150 After Hijrah: The Battle for God

[Raskholnikov]

Hi Andrew,

The upside down discussion has been adressed repeatedly and in great detail earlier on. In very brief, this was the arabic perspective of the world at the time, as exemplified in most maps of the time including Idrisi's famous map (you will find examples if you go through the thread). The entire idea of the map was to provide a different perspective of the world, and show that all world views are culturally constructed and relative. Needless to say, from space, this perspective is neither right or wrong. It all depends how you orient your camera (or space shuttle) in a 0 gravity environment. So there is actually a link between the arabic perspective of the world between the 7th and 15th centuries AD, and the way we can see the world from space today. The convention of having the North up and West to the left is just that - a convention, culturally determined by the rise of western European countries as the pricipal explorers, traders, and colonisers between the15th and 20th centuries, whose world view was than adopted as the standard - but not only! - world view and cartographic representation. That's fine as far as it goes; but the purpose of this map, is exactly to challenge world-views which are so familiar they have become virtually unchallanged and unchalleangeable - which is evident in the difficulty we are having with even getting through to many Foundry members that our image is not simply "upside-down" and therefore "wrong" but an equally valid re-presentation of the world, from a different cultural perspective, which could be equally valid to the one we now use, as shown by the fact that from space, north can be down and west to the right just as easily as up and to the left, depending on how one positions himself. Hope this helps.

[Industrial Helix]

Alright... I've got some time and I think I want to say something about this map and I'm going to try to be nice and constructive about it but I've got a lot of complaints.

Concept:

What is Hijah? I wiki'd it and came up with nothing. And 150 what after it? Years I presume but I have no idea.

Where is the battle for God? I see religious sites mentioned but with nothing indicating what or where they are and why they matter other than being given a star.

You're assuming the player knows something about this map (which really, is why a player plays a map I think). You're offering little suggestion as to what history you're referring to, counter to the purpose of a historical map.

The idea, at its core, is a good one and a severely underexplored area on CC... presuming it has something to do with the rise of Islam. Like I said before... I have no idea looking at this map and proactively googling keywords hasn't yielded any results.

Gameplay:

Feudal war meet Third Crusade?

Bottlenecks galore. While I believe in the use of some bottlenecks on a map, I think this has too many. Like its trying to follow explicitly in the footsteps of historical events while offering no suggestion of political/military/religious possibilities that existed at the time, the concerns of the major leaders involved or the alternative to decisions historically made, the "might have been."

Well, save for the goals of the map, control all holy sites. But you have to fight every historical battle to get there when perhaps the counter-factual route to one faith holding all sites would have been to avoid some of those battles or try different options.

The capitals are way too powerful. I find it totally unrealistic Constantinople can bombard Athens and I fail to see how this might serve as a worthy substitute for logistical reality at the time. One way attacks might be better, albeit a stretch, but would portray the sense of roads, understanding of terrain and existence of partisans that would have been real at the time.

Graphics:

I hate lines connecting cities or territories. I hate them because they are difficult to visualize. I hate them because they don't create shapes I can instantly recognize so I can't evaluate what territories I have, what they're part of, where I need to defend and what my plan of attack should be. If I'm on this map, I can't see where my border is without counting my territories one by one, even then, it's still not registering in my brain as a visual 2d entity, but rather a series of coordinates which I will forget after my turn and have to re-collect next time. It makes gameplay over-complicated and difficult to read. I hate lines because in order to understand how big or small a territory is, I have to take the time to count, whereas with territories and normal borders, the visual is right there. I've been staring at this map and commenting on it for nearly 30 minutes now and still could not tell you off the top of my head if North Africa is bigger than the Caliphate on the Saudi Peninsula. If this were, say a generic Europe map, I could tell you within seconds, which is the biggest bonus area and which is smallest. In fact... I don't even know if there is a Caliphate on the Saudi Peninsula because it never registered in my brain that there was anything there except dots and lines. No borders, no shape to associate with the meaning of bonus area.

Fix the lines to dots problem and approach this from a territory perspective and many of your graphics problems will disappear.

I get the Jerusalem as center of the world thing and it makes sense for this map, though I don't care for the "rebel against the norm" attitude that typically is hand in hand with those of us with up-side-down maps on our walls. But this is irrelevant. Jerusalem as the center is good but graphically its lost somewhere in this mess of coordinates and muddy tones. (Seriously... I was going to gripe about the claim for 6 religious sites to win when I could repeatedly only count 5.) This map is about Jerusalem in concept but the graphics don't reflect this at all other than portraying the world up-side-down, you've got to tie it together much better.

As for the settled decision on showing the earth from space... I read a review about the film Troy and the critic made an observation about the filmwork that really stuck with me. He pointed out that the battle scenes were filmed from a airplane point of view when nothing of the sort existed. I look at this map and I see the same critical error: Neil Armstrong watching 600 AD conquest in the name of God. Ditch it. Go with the hand drawn look, like an ancient cartographer in Jerusalem sat down and drafted the unfolding conflict surrounding the city where he resides. Take a few notes out of the Iwo Jima map, perhaps leave his pen casually discarded along the lower border. The regions unknown, such as south of the Sahara or beyond Persia, trail off into open lines that end just before the paper, as if what lies in those directions is unknown. Draw the frontlines, show where the hotly contested areas are, make it look like there's history unfolding somewhere on this map...

Which you try to do with the battle site graphic, I'll credit you there. But to be honest, I think the symbols on this map are cheesy at best. You've got a glowing explosions in the hayday of swords and spears, steamship wheels in the era of sail, ect. A lot would be cleared up with territories rather than bubble domed cities ambiguously titled A3.

Which is my next point. You're doing a historical map, use historical places. B12 is no way to refer to whatever is going on down there by Ephesus. You fail to convey historical event with coordinates which is detrimental to the purpose of a historical map.

