Reconquista

[theBastard]

I work on Baltic Crusades now, I can finish it to the point when it could be moved to next Foundry. so therefore Reconquista is frozen.

icons look fine. maybe icon for town (the last one) could be more simple (with one tower?). but I think we could go with these yours in next version. thanks.

[porkenbeans]

Click image to enlarge.

Meet Alfonzo X of Castile, While doing research on Reconquista I came across this chap. All I can say is WOW.
This guy was no doubt a visionary of his time. His nickname was "Alfonzo the learned". Besides his duties as King he spent much of his time playing board games. And to my surprise, it seems that so did everybody else. From the high and mighty, down to the lowly peasant. Both Christians and Moors alike, were enthralled with games like chess, and dice.

Among other books that he commissioned and wrote himself, he Authored "the book of games. In it are over 150 illustrations that feature people from all stations of life, including the Moors, playing chess and other board games.

This book was the "Hoyle" guide of its day. Complete with instructions, rules and tutorials, about all of the popular games of the era.

Here I am doing research for a new board game, and I run into this guy that was doing the same thing 800 years ago. He IS the father of board games. It utterly floors me to think that a KING from this period of prolonged war, would care so much for the little guy. Upon further reading I found that he also authored books about astronomy and other intellectual avenues of thought, and contemplation. But, and this is the remarkable part, He put these books out using the commoners language, so that all the people, not just the nobility, could benefit from the entertainment of board games, and the intellectual pursuits.

Does anyone agree with me that Alfonzo X should be represented in this game ?
Here is a link to The book of games- http://games.rengeekcentral.com/
Check out those chess illustrations. I must have spent 3 hours perusing through these wonderful paintings on sheep skin (I think). Each scene is set in various venues. If you know how to play chess, you can study the board and see whats going on. From the hand gestures and expressions, you can actually see who's turn it is.

I have never really thought about the entertainment, or advancement in personal growth, of this era's Commoners. My guess would have been that, they did not have much time for such things. But, my guess would have been dead wrong.

After studying maybe 30 or so of these illustrations, I now know, that everyone, including the common folk, spent a good deal of their time playing games. Board games are not a modern invention. This is amazing to me. Who would have thought that a board game such as Risk, would find its roots stretching all the way back to this time and place.

[army of nobunaga]

I dunno guys.... I know you could all live without my opinion. But im going to give it.

This map is a little cluttered... IT is a little over done.. and It might be a little more complicated than I personally like a map to be.

But... the amount of work that has gone into this.. and the level the gameplay has been tweaked. Im not sure what the hold-up is. Im not very opinionated in general (really) ... I like to throw my thoughts out. I like to stir the pot and make people think. But in general to me... If a clusterfuck like monsters and a few others can make it out of this "peer" system... how can you hold up a genuine map like this?

I Dont understand it.. I know someone is about to reply "A previous map making it through does not give the basis for a new one making it through" well, ive heard a few of you old gaurd map makers spout that crap.. and really? thats bs.. you let pure crap maps through that are completely cluttered and ridiculous.. and a solid map like this is called "cluttered" and stalled.

You people set the precedent, not me.

This is a solid map... A little much for a spanish map in my opinion, but really I "Love" very few maps that come out. This one is solid. This one is playable.

I wonder if this is an issue of old guard taking up for old guard.. im not sure... I cannot figure it out.

But whatever happens, I thank the mapmakers here for their work... it looks like a lot of man hours.

cheers.

[theBastard]

every opinoin is welcome. the critique less

the first version was a little cluttered and complicated, yes, but what is cluttered on this versions?

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

my idea was to do map a little different than others. and build on auto-deploy units, with castles and towns which were important in medieval time.
I like when map makers bring something new to map or GP. there are plenty maps which looks (not by graphic or style, by its core and GP) the same...

this map is not about "peer" system. it was porkenbeans idea, but I build map on Reconquista theme - conquering Iberia by christians from moors and also unification of christian kingdoms/principalities.

I also think that this map is playable (and thanks for kind words), but sorry me I´m a little confused. upper you wrote that this map is "cluttered and a little more complicated"

I believe that we will complet map soon and it will be clear, playable and original...

thanks for your opinion and feedbacks.

