Conquer Club

While I understand your frustration, there are high standards, and we try to keep them there. It's up to you what you want to do here.

My own personal opinions are that Latin while nifty and cool for this is gonna be confusing in the drop down boxes. Drawing on solutions from the past... (Cirrcus Maximius) all the "U's" are "V's" which gives a 'sense' of Latin, while the names are in English, and readable...

I would agree that the bridges you have are decent, the one at the Carmintine Gate is a little annoying, see if you can't rotate that one just a tad to break the directional complainant.

Gimil does bring up a good point that I agree with, and simply put, your have open space. Space which can be utilized for... Romanness.



You should easily be able to tighten up your texts and gain some space for something.... anything which YOU the artist feel can enhance the Roman flavor of the map which I also agree it seems to be missing.

The Foundry process isn't perfect, I drew the Japan map, got to this very same point with this version:



A lot of people loved it, and it was stickied up for it's last checks. But a few suggestions came through that this version was missing something and should move in an older looking direction. (There was map jizz on the screens of many a Foundry follower when RjBeals posted a quick example. ) But I worked at it and eventually came to this:



This version, of course, was quenched and is tons better, but NOT all that different. Like you said there is a very fine line to walk in the Foundry. It doesn't take much to not be on it... but it can be just as easy to get right back on that line.

Hope to see this map continue. Keep it up, Minister X.


--Andy

• on October 7th Gimil posted a diagram showing how he wanted me to expand the legend info to fill rectangles larger than their current boundaries. Victor Sullivan concurred. I feel this is an awful idea and explained why when posting the next version (draft #21) on October 9th. Later on the 9th Gimil restated his objection but I wasn't sure exactly what he was looking for. I worked on the toga guy but didn't respond to Gimil. On the 14th he complained that I'd not addressed his complaint. Later that day AndyDufresne quoted him and asked, "What is your critique about his legend areas exactly? I just want to be clear." I feel this question speaks for me as well. So far Gimil has not responded. On the 18th I posted version #22 with all other issues (beside the one bridge complaint) met. Gimil has still not responded to the request for clarification.

I didn't respond because you were ignoring my follow up comments. I didn't see andys comment and haven't been back in this thread since I felt like I was being ignored. I didn't see the point in coming back into a thread where I was being ignore when I could use my time to comment on other maps where people were going to address my issues...not ignore them.

That said my point still stands. You need to square up that space and centre your content within the space it sits in. Dead space may be desirable is some scenarios but here you have much square space and right angels to have the content sitting off center like you currently do. It is simply unattractive to look at.

Draft #23

Two changes:
• bridges all angled just a bit to interrupt unwanted uniformity and assist clarity
• Gimil's criticism hopefully addressed - title plus all four corner texts repositioned - with Gimil's latest post and having re-read the previous ones I think I probably misinterpreted what he wanted. I thought he was calling for the five items to be expanded in size so as to fully occupy edge-to-edge the rectangles he'd drawn; now I think he was simply suggesting that without being enlarged they simply be repositioned so as to be centered within those rectangles. If so, I've accommodated him.

show

show

I generally like this map, but the toga guy looks poorly photoshop'd. The jaggedy white outline stands out against the drop shadow. Its not as bad on the small, but on the large it is very noticeable.

In addition to cleaning that up, I think you should consider making him grayscale, to match the look of your other bonus icons.

I know the nitpicky stuff can be frustrating, but it really does pay off.

Minister X wrote:
The most recent bridges (from one version back) were criticized by Flapcake. He says, "the bridges are not an improvement but a decline, it does not look good that they go in the same direction all together, the ones you had before was more authentic and dident look so artificial."

Hi Minister, what i ment by decline was, im my personal opinion, that I liked the hand drawn bridges better becourse they looked more natural and not so planted but more well with the connected areas than the current version, I still have that opinion, but after you have rotated some of them in a more natural direction it have helped on the artificial part.

Im still a huge fan of you map

lostatlimbo wrote:I generally like this map, but the toga guy looks poorly photoshop'd. The jaggedy white outline stands out against the drop shadow. Its not as bad on the small, but on the large it is very noticeable.

In addition to cleaning that up, I think you should consider making him grayscale, to match the look of your other bonus icons.

I know the nitpicky stuff can be frustrating, but it really does pay off.

I think I preferred the other toga icons from before:

show

--Andy

lostatlimbo wrote:...the toga guy looks poorly photoshop'd. The jaggedy white outline stands out against the drop shadow. ...consider making him grayscale.

AndyDufresne wrote:I think I preferred the other toga icons from before:

We had a vote to replace the guy Andy prefers because so many folks disliked him. Now let's vote (or at least get an opinion or two) on this choice:

Flapcake wrote:...I liked the hand drawn bridges better becourse they looked more natural and not so planted but more well with the connected areas than the current version, I still have that opinion, but after you have rotated some of them in a more natural direction it have helped on the artificial part.

