Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:44 pm**

That is exactly what I suggested before you insisted to set up a different thread with "your" picture, as a "competing project". I am glad you finally came around to what I originally asked you, in private, to do: work with us as a team member, for the good of the project.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:36 am**

It 'always a good choice to keep the thread only for the development of the map. :evil:

I think we can restart from here:

Click image to enlarge.

My first thoughts:

russian winter can't be done
swords cover some text and necessary informations
it's possible to have a more organized legend (same thing ou did with third crusade map)?

I have to think about bonuses and numbers, more comments come soon

Nobodies

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:29 am**

It's not that I don't like the swords, I think they're quite cool, but they interfere with Egypt. I think you could find a better place for them or maybe scoot them in some.

I second on the mountains. It's not that they're out of place gameplay wise, but graphically they don't fit in all that well.

I think the swords might need some sort of dark backdrop to make them stand out more.

I don't really care for the ship wheel in a circle for the naval battle site. Perhaps two ships or something would be cooler?

Move the swords in Rumelia south so they don't conflict with the words of Ottoman Empire.

Where's Orient for the Ottoman Empire?

Gibraltar's one way attack of Malta and Corse -> Aboukir should use the same graphical scheme.

I like how the sea battles are a start neutral, as if you have to do something to earn the use of the sea passage.

I think it would be appropriate to add a capital for Spain.

Ok, I saw the Dardenelles in the Black Sea and did some quick reading on the Dardenelles during the war. Looks like there was in fact a battle there and the Dardenelles played their historic and timeless role of whether or not to keep them shut or open and to whom should they be open. I highly recommend and request that a sea route through the Dardenelles to connect with the battle site, it would not be true to the wars if it wasn't there.

More later, I suppose, I'm looking forward to an update!

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:05 pm**

Hi guys, thanks for the critics.

Andrew:
-I'd like to avoid having that extra sea link in the Med, I prefer to text it
-I’ll change Poland’s colour so it won’t blend with the orange from Prussia and the yellow from Austria.

Nobodies:
-we’ll keep the winter but without the link to owning Moscow
-I’ll rearrange swords position
-I’ll try to sort something out concerning the legend

Helix:
-I know what you mean, they could have a more hand drawn look. But I kinda wanted them this way, like if they were symbols dropped on the map. The same is happening to the battle site symbol…. It makes them stand a bit more.
-what you do mean with ‘sort of dark backdrop’
-as for the naval battle symbol – I wanted to keep it fairly simple so I used a navigational compass…. but I’m open to change it
-I’ll change Rumelia’s battle site
-Orient represents Palestine and Egypt – it has the same colour of the OE but with a dash
-I couldn’t fit in Corse what I did with Gibraltar so I had to come up with another way. I find it quite perceptible, though I recon it’s not the same method.
-About Spain – I must say that Raskholnikov wanted it as well

. I’m totally against it. Spain had not the same influence in this war scenario as all the other powers represented here did. In fact Spain had a puppet government by that time – so I couldn’t have Madrid worth the same as Paris, London or Vienna.
-I didn’t quite get what you wanted me to do with Dardanelles :oops:

– linking it to Istambul?
-I’ll change the region name from Essex to Sussex.

Thanks again, and I’ll be posting an update soon!

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:45 pm**

I think the swords might need some sort of dark backdrop to make them stand out more.

I don't really care for the ship wheel in a circle for the naval battle site. Perhaps two ships or something would be cooler?

Move the swords in Rumelia south so they don't conflict with the words of Ottoman Empire.

Where's Orient for the Ottoman Empire?

Gibraltar's one way attack of Malta and Corse -> Aboukir should use the same graphical scheme.

I like how the sea battles are a start neutral, as if you have to do something to earn the use of the sea passage.

I think it would be appropriate to add a capital for Spain.

Ok, I saw the Dardenelles in the Black Sea and did some quick reading on the Dardenelles during the war. Looks like there was in fact a battle there and the Dardenelles played their historic and timeless role of whether or not to keep them shut or open and to whom should they be open. I highly recommend and request that a sea route through the Dardenelles to connect with the battle site, it would not be true to the wars if it wasn't there.