[theBastard]

pork, I think that yours icons will need border when we put them on map. their border (the same as for other territories) will help, because somewhere are settlements crossing territories - so there must be clear where they bordering with mountains...

[porkenbeans]

OK, as promised, here is another attempt at cleaning things up a bit. Please give me, and this version a fare evaluation before you go slamming it. I have spent a great deal of my time and brain-power here, so I think that it deserves to be given a fare and honest apprazal.

In this version I think that I have found a way to un-clutter the map, but still be able to keep the main items, that Bast wanted included from the start. Shields, castles, cities and towns, are all represented.

Please take note that this version is for demonstration purposes only, and names and boundaries and shields etc. are not fully worked out. I just wanted to show what the map might look like in the end, after it has been put together properly.

My thoughts on the gameplay style led me to try out a conquest style map, with starting positions like Feudal. But I wanted to create a game that does not promote the "build" game, that is common for these type of maps. If you notice, there are 8 available starting positions, with only 7 extra shields to go around. This promotes fighting. Also there is no bombardments, this also works against the "build" game. Plus there are not any big 10 neutral territs protecting the Kingdom borders. In fact, there are no Kingdom borders. EVERYTHING is NO MANS LAND. You must make your Kingdom. The size and strength is all up to you and your strategy, and the dice of course.

I was able to increase the number of territs to 68 with the addition of the big shields. Also there are a couple of new and unique GP ideas, that I have added for consideration. Namely The conditional loss, and the spoils of war angle. This means that if you loose your king, you are out of the game, and if you have armies left on the board, they become the property of the conquer. That last part may require some new coding to be implemented, but the first should be within the coding arsenal that we already have. The conditional win is available, so the conditional loss should be able to be implemented rather easily.

Again, the shields are only stand-ins, I will make the actual shields, when I know what they will actually be.

BTW, I have put countless amount of hours into the development of this project. I am not willing to just sit here, and let this map stall because of interest in another map. Bast, you have a committed partner on THIS map. I think that it is only fare to move it back to the front burner. This map is much more further along, and the graphics are just about fully developed. The only thing holding this map up is this gameplay issue.

There has been some effort to un-clutter the map, as called for by our Foundry leader and others, but I do not think that the effort has been a success, as mr B has not seen fit to make any further comments.

All I ask, is that you study this map for more than just a minute or two. There are some very unique strategies that this map will inspire. I look forward to discussing them, and hopefully, we will be able to pound out a game plan, to get this project finished.

Click image to enlarge.

[army of nobunaga]

personally I like porknbeans version better. It actually is a little easier to grasp at first glance, and looks a little more fluid.

[natty dread]

Well, it looks real nice, but I wonder what do you mean by the "lose (not loose, btw ) the king, lose the game, conquerer keeps your armies"... because if you mean it to work so that if someone conquers your king you automatically get defeated and whoever does it gets all your armies, this is not possible with the current XML. "Losing conditions" or troop ownership changes are not yet possible. Then again, with the new web developer we might get faster XML updates so who knows... although I wouldn't build a gameplay on the chance of an update...

[porkenbeans]

Well, it looks real nice, but I wonder what do you mean by the "lose (not loose, btw ) the king, lose the game, conquerer keeps your armies"... because if you mean it to work so that if someone conquers your king you automatically get defeated and whoever does it gets all your armies, this is not possible with the current XML. "Losing conditions" or troop ownership changes are not yet possible. Then again, with the new web developer we might get faster XML updates so who knows... although I wouldn't build a gameplay on the chance of an update...

The "conditional loss" and "spoils of war" are only ideas that, if popular, can be lobbied for. I think that this idea works very well, but It is only a pie in the sky attempt at uniqueness. I know that, that goal was on the top of Bast's list when he started this map.

The crux of my plan on this version is the idea of making this a "conquest" map, but with no bombardments. Keeping to the theme, in that, All of the territories are "no-mans" lands.