I'm glad you see the rotations as an improvement. I'm going to take your comment as permission to proceed without further changes - let me know if that's not right.

grey scale for sure, but I also wouldn't be apposed to coloring the toga while the the rest is still grey scale. Perhaps a nice blood red?

Minister X wrote:I'm glad you see the rotations as an improvement. I'm going to take your comment as permission to proceed without further changes - let me know if that's not right.

Hi Minister, It was only my personal opinion, and I dont realy think im in possition to give any one or anything permission, ther have obvious not been ohters that shared my view, so get on with it, me wanna play your map

Minister X wrote:We had a vote to replace the guy Andy prefers because so many folks disliked him. Now let's vote (or at least get an opinion or two) on this choice:
.

Yeah, grayscale for sure, though I think you could lighten him just a tad so the arms/head aren't so dark.

I'll replace the senator with a monochrome version (slightly lighter than as shown) but that one change is hardly enough to justify a whole new draft. ANYTHING ELSE?

There is still the issue of the extra spaces in and around the legend. And something added artistically for greater Roman flavor.

RedBaron0 wrote:There is still the issue of the extra spaces in and around the legend. And something added artistically for greater Roman flavor.

I don't think there are "extra spaces" and I can't think of any way to increase Roman flavor except to change the title to "Rome: Civil War" so the word "Rome" is more prominent. That name change, however, would mean loss of the gladius, loss of the cool dead guy, and a re-write of the upper left blurb. I'm unwilling to do this unless a lot of people express the opinion that it would be an improvement.

It's not that I'm not trying. I just tried this:



But I don't like it.

Minister X wrote:It's not that I'm not trying. I just tried this:



But I don't like it.

I agree, but how ever in ancient Rome the Laurel wreath were symbols of martial victory, crowning a successful commander during his triumph, so it do fits as a theme object, I just cant see where it should be placed

I also support your unwillingness about change the title, I like as it is now

is it possible to have the title as Rome: Civil War (or 44BC) with your current title as a subtitle, that way you don't lose anything.

Also your thread title is simply ROME, and perhaps that needs to change to identify more with the map and leave open the option for others to do a current Rome map as capital of Italy.

I like the laurel effect, but i think it needs a drop shadow similar to your other icons.

Minister X wrote:I'll replace the senator with a monochrome version (slightly lighter than as shown) but that one change is hardly enough to justify a whole new draft. ANYTHING ELSE?

I do, but they are mostly nitpicky and you don't seem to like those comments. :)

However, I think your map is close enough where you need to start addressing the little details so people can see the finished product as a whole. Its a frustrating process, but it will get this where it needs to go.

Whether or not you change the title, I think it needs a drop shadow. It looks weird to have it on the gladius, but not the title it goes through.

Why would changing the title result in a loss of the gladius? You could easily flip it around and put it through the O in Rome.

I personally don't mind the title, though I think it would be better in Latin. (Something like Caesaris mortem). I think any title you choose would be better in Latin, as it would give you more of that 'Roman flavor'. (If you can't find the Latin translation online, I might be able to help).

I also didn't mind the laurel in the corner. Its a little strong, but just tone down the opacity on it or add a textured effect and it might fit just fine.

My main nitpick now is that your font looks a little jaggedy on the small version. Make sure you are resizing the font to the nearest whole number when you are sizing down the large version.

Lastly, I still don't understand why you need color coded bonuses when you have the icons, but that's just my opinion. :)

lostatlimbo wrote:I do, but they are mostly nitpicky and you don't seem to like those comments.

Smilie noted, but to quote myself from page 12:

Minister X wrote:It's time to get REALLY picky about small adjustments like moving an army number one pixel's-worth one way or another. I am honestly looking forward to seeing how detail-oriented y'all can get.

Regarding the jaggies you see on the reduced fonts: I see some degradation of quality moving from the full to the small map, but nothing I'd call jaggies. But I wear glasses and have to squint - so I'll trust your eyes. I've adjusted the fonts on the small map from 8.68 points to an even 9, as you suggested. You'll have to tell me if you see an improvement. I know a little bit about font technology and I don't believe using even point sizes should make any difference at all, but I could well be wrong. In any case, the increase in size is easily managed.

Regarding the drop shadow on the Gladius and title: I see your point. The problem is that the title, using the incised font, is intended to simulate the letters carved in stone, and such things can't have drop shadows. Nevertheless, I applied a drop shadow just to see what it would look like. It's awful. Solution: remove the drop shadow from behind the gladius. In some ways this looks worse than before, in some ways better. I kind of like it; it's stark but the gladius stands out more. We can easily overdo it with drop shadows.

Regarding the color-coded bonuses: you may have forgotten or you may have missed it, but there was a somewhat protracted discussion of how much color should be in the map. Some wanted more; some less. The compromise solution was to have some color in the terts but not under the legend. What you're in essence asking is that we reopen that debate. I'd really rather just live with the result of the previous one, which until your post above seemed to be acceptable as a compromise to everyone.