Fonts... a graphic design instructor of mine told me never to use more than two fonts. If you have to use two, use it on the title and keep everything else pertaining to information the same. I count 7 fonts on your map. Maybe six if the coordinates and group labels are the same... so much has been done to the coordinates I really can't tell. Selecting a good font is tricky because a font always says more than what you write with it. It infers time period, the event it describes (in a map's case), the culture of the place, ect. You've got scrolly style, which is a good start though not your best option I think. You'll have to investigate what your font options are. But then you've got this plain Ariel looking thing in the directions, giant pink Jerusalem, whatever is going on with the title and Lunar Robot font for your names... Do a fancy title, then be consistent with the rest especially in font and in size and style if you can help it. (Sometimes a little Italics helps to designate a special space.)

As for font effects, use sparingly. The Star Wars title is cheesy. So is the big red WIN. More often than not, they look bad.

Porkenbeans... I know you get a lot of grief over your graphics and maps and some of it is quite harsh. But you gotta stop embossing or beveling all gameplay aspects of a map. It makes it hard to read and comprehend and it looks 1990's tacky.

Overall:

You've got a good concept but in 13 pages you've gone all the wrong directions with it. I kept putting off commenting on it because I could never read it or make any sense out of it for it to make a rational comment. But, with insomnia hitting hard and nothing better to do, I took the time. I'm not saying abandon the map and I do hope you push forward with it, like I said, its underexplored on CC. You could do real wonders with it, but you gotta make it legible. Good luck.

[Raskholnikov]

Thanks for the detailed comments. I will reply soon in detail. Hints: 1. Hejirah is the year of Muhammed's flight from Meccah to Medinah, in 622 AD. It marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. Hence 150 a.H is 772 A.D. 2. Please also check the post at the top of this thread for the names of all cities and battles, which will be displayed in drop-down menus similary to what was done in WWII. 3. Again, if you read the top post, you will find there are only 2 types of empires: 1 capital, 1 port, 1 religious site, 3 regular cities; and 1 capital, 1 port, 9 regular cities. There are 5 of each. 4. One does not have to fight every battle to conquer the 6 religious site, since all ports connect with each other. In short ( and subject to a soon-to-come detailed reply) I find a lot of your comments pertinent, BUT overall you are asking me to develop a totally different map and game-play from what I intend. I will do my best to incorporate the pertinent advice without throwing my entire concept overboard and creating the map you would have done, as opposed to the one I am doing. Again, many thanks for taking the time to provide such detailed and constructive criticism.

[Industrial Helix]

No problem Rash. Like I said before, I think you've got a winning concept and a good theme that needs some serious representation on CC and I look forward to what you produce.

But, in response to your comments, I think I should add that maybe 1% of the 20,000 members on CC that play these maps are going to look for your thread to read the first post. A lot of the information you've brought up in the first post intro to the map is not going to be read by players and even more, case in point, probably won't be read by even the foundry people. You're selling an image, a map, not the thread. So keep this in mind when going about your retooling. Also, I think your map might benefit from a little history lesson off to the side. Sometimes they're bulky and unneeded, but I think in the case of this map, which addresses a lesser known subject, it might be a real boon.

Be careful of the bottle necks, I see you're hesitant to change them, but beware because if you don't address them suitably everyone else is gonna complain. I've got one bottleneck on South Africa I've decided to keep and I'm still hearing about it. I had a bunch on 13 colonies that I ended up changing despite my initial hesitation.

Keep in mind you're on your first map, hell so am I, but its the toughest one. I learned a lot between 13 Colonies and Wars for Italian and German Unification and the latter zoomed through the drafting room a lot faster than expected cause a lot of initial mess ups were avoided. Keep patient, I hope you see this through, I'll do my best to offer constructive crits as it goes on.

[Raskholnikov]

Amazing! What a pleasure to read you. I will do my best to address all your concerns as best I can. Thanks again for all your time.

[RjBeals]

Amazing! What a pleasure to read you. I will do my best to address all your concerns as best I can. Thanks again for all your time.

strange post sequence.

[Raskholnikov]

I can appreciate the time and effort someone puts into discussing our map and the postive and friendly attitude even if we don't agree on a lor of things. That's what that was all about. Now I have to rush to teach a class - which is why I couldn't provide lengthy answers to some posts addressed to me today. I hope everything seems less strange now...

[wcaclimbing]

I have just skimmed (ie not read in great detail) this thread - and it appears that the biggest criticism of the map is the lack of thematic integrity.

Personally, I would take some time to address this concern.

Pork and Rask, you guys really should listen to MrBenn.
Many people are complaining about your outer space style, and you two are the only ones supporting it.

And I agree with what others have said, the outer space graphics really detract from the overall theme of the map. You are describing a historical event, but you're putting it in a sci-fi setting, making things really confusing.
If I didn't know what you were trying to make, I would assume it was some kind of futuristic religious fantasy war, not a historical event that actually happened.

Also, I would get rid of the space background and change it to something else. Perhaps something that fits the theme of the map a bit better... I'm sorry to say this, but I kinda agree with those who say that the space theme doesn't go well with the map. I'd rather you'd have stuck with the original style from the first draft... The graphics look great, but it has been said many times a map needs a theme. Here you have a historical map of historic events, with a space theme... It just seems to clash. It doesn't fit.

How about replacing the space background, replacing the moon on the legend, with something of an arabian theme? You know... sultans, djinnis in bottles, flying rugs... that sort of thing.

This does NOT look like an ancient map. When I think of ancient map of the Middle East I don't see stars. I don't see the moon (is that the moon in the legend?)
Here are some images of early maps. There is not much color. They look old but your map does not.

I would suggest, if you really wish to make a map fit the period you are designing to, that you rework the map to look ancient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_world_maps
When I look at this map:

-I have no clue where it is in the world. I may eventually but right now it is very confusing
-I have no idea that it is an ancient map. It looks new and clean and fresh. Those are not the words I would want people to use to describe a thing I am designing to be old and ancient.