There are 60 territories on the land, so just for demonstration purposes I split them up evenly among the Shields, castles, cities and villages. So there are 15 of each. It may end up being decided, that this division should be something different. Also you will notice that I have at every turn, promoted a game that is more of an "action" game, and not the standard "build" game.

Take for example, the fact that there are only 7 neutral shields to go after in an 8 player game. This type of set up means that there are not enough to go around. So right off the bat, players are scrambling to make sure, that they are not the one, that gets squeezed out.

This will exist in all games except 3 and 5 man games, where the split is even.

The values of the neutral territ count is arbitrary, as is the bonus values that I have tentatively assigned. It may be decided that other amounts will be used.

I guess the most important things that I am fighting for, with this latest illustration are,

1.) Modestly reduce the territ count to somewhere between 68-73.

2.) Sweep away all of the icons except the shields, and just use the text to describe what "kind" of territ it is. This is the single most important element of this plan.

Without that sea of icons blasting at your retna, the map itself, along with the graphics, come into focus. and feel of the map itself becomes more sophisticated. when you combine that, with lowering the territ count, to a point where you can fit just one name within each enclosed boundary...
Well, I think we can hit a home run with this project, and get it moved to GP. The graphic style can quickly be decided, as we already have many versions to pick and choose from. I have tried to add something new or different in each illustration, so our time in GP should be a sprint. Fingers crossed.

What might be nice is, that the people that have been contributing to the development of this map, would use one of the 2 templates, to lay in names and their "color". Lets see what your idea would be, for creating this map, by using this plan of gameplay.

I think that if you took into account that I am the Art Director on this project, then you might agree that I am only telling you what I need, in order to make this map be all that it can be.

Make the map, and let me do my job to kick back to you, my "druthers". Because I am an artist , I can see very clearly the points that the negative feedback have established. Please can we just get this map through. I have spent more time on it than you know, and I am not satisfied to put this project on hold.

[natty dread]

The "conditional loss" and "spoils of war" are only ideas that, if popular, can be lobbied for. I think that this idea works very well, but It is only a pie in the sky attempt at uniqueness. I know that, that goal was on the top of Bast's list when he started this map.

Well, up to you & bastard, but if you take a look at the bin you can see a few maps that have been sitting there with gameplay approved but waiting for an XML update for years... I don't think you want that fate for this map.

[porkenbeans]

The "conditional loss" and "spoils of war" are only ideas that, if popular, can be lobbied for. I think that this idea works very well, but It is only a pie in the sky attempt at uniqueness. I know that, that goal was on the top of Bast's list when he started this map.

Well, up to you & bastard, but if you take a look at the bin you can see a few maps that have been sitting there with gameplay approved but waiting for an XML update for years... I don't think you want that fate for this map.

No I do not, but you are seeing a problem where there is none. The game is solid with or without the two proposed options.

[natty dread]

Well, then, moving on... I'm not sold on the "territory name colour defines territory type" thing you have going here. Honestly, the bastard's latest version was actually easier for me to follow - the icons were all different enough to be easily distinguished... here you only have the colour of the territory name, and it really doesn't make any of the territories stand out - they all seem similar at a glance, which makes the overall gameplay difficult to grasp.

Also you have again lost the concept of "no man's land" which is a shame... I liked that feature.

Still... your gameplay does have it's merits, and with some tweaks, it could become an interesting map. Let's see what bastard thinks about it...

[porkenbeans]

Well, then, moving on... I'm not sold on the "territory name colour defines territory type" thing you have going here. Honestly, the bastard's latest version was actually easier for me to follow

Honestly? Are you kidding me ?
That is fricking preposterous. Have you even looked at the map for more than 2 seconds ?

The new version is God damn awesome. It IS 1000% easier on both the eyes and mind.

[natty dread]

Now now pork, you know I'm not saying this to be mean. I call it like I see it, that's all. I do like the simplicity of your version. But I just don't agree that the territory name colour is the best way of differentiation here...

The problem is, all the territory colours are similar. They don't stand out as different territories. If you had like a small symbol next to each army number - nothing big, about the same size as an 88 number - it would be better.

