Conquer Club

What's the difference between this PS5(no clue what that is) and the old version? From what I can tell the older version looked much smoother and I think I preferred it tbh.

do the happiness auto deploys drop on the happiness territories when you take them or your starting point?

isaiah40 wrote:Happiness not Happines

Fixed, thanks Isaiah40

Funkyterrance wrote:What's the difference between this PS5(no clue what that is) and the old version? From what I can tell the older version looked much smoother and I think I preferred it tbh.

The difference is this:
PS (photoshop) is an industrry standard that lots of professionals use. It has various functions that are better than other packages and indeed many maps on CC are made with the software.
The older image is done in Fireworks which is more of a internet creation package and doesn't have some of the fancy functions that PS has.
This will be my first full map in PS.
With PS, i now have some knowledge of 4 packages...PS, Fireworks, Illustrator and Cordeldraw
Adding to skill-set FT

nicarus wrote:do the happiness auto deploys drop on the happiness territories when you take them or your starting point?

nicarus...they autodeploy on the happiness territories....that is what autodeploy means -> on the same territory

cairnswk wrote:The difference is this:
PS (photoshop) is an industrry standard that lots of professionals use. It has various functions that are better than other packages and indeed many maps on CC are made with the software.
The older image is done in Fireworks which is more of a internet creation package and doesn't have some of the fancy functions that PS has.
This will be my first full map in PS.
With PS, i now have some knowledge of 4 packages...PS, Fireworks, Illustrator and Cordeldraw
Adding to skill-set FT

Thanks for the explanation, cairns.
I was looking back over the map and I think I discovered what I noticed had changed. It was basically an error of inattention on my part in that I was remembering one side of the map vs. the other side, not two different versions. For me, the Omaha side is much easier on the eyes(smooth) while the Sacramento side is much rougher in appearance due to the increased number of mountainous regions. I'm not sure if this is anything that you would even consider but the smoothness of the Omaha half is just a lot more serene imho and fits the theme better(simpler times).

Funkyterrance wrote:...
I was looking back over the map and I think I discovered what I noticed had changed. It was basically an error of inattention on my part in that I was remembering one side of the map vs. the other side, not two different versions. For me, the Omaha side is much easier on the eyes(smooth) while the Sacramento side is much rougher in appearance due to the increased number of mountainous regions. I'm not sure if this is anything that you would even consider but the smoothness of the Omaha half is just a lot more serene imho and fits the theme better(simpler times).

NPs FT.
Yes, and indeed from my readings, the Sacremento side had far more challenges to overcome than did the Omaha side.
On the map, this could be caused by layout, and i will seek to improve that as we go along.
But in fact, there are:
1. 4 bombordment areas on each side,
2. 4 happiness factors - 2 of which are attached to bombardment areas
3. same number of terrs to conquer
4. and same number of neutrals to conquer
the difference is that all these for each side occur at different stages, and i really think people will concentrate on either achieving the race (in the hope that their opponent will do the same), or strategising and doing bombarding to hold up their opponent; the later will require back-forting troops to their start point in order to bombard.
Given that some hope also lies in who goes first, it's a toss up for each player that they're going to get either one or the other and will have to develop strategies accordingly.

cairnswk wrote:Yes, and indeed from my readings, the Sacremento side had far more challenges to overcome than did the Omaha side.
On the map, this could be caused by layout, and i will seek to improve that as we go along.
But in fact, there are:
1. 4 bombordment areas on each side,
2. 4 happiness factors - 2 of which are attached to bombardment areas
3. same number of terrs to conquer
4. and same number of neutrals to conquer
the difference is that all these for each side occur at different stages, and i really think people will concentrate on either achieving the race (in the hope that their opponent will do the same), or strategising and doing bombarding to hold up their opponent; the later will require back-forting troops to their start point in order to bombard.
Given that some hope also lies in who goes first, it's a toss up for each player that they're going to get either one or the other and will have to develop strategies accordingly.

