The Roman Empire *Page 11* [Vacation]

[Ruben Cassar]

If you decide to stay with white it's fine but you will have to do something about the white borders. Just look at the islands when the white borders are used...they are completely deformed. Are you using some effect with the white borders that you aren't using with the black borders?

It's just outer glow. It makes the borders stand out more and makes them smoother. I'm toning it down on the next version though.

Yes try that. The islands and small territories get deformed because of the glow. Maybe you could try removing the effect completely or is it a must have?

Well the black example had no glow, and as you can see it looks too sharp and thin. The white looks much the same without the glow.

Hmm...actually I like the sharp and thin effect of black especially on the islands. Don't you think the islands look better with black? if you can get that same effect with white it would be much better.

However perhaps you should put a poll on the borders and give maybe 2 options in white and 2 in black to choose from.

[KEYOGI]

As far as I'm concerned Guiscard can keep the lighter coloured borders if he likes. There's no gameplay or graphic flaw and there are people who prefer them over the black ones.

People are going to make comparisions anyway, so I might as well go ahead and beat everyone too it. The Eastern Front map could use a nicer title, but it's not broken and serves its purpose. The same thing applies to Guiscards borders. In both these cases it's up to the cartographer if they want to make a change or provide a reasonable excuse not to.

[hulmey]

Eastern War map is another map, so please dont bring other maps into this thread...tut tut....u should no better Mr.Keyogi.

Anyways alot of people are having problems with the white borders!!! Far more like the black one. A vote would be a good idea so the foundry can see what they prefer....

[KEYOGI]

Don't tell me what I can and cannot post.

I have plenty of helpful and friendly suggestions on how to make maps look better in the foundry and are often completely ignored or the cartographer simply wishes not to make the change for their own personal reason.

What problems are there with the lighter coloured borders? Just because some people don't like them doesn't mean they are a problem. A poll, yes that's the answer to all our problems. I see little value in trivial polls about colours and such, they are much more appropriate for gameplay or more pressing issues.

Now lets keep any future discussion on topic and not drag down Guiscard's thread with off topic nonsense.

[hulmey]

U got a little to big for your boots keyogi.....You went off topic by bringing another map into this thread not me!!!!!!!!!!

Time and time again we hear you say dont bring other maps into the thread, however when it suits you its ok.

While we are on polls....Do you think borders are a trivial thing? I think it actually chnages the whole prespective and the map takes on a compeletly different look. Talking about trivial things is having a poll for Sea Labels.

come on one rule for all pls not how your feeling on a day or towards another person.

Anyway many people prefer black borders, Guiscard has no real explanation as too why he prefers whiote borders, so why not have a poll.

Whats the big deal?

[edbeard]

to be honest Humley I see you in many threads saying to poll this and poll that. in this case I gather that the number of people who prefer white vs black are fairly close. sometimes things should be left to the mapmaker, especially when it comes to visuals.

I agree black borders give the map a new look, but I don't like it at all. It's just a style thing, and I don't think style in this sense is for us to judge. Yes visuals should be talked about, critiqued and improved, but I don't see why this is something we need everyone to vote and decide on.

[DiM]

black borders are better.

[Ruben Cassar]

The problem with the current white borders is that it makes the islands and small territories deformed. Anyone can see that. Actually I think it's not a problem with the white borders but with the glow effect.

So personally I don't care if the borders are white, black, pink or aquamarine (although I do think that black is better) as long as the territories are not deformed.

Honestly we have had similar polls in many other maps, I cannot see what the problem is with this one.

[DiM]

time for a more complex feedback post.


1. black borders are better
2. the image above dacia seems to be from rome-total war. i don't know if you need copyright for that but i'd take it out as it looks bad because the other neutral terit images are totally different (stone carvings)
3. the neutral terit background. lately everybody seems to be using images for them. while i think it's good i think i've personally reached a saturation point.
4. map size. i hope the map presented so far is the small version otherwise there will be severe problems with cluttering.
5. the colours are too bright for me.
6. i dont like the gradient fill for the terits.
7. the sea and the terits are in desperate need of a texture.
8. impassable borders.
9. the map also needs a gimmick. something to put a spark in gameplay.


overall the map gives me a bland feeling. i think so much more could be done to capture better the roman empire but unfortunately so far it's just like any other geographical map on the site.

[Teya]

I dont understand why all new maps need a gimmick. What is wrong with normal gameplay? If you dont like a risk style game DiM, maybe you are at the wrong site. As for DiM mentioning "severe cluttering" its apparantly not a problem in his Age of Merchants map, but its a problem here???

As for the actual map, I like the white borders.
Its also nice to see someone using the size guidelines for a change.