Oh man, what happened to this project? What started out as an emulation of an eleventh century map has turned into some sort of bizarre science fiction looking space battle. I don't want to be a crank, but I don't think that this theme works at all.

As for the settled decision on showing the earth from space... I read a review about the film Troy and the critic made an observation about the filmwork that really stuck with me. He pointed out that the battle scenes were filmed from a airplane point of view when nothing of the sort existed. I look at this map and I see the same critical error: Neil Armstrong watching 600 AD conquest in the name of God. Ditch it. Go with the hand drawn look, like an ancient cartographer in Jerusalem sat down and drafted the unfolding conflict surrounding the city where he resides.

[porkenbeans]

Let me chime in if I might,
Let me first say that I am very grateful for your interest IH.
Your concerns are for the most part are well thought out, and I can agree with much that you have said. The most important and correct observation that you have, is the fact that this map is very hard to visualize in terms of bonus areas. At first glance it is just a sea of icons and roads. It can not quickly and easily be analyzed. This is not a good thing because most people do not want to play maps that are very complicated or hard to understand. There are those however that see it the other way. They like complicated and hard to understand maps. This gives them the advantage over most, because they love to study and analyze a map. They like the fact that their superior analytical skills, can over come the luck of the dice, and give them more victories. I am one of those people myself. My favorite map is cairn's Prohibition Chicago. I have earned more points from it than any other. Although it is not the most complicated, it is complicated enough that I have been able to achieve a 70% win ratio on it. Most of the games were started by me, and I had to accept all comers. If the map was a very easy to understand map, my %s would have been much lower, and the dice would have been a more contributing factor.

So, the fact that this is a complicated map to understand, will be welcomed to those that feel the way that I do about maps. However, the last version that I put up, I colored the Kingdom areas. I think that it goes a long way to address the problem of it all just being a sea of icons and roads. It only takes a moment or two to analyze, and it lets you visualize just whats going on much easier.

Your point about all of the territories and battle sites not being explained, as to just exactly they are supposed to be in reference too. Yes this is very true. Here is the dilemma, With over 100 territs, this map just does not afford very much room for history lessons spelled out as you suggest. There is just no space "off to the side". Our solution to this has been to just focus the map in broader terms than individual names of cities and battles, and focus on the wider view of just the competing Kingdoms. This overall view is probably the only way that this map can be made with the size restrictions that are in place today. I hear that there may be a change coming soon, that will lift or raise the limits. But, until then, we must work within them. I too would like to find a way to explain the map better, this is certainly a dilemma that we face.

Your views about the space view, and how it correlates to filming from airplanes. Using that line of thinking, one could say, cameras were not in existence, so... Filmmakers have a long history of shooting things from different and sometimes impossible angles, for effect. This map is similar in that it does try to show a different angle, for effect. (The critic was a moron).
The different angle is meant to depart itself from the stereotypical views, that we have on this subject. To use parchment or any of the stereotypical things that you have suggested, would not help, and only hinder this effect that we are shooting for. If you have a suggestion as to how we can better achieve the desired effect, then I would very much like to hear it. Your suggestions on this particular issue is not really helpful for the direction of this project. The film that you would shoot for this subject could be cool, and I would go to see it, Or you can try to look at it another way. Why do you think that an artist such as Picasso has been so successful in the art world ? He certainly did not do things the "right" way. He put eyes where lips should go. He did everything that he could to non conform to the accepted ways that things were done. That is the thing about art. It has freedom at its core. It shows us that a piece can be beautiful, and help us to see the same old subject in a different light, ... or perspective. I think that you are dead on about some of the things that you have mentioned. But on this issue, I respectively must disagree. The space view for effect, is what makes this map unique. I would listen and consider any suggestions as how and where to place the camera. But for the feel that we are looking for in this shot, I think the angle is just right.

Please know that I, like Rask, really appreciate your help. And, I will continue to consider your views, as I am sure you will consider ours. Thank you so much for all the time you have spent helping us. I really mean that.

[WidowMakers]

OK. I went through the thread and counted every post we had. I am sure I could have missed one or two but I think they are all here.
GOAL:
My goal was to see:

1) How many people have posted
2) What those posts have been about
3) What percentage of posts did those people contribute to the overall thread and specific topics.

I tried to categorize the posts based on the main areas of discussion in the thread. Many posts included talks on more than one area. So it is possible to have a person with only 1 post, discuss 2 items (i.e.ghirrindin)

REVIEW of POSTS:




If we quickly look at the total number of posts we see there have been 226.
Of those, rask and pork have contributed over 61 % of the total posts.
Captainwalrus and natty_dread have, combined another 16.8%.
So that means that only 4 people have contributed over 78% of the thread posts.
Those 4 represent only 18% of the total number of posts (22).
That does not seem very evenly distributed. There don’t seem to be too many people following the thread. Does this mean there is not a desire for the map? I don’t think so.
Game Play:
If we look at Gameplay, it has mode up only 14% of the total discussion points. That is just 32 posts to city layout, bonus discussion, connection, etc. So again while it made up only 14% of the overall discussion, 44% of that was from posters other than the top two. While there was some misunderstanding on XML capabilities initially, those were worked out and the overall GP seems to be going smooth.

Graphics:
Now if we look at GFX, the total number of posts that deal with some sort of GFX issue (for or against the theme) is 201. (Again some posts contain multiple topics) SO these graphical discussions have been brought up 201 times, by 19 people in 226 threads. 18% discuss the up/down flip discussion, 44% discuss the overall look of the map (space, old, new, etc) and almost 20% deal with legend, symbols, and roads.

If we look at the posts from everyone but the top two posters, we see that discussion on overall GFX and the up/down flip, constituted over 50% of the talks, with the majority of those posts, disagreeing with the current design and direction.


