Moderator: Cartographers
I would take the comment about the Conquistador icon under serious consideration
Out of pure curiosity, what were the Shell Mound Ruins and why were they significant in the conflict? Did they have some cultural or religious importance?
DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example
natty_dread wrote:DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example
Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...
DiM wrote:natty_dread wrote:DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example
Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...
until that point we would feast our eyes on a more beautiful image.
natty_dread wrote:DiM wrote:natty_dread wrote:DiM wrote:1. make your background layer transparent not white. it is visible on the margins and it would look better without it. see red marked area for an example
Since the map is converted to jpeg upon uploading and jpeg doesn't support transparency, I don't see the point of this...
until that point we would feast our eyes on a more beautiful image.
I would rather suggest using the clone stamp to pad out the edges so that there's no white visible.
TaCktiX wrote:PNGs are allowed on CC I think. I know GIFs are, or else ConquerMan and Conquer 4 wouldn't work as they do.
i'm a bit concerned with the castle bonus. +5 for 1 terit with 1 border?
Your whole area with the conquistadors needs a major look at. Too much bonus for so little territory. With 5 neutrals to take out, no one will take it as all of the way zone can attack it.
I would suggest you take out the whole region and make it part of the war zone.
With the bonuses (and I am sorry for saying this as it will cause you no end of pain), in the legend you have a symbol for a tribal chief. On the map there is only one. I understand that this symbol represents only one of the many chiefs you have and that you wanted all of them to have there own symbol but there will be players confused by this.
another concern is the bow and hatchet bonus. in the legend it says +2 but is that +2 for each bow? or +2 for all bows? if it is for each bow then it's way too much. if it's for all bows then it might be too little. and in any case it must be made clearer in the legend.
also some of the other bonuses seem weird. miccosukee has +3 for 1 terit. Ais has +3 for 2 terits. too much.
oh and there's an indication on the map that the castle is part of no bonus but the castle itself is a bonus so it might be kinda confusing.
Seamus76 wrote:DiM wrote:another concern is the bow and hatchet bonus. in the legend it says +2 but is that +2 for each bow? or +2 for all bows? if it is for each bow then it's way too much. if it's for all bows then it might be too little. and in any case it must be made clearer in the legend.
The bonus of +2 is for each bow and arrow, and +2 for each tomahawk. Which I will try to clarify in the legend, but that issue had not been expressed previously. And just to ask out of curiosity, why is +2 too much? The values had been debated in previous posts and seemed to have settled on +2 being not only reasonable, but to also make them a playable option. You might find that as a reoccurring theme, but I'm not a fan of bonuses that go to waste during a game. With their being 6 total weapons, them starting 2 neutral, and being +2, why won't players fight for them? Or at the very least take one or two?
Seamus76 wrote:DiM wrote:also some of the other bonuses seem weird. miccosukee has +3 for 1 terit. Ais has +3 for 2 terits. too much.
If you look back at the previous versions you'll see the current values had been worked out based on forum and Mod input, which I am more than open to. The current values were debated out, and settled based not only on the number of terits within the region, but also taking into consideration the number of terits that can attack that region. For instance, Miccosukee is only 1 terit, but it is attacked by all of the War Zone, and by JE-2. This makes it pretty hard to hold, so the +3 is an incentive for players to take it. Ais, is the same way. At +1 or even +2, no one would bother taking it.
Seamus76 wrote:DiM wrote:oh and there's an indication on the map that the castle is part of no bonus but the castle itself is a bonus so it might be kinda confusing.
It's really just to indicate that there is no regional bonus for holding the fort and the conquistador. I can certainly remove that wording if others feel the same way.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users