Regarding using Latin for the title: according to Google Translate, it would be "Caesar Mortuus Est". I'm more concerned by the question of whether the increase in "Roman flavor" would outweigh the fact 1) that only one in forty CC players would know what it means (though more than that could make a good guess), and 2) it would be harder to remember. "Mortuus" is a very awkward word. Because there are more letters than in "Caesar Is Dead" the font must be reduced, which isn't fatal but isn't great. I've placed the gladius where I think it makes the most sense, but it is somewhat distracting there (though still pretty cool). I just don't know. I've made the changes but I consider them temporary and I'd like to hear from as many voices as possible: is this better or worse?

Cairnswk asked, "is it possible to have the title as Rome: Civil War (or 44BC) with your current title as a subtitle, that way you don't lose anything." First for 44BC: the map contains many landmarks built long after 44BC. I couldn't pick one date where Rome actually contained every one of these landmarks. Thus the note at the bottom of the map that says, "Map features date from 400BC to 330AD". Next, as to title plus subtitle: I just think it would be too crowded and confusing; the simpler the better. Let's see what people think of the Latin title.

The wreath.... eh was something, but I agree was out of place.

Perhaps a Roman coin?



Or how about a Roman Standard?

How's this?



I think it's unnecessary and gratuitous but if it will solve the "Roman flavor" problem I can live with it.

this is what you must read and apply: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3312424#p3312424

and this is roughly how the result should look like:

DiM wrote:this is what you must read and apply: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3312424#p3312424

Mostly disagree.


--Andy

DiM wrote:this is what you must read and apply: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3312424#p3312424

and this is roughly how the result should look like:

DiM, I'm going to take your post as a vote against this game/map - you don't like it and don't think it should go any further. It's entirely your right to so vote and I respect your opinion (though of course I feel otherwise). You carry some weight in the Foundry and I suspect some people agree with you but haven't voiced their opinion. Others have complimented my map. Somehow these conflicting opinions get sifted and decisions are made. I don't know how that works, but I suspect that a single negative vote won't stop a map.

I don't wish to go farther if enough people feel as you do and will eventually express their opinion and kill this project. I'd like to know right now if anyone else thinks this map is not worth pursuing as it is with only minor adjustments. What I'm not going to do is start over from scratch, which it seems to me your post is insisting I do.

I love old maps and have designed many variant maps for a game called Diplomacy with old maps as the background/base. I've played around with doing the same for a CC map but it's difficult. As I look through the existing published games I see none that use an old map in any visible way. Not Ancient Greece or Austro-Hungarian Empire or Celtic Nations or Conquer Rome or Flanders 1302 or France 1789 or Gilgamesh or Holy Roman Empire or Indian Empire or Napoleonic Europe or South Africa 1885... none of the historical games use a historical map. The closest is Austerlitz, but it's a very simple map and not at all like the ones you posted. As I look through all the city-based games I see none that use a real map as a base (except for my own Mafia game!); not Berlin 1961, Charleston, Chicago, Forbidden City, Hong Kong, Montreal, NYC, San Francisco, Stalingrad, Sydney Metro or Vancouver.

I've created a CC map called "The Twelve Tribes" which I've not posted. It uses an historical map of the Holy Lands as its base, but it has about half as many terts as Caesar Mortuus Est, and depicts a region, not a city. And when I first started working on a Rome map I tried to use the Shepherd map as a base but found it impractical. So it's not that I argue with the intent behind your suggestion, it's just that it's very hard to make a CC map over an historical one (no one has yet done so) and there's no way that after 24 drafts I'm going to go back and change the base.

Besides, all the maps you posted are circa 14th to 17th century - they don't depict an ancient city and using something like that would give a medieval feel, not an ancient one.

the images i posted to suggest the overhead view with streets and houses and monuments. you don't have to make it medieval style you can do it in a roman fashion. it's just that the style you have now is overdone. almost every map uses the type of terits that you have with a faint glow and a 2px black border, and frankly after seeing dozens and dozens of maps done in this fashion i'm getting tired of it. if this map were to appear in the foundry back in 2007 i would not probably object too much to it and go along with the style but we live in different times now and (in my opinion) we must always strive to improve.

if you want to create something bland that easily gets lost in the crowd then it's your choice. it doesn't mean it's crap or that people won't play it.
i always think new maps should bring something new both in gameplay as well as in graphics not just recycle the same ideas over and over again.
your map brings absolutely nothing new neither in gameplay nor in graphics. while many more conservative people won't mind this, i'm the type that probably won't even bother playing it once.

there's no way that after 24 drafts I'm going to go back and change the base

i've deleted more advanced maps than this. sometimes no matter how much you work on a map you just can't get it through and the best solution is to start over. and i'm not the only one that did this, many other map makers scratched their work and started new either to pursue a new style or to correct some errors made in the beginning.