Conquer Club

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.

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

I've noticed.. some numbers are missing

I'll make it right in the next update

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

This map is hot shit. Well done gentlemen.

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.

Is there a connection between Sussex and Normandie? You may want to move the label 'Boulogne' away from the Channel so there's no confusion.

No, there isn't. Thanks for the heads-up.

Hi Kab,

In addition to the Black Sea, please add:

Mediterranean Sea;
Atlantic Ocean;
North Sea; and
Baltic Sea.

Thanks,

Raskholnikov

Hi Porkandbeans,

Thanks for your comments. We are glad you like our map so far.

Regarding your suggestion to change the water texture to a dark, colorless grey and reverse colors from black to white for the texts currently on the sea, I do not think this will work, either technically or visually.

There are too many details and features currently on the sea background, which could not come out as well on a purely dark grey background, Whilst now these details blend quite well with the soft blue sea color, the would contrast starkly on a dark grey background and make the sea look like a patchwork of letters and symbols surrounded by a grey mass.

Kab may have a different take on this, but I for one prefer to leave the sea as is.

Raskholnikov

Again Porken, thanks a lot for your comments!

conceptually this map should have this soft look, like a hand made battle/campaign map, just punctuated by the necessary legend. Being so, I really want (and need) the softer tones in the sea.

Raskholnikov wrote: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

Moscow and London should both be difficult to take, more so than, say, Austria or Berlin. In London's case, I'd do it by isolating the UK further by making the battles around it start with 3 neutrals (maybe not so much St. Vincent since that's surrounded by neutral starts anyway). That would more accurately reflect British naval domination and just how hard it was to attack Britain by sea; it would also reflect just how tricky it was for Britain to invade the mainland.

As for Moscow, you might give it a little auto-deploy, and consider splitting the Kiev territory into two. Those would reflect the tremendous Russian population and the favorite Russian strategy of 'retreat further into Russia until they all die of cold'.

While you're at it you might as well simulate Napoleon's logistical superiority by letting Paris one-way assault certain territories like specific battles, French-allied capitals, or just external adjacent territories

Of course, it's possible that the present defenses are sufficient and I'm completely talking out my ass.

If you don't like the idea of making the water dark, maybe you would consider making it an off-white, so that it is lighter than the land. You would not need to change the text at all. And then maybe even darken the land ever so slightly. This would bring in the contrast that I am suggesting.

I have a question about naval bonuses.

How many armies will be 3 naval bonuses worth? How about 4 naval bonuses?

Hi Andrew,

Each Pair will be worth 1 bonus army. Hence, 2 Naval Battles are worth one extra army; 3 Naval Battles are also worth one extra army; 4 Naval Battles are worth 2 extra armies; 5 naval battles are worth 2 extra armies as well; 6 naval battles are worth 3 extra bonuses; and 7 naval battles are also worth 3 extra bonuses.

Thanks for all your help; I am glad you are part of the project!

If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Raskholnikov.

Guys, Andrew will be joining us in this map focusing on the XML part, and of course, all extra and much needed guidance!

Evil, as I've told JefJef before I'll raise Moscow's neutral troops to 4 but I don't think London's should be raised above 3. Also not favourable on raising Russia terrs, it has already 11 regions, far more than any other country there. And that raise on Moscow will be a bit harder to get.

Porken, I'll try something there, though I'm quite satisfied with what we have right now