Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:47 pm**

serious confusion with corrientes. what's with the impassable river running through it?

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:26 pm**

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

I've fielded two concerns about playability... the first came in-game, and was that the horizontal arrow from Asuncion gives the impression that it can attack entre rios, not Corrientes. The second is related, but unspecific...

Limey Lyons wrote:serious confusion with corrientes. what's with the impassable river running through it?

What I've done is extended the coloring over the river to span the river between the two halves of Corrientes, which geographically does span the river (there's just no accounting for real life). I've also turned the arrow a bit to make it clear that Asuncion does, indeed, attack Corrientes.

Hmm??

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:35 am**

This map is looking so good! The Corientes river is still a bit of an issue though... I can't remember if you've tried it without the black borders over the river through the territory? That might help make it a bit clearer, and would make the name more visible...

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:29 am**

I know it will hurt some geographically correct mind but why not remove one part of it and enlarge either Entre Rios or Tucuman

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:17 am**

pamoa wrote:I know it will hurt some geographically correct mind but why not remove one part of it and enlarge either Entre Rios or Tucuman

That would certainly be the easiest fix, but I'd like to make that a move of last resort. So far I've heard only two complaints so I'm hoping it's not huge issue.

MrBenn wrote:I can't remember if you've tried it without the black borders over the river through the territory? That might help make it a bit clearer, and would make the name more visible...

Tried it, people didn't like it. I can go back to it, however. Here it is, from version 23.

Click image to enlarge.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:05 pm**

oaktown wrote:
MrBenn wrote:I can't remember if you've tried it without the black borders over the river through the territory? That might help make it a bit clearer, and would make the name more visible...

Tried it, people didn't like it. I can go back to it, however. Here it is, from version 23.

That was me not explaining what I meant very well... What if the river banks weren't marked with a solid line? ie. the river could be whiter, but without the solid lines between the land and river

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:35 pm**

MrBenn wrote:That was me not explaining what I meant very well... What if the river banks weren't marked with a solid line? ie. the river could be whiter, but without the solid lines between the land and river

Or you explained it fine, but i read what I wanted to read.

Anyway, tried taking the lines out as well at one point, but it looked unfinished... as is the lines are lighter, hopefully enough to not suggest borders.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:32 pm**

a small bridge perhaps?

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:45 pm**

Limey Lyons wrote:a small bridge perhaps?

also tried, several pages back. The trouble with the bridge is that usually bridges connect two territories on CC maps, which is not he case here. We can do any of these things... I'll play around with it more tonight.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:06 pm**

Click image to enlarge.

OK, this one I think I like. I've put Corrientes together with the borders spanning the river, left the river the color it should be (no more half-assed shading) and given the river softer banks within the territory.

:-s

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:03 am**

I would say it is better if you remove completely the black line bordering the river.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:22 am**

This Corrientes river issue must be driving you crazy...

Why not put up a couple of options for us to choose between, that range from the way it is now, through to no river at all in that territory...

Wehn presented with a couple of options that can be compared alongside one another, I think there's more likely to be consensus of opinion... as it is, I can see that people will quibble over it forever!

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:32 am**

Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't that territory be called Buenos Aires instead of Buenos Ayres?

I don't know if this has been mentioned before or if there is a specific reason why the name is different.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:01 pm**

Ruben Cassar wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't that territory be called Buenos Aires instead of Buenos Ayres?

"Buenos Ayres" was a common spelling in the 19th Century, especially among the British. In looking over old maps of the era many use this spelling. I have (sadly) changed many other outdated spelling conventions on this map at the insistence of speakers of both English and Portuguese who have stopped by, but I'd like to keep that one in particular because I think it helps place the map in the period.

As for Corrientes, I've spent much time playing with different options, and I'm editing those that I present. Removing the coast line entirely looks bad and I wouldn't be comfortable putting my name on it, so I'd rather not even risk presenting it as an option. Using a bridge would be confusing in my opinion, as bridges usually suggest connections between two territories.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:25 pm**

oaktown wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't that territory be called Buenos Aires instead of Buenos Ayres?

"Buenos Ayres" was a common spelling in the 19th Century, especially among the British. In looking over old maps of the era many use this spelling. I have (sadly) changed many other outdated spelling conventions on this map at the insistence of speakers of both English and Portuguese who have stopped by, but I'd like to keep that one in particular because I think it helps place the map in the period.

Interesting fact. However what do the British and their spelling have to do with Argentina? It was under Spanish rule before becoming independent or were the British involved at a later stage? Just curious to know more and maybe slightly off topic.