Oh yeah, from a gameplay standpoint I don't have any problems whatever, I'm not very knowledgeable in that area tbh. I just meant aesthetically speaking, if the mountains could be "smoothed out" for lack of a better term, on the Sacramento side, the map in it's entirety would be more consistent. Does that make sense?

Funkyterrance wrote:...
Oh yeah, from a gameplay standpoint I don't have any problems whatever, I'm not very knowledgeable in that area tbh. I just meant aesthetically speaking, if the mountains could be "smoothed out" for lack of a better term, on the Sacramento side, the map in it's entirety would be more consistent. Does that make sense?

Yes it does make sense, but why do you want to extract the terrain background...this is the Sierra Nevada leading into the Rocky Mntns across the Columbia Plateau...IMHO give the map character.

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:...
Oh yeah, from a gameplay standpoint I don't have any problems whatever, I'm not very knowledgeable in that area tbh. I just meant aesthetically speaking, if the mountains could be "smoothed out" for lack of a better term, on the Sacramento side, the map in it's entirety would be more consistent. Does that make sense?

Yes it does make sense, but why do you want to extract the terrain background...this is the Sierra Nevada leading into the Rocky Mntns across the Columbia Plateau...IMHO give the map character.

Ok, my main concern was that you just understood what I was trying to say lol. It's your map and I understand that if you like it better with the mountains so "hard" looking then I have to suck it up.
I did notice that there are mountainous areas in the Omaha side, they are just more muted. I suppose my suggestion was to try and have both sides looking this "soft" way and see how it looked?

Funkyterrance wrote:...
Ok, my main concern was that you just understood what I was trying to say lol. It's your map and I understand that if you like it better with the mountains so "hard" looking then I have to suck it up.
I did notice that there are mountainous areas in the Omaha side, they are just more muted. I suppose my suggestion was to try and have both sides looking this "soft" way and see how it looked?

I understand completely what you are saying.
Unless i change the background completely which i don't want to do because it will lose the character of the map, we are never going to change the difference between the two maps because they should be joined together side by side rather than off-set as you know. Omaha is always going to look softer (no/less mountains = less dark ridges), and even when i reduce opacity of both maps, the Sacremento side still looks harsher because of the terrain and i don't want to lose that. Sorry FT.
If i put a rubber tool at 25% opacity over the Sacremento side it would lose the feel of that side also. I am not prepared to do that because it causes inconsistency in the maps and they have been both sourced from the one original map.

cairnswk wrote:I understand completely what you are saying.
Unless i change the background completely which i don't want to do because it will lose the character of the map, we are never going to change the difference between the two maps because they should be joined together side by side rather than off-set as you know. Omaha is always going to look softer (no/less mountains = less dark ridges), and even when i reduce opacity of both maps, the Sacremento side still looks harsher because of the terrain and i don't want to lose that. Sorry FT.
If i put a rubber tool at 25% opacity over the Sacremento side it would lose the feel of that side also. I am not prepared to do that because it causes inconsistency in the maps and they have been both sourced from the one original map.

Ahh, I see. Well, I suppose that is that then.

is this last version 8 (made by PS) also focused on gameplay? because I can not see any changes except replacing some of Happiness.

about graphics, each version has something I like, but the last one looks better. what I more like in version 7 is colour of Happiness and better readable names on background.

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:is this last version 8 (made by PS) also focused on gameplay? because I can not see any changes except replacing some of Happiness.
Oneyed

Oneyed, yes even though i have changed the map over to PS, the focus is still on gameplay please.
did you go back and read this post below...i stated:
if we have this, i'd like to have 2 attached to the bombardment, and 2 attached to non-bombardment towns.
so there is a change in gameplay

about graphics, each version has something I like, but the last one looks better. what I more like in version 7 is colour of Happiness and better readable names on background.

