Conquer Club

Yeah, I could see Loent -> 5; Noeh -> 3; Niad -> 2.

carlpgoodrich wrote:One thought is to have sort of player specific bonuses. What I mean is "Hold the monestary and the church" for +3", for example, and "hold sawmill and carpentry for +3", "butcher and grocer", etc. This would motivate expansion in different ways for each player and would open up the map.

Maybe, but note that this map isn't conquest, so players start spread out all over the map, capitals notwithstanding. So they wouldn't quite be player specific.

Evil DIMwit wrote:Maybe, but note that this map isn't conquest, so players start spread out all over the map, capitals notwithstanding. So they wouldn't quite be player specific.

I did not realize this. That completely changes the way I look at this map. I guess my one question now is how many troops to players start with on their capitals? I would be worried about first round eliminations, especially in multiplayer games. If this hasn't been decided, I would suggest having the capital start with a large number (in the 7-10 range).

Each palace starts with 9 troops; the player who starts with a palace also starts with its connecting square, which starts with 3 (this is to make it so players don't mobilize their whole stack on the first turn).

one further bonus to reduce is ykele. by any measure u choose, ykele is somewhat less connected than aery, which has a +3 bonus, so ykele ought to have a bonus of no more than +3.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Methinks Towers G-J need to be +3: 3 borders, 4 territories. Seems justified.

agreed.

thenobodies80 wrote:About connections, i can clarify grocer and tavern, schack c and tower f. About the others you listed i'm not sure...to me it's clear that they border(since there's a road that makes a connection)....but what i can do is to draw something like what i did to link alchemist, church and tayt square....that triangular shape....it could help?

yes, adding triangular junctions will eliminate all doubt.

my revised summary of the order of difficulty of holding bonuses, taking into account that this isn't a conquest map and that the minor bonuses do not start fully-neutral (i had known this from before, but was still fooled by the white 88s - sorry for any confusion caused): loent (+5 or +6), nyw and yana (both +4 or +5), tayt (+3 or +4), noeh (+3), aery (+3), niad and ykele (both +2 or +3), towers ghjk (+2 or +3), minor bonuses (+2). i can see the argument behind the original design for each city to give a minimum +3, so that there's a clear difference between the cities and the smallest bonuses.

carlpgoodrich wrote:Regarding the gameplay, I am worried that games will stalemate really fast. Everyone will get their city bonus, but then there is relatively little motivation to expand and lots of motivation to protect (the losing condition). Do other people see this as a problem?

we can possibly make it so that holding 3 or more cities will increase trading wealth and therefore double all of ur city bonuses, to give some incentive to take someone else's city in a 3-player or 4-player game. might that help?

ian.

If there are no other comments or concerns, I'd like to make the small version

I just find it a bit odd that the legend says "assaults are allowed only during the roads" which conflicts with the alchemist/miner assaults.

No other issues.

In this way?

I think you should use the same glow you used in the legend for the city bonuses for the city territory names. It'll make the bonuses a lot easier to distinguish.

-Sully

All names or do you mean only the gray labels for the cities?

thenobodies80 wrote:All names or do you mean only the gray labels for the cities?

Both.

Done, to be honest i prefer it without the glow.
Look into the spoiler for the test.

Current Version (1.5)

show: glow vers1.6

1.6 is sooooo much better. I think you should color the signs like "Yana" and "Ykele" too, to make them stand out more.

I like 1.5 better. The map already has so many colours in it, adding the colourful glows is just too much...

I have to redraw a couple of connections on the small version (tower F- tower E and Shacks C- Gate F) but on the whole, considering that i was really tight with space, i'm happy with it.
The xml will be done asap

One more thing... could you swap the shades of grass you have inside the cities and outside?

I mean, now you have darker grass inside the cities and lighter grass outside them, when I think it might look better the other way around. You already made the forests dark, which is good, but I think it would help the cities to stand out even better if you made the cities to have the lightest shade of green on the map.

Give it a try at least...

(and realistically it would also make more sense for cities to have lighter grass - much more people trampling on it there )

Can you at least make the city banners colored as they are in the legend? I still like 1.6 waaaayy better.

I also like 1.6 better. I still think that it is unclear that the gates are part of the city bonus, but the glow make it unambiguous.

natty_dread wrote:could you swap the shades of grass you have inside the cities and outside?

Victor Sullivan wrote:Can you at least make the city banners colored as they are in the legend? I still like 1.6 waaaayy better.

No thanks, as said i'm not going to make other changes to the graphics (if not just a couple of touch ups i need to do and smalls corrections, if needed, during the Beta, etc etc), to be honest ask for other changes on the map as it is now is just change for the sake of a changes imo.
So without a valid reason i won't touch the graphics anymore.

carlpgoodrich wrote:I also like 1.6 better. I still think that it is unclear that the gates are part of the city bonus, but the glow make it unambiguous.

vers. 1.6 , as natty said, give too much color to the map, i posted it just to show to VS that i tried .
And again, as said, gates are part of the cities, just read the legend.


Btw, the xml is ready, i need only to center some coords but i'll post it today.

Sorry, didn't see the legend was changed

So without a valid reason i won't touch the graphics anymore.

I thought I gave a pretty valid reason... Your call, but I think the map would really benefit from it - it's a small change, but small things can make a big difference sometimes.

natty_dread wrote:

So without a valid reason i won't touch the graphics anymore.

I thought I gave a pretty valid reason... Your call, but I think the map would really benefit from it - it's a small change, but small things can make a big difference sometimes.

And obviously i tried, but i prefer it as it is now, that's all.

Ok, fair enough

let's get this thing in beta then!

Link to large image: http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/2373685/competition/MiddleAges.L.png
Link to small image: http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/2373685/competition/MiddleAges.S.png
XML: http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/3/21/2373685/competition/MiddleAges.xml

A very very nice map. Didn't read the whole topic, just dropping by to say I really like it. Reminds me a bit of those arcade-games from the early nineties. How did you made the graphics?

I just find the legend a bit strange. I think it's not readable in the small version. Also, why is that brown background? It's looking way too massive. Can't you work with the blue sky-background? Try getting the glow around the names more sharp, less blurry, so they fit in better with the rest of the map-style. Also the heavy brown lines from the text and border is too heavy. Can't you use another color that fits better with the rest, like a dark blue or green.
the town-names looks a bit stange in those pale colors, not sure if they really work this way.
Minor comment, I think your medieval town-names don't really sound like medieval town-names, although Aery sounds fine. check out some british little village names, thinks style like stradford-upon-avon (love that one )
but great job, will follow this one

DubWarrior wrote:How did you made the graphics?

Photoshop, a tablet and lot of patience

DubWarrior wrote:I just find the legend a bit strange. I think it's not readable in the small version.

The text? No space to make the text larger

DubWarrior wrote:Also, why is that brown background? It's looking way too massive. Can't you work with the blue sky-background? Try getting the glow around the names more sharp, less blurry, so they fit in better with the rest of the map-style. Also the heavy brown lines from the text and border is too heavy. Can't you use another color that fits better with the rest, like a dark blue or green.

Your monitor settings?

DubWarrior wrote:the town-names looks a bit stange in those pale colors, not sure if they really work this way.
Minor comment, I think your medieval town-names don't really sound like medieval town-names, although Aery sounds fine. check out some british little village names

The names were "chosen" using a fantasy names generator, i prefer not to have real names on the map, but feel free to suggest new names if you want.

Thank you for your suggestions
Nobodies