[DiM]

I dont understand why all new maps need a gimmick. What is wrong with normal gameplay? If you dont like a risk style game DiM, maybe you are at the wrong site. As for DiM mentioning "severe cluttering" its apparantly not a problem in his Age of Merchants map, but its a problem here???

it's my personal opinion. am i not allowed to post it? WTF? i like maps with a twist. what's wrong with that? if i'm absurd then lack is also absurd for providing new xml features. wtf are you doing to this site lack? you're destroying the conservative people like teya


as for the cluttering did you even try resizing the image to see how it would look?

here: and keep in mind all the labels have to be made larger to be visible . now tell me where will the armies go if the labels are made larger?

[Spockers]

Absolutely agree with Teya. Don't need a gimmick.


Also...

8. impassable borders.

wtf? what about them... Leave them out if you don't need them

Impassable borders should be avoided at all costs, and only ever used when the map does not have natural borders that allow decent gameplay (eg: Australia)

This map works fine without them.. why add them?

[Spockers]

if i'm absurd then lack is also absurd for providing new xml features. wtf are you doing to this site lack? you're destroying the conservative people like teya

Don't be so obnoxious. What Teya means (and you know full well), is that you cant just throw a "gimmick" or new style of play into any map.

If you have an idea for a new gimmick, then create the map around that. Not the other way around.

[KEYOGI]

U got a little to big for your boots keyogi.....You went off topic by bringing another map into this thread not me!!!!!!!!!!

I used an example of another map to support my point, because God forbid I post an opinion without evidence to back it up. If you've got a problem with me or my mod behaviour, take it up with Lack or post it in the Flame Wars.

Now, I'm sure Guiscard will tweak and improve the borders to try and find a happy medium, but he's not going to please everybody. As for the size of the map, I find a lot of small maps to be cramped and it's something to be considered if it becomes a problem. The image you posted though DiM is quite short of the recommended size for a small map. I don't know if you did this intentionally to prove your point, but your small map is 580x350. There's no reason why the small map couldn't be more around 600x362 or perhaps a touch bigger if really needed. We've got that many maps in production that make a mockery of the guidelines, it's a refreshing change to see a cartographer work with the guidelines not against them.

Is the three city bonus really necessary? It's just me, but I'd prefer if just Roma was the focal point. I'm no gameplay expert, but I think gameplay will be more interesting if it was just the one city bonus instead of the three. Also, how about moving the Hispania sea connection with Corsica-Sardinia to Taraconesis? I think it'll just look a bit neater there and wont really make any difference to gameplay.

[DiM]

The image you posted though DiM is quite short of the recommended size for a small map. I don't know if you did this intentionally to prove your point, but your small map is 580x350. There's no reason why the small map couldn't be more around 600x362 or perhaps a touch bigger if really needed. We've got that many maps in production that make a mockery of the guidelines, it's a refreshing change to see a cartographer work with the guidelines not against them.

teya said she likes to see someone follow the rules.

in the rules it says 350px for small version so i made it 350.

ofcourse it can be made at 362 but personally i'd prefer the curent one to be the small version.

i don't really like small maps. i want big ones huge even. i want to feel like a real general that plots world domination. not a 7 yo kid that plays under the blanket with miniature soldiers.

[Ruben Cassar]

Is the three city bonus really necessary? It's just me, but I'd prefer if just Roma was the focal point. I'm no gameplay expert, but I think gameplay will be more interesting if it was just the one city bonus instead of the three. Also, how about moving the Hispania sea connection with Corsica-Sardinia to Taraconesis? I think it'll just look a bit neater there and wont really make any difference to gameplay.

Hmm I like the 3 city bonus. It adds more strategy to the gameplay and don't forget that thanks to the new XML features the cities will starts with neutral units so players don't start with a disadvantage. Also I think Roma is still the focal point because it has a bigger bonus. Byzantium was very important in the later stages of the empire and Carthago was a a very important city for commerce even after the Punic Wars.

I haven't looked properly at the sea connections though so I cannot comment on those.

[KEYOGI]

While I would personally have no problem with the current map being the small version, it's hardly practical. The guidelines are there to ensure compatibility with the majority of monitor sizes and resolutions.

[DiM]

if i'm absurd then lack is also absurd for providing new xml features. wtf are you doing to this site lack? you're destroying the conservative people like teya

Don't be so obnoxious. What Teya means (and you know full well), is that you cant just throw a "gimmick" or new style of play into any map.