Swords: I think he means some sort of a black shadow to make the swords stand our more.

Ships: The.killing.44 had proposed something like this when we were working together. The problem is space and clarity. I think Kab's solutions is simpler and more elegant. Any other opinions on this?

The battle of Ruse: the placement of the swords represents an actual battle site and cannot just be located anywhere within a territory. The swords in Rumelia represent the battle of Ruse, which forced the Ottomans to capitulate in 1812 and ended the 1806-1812 Russo-Turkish wars. They can't just be moved somewhere else. Maybe Kab can move the Ottoman Empire name slightly south so it won't touch the battle sign anymore.

Madrid: I fought for this, but in the end Kab prevailed, so I will stand by the end result as long as he does.

Orient: you mean that, for the Ottoman Empire, Egypt and Palestine are South, not Orient. True. But this is a French map. Napoleon's campaign was entitled "La Campagne de l'Orient" (The oriental campaign) for the obvious reason that Egypt and Palestine are in the Orient wrt France. That's why we called the region "Orient": we adopted a French perspective on a French map.

Gibraltar / Malta: I think he means using a star for Gibraltar / Malta as we used for Corse / Aboukir. Actually, two stars so it won't be confusing - or another symbol altogether. I'd go for one start for Gibraltar / Malta and two stars for Corse / Aboukir for available space reasons.

Neutral Naval battles: Yes, we do too. It also makes the UK by necessity a power that will develop slower, but a) is well protected from invasions and b) when it does develop, later in the game, it will bring quite a punch - as happened, indeed, historically.

Dardanelles: I agree and I actually proposed this too. What is meant is for the line connecting the battle symbol to Turkey to actually start at the point south of Istanbul where the Dardanelles actually are, and draw it through the straights to connect with the Naval Battle symbol. To continue protecting Istanbul, a minor border change for the Istanbul Territory would be necessary, as I drew it on the last map draft I sent you, Kab, before we came up with version 21. If you can't find it let me know and I will resend.

Posted: **Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:08 pm**

Kab,

I would like to propose a few minor alterations to improve historicial and geographical accuracy:

Extremadura: please switch the name of the territory and the swords symbol around, so the swords are south, where the Siege of Badajoz was.

Leon: please place the swords symbol in the south-west corner, right next to Porto, where the Battle of Salamanca was.

Piedmont: Please move the name of the territory under the mountains and the battle symbol in the south-east corner, where the Battle of Marengo was (if possible and clear / might pose space problems).

Vienna: please switch around the Austrian coat of arms shield and the number circle, so the shield is where Vienna actually is - like we did with all other capitals. Please move the swords symbol as close to the northern border of the territory as possible, to reflect the Battle of Wagram.

Hessen: please put the swords where the territory army indicator circle is now and the circle in place of the swords, in order to more accurately place the Battle of Jena.

Palestine: please move the swords a bit higher, in the centre of the territory, to reflect the geographical location of the Battle of Accra.

All the swords location changes are really very minor and for the game purposes totally irrelevant. Do them only if possible, if you wish to improve the historical accuracy of the map.

I also have two related queries:

Land Battles names: I would very much like to find a way to indicate the name of the Land Battles the way we did with Naval Battles. Clearly we can't do this on the map for both space reasons and for conceptual reasons (Naval Battles are actually sea territories, whilst Land battles are sites located within differently-named territories. But it would improve the accuracy an interest of the map to somehow capture this information. Any ideas, anyone?

Land and Naval Battles Year: I would also like to add the dates (ie the year) of both Land and Sea Battles. Any thoughts how this could be done?

Thanks to all for your comments and criticisms and especially to Kab for actually finding the time and way to implement the proposed changes.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:38 am**

Yeah, add a dropshadow to the swords.

Gotcha on the battle sites, I'd say move the words then.

Madrid: Well, you've got an objective of own 5 capitals to win and there are 6, it seems like if you've going to go over then it should be by more than 1. Plus, the Peninsular war was a major part of the Napoleonic wars, I believe Napoleon's bro was king there. Fighting there was a large contribution to the collapse of the Empire. I think it really needs to be reconsidered as a capital territory.