(Also to elaborate on the colours: red & green are probably the worst combination - think of the colour blind... the colours will look exactly the same for them. Also they will look exactly the same as the brown names. But the colours aren't the main issue here... )

A small castle next to the army number of each castle territory. An even smaller symbol for cities. Or make the castle symbol white and the city symbol black. And leave the towns without symbols.

Alternatively you could use different colours for the land. Or give cities & castles coloured borders.

My point is, there are loads of better solutions than coloured territory labels. Differentiating territories by font colour alone just isn't a good solution... especially when the different territories are "scattered" in no particular pattern. It would be useful if you also had some other means of differentiating them, then the text colour could be used to complement the primary system and make it easy to see which label belongs to which territory, but alone it just isn't enough.

I hope this clears the issue for you.

[porkenbeans]

Now now pork, you know I'm not saying this to be mean. I call it like I see it, that's all. I do like the simplicity of your version. But I just don't agree that the territory name colour is the best way of differentiation here...

The problem is, all the territory colours are similar. They don't stand out as different territories. If you had like a small symbol next to each army number - nothing big, about the same size as an 88 number - it would be better.

(Also to elaborate on the colours: red & green are probably the worst combination - think of the colour blind... the colours will look exactly the same for them. Also they will look exactly the same as the brown names. But the colours aren't the main issue here... )

A small castle next to the army number of each castle territory. An even smaller symbol for cities. Or make the castle symbol white and the city symbol black. And leave the towns without symbols.

Alternatively you could use different colours for the land. Or give cities & castles coloured borders.

My point is, there are loads of better solutions than coloured territory labels. Differentiating territories by font colour alone just isn't a good solution... especially when the different territories are "scattered" in no particular pattern. It would be useful if you also had some other means of differentiating them, then the text colour could be used to complement the primary system and make it easy to see which label belongs to which territory, but alone it just isn't enough.

I hope this clears the issue for you.

OK, nat, You are full of chit. (Just funnin ya bro)You said the different territories are "scattered" in no particular pattern. Look again. How can you "honestly" be calling it as you see it, when this incorrect observation is so wrong. It's as if you have not studied it at all. Besides, I already said, that this exact layout is somewhat arbitrary, in that I only spent a brief amount of time into the nitty gritty nuts and bolts. My plea was and is for all of you GP geniouses that have been working on this map, Go to the template, and build from the ground up, a game that uses this GP. We will certainly be rid of the "cluttered" issue once and for all.

And yes, there ARE loads of solutions, but every one of your so called "solutions" have already been tried, and for various reasons are not successful in doing what needs to be done. IE reducing the clutter.

You said The problem is, all the territory colours are similar. They don't stand out as different territories. If you had like a small symbol next to each army number - nothing big, about the same size as an 88 number - it would be better. How fricken hard is it to change the colors to something else that you think might work better ?

I just eliminated 4/5 of the icons from this map, and your suggestion is to add icons back onto the board ?

If the colors of the names were changed, what then would be your objection ?

[natty dread]

I don't want to get into a huge debate with you. I stated my opinion, take it or leave it. How about we wait and see what the mapmaker thinks of all this before we get all carried away, eh?

[porkenbeans]

I don't want to get into a huge debate with you. I stated my opinion, take it or leave it. How about we wait and see what the mapmaker thinks of all this before we get all carried away, eh?

You did NOT answer my question.

[theBastard]

pork, your map tells nothing about Reconquista. it tells nothing about history. map has only shape of Iberia but has nothing with Iberia - it looks as any fiction map and my idea was to do map based on history.

I saw that you spent much time on it, so sorry me for not kind words, but this is realy far away of my idea.

I will use yours icons and do new version with less no-mans territories...

[porkenbeans]

pork, your map tells nothing about Reconquista. it tells nothing about history. map has only shape of Iberia but has nothing with Iberia - it looks as any fiction map and my idea was to do map based on history.

I saw that you spent much time on it, so sorry me for not kind words, but this is realy far away of my idea.

I will use yours icons and do new version with less no-mans territories...

Bast, I am so confused. You said that it tells nothing about Reconquista. It has every item that you wanted. And if you use the colored names instead of the overwhelming mass of icons, it will fix the thing that mr B, andy and others have said NEEDS FIXING.

