Moderator: Cartographers
Sardauk wrote:Looks like a nice, Medieval: Total War kind of map. Looking forward to see it develop further!
Regarding the discussion on whether Denmark should be connected with Norway... well, maybe. Gamewise, it would make the top of the map less static, and in a way even reflect the warfare and changing borders of the time.
On another note (and sorry if I'm only repeating what somebody else has already pointed out), the Scandinavian Kingdoms didn't look quite like they do on your map, in 1099. The southern half of the Swedish area below the lakes (Scania), was actually Danish. You might consider making that into an area in itself, or redraw the borders? Also, Norway was bigger. Their border ran approximately from the small bay on the Swedish west coast, past the western tip of the bigger lake, and straight northwards. No biggie, just a minor cosmetic issue.
Good luck with your project! Definitely a map I'd like to try out.
miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.
The Neon Peon wrote:miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.
I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.
Beko the Great wrote:Yep I know that issue of Denmark/Sweden borders, but it's easiers to distinguish territories this way.
miniwally wrote:The Neon Peon wrote:miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.
I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.
I don't think they were that succesful where they? just saying nothing from stopping them attacking
Gypsys Kiss wrote:miniwally wrote:The Neon Peon wrote:miniwally wrote:you should get rid of the one way attacks unnecessary in crusades there was nothing from stopping Moors from attacking Spain and Portugal.
I am also fairly certain that they did attack and that they were successful. I second this.
I don't think they were that succesful where they? just saying nothing from stopping them attacking
At their height during the 11th century the Almoravids(a Moorish dynasty) covered roughly half of the Iberian Peninsula, and the Moors had a presence there between the 7th and 15th centuries.
Anyway, nice map....keep it up.
bryguy wrote:17) What are the strange holes inside of Sweden? (just curious, cause I can't tell what they are )
Overall I think you've done an excellent job on this map so far, good job
bryguy wrote:1) The region borders are rough
2) The territory borders are pixilated
3) The picture behind the legend makes the legend harder to see, maybe lower the opacity on it?
4) I cant tell, but are Al-Gharb, Cordoba, Emirate of Baleares, & Granada part of the same bonus as Magreb, Tnis, Tripoli, Al-Iskandariah, Al-Qahirah, Al-Madinah, and Damascus? I cannot tell, and the legend is so hard to see the region colors for that its no help
5) The D of Damascus is hard to read since it is on a border. Maybe move it over a tad bit?
6) Same with Al-Qahirah, except its not as hard to read, just a little annoying having the white glow behind it
7) The Al-Iskan. and Al-Qahirah border ends a little earlier than the borders for Tripoli/Al-Iskan and Magreb/Tripoili
Can Al-Qahirah attack Al-Madinah? You might want to make that clearer if it can or not
9) Same with Granada/Magreb
10) Just noticed, but Armenia, Normandy, & Constantinople are also a little harder to read (esp. Armenia and Constantinople). Maybe adding a slight white glow behind all the names?
11) Constantinople is a nittle confusing, maybe move the army circle to cover that little area between the two sides of it? (almost directly under the Co of Constantinople)
12) It may be easy for some people to think that Rome and Jerusalem are part of the Asia Minor bonus, maybe change the color slightly, or add stripes or something, so that it is easy to tell they are not?
13) The border for the title and legend box doesn't really seam to fit
14) The army circles are... strange on the inside. Kinda rough? Idk what exactly to call it
15) The.. compass? in the ocean across from normandy (and other territs) doesn't fit that well. Maybe lower the opacity, or make a new one?
16) You have 2 attack arrows from Castilla to Cordoba
17) What are the strange holes inside of Sweden? (just curious, cause I can't tell what they are )
Overall I think you've done an excellent job on this map so far, good job
Sardauk wrote:It's hard to comment on this map, your vision is so different from what I'd have done. Anyway, in 1099 the Antioch and Tripoli on your map most certainly belonged to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and not some vague Asia Minor faction (Turks?). Also, you should consider adding Edessa, which was a major conquest of the time, the loss of which even triggered the 2nd crusade.
It's not about game balance, it's about credibility. And yes, this map has huuuge promise. Otherwise I wouldn't even continue to nag.
miniwally wrote:how would the kingdom of Jersalem (Catholics from the Crusades) be there before even the first one? and if you included them you'd also need to include the principality of Antioch and would mess up this map anyway
Sardauk wrote:miniwally wrote:how would the kingdom of Jersalem (Catholics from the Crusades) be there before even the first one? and if you included them you'd also need to include the principality of Antioch and would mess up this map anyway
And make Antioch part of some other faction than "Rum", the Seljuk Turk name for what is marked as Asia Minor on the map. Tripoli could probably be left out altogether.
In 1078, Armenians seized power until the Seljuk Turks captured Antioch in 1084, but held it only fourteen years before the Crusaders arrived.
In the time when everything was for the Glory of God and everything was the Will of God,Pope Urban II made a speech encouraging the conquest of the Holy Places.
Beko the Great wrote:So, if this is a map about the crusades it must represent the situation by the time pope Urban made his belic speech.
thenobodies80 wrote:I'm happy to see your map is going better day by day.
Now routes are nice.But the england to flanders one is useless in this way (only a point)
The map seems a little bit brighter than old version.
I suggested for the second time to fix the bonus color in the legend, less trasparency on the litlle squares could be a good chioce, the yellow colors are similar on legend.
In some point territory borders are pixelous.
The new africa territories look great!
You are doing a map focused on crusades, in first post you say:In the time when everything was for the Glory of God and everything was the Will of God,Pope Urban II made a speech encouraging the conquest of the Holy Places.
Why don't you think about add an objective, like "conquer holy places", to take the victory?
Obviously if you like, all this will cost you some hard changes on bonuses, and probably future games could be focused in the lower-right side of your map.
On the whole is a grerat map and i hope to find you in the main foundry soon.
miniwally wrote:still cyprus was held by the byzantines and should be shown on this map
Users browsing this forum: No registered users