Orient: I see why it was named Orient, I just couldn't find it on the map. Now I realize why, the sword handle is covering it up. I'd suggest moving it around.

Dardenelles: I really think this will improve the map, looking forward to it in the next update.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:50 pm**

Map update:

-swords position changed
-legend reorganized by nobodies request – working great now!
-and a lot of other stuff more

Version 22

Click image to enlarge.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:26 pm**

Version 22?

I'll say more later, but I think it looks a little smushed and crowded. I liked .44's better, but that is neither here nor there.

Posted: **Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:32 pm**

Walrus,

Thanks for your comments.

As you can see at the start of the thread, it took 21 iterations until we developed a version we were happy to share with all of you. So version 21 became the first version displayed publicly, and this is the first public revision - so version 22...

Do you have any suggestions to help us make it look less "smushed and crowded"? We look forward to your -and anyone else's- comments, criticisms and alternate drafts.

Many thanks,

Raskholnikov

Posted: **Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:44 am**

captainwalrus wrote:Version 22?

I'll say more later, but I think it looks a little smushed and crowded. I liked .44's better, but that is neither here nor there.

Thanks a lot Captain!

.....but should we trash this draft?

P.S. - Yes, version 22 indeed. I had a lot of debate and discussion with Raskholnikov before the first post, lots of maps and different versions where done and put a side before reaching this last draft. You can have a glimpse of that 'journey' in the first post of this thread.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:04 am**

Hi Kab,

Shouldn't Istanbul also start as neutral? And Swisse Confederation in the legend be Swiss .. no final "e"?

Splendid work!

I'm online now if you want to say hello

Raskholnikov

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:15 am**

I've noticed.. some numbers are missing

I'll make it right in the next update

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:27 am**

A question for the "programmers": is it possible, when mousing over each of the crossed sabres of the Land Battles or over the compass of the Naval Battles, for a short text to appear with the name of the battle, its date and possibly, the winner (eg, Waterloo, 18 June 1815, Anglo-Prussian Victory)? I think this would add to both the accuracy of the map and enjoyment of the game. What does everyone think about this?

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:35 pm**

What do you think about super imposing an image of Napoleon like on the upper left corner of this map? Where you have the legend. That might look pretty good.

I don't suppose your at this point yet but I hope you look hard at the values you have on the caps. Since they are the victory objective I would not think a simple 3 would suffice. 6 sounds good. Especially with those killer russian winter terts. Maybe make Moscow at 10. The most powerful armies in the world failed to conquer it. A London high value would be appropriate also. Napoleon & Hitler invaded Russia because they saw the near impossibility of a successful invasion of Britain. Make it hard.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:43 pm**

Raskholnikov wrote:A question for the "programmers": is it possible, when mousing over each of the crossed sabres of the Land Battles or over the compass of the Naval Battles, for a short text to appear with the name of the battle, its date and possibly, the winner (eg, Waterloo, 18 June 1815, Anglo-Prussian Victory)? I think this would add to both the accuracy of the map and enjoyment of the game. What does everyone think about this?

Only if its a part of the territory name in the XML and the player has BOB.

Could also, if there's room, make some space for an image of Admiral Lord Nelson, down near Trafalgar of course.

Posted: **Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:46 pm**

jefjef wrote:What do you think about super imposing an image of Napoleon like on the upper left corner of this map? Where you have the legend. That might look pretty good.

I don't suppose your at this point yet but I hope you look hard at the values you have on the caps. Since they are the victory objective I would not think a simple 3 would suffice. 6 sounds good. Especially with those killer russian winter terts. Maybe make Moscow at 10. The most powerful armies in the world failed to conquer it. A London high value would be appropriate also. Napoleon & Hitler invaded Russia because they saw the near impossibility of a successful invasion of Britain. Make it hard.

Hi Jef! Thanks for the feedback.