You must reduce the territ count. This map will need to be scaled down for the small version. You are simply trying to hard, to include to much. "TOO MUCH" is the source of the problem.

I just do not understand why the icons tell the story of Reconquista, but the colored names do not

Why can't you do a layout that uses this kind of labeling. You can tell your story anyway that you wish, but please take the advise of your art director.

[MrBenn]

Pork, I'm worried that you and The Bastard are working in parallel rather than tandem.

You mentioned this several pages back, but have hit the nail on the head

[MrBenn]

or this reason, a few vets advocate starting with the small map. I do not subscribe to this however. My reason is simple. You will always loose detail when you scale down.

Not when you use vector graphics... For example Cairns uses a vector based software so it's no wonder he starts from small and then scales it up to large.

Our guidance is always to ensure that things will fit on the small map before getting too far down the line. If you're using pixel-based software such as GIMP or Photoshop, then once you've ensured the small map will be viable, I would always encourage people to work on a large image. For vector-based software, it really doesn't matter.

[Evil DIMwit]

Pork: Chill. For a self-styled "Art Director" you seem to be pretty heavy-handed with the gameplay. I for one really like the no-man's land idea and I don't think it's incompatible with a clear and understandable map. In fact, I agree with Natty that theBastard's last version with the different icons is graphically easier to process than the subtle label color differences.

Now, I'm not saying that your radical gameplay changes won't make for fun times, but this map already has a fine and compelling gameplay scheme. If you're going to propose such a radical departure, I recommend you go ahead and make a new map altogether -- there's plenty of the world left uncharted.
I'll also add that you shouldn't bank on a specific XML upgrade because even with community support it's hard to say when and if it'll be implemented. Better to work with what you have now, and if you live long enough to see the changes you hoped for realized, you can go ahead and implement your brilliant idea then.


On another note, Bastard: Have you considered putting a decay on the no-man's land? I think that'll encourage players to hole up in castles and towns more, which would better represent the siege-based medieval warfare of the time.

[MrBenn]

Pork, I'm worried that you and The Bastard are working in parallel rather than tandem.

You mentioned this several pages back, but have hit the nail on the head

I work on Baltic Crusades now, I can finish it to the point when it could be moved to next Foundry. so therefore Reconquista is frozen.

Given that the primary developer of the map has indicated that this map is "frozen", and due to the disjoint nature of the working partnership, I am going to put this map on vacation and move it into the recycling bin.

At present there is too much off-topic discussion, which detracts from the map. Some time ago, I thought there was a gem of an idea here, that was obscured by clutter - and as far as I can tell, the only thing that has happened since then, is that there is more disjointedness, and that the clutter has moved from the map and into the thread.

Before resurrecting the map, I want there to be a much clearer vision of what the map is about, and a clear direction of how the partnership will work; I would suggest that TheBastard should take primacy, as this is his conceptual baby, and appears to have a good grasp of what he wants to achieve here.

[theBastard]

to pork,
this is not about "icons" or coloured names. but in your last version is nothing what looks like conquering moorish land by christians - what was made by bonus for pair of christian/moorish cities.

and you deleted kingdoms/taifas. it is not bad idea that player can "make" its own kingdom, but not in map based on history, I think.

to Evil,
I do not exactly understand what you wrote about no-mans land, so if my answer is off, sorry. I want to have no-mans land, (my first idea was to make them killerneutrals, but this is not good idea). I think with no-mans land will be castles/towns more important and as you wrote it could represent siege of castles/towns.

to MrBenn,
map is not exactly frozen, just I work more on Baltic Crusades. I think as many guys here wrote, that my last version is clear enough and needs only graphics edits.

thanks to everybody for feedbacks and ideas.

[army of nobunaga]

you guys could have a vote... Porks version looks better in my opinion... Bastards version does have more historical relevance but is a little tough on the eyes..

Both of you guys are talented without a doubt. I hate to see two solid maps kind of butt heads like this, then get picked apart by others because you dont have a solid front that is in agreement.