Posted: **Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:38 pm**

Ruben Cassar wrote:However what do the British and their spelling have to do with Argentina? It was under Spanish rule before becoming independent or were the British involved at a later stage? Just curious to know more and maybe slightly off topic.

A map has to be told from somebody's point of view... "Bolivian Claim" isn't a Spanish name. I'm a speaker of English making a map - we screw up all kinds of things regardless of the side of the pond in which we live.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:30 pm**

Seeing no other comments in the past week I'm going to assume the aforementioned suggested fix to corrientes is good and send new files to Lack. I've lightened the coasts along the corrientes borders, so here's what I'm sending...

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:48 pm**

Just a note - THis is an extremely short thread for a Quenched map in todays forge.

Congrats Oak.

C.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:01 pm**

yeti_c wrote:Just a note - THis is an extremely short thread for a Quenched map in todays forge.

Cairns Metro — 12 pages :O

Beautiful map, although I've yet to win here

.44

Posted: **Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:53 pm**

The spoils from that map are wrong. 3x Green is giving 4 troops, and 3xBlue is giving 6 troops.

Please take a look at the game 4567460.

Cheers!

Posted: **Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:33 pm**

cassianomonteiro wrote:The spoils from that map are wrong. 3x Green is giving 4 troops, and 3xBlue is giving 6 troops.

Please take a look at the game 4567460.

Cheers!

there's nothing wrong with the spoils. Game 4567460 has escalating bonuses, so the first set is worth 4 armies, the second set 6, the third set 8 and so on.

ian.

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:17 am**

2009-04-17 19:56:33 - jjmracing gets spoils
2009-04-18 07:33:09 - King Tet receives 3 troops for 6 regions
2009-04-18 07:34:56 - King Tet deployed 2 troops on Espirito Santo
2009-04-18 07:35:21 - King Tet deployed 1 troops on Dourados
2009-04-18 07:35:36 - King Tet assaulted S. Ignacio from Dourados and conquered it from Fireside Poet
2009-04-18 07:39:14 - Incrementing game to round 5
2009-04-18 09:34:40 - Joshua Hayden receives 3 troops for 8 regions
2009-04-18 09:34:59 - Joshua Hayden deployed 3 troops on São Paulo
2009-04-18 09:35:06 - Joshua Hayden assaulted Paraná from São Paulo and conquered it from Fireside Poet
2009-04-18 09:35:16 - Joshua Hayden reinforced São Paulo with 1 troops from Paraná
2009-04-18 09:35:16 - Joshua Hayden gets spoils
2009-04-18 10:37:08 - sure receives 3 troops for 10 regions
2009-04-18 10:37:37 - sure deployed 2 troops on Curitiba
2009-04-18 10:37:41 - sure deployed 1 troops on Bahia Oriental
2009-04-18 10:37:55 - sure assaulted Paraná from Curitiba and conquered it from Joshua Hayden
2009-04-18 10:38:03 - sure gets spoils
2009-04-18 10:44:26 - Fireside Poet receives 3 troops for holding Paraguay
2009-04-18 10:44:26 - Fireside Poet receives 3 troops for 7 regions
2009-04-18 10:44:33 - Fireside Poet deployed 6 troops on Porto Alegre
2009-04-18 10:44:38 - Fireside Poet assaulted São Pedro from Porto Alegre and conquered it from King Tet
2009-04-18 10:47:28 - Fireside Poet gets spoils

Something is wrong with this and I am not sure what happened.
S. Ignacio is in Paraguay and I was clearly attacked and my bonus was broken before my turn and yet I received 3 troops for "holding" it. He also didn't receive any spoils. This is in Game 4652457. Ideas?

Posted: **Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:33 am**

This is likely to have been caused by that recent server problems ive been reading about? Some deployed armies (in the log) actually never appeared on the board.

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 8:27 pm**

Concise description:

In the "Triple Alliance" map there are several names of some territories that atract my attention.

Specifics:

Those are: Cordova and Buenos Ayres. I'm not argentinien, I'm from Uruguay (next to it - sorry, my english is not the best). Have you done it like they will write it in that epoca? Because Is not Cordova, it's Cordoba, and Buenos Ayres is Buenos Aires...

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 7:26 am**

I don't live anywhere near South America, and don't know if this is maybe the local way of spelling it either,
but maybe you could ask it in the map's discussion topic.
it's located here

or you could send the maker of the map, oaktown, a PM.

Conquer Club

War of the Triple Alliance

Re: War of the Triple Alliance [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Quenched]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Beta]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance: edit on p 14 [Beta]

Re: War of the Triple Alliance

Re: War of the Triple Alliance

map: Triple alliance-Gramatical error's??

Re: map: Triple alliance-Gramatical error's??