I'll see if another image of Napoleon could fit there, he's already appearing in the painting

..... as for the larger neutral troops in capitals, I don't really think that would be necessary. Take the 1914 Europe map example - all capitals start with 3 despite being objectives. Even so people rarely win that map by objectives achievement.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:49 am**

Europe 1914 London is at 6. And as far as winning with the objectives it happens more than you think. I myself usually go for the kill cuz it's funner for me. But I have won many with caps holding.

I only encourage you to look hard at it. Atleast maybe make Moscow stronger. Adds more to the killer winter terts and it is in the corner.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:12 am**

you're right London is at 6 but people rarely take it. I'm not sure about raising Moscow's neutral troops...its in the corner, but not easy to get in the first rounds, and Russia will be hard to control... hummm but maybe 4 could do the trick :roll:

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:51 pm**

Jefjef,

I totally agree with the historical argument of making London and Moscow as hard to conquer as possible. If you look at the map, London is sourrounded by neutral Naval Battles, with two neutrals each. So, to take London, one actually has to conquer 2 territories with 5 neutrals on them.

With Moscow, the situation is similar, since it is sourrounded by winter-factor affected regions with a -2 factor each. So, to take Moscow, one must also conquer 2 territories and kill 4 neutrals, but this time during the same move, otherwise one's attack will lose 2 armies at the end of the turn.

As you see, what we wanted to do is to incorporate the difficulty of taking each capital in a more creative way than just stacking a whole lot of neutrals on each of them, and render the difficulty specific to each country''s natural assets: the sea for the UK, winter for Russia.

The question now becomes how much harder do we really want to make the conquest of these capitals, especially for the first time. As Kab said, players will tend to go after each other's armies and the easier to conquer capitals, leaving for later -if at all- the harder ones, like Moscow and London. With London and Moscow neutral for longer, th UK and the Russian empire will be ineffective for longer, leaving a free hand especially to France and the Ottoman Empire. While I think it would be fun to see the Yannisars on the Champs-Elysees or the Imperial Guard in Istanbul, it just wouldn't be the Napoleonic Europe of 1812 any more

I could see the Russian winter territories going up to 2 neutrals each and the Naval Battles around the UK to 3 neutrals each, but I would leave the capitals themselves to 3 neutrals only.

R

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm**

It is a quality map. I just like to see a balanced challenge. Neutral 2's are almost a nothing barrier as well as 3.

As far as Europe 1914. I take London/UK and have seen it used OFTEN. I am the ranked player on that map and am quite familiar with it. There are those that go exclusively for the caps victory. So please do not use the eye roll.

This map looks really good and looks quite playable as it is. Nice work!!

Sorry about the sugg.
I'll not bother you again.

Posted: **Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:58 pm**

Absolutely not bothering - we appreciate your advice. In light of our comments, how many neutrals would you specifically recommend to be placed on each of the following:

a) London;
b) Moscow;
c) Naval Battles;
d) Winter territories; and
e) remaining capitals?

Many thanks,

Raskholnikov

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:41 am**

Not bothering at all jefjef!!
The 'eye roll' was only me thinking/wondering to myself, if raising those 3 in Moscow to 4 could somehow bring more fairness to the map

- and maybe so

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:07 am**

This map is hot shit. Well done gentlemen.

Posted: **Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:12 pm**

I like it Kab,
And yes, I would like to offer some ideas.

First off, I will say that the light tone is interesting. So, from there I would say, keep the land light in tone and color. To contrast that, I suggest that you make the water a very dark and colorless tone. The dark for contrast, and colorless (dark gray) to help the land stand out as it is not very colorful to begin with. I would not try to do anything fancy with the water in the way of texture. Just a very dark colorless gray. This means that the text over the water would need to be changed to white. After I see an example of this, then we can visit the stroke on the boundaries. I do not care too much for them now, but with the water changed, maybe that look might work.
I gotta say that you are surely approaching cairns, as my favorite map maker at CC. =D>

Conquer Club

Napoleonic Europe 1812 - Ver 41/44 [Quenched]

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)

Re: Napoleonic Europe 1812 (an original idea from Raskholnikov)