ANALYSIS:
So what does this all mean? Can a thread of 226 posts where almost 80% of the posts are from only 4 people, really be representative of being accepted by the foundry in general?

If 50% of the posts, from others, deal with the overall look and layout of the map, can those views be ignored? They can, but then the views of the foundry are being ignored as well.

The majority of people, that have posted, have issues with the layout and look of the map. (up/down, icons, font, marbles, battles, roads, space, globe, etc).

Many times, rask and pork have posted something along the lines of
" please just try to understand our vision."
or
"please provide constructive criticism if it is in agreement with our current vision".

Well, based on what I have seen posted and read, the vision is not well recieved based on the type of map and era of map you are trying to make. Listen to the people. They are not saying you are bad individuals, they are commenting on the map and how they don't feel it is a good representation of the idea you have presented.

If you continue to ignore the posters in the thread now (only 18 of them) what happens if you ever get to the main foundry and 60 other people come in and post some of the same issues with layout, and visual style, will you ignore them as well?

WM

Note: all data was taken from after this post below. Any additional posts have not been factored into the stats.
viewtopic.php?p=2317378#p2317378

[porkenbeans]

WM,
WOW you must surly have some extra time on your hands.

I stipulate to the validity of the stats. Are you by any chance a pollster in real life ?

If you are, you know that it is all about the questions you ask and just how you pose them that give the desired results.

While the data may or may not be correct, your questions and suppositions are skewed, and some flat out incorrect.

You have stated that we are ignoring people. This is false. every post has been answered. and most have been answered more than once.

If I took the time I could use this very same data to support a whole different Analysis.

[WidowMakers]

WM,
WOW you must surly have some extra time on your hands.

I stipulate to the validity of the stats. Are you by any chance a pollster in real life ?

If you are, you know that it is all about the questions you ask and just how you pose them that give the desired results.

While the data may or may not be correct, your questions and suppositions are skewed, and some flat out incorrect.

You have stated that we are ignoring people. This is false. every post has been answered. and most have been answered more than once.

If I took the time I could use this very same data to support a whole different Analysis.

And what analysis would that be?
I doubt you could use it to show people support your visual style for the map.
That is what i was trying to show. People don't like how the map looks.

The discussion has been so lopsided. Over 78% of the posts by 4 people in a 226 post thread.
Regardless of the topic, that is not a very wide range of posters in this community.

So are you just saying tough luck, my map my style?
Or are you going to listen to all those people who think there should be a major graphical overhaul?

WM

P.S. I am not a pollster. Plus I did not ask any questions. I added the number of posts and their topics to see who was posting and what they posted about.

[captainwalrus]

WM,
WOW you must surly have some extra time on your hands.

I stipulate to the validity of the stats. Are you by any chance a pollster in real life ?

If you are, you know that it is all about the questions you ask and just how you pose them that give the desired results.

While the data may or may not be correct, your questions and suppositions are skewed, and some flat out incorrect.

You have stated that we are ignoring people. This is false. every post has been answered. and most have been answered more than once.

If I took the time I could use this very same data to support a whole different Analysis.

Yet you still keep the globe look with the moon thrown on there? Put a poll up (and tell people that there is a poll in the title of the first post) and see, based on the posts, it will be very against the current setup. I was cool with it, until you added the moon and went too far with it.

[wcaclimbing]

Yes, PLEASE put up a poll about the map graphics. Find out if people really do support the outer space theme, or if they would prefer a different style.

[porkenbeans]

WM,
WOW you must surly have some extra time on your hands.

I stipulate to the validity of the stats. Are you by any chance a pollster in real life ?

If you are, you know that it is all about the questions you ask and just how you pose them that give the desired results.

While the data may or may not be correct, your questions and suppositions are skewed, and some flat out incorrect.

You have stated that we are ignoring people. This is false. every post has been answered. and most have been answered more than once.

If I took the time I could use this very same data to support a whole different Analysis.

And what analysis would that be?
I doubt you could use it to show people support your visual style for the map.
That is what i was trying to show. People don't like how the map looks.

The discussion has been so lopsided. Over 78% of the posts by 4 people in a 226 post thread.
Regardless of the topic, that is not a very wide range of posters in this community.

So are you just saying tough luck, my map my style?
Or are you going to listen to all those people who think there should be a major graphical overhaul?

WM

P.S. I am not a pollster. Plus I did not ask any questions. I added the number of posts and their topics to see who was posting and what they posted about.

You start by asking this questionSo what does this all mean? Can a thread of 226 posts where almost 80% of the posts are from only 4 people, really be representative of being accepted by the foundry in general?
Then you go on to use the data to support your view of what the answer is to that question.

[Industrial Helix]

OK, let me first state that a map does not need to be difficult to read in order to be complex. Third Crusade and Battle for Iraq are perfect examples of this. This map is genuinely hard to read and I believe the use of city circles and lines are largely to blame. Tie this with the fact that you've got a complex map as well and you've got problems. If you're going to run with complex, a type of map that you enjoy, its got to be clear. You mentioned Prohibition Chicago, I've never played it and hell, I've never even looked at it until now. You know what. I got how the map works pretty quick. Colored guns attack each other, government buildings attack each other... there's a set of logic portrayed in the rules that is easy to grasp as it represented in the map clear and concise. I can make sound judgments about the map and gameplay based on what I see. But its not an easy map, there's a certain strategy that you seem to have tapped to give you the edge on the game. It's a complex map but anyone new to it can understand how things work, in the game, though not develop a winning strategy in a blink because it plays to map-game paradigms of visual shapes serving as indicators to gameplay. The current version of this map does not and for this map to progress I believe you're going to need to switch to territories.

As for the colors you added, I see that you're going for a certain mood, perhaps like Greenland or Luxembourg uses blues. But there's two problems with this. One, burnt sienna is not the color to be doing this with. Two, combined with the lines it further exasperates the problem of visual clarity. (The one on page 15 is the version you're referring to, yes? You guys gotta keep up with the first post, which is tough when more than one person is working on map I know, but it's essential to keep everyone on the same page).