Good.

cairnswk wrote:

Oneyed wrote:the Happiness in this version have a less importance. what about to do them more important? I can see any (not complex) possibilities:
1, could they be "added" to Saboteurs only (as have Nexcastle or Freemont) - their importance will be that they give +2 auto, so player can easier secure (or reconquer) Saboteurs after bombarding. maybe in this version Saboteurs would not give +1 autodeploy, so player will realy need happiness?

if we have this, i'd like to have 2 attached to the bombardment, and 2 attached to non-bombardment towns.

2, make them a "must", so player could continue only if he holds station and its happiness.

OK, i could go with that for the attached to bombardment towns.

3, or combination - some could be added to Saboteurs and some to "normal" stations, but here they will be a "must".
maybe a "must" would be only before any easier part of railroad (several n2 in row as you have already in)...

half and half is good, but these have to fit in with scenes that i can find historically and therefore i don't know about your must.

the font is blurry for me too.

please specify where

and the railroad is hard visible or it a little blend between frames of western and eastern part.

yeh, graphics issue...let's do gameplay for now eh?

cairnswk wrote:if we have this, i'd like to have 2 attached to the bombardment, and 2 attached to non-bombardment towns.
so there is a change in gameplay

yes I see this one as only change in gameplay. so this is as you want to have gameplay?

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:

cairnswk wrote:if we have this, i'd like to have 2 attached to the bombardment, and 2 attached to non-bombardment towns.
so there is a change in gameplay

yes I see this one as only change in gameplay. so this is as you want to have gameplay?

Oneyed

Well yes...it is a compromise...we simply have to balance the neutrals

cairns, clarify for me this point. The yellow territs. Are the bombard points your opponent can hit from there starting position or are they decay or killer neutrals? I only ask as I seem to remember them being killer neutrals at one point.

koontz1973 wrote:cairns, clarify for me this point. The yellow territs. Are the bombard points your opponent can hit from there starting position or are they decay or killer neutrals? I only ask as I seem to remember them being killer neutrals at one point.

NO, they were never killer neutrals otherwise you'd neve be able to achieve the goal of holding the line and spikes.
Always been bombardments from start positions.

cairnswk wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:cairns, clarify for me this point. The yellow territs. Are the bombard points your opponent can hit from there starting position or are they decay or killer neutrals? I only ask as I seem to remember them being killer neutrals at one point.

NO, they were never killer neutrals otherwise you'd neve be able to achieve the goal of holding the line and spikes.
Always been bombardments from start positions.

Thanks.

I kind of wish there were less bombards. One on each side or two max would be plenty I feel?

Funkyterrance wrote:I kind of wish there were less bombards. One on each side or two max would be plenty I feel?

FT...on that i am flexible.

How do others feels about reducing the bombardments to 2?

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I kind of wish there were less bombards. One on each side or two max would be plenty I feel?

FT...on that i am flexible.

How do others feels about reducing the bombardments to 2?

How about changing a couple of the bombardments to decays? Maybe the Avalanche, workers walk out and the Indian attacks could be the decays? Just a couple of pennies worth.

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I kind of wish there were less bombards. One on each side or two max would be plenty I feel?

FT...on that i am flexible.

How do others feels about reducing the bombardments to 2?

How about changing a couple of the bombardments to decays? Maybe the Avalanche, workers walk out and the Indian attacks could be the decays? Just a couple of pennies worth.

isaiah40. i think that's a marvellous suggestion.
So for CPRR, we'd have Newcastle and 15 tunnels as decays, and i'd have to find another "incident" to add to that, so that would leave only 1 bridge bombardment.
For UPRR, we'd have "slow prorgress" and " indian attacks" (3) as the decays and 1 bridge bombardment.
1 bridge bombardment each side would satisfy FT's suggestions, and isaiah40 gets his decays.
Even i have to clap for those.

Any chance of the Draft stamp being allocated please.

cairnswk wrote:1 bridge bombardment each side would satisfy FT's suggestions, and isaiah40 gets his decays.
Even i have to clap for those.

I think the decays are an excellent suggestion as well!

Didn't mean to bump off cairns' request. He needs a Draft Stamp, Pronto!