot of rivers that serve no purpose as boundaries, I would limit them to only the ones that divide territories.

well, i explained this in my first post, that seemed to get overlooked. i do understand that there are a lot of "extra" rivers--reason being that i was hoping to keep w/ a very accurate play map. if you guys think i should take off a few of them, i will, but in the newest updated map, i made the rivers much less conspicuous. as far as taking the ones out that dont divide territories, all of them divide a territory-its just a matter of where they divide it. example: the river coming through Louisiana...it cuts through, but eventually serves as TWO borders, one for the mid part of texas, bordering unorganized territory, and one that goes up through the middle of the US.

working on adding some more territories, i just dont know if i can find some accurate ways to divide up "unorganized.." or "oregon.."


let me know what you guys think i should do, im all ears

Hi Gemineye....yes i think this would be a good map with some work.

* Remove the rivers that aren't borders of territories
* the mountains at the bottom of Oregon Country don't seem to fulfill a purpose; are there mountains that can be made into borders between territories in that region
* i like the idea of having the Alamo in there, but some design work needs to be included in texas if it is to exist there; perhaps it could have bonuses for holding it
* are the dotted lines actually rail lines or just links between railheads? If they are just railheads, then perhaps the dotted line can be removed to clear up the map a bit and bonuses notated for holding the railheads. If the dotted lines are rail lines, then perhaps explore ways to express that in a manner that doesn't clutter the map; i think the idea of rail-lines would give your map some definite graphic enhancement to make it appealing, but rail-lines would have to be expressed unobtrusively and not in cflict with the territory borders - do explore that however.
* is this the large map at 772 pixels wide? if this is the large map then any enhancements need to be accommodated comfortably in the small map, I have discovered that many players prefer to use a small map.
* I think perhaps the territory border line will be too thick.
* I like the colours generally, they are not too bright, but perhaps rethink red to a softer tone it stands out wildely.
* perhaps try a pattern on the ocean to see what that looks like also

Keep up the great work.
Hope this helps some.

cairnswk wrote:* Remove the rivers that aren't borders of territories

every river is a border somewhere. are you guys wanting me to not let the river have a "mouth" to the ocean, and just appear as if from no where?

cairnswk wrote:* the mountains at the bottom of Oregon Country don't seem to fulfill a purpose; are there mountains that can be made into borders between territories in that region

well, i was just experimenting w/ some hand drawn mountains, and forgot to take them off, can easily be removed.

cairnswk wrote:* i like the idea of having the Alamo in there, but some design work needs to be included in texas if it is to exist there; perhaps it could have bonuses for holding it

well, in the first version, it has bonus for holding texas AND the alamo, but i actually think it is just too much to have the Alamo building take up pretty much all of Texas-which it would have to do, to make it worth having on the map.

cairnswk wrote:* are the dotted lines actually rail lines or just links between railheads? If they are just railheads, then perhaps the dotted line can be removed to clear up the map a bit and bonuses notated for holding the railheads. If the dotted lines are rail lines, then perhaps explore ways to express that in a manner that doesn't clutter the map; i think the idea of rail-lines would give your map some definite graphic enhancement to make it appealing, but rail-lines would have to be expressed unobtrusively and not in cflict with the territory borders - do explore that however.

i dont plan on putting bonus on the railways. they are simply a connection between un-bordering territories, and give an added strategy to this map. they only connect through the railway line. i.e. the rail "station" in Montanas only connects to the one in Texas and Iowa Territory, not to Louisiana or Mexico City. if the brown dots dont work well for the railway, what would? i know that Samus suggested actual railroad tracks, but i thought THAT would be very obtrusive...ideas?

cairnswk wrote:* is this the large map at 772 pixels wide? if this is the large map then any enhancements need to be accommodated comfortably in the small map, I have discovered that many players prefer to use a small map. * I think perhaps the territory border line will be too thick.

this is, in fact, the large map. as far as the borders being too thick-i have looked at the 600 version, and they dont seem too big-in the big map the region borders are 6px, and the territory are 4px. so, the small map makes them significantly smaller. if they are too large, i will gladly change them.

cairnswk wrote:* perhaps try a pattern on the ocean to see what that looks like also

i will happily start some textures once we work out the other details.



the feedback is much appreciated, hopefully my first map will be a decent one.