In regards to the history lesson... I didn't think I could fit three territories into New Jersey but I did it. Shrink your text, not miniscule shrink but close the gap between lines. Shrink your title, remove the block space taking ariel font, shrink it as well. You've got room, I see it. And if you were counting on the map to convey a sense of history, respectfully, I suggest that it does not.

In regards to the camera... There were no airplanes in ancient greece, to view battle in sweeping passes over stretches of land from the clouds was an unnatural viewpoint for anyone living at the time whereas, viewing everything from varying points of eye level (ie kneeling, jumping, on a rock, ect.) was. It has nothing to do with cameras. Imagine Sophocles trying to write Antigone from Grand Theft Auto II point of view; it wouldn't have made sense. The play and story, or your map in this case, needs to be conveyed in terms that are consistent with the era depicted. The angle, yes go with it, its a good idea and it certainly fits this map. The earth from space, does not.

Respectively, I believe that you've completely misjudged the art of Picasso and the nature of Cubism. Picasso didn't do what he did in Guernica because he felt like being different. He was a master of traditional art, where he went was what he felt was a progression and more fuller view of the three dimensional world. He didn't do it out of an angsty sense of rebellion but as a method to more fully convey the traditional principles of art of depiction of the physical world. If you're doing the space view from the moon to be different, then you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. Keep the up-side-down map, center it on Jerusalem, I agree it works and is good. It is different, yet fulfills the traditional role of a map conveying an image. It's not the viewpoint or the angle, its the moon and the stars.

The up-side-down map and the centerpoint on Jerusalem are what makes it unique in its fulfillment of the criteria of a good gameplay map, not the stars and view from Apollo 11. I honestly think you and I agree in principle, the viewpoint is good.. but I believe the space theme injures your efforts to show the world in a different view and the pursuit of this theme will critically harm the progression of this map and idea.

You mentioned you studied art, Pork, never forget the cardinal rule that one should never be afraid to erase.

Anyway, the best of luck with this. At this point, I really do look forward to seeing what you produce. I think you guys are tackling a very tough project and are certainly ambitious for it. Best of luck.

Rash - What do you teach?

[porkenbeans]

OK, let me first state that a map does not need to be difficult to read in order to be complex. Third Crusade and Battle for Iraq are perfect examples of this. This map is genuinely hard to read and I believe the use of city circles and lines are largely to blame. Tie this with the fact that you've got a complex map as well and you've got problems. If you're going to run with complex, a type of map that you enjoy, its got to be clear. You mentioned Prohibition Chicago, I've never played it and hell, I've never even looked at it until now. You know what. I got how the map works pretty quick. Colored guns attack each other, government buildings attack each other... there's a set of logic portrayed in the rules that is easy to grasp as it represented in the map clear and concise. I can make sound judgments about the map and gameplay based on what I see. But its not an easy map, there's a certain strategy that you seem to have tapped to give you the edge on the game. It's a complex map but anyone new to it can understand how things work, in the game, though not develop a winning strategy in a blink because it plays to map-game paradigms of visual shapes serving as indicators to gameplay. The current version of this map does not and for this map to progress I believe you're going to need to switch to territories.

As for the colors you added, I see that you're going for a certain mood, perhaps like Greenland or Luxembourg uses blues. But there's two problems with this. One, burnt sienna is not the color to be doing this with. Two, combined with the lines it further exasperates the problem of visual clarity. (The one on page 15 is the version you're referring to, yes? You guys gotta keep up with the first post, which is tough when more than one person is working on map I know, but it's essential to keep everyone on the same page).

In regards to the history lesson... I didn't think I could fit three territories into New Jersey but I did it. Shrink your text, not miniscule shrink but close the gap between lines. Shrink your title, remove the block space taking ariel font, shrink it as well. You've got room, I see it. And if you were counting on the map to convey a sense of history, respectfully, I suggest that it does not.

In regards to the camera... There were no airplanes in ancient greece, to view battle in sweeping passes over stretches of land from the clouds was an unnatural viewpoint for anyone living at the time whereas, viewing everything from varying points of eye level (ie kneeling, jumping, on a rock, ect.) was. It has nothing to do with cameras. Imagine Sophocles trying to write Antigone from Grand Theft Auto II point of view; it wouldn't have made sense. The play and story, or your map in this case, needs to be conveyed in terms that are consistent with the era depicted. The angle, yes go with it, its a good idea and it certainly fits this map. The earth from space, does not.

Respectively, I believe that you've completely misjudged the art of Picasso and the nature of Cubism. Picasso didn't do what he did in Guernica because he felt like being different. He was a master of traditional art, where he went was what he felt was a progression and more fuller view of the three dimensional world. He didn't do it out of an angsty sense of rebellion but as a method to more fully convey the traditional principles of art of depiction of the physical world. If you're doing the space view from the moon to be different, then you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. Keep the up-side-down map, center it on Jerusalem, I agree it works and is good. It is different, yet fulfills the traditional role of a map conveying an image. It's not the viewpoint or the angle, its the moon and the stars.

The up-side-down map and the centerpoint on Jerusalem are what makes it unique in its fulfillment of the criteria of a good gameplay map, not the stars and view from Apollo 11. I honestly think you and I agree in principle, the viewpoint is good.. but I believe the space theme injures your efforts to show the world in a different view and the pursuit of this theme will critically harm the progression of this map and idea.

You mentioned you studied art, Pork, never forget the cardinal rule that one should never be afraid to erase.

Anyway, the best of luck with this. At this point, I really do look forward to seeing what you produce. I think you guys are tackling a very tough project and are certainly ambitious for it. Best of luck.

Rash - What do you teach?