If you have an idea for a new gimmick, then create the map around that. Not the other way around.

i never said that throwing a gimmick pleases me. no way. that gimmick must be carefully chosen and it has to serve the purpose of making the game more entertaining.

for example this is how i envision this map.

centers of power. let's say 6. each player starts with one and then develops from there. the goal is to get to rome and take it. but getting further and further from your center of power makes your influence grow smaller. that means only smaller and smaller amounts of troops can be put in each newly taken terit. however this problem can be dealt with by establishing sea/land supply routes and outposts.
this means seas will also have to be considered as terits. make rome start with a big defence and make the sea routes very unstable by inserting random events like storms (killing and turning the sea terits to neutral)


or do it in reverse. 6 players start with 6 terits in italy. rome is neutral and has to be taken to win. but rome has a big defence and the innitial 6 terits can only be conquered if you have rome. (to prevent people killing eachother in round 1 and to simulate the fact that you need the senate's approval to kill a roman faction.) so each player starts in italy and expands. just like in the previous example, expansion is more and more difficult as you stretch far from rome. to prevent making the expansion get to a halt you have various barbaric capitals that you must take and they act as a lesser rome, expanding your influence.

[DiM]

The guidelines are there to ensure compatibility with the majority of monitor sizes and resolutions.

yes i know but we have to remember the IT world is in a permanent state of development and monitors are getting bigger and cheaper each year. we can't have the same restrictions for too much time.

[Teya]

for example this is how i envision this map.

Make your own version then.

[Ruben Cassar]

i never said that throwing a gimmick pleases me. no way. that gimmick must be carefully chosen and it has to serve the purpose of making the game more entertaining.

for example this is how i envision this map.

centers of power. let's say 6. each player starts with one and then develops from there. the goal is to get to rome and take it. but getting further and further from your center of power makes your influence grow smaller. that means only smaller and smaller amounts of troops can be put in each newly taken terit. however this problem can be dealt with by establishing sea/land supply routes and outposts.
this means seas will also have to be considered as terits. make rome start with a big defence and make the sea routes very unstable by inserting random events like storms (killing and turning the sea terits to neutral)


or do it in reverse. 6 players start with 6 terits in italy. rome is neutral and has to be taken to win. but rome has a big defence and the innitial 6 terits can only be conquered if you have rome. (to prevent people killing eachother in round 1 and to simulate the fact that you need the senate's approval to kill a roman faction.) so each player starts in italy and expands. just like in the previous example, expansion is more and more difficult as you stretch far from rome. to prevent making the expansion get to a halt you have various barbaric capitals that you must take and they act as a lesser rome, expanding your influence.

Haha. This is ridiculous. No offence, but your idea sucks. Thank God you are not doing this map.

1. This is a map about the glory of Rome not about the destruction of Rome!
2. The things that you are mentioning cannot be done in CC programming wise.
3. If you want to play such a game continue playing Rome: Total War and Rome: Barbarian Invasion which I am sure you already have as all the stuff you mentioned is incorporated in that game.

[DiM]

for example this is how i envision this map.

Make your own version then.

i don't want to make my own version. i just posted what i would like it to be.

what's wrong with giving a suggestion?

[DiM]

i never said that throwing a gimmick pleases me. no way. that gimmick must be carefully chosen and it has to serve the purpose of making the game more entertaining.

for example this is how i envision this map.

centers of power. let's say 6. each player starts with one and then develops from there. the goal is to get to rome and take it. but getting further and further from your center of power makes your influence grow smaller. that means only smaller and smaller amounts of troops can be put in each newly taken terit. however this problem can be dealt with by establishing sea/land supply routes and outposts.
this means seas will also have to be considered as terits. make rome start with a big defence and make the sea routes very unstable by inserting random events like storms (killing and turning the sea terits to neutral)


or do it in reverse. 6 players start with 6 terits in italy. rome is neutral and has to be taken to win. but rome has a big defence and the innitial 6 terits can only be conquered if you have rome. (to prevent people killing eachother in round 1 and to simulate the fact that you need the senate's approval to kill a roman faction.) so each player starts in italy and expands. just like in the previous example, expansion is more and more difficult as you stretch far from rome. to prevent making the expansion get to a halt you have various barbaric capitals that you must take and they act as a lesser rome, expanding your influence.

Haha. This is ridiculous. No offence, but your idea sucks. Thank God you are not doing this map.

1. This is a map about the glory of Rome not about the destruction of Rome!
2. The things that you are mentioning cannot be done in CC programming wise.
3. If you want to play such a game continue playing Rome: Total War and Rome: Barbarian Invasion which I am sure you already have as all the stuff you mentioned is incorporated in that game.

1. only my first example is about the destruction.
2. can't be done now. in theory they can be implemented and who knows what the future may bring?
3. no i don't have rome total war. i actually stopped playing the series total war after shogun: total war.

[gimil]

was shogum not the dirst in the series?

[DiM]

was shogum not the dirst in the series?

yes it was the first. stopped playing after that. the only fun was playing the battles but at some point after developing the economy it was pointless because you'd just raised a huge army and press simulate.