Rivers...sorry in understand now. Forget that one.

Mountains - this is a good graphic, use it more to your advantage, don't remove, reposition them so they give the map some terrain content - do you know what i mean?

Alamo - OK but I like the idea of it being there somehow.

Try the railroad tracks and give veiwers a look at what it looks like. I agree with Samus.

The borders on most maps - most being the key word - appear to be 1 pixel on small maps between territories. Maybe do an adjustment and see what it looks like.

i think a lot of CC map drafts recently are looking too plastic or rubbery due to all the blending options going on.

learn to reduce the transparency on those! 100% is rarely necessary. unless the map is suppose to look like a kids toy.

mibi wrote:learn to reduce the transparency on those! 100% is rarely necessary. unless the map is suppose to look like a kids toy.

well, transparency was at about 70% or less on all of the effects, i never make them 100%, but i did tone it down even more.

here is what i changed this round, let me know what should be next:

Changed border width of Regions and Territories
Added another Region (unorganized), with Indian Territories.
Darkened the red in the Unorganized region.
Added Textures to the entire map.
Toned down the "plastic/rubbery" effect

It has a much nicer look now.

Cheers,

Gozar

thank you, i think it looks better, but does all of CC? lol


any more input?

Don't like the water, maybe you can change it. Also, the railroad instructions are hard to understand, try to make them clearer. Everything else looks great though.

ok, so, the only thing i see is to change the texture on the water, and make what the railroads do more clear.

is that it? what else do you guys think?

Louisiana is spelled with 1 "n".

Gemineye...this is really coming along, and look much better with the toned down red and smaller borders.

I'd still like to see u attempt to do something with those mountains...that graphic is so good u should use it on some borders around that region..not too much but a little; and even some for the Sierre Madre mountains in Mexico, and the San Gabriels around LA

And the legend background needs a little work, it is looking very plastic....perhaps a different pattern?!

But otherwise, excellent work from me.

Update 4:

Changed the effect of the water.
Changed the Legend.
Re-worded the railroad explanation.
Added Mountains
Added "one way" attacks from Choctaws.
Changed the Railway to red, to help from blending in.

i also added a slight gradient on the whole map, i havent made up my mind yet on if i like it or not. let me know

actually, the more i look at the gradient, i dont like it. the next update will not have it. to me, it just looks too washed out

here's the one w/ no gradient. i am also working on the XML for the large version now, which will be shortly followed by the small one. the only thing i dont know how to do is take a picture of the cc coordinate tester to put on here. do you guys just take a screenshot, and crop it?

Gemineye....good job on those mountains.
*Can you attack from Montanas to Lago Grande or are the mountains going to be used as unpassable barriers?
*The water looks interesting!
* the legend needs pulling in from the right side and then move the whole legend so that one can see the bevel edges all around.
* With the railheads, can I attack from Montanas to Alabama? The story has changed there from the previous verions where I got the impression that you had to attack the next railhead up the track but couldn't attack the railhead three connections away.
Are you pleased with the mountains?
And a tip for doing the XML and getting the centres correct from the start:
create a layer in your program of centred cross, and load that image into the xml java file, then use the crosees to get perfect targeted numbered centred everytime. It really does help, Afterward, simply turn off the corss layer and re-post the image.
Looking Good from me!!
Hope this helps.

cairnswk wrote:Gemineye....good job on those mountains.
*Can you attack from Montanas to Lago Grande or are the mountains going to be used as unpassable barriers?

unpassable barriers--with the exception of the railway.

cairnswk wrote:*The water looks interesting!

good or bad, interesting?

cairnswk wrote:* the legend needs pulling in from the right side and then move the whole legend so that one can see the bevel edges all around.

on it

cairnswk wrote:* With the railheads, can I attack from Montanas to Alabama? The story has changed there from the previous verions where I got the impression that you had to attack the next railhead up the track but couldn't attack the railhead three connections away.

well, first, the railhead is actually in Mississippi. second, yes, that is right...one railway can attack another, but only one station up the track.
i.e. Montanas -> Disputed North and Montanas -> Iowa Territory, but Montanas cannot attack Mexico City or Mississippi.

cairnswk wrote:Are you pleased with the mountains?

yes, i think they are cool, do you? lol

great tip on making a layer simply for my army circles to have cross hairs...love it.