You are missing the point. The space view indeed has a reason other than to just be different. The view point of this map is not supposed to be about what the view point was of the people of the time. This has been explained over and over again and is never addressed by your side of this debate. I am too tired right now to explain it all again. Maybe tomorrow I will tackle it. Or maybe you will just scroll back and read what I have said more than once on this matter.

[Incandenza]

It's difficult to make any substantial gameplay comments without seeing the proposed neutral strengths (which you might want to put at the very top of your to-do list). However, looking over the first post, the fact that 5 kingdoms have good starts (more cities) and 5 have bad starts (fewer cities) is going to be a major problem. With such a severe imbalance between good and bad kingdom starts, you risk determining games on the drop. The bad starts will have fewer bonus opportunities and fewer chances to get cards without hitting the large bordering neutrals. I'm not sure how familiar you guys are with conquest gameplay, there's an art to balancing out the starts while keeping them somewhat distinctive. Study the AoR maps, they'll give you some good ideas.

Without getting too far into it, the graphics as presently constituted are rough-draft quality, even setting aside the (IMHO justified) problem with consistency of theme. Many of Helix's comments above are spot-on. Also, you might want to think about a better overall color palette for the land. The poo-brown isn't doing you any favors, and your light source doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you wish to push forward with gameplay issues before making graphic changes, that's understandable, but such should be noted in the first post.

As far as the aforementioned consistency of theme, maybe you should ponder why it is that people continue to come in here and post their objections. We're not stupid people, we get what you're going for, but the jarring dissonance between map topic and aesthetic theme is going to continue to be a problem for you. Imagine if a mapmaker wanted to do a map of the modern Los Angeles freeway system, in the style of a medieval manuscript, marginalia and all. That, in essence, is what you've got here, and many posters seem to feel that the map is weaker for it.

There might be a map here, but not until you've both done quite a bit of hard work over the coming months. You might also want to ponder Widowmakers' recent posts. With 20 maps to his name, he's a veteran at this process who's gone way out of his way to help you guys out. At the very least, his suggestion to start with the small map is one that I believe you ignore at your peril. With so many terits, and with cramping problems already in the large map, it would be well worth your time to ensure that the whole game board fits legibly in the small map constraints.

[porkenbeans]

It's difficult to make any substantial gameplay comments without seeing the proposed neutral strengths (which you might want to put at the very top of your to-do list). However, looking over the first post, the fact that 5 kingdoms have good starts (more cities) and 5 have bad starts (fewer cities) is going to be a major problem. With such a severe imbalance between good and bad kingdom starts, you risk determining games on the drop. The bad starts will have fewer bonus opportunities and fewer chances to get cards without hitting the large bordering neutrals. I'm not sure how familiar you guys are with conquest gameplay, there's an art to balancing out the starts while keeping them somewhat distinctive. Study the AoR maps, they'll give you some good ideas.

Without getting too far into it, the graphics as presently constituted are rough-draft quality, even setting aside the (IMHO justified) problem with consistency of theme. Many of Helix's comments above are spot-on. Also, you might want to think about a better overall color palette for the land. The poo-brown isn't doing you any favors, and your light source doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you wish to push forward with gameplay issues before making graphic changes, that's understandable, but such should be noted in the first post.

As far as the aforementioned consistency of theme, maybe you should ponder why it is that people continue to come in here and post their objections. We're not stupid people, we get what you're going for, but the jarring dissonance between map topic and aesthetic theme is going to continue to be a problem for you. Imagine if a mapmaker wanted to do a map of the modern Los Angeles freeway system, in the style of a medieval manuscript, marginalia and all. That, in essence, is what you've got here, and many posters seem to feel that the map is weaker for it.

There might be a map here, but not until you've both done quite a bit of hard work over the coming months. You might also want to ponder Widowmakers' recent posts. With 20 maps to his name, he's a veteran at this process who's gone way out of his way to help you guys out. At the very least, his suggestion to start with the small map is one that I believe you ignore at your peril. With so many terits, and with cramping problems already in the large map, it would be well worth your time to ensure that the whole game board fits legibly in the small map constraints.

Sorry but you are wrong about working on the small first.
I have already made sure while building the map that certain issues will NOT be a problem Everything is perfectly fine with the concerns for the small map. Your analogy of the LA freeway is pretty lame. It is backwards and does not work as a very good analogy at all.

Personally, I am getting just a little tired of people thinking that they can dictate everything about other peoples maps. First, they are supposed to be SUGGESTIONS. Second, I have listened to every suggestion, and There are some that I think are very valid, and intend on using There are some howeve, that in my opinion are not good at all. I will take the one about working on the small version first. This is a prime example that even the most accomplished CC map makers are NOT, know -it -alls, and can be flat out wrong about something. This idea is dead wrong and I can prove it. It is not a subjective thing such as the style or view point. It is a fricking fact that you loose detail and quality when ever you scale something up. Do you dispute this ? So why in gods name would you want to work on the small version first ? Oh yeah, so you can make sure that your fonts are not too small. Do you not realize that this is the worst possible solution to that problem. There is a much better way to address that problem. Its just being wise enough as a veteran map maker to know that certain things like font style and size need to be addressed as you build the map. To sacrifice the quality for such a short cut, is just down right misguided (to be kind). If a veteran CC map maker can be wrong about something so basic in the graphic arts trade, can he be wrong about something that is subjective in nature, such as style or angle or view point ? You bet your ass he can. I appreciate all suggestions as I have said over and over again. But please keep them as suggestions and please stop trying to turn them into edicts, from way on high.

FYI this thing about working on the small first, I was clued in on this by a professional graphic artist that makes close to $100,000. a year, and has more experience and knowledge in this field than all of the CC map makers put together.

There is a conversation taking place right now that is about this topic of the Foundry and its mission. I suggest that we carry this conversation about suggestions and edicts over to gimil's thread about "your opinions on the Foundry".

All I ask is that all of you keep making suggestions if you are interested in the progress of this map. But please do not let your feelings get hurt if we decide NOT to use them. YOU ARE NOT GOD. YOU ARE NOT INFALLIBLE, AND YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME. And please do not make statements like everybody thinks this or that. So you should go with the polled wisdom.

Again I am sorry if my words cause bruised feelings, but please stop for a second and think of what I feel, when I come here and see the same bs demands every day. Please can't all of you just make your helping hand suggestions, and leave out the demands and or threats ?

[Incandenza]

Hmm, until you start unilaterally start declaring wids wrong on the subject, how about actually getting a map through the process before passing judgment on a method that has served him (and many other mapmakers) well, that he offered to you in the spirit of helping a new mapmaker? We're not your enemies, and you need to stop looking at us as such.

And if you're 100% fine with answering question after question about the essential, fundamental dissonance between the map theme and the map design for the next 6-12 months, then, well, knock yourself out. No one can force you to make changes, but the collaborative nature of the foundry, plus the fact that the prevailing sentiment is pretty overwhelmingly opposed to the current map design, should give you pause before trying to shout everyone down.

What you didn't address in your post were the fundamental gameplay issues I pointed out, which, not to put to fine a point on it, must be resolved. The fact that the starting positions are wildly imbalanced is not a matter of opinion. You need to fix the gameplay, otherwise aesthetic issues are basically academic.

[porkenbeans]

Hmm, until you start unilaterally start declaring wids wrong on the subject, how about actually getting a map through the process before passing judgment on a method that has served him (and many other mapmakers) well, that he offered to you in the spirit of helping a new mapmaker? We're not your enemies, and you need to stop looking at us as such.

And if you're 100% fine with answering question after question about the essential, fundamental dissonance between the map theme and the map design for the next 6-12 months, then, well, knock yourself out. No one can force you to make changes, but the collaborative nature of the foundry, plus the fact that the prevailing sentiment is pretty overwhelmingly opposed to the current map design, should give you pause before trying to shout everyone down.

What you didn't address in your post were the fundamental gameplay issues I pointed out, which, not to put to fine a point on it, must be resolved. The fact that the starting positions are wildly imbalanced is not a matter of opinion. You need to fix the gameplay, otherwise aesthetic issues are basically academic.

Yes, I believe you may have something there about those game play issues. I am sure that those kind of things can be worked out and I am not at all upset that you have pointed them out. What I am upset about is clearly explained in my last post just a moment ago in the opinions on the Foundry thread. I do not want to clutter up this thread any more with these off topic conversations and I do not want to type everything I say on this subject two times, so let us discuss it there shall we ?
viewtopic.php?f=127&t=101005&p=2319192#p2319192

[Raskholnikov]

What you didn't address in your post were the fundamental gameplay issues I pointed out, which, not to put to fine a point on it, must be resolved. The fact that the starting positions are wildly imbalanced is not a matter of opinion. You need to fix the gameplay, otherwise aesthetic issues are basically academic.

Incandeza,

Thanks for your comments aboout playability. You would be entirely right... had I not already posted the neutrals map on October 25th- a month ago. Here is a copy below. The balance is entablished both by fact that the smaller empires all have an extra self-deploying army generator represented by the religious shrine, and by the lower amount of neutrals on each of the larger empires' cities. In fact, if you study the map carefully, the balance will be not very different from that of New World, which is one of the more successsful maps in CC. There are however also significant differences, such as 1 port per empire, all ports communicating, neutral battlesites between all empires, Jerusalem and its port Tyre as neutrals, and a game objective of conquering all 6 religious shrines. Finally, this map has 10 starting points as opposed to NW's 9. The overall effect of the differences is to slow the game somewhat, so that no one can simply concentrate forces in a fog situation so that by round three they can attack and wipe out someone else position in one of the starting points (in 1 v1 games). THerefore, even in 1 v 1 situations each player would only get 2 starting points, as in Pelloponesian War, as opposed to 4, as in NW. THe interconecting ports are both an opportunity and a risk. Also note that eaach empire's port and religious shrine (if any) connect only to the capital, which is important for both defence and growth purposes. As you can see, it is exactly because I agree that gameplay is key that I worked on it AND posted it before working on the artistic side of the map itself, which is much more subjective. I'm sorry if you missed the neutrals map but now you can study it at your leisure. Needless to say, i would very much appreciate your input regardign gameplay and the overall balance. This is indeed my first attempt, but I did take the time to study a number of different maps and game-plays and try to come up with something that combines both tried and successful strategies and new elements into a gameplay that is unique anf, hopefully, interesting and fun to play. See what you make of it... I'm sure there is room for imporvement and I, for one, would welcome the help of the more experienced gmeplay designers here. After all, that's what the Foundry is al about... Again many thanks for yuor input. I will address your other comments, regarding the artistic side of the map, in due course.4

Please also note, as a total aside to gameplay but very relevant to artistic direction, that the very first version was developed exactly on the islamic theme-line a lot of commentators seem to prefer, but that didn't seem to attact any comments or enthusiasm, at which point Pork proposed the view from space direction, so I said well why not I can see the logic and attraction of that so let's try. I am not at all closed to going back to something like the original direction if that is the overwhelming Foundry desire, but that would require that I be persuaded there are serious reasons requiring us to abandon the current artistic direction (which, by definition, is a much more subjective matter than gameplay, clarity, consistency etc) and secondly, that you offer constructive advice as to how to improve the first version so that you actually be satisfied with it.

There are only two items which are so basic to this project that I will not compromise on: the orientation of the map and the use of cities as opposed to territories. The rest is open for improvement. But it will take a lot of persuasion to make me jettison pork's hard work over so many days to get where we are now if we are to basically start from almost the beginning with the artistic direction.

Click image to enlarge.

[WidowMakers]

Personally, I am getting just a little tired of people thinking that they can dictate everything about other peoples maps. First, they are supposed to be SUGGESTIONS. Second, I have listened to every suggestion, and There are some that I think are very valid, and intend on using There are some howeve, that in my opinion are not good at all. I will take the one about working on the small version first. This is a prime example that even the most accomplished CC map makers are NOT, know -it -alls, and can be flat out wrong about something. This idea is dead wrong and I can prove it. It is not a subjective thing such as the style or view point.
1) It is a fricking fact that you loose detail and quality when ever you scale something up.
2) Do you dispute this ?
3) So why in gods name would you want to work on the small version first ?

#1 - Agreed
#2 - No
#3 - Because it makes sure that you can manage, contain, organize and build the entire map in the confines of the small map requirements. I NEVER said, design and build the small map to completion. I said, start with the small map to make sure everything fits. That does not imply 100% completion.

Start a small map. General layout, land masses, borders, connections, army circles, text, legend and legend wording. If you can get the gameplay worked out, and the ROUGH draft works in the small, then you are AOK. Then make a 100% finished large map. Since you know the aspects already fit in the small, once you scale down, it will fit, it will be readable and look great.

The only maps I have ever made small and scaled up were vector based maps (Great lakes, Indochina. But even then I added more detail to the large after), Poker club (3d render to make sure everything fit. SO a large version was just a larger render, or The USA map pack (everything I used was a smart object that did not lose quality when scaled becase I scaled down a smart object to make the small map).

All I have been trying to say for your map is that with the large number of terts you have, the difficult to read text (in the large format), the close connections and potentially hard to see roads, etc, why spend your time fixing and discussing GP aspects that might need to be adjusted if when you scale down, it does not fit.

I am not saying it will not fit, I am saying it might not. Why not spend 2-3 hours making a rough draft of your GP in the small format. Spend the next few days/weeks discussing the GP ONLY for the map in teh small format. Once that is done and fits on the small map, you know that it will work. Then get to work on the large.
Since you are still working out GP you have nothing to lose by working on the small. But you have the potential to lose much by working on the large.

And please don't call me a know-it-all. I learn new things and see map ideas here all the time where I think to myself, "how did they do that,that is cool". If for some reason i have come off to you or anyone else it that way I apologize. I have never been a person who has tried to start fights or belittle others. So if you feel I have done that, again i am sorry. I am just trying to provide my reasoning behind my suggestions.

WM

[porkenbeans]

Personally, I am getting just a little tired of people thinking that they can dictate everything about other peoples maps. First, they are supposed to be SUGGESTIONS. Second, I have listened to every suggestion, and There are some that I think are very valid, and intend on using There are some howeve, that in my opinion are not good at all. I will take the one about working on the small version first. This is a prime example that even the most accomplished CC map makers are NOT, know -it -alls, and can be flat out wrong about something. This idea is dead wrong and I can prove it. It is not a subjective thing such as the style or view point.
1) It is a fricking fact that you loose detail and quality when ever you scale something up.
2) Do you dispute this ?
3) So why in gods name would you want to work on the small version first ?

#1 - Agreed
#2 - No
#3 - Because it makes sure that you can manage, contain, organize and build the entire map in the confines of the small map requirements. I NEVER said, design and build the small map to completion. I said, start with the small map to make sure everything fits. That does not imply 100% completion.

Start a small map. General layout, land masses, borders, connections, army circles, text, legend and legend wording. If you can get the gameplay worked out, and the ROUGH draft works in the small, then you are AOK. Then make a 100% finished large map. Since you know the aspects already fit in the small, once you scale down, it will fit, it will be readable and look great.

The only maps I have ever made small and scaled up were vector based maps (Great lakes, Indochina. But even then I added more detail to the large after), Poker club (3d render to make sure everything fit. SO a large version was just a larger render, or The USA map pack (everything I used was a smart object that did not lose quality when scaled becase I scaled down a smart object to make the small map).

All I have been trying to say for your map is that with the large number of terts you have, the difficult to read text (in the large format), the close connections and potentially hard to see roads, etc, why spend your time fixing and discussing GP aspects that might need to be adjusted if when you scale down, it does not fit.

I am not saying it will not fit, I am saying it might not. Why not spend 2-3 hours making a rough draft of your GP in the small format. Spend the next few days/weeks discussing the GP ONLY for the map in teh small format. Once that is done and fits on the small map, you know that it will work. Then get to work on the large.
Since you are still working out GP you have nothing to lose by working on the small. But you have the potential to lose much by working on the large.

And please don't call me a know-it-all. I learn new things and see map ideas here all the time where I think to myself, "how did they do that,that is cool". If for some reason i have come off to you or anyone else it that way I apologize. I have never been a person who has tried to start fights or belittle others. So if you feel I have done that, again i am sorry. I am just trying to provide my reasoning behind my suggestions.

WM

Thanks for that, FTR I said that no one is a know it all, not that you are one.
And I agree totally with you that it might be wise to do your initial rough sketch in the small, just to get a feel for how things are going to fit. If that works for you then that is fine with me. Its just that for me I can do the same thing just by viewing it at a smaller scale if I really need to. I just always keep in mind as I am building the map to keep the text larger than it has to be. And along the way I always keep in mind that the upcoming scale down must be taken into account. If you notice I even posted a quick scale down version early on to show that we were good to go.
Yeah, as for vector, It does not matter what size you work in as it will scale to infinity in either direction. I have illustrater, but have not taken the time to learn how use it yet.

[Raskholnikov]

General Note:

A lot of very good people have written extensive e-mails over the past couple of days. i truly appreciate your input and help. I will tke the time to sumarise all your main points and reply as best I can. Please be patient - you are not ignored, but as you all know, Real Life does sometimes interfere with Foundry activities...

Oh and just because you asked, Helix: I am a lawyer by background and I teach a variety of law (Canadian Business Law, International Trade Law), business (Industrial Relations, Organisational Theory and Design, Compensation Management), and social science (politics, sociology, history) courses for Bachelor of Business Administration degree students.