Conquer Club

The Bison King wrote:

If we are going the way of starting neutrals instead, I would recommend using Rhodesia in place of South Africa, so that the Zululand landing point is more like the others. Also, to avoid a clump of neutrals, I would use Bagamayo instead of Dar es Salaam and Lourenco Marques instead of Niassa.

Sorry for the slow respond, this got bumped of the current page and I forgot about it.

On the case of using South Rhodesia instead of South Africa as a neutral point agree. Regarding the others I think I'll move Da es Salaam to Bagamoyo but leave Niassa alone, as to avoid creating a pocket tha'ts surrounded by neutrals.

That seems like a good idea.

We still need to fix some spelling: Tunisia, not Tunesia; and Uganda, not Usanda.

K, I'll try and hit that later.

I made the spelling fixes and pasted the neutral territory fixes onto the updated graphics.

Alrighty, it's been a while since I was last handy (blame deployment preparation). Here's what I'm seeing:

- While the extra flourish in script works well for the A of the title, it looks like another letter (O) tacked on front of the C. Perhaps switching its look around a tad?
- I have extreme difficulty connecting colonies to their corresponding powers. This is compounded by the fact that the main map's Europe and Africa are different shades, and the minimaps are even more different shades. Togoland looks brown in the main and the mini, but Europe has two could-be shades of brown in it. It's a colorblind nightmare if I'm having difficulty understanding it with no such condition. Please standardize the colors across the map. I realize that the main is using some flourishes, but the mini should be absolutely crystal-clear.
- Pick "required for" or "required by both" for the Disputed Regions section. It may be my naive desire for consistency, but both will fit and the difference doesn't seem necessary.

Those are my only major concerns gameplay-wise right now.

Would it make things better or worse if each landing territory anchor had the national flag of its corresponding power?

I have some questions and notices:

1, will be Sicily playable region? if not add sea lines from it to Italy.
2, will be Ireland playable region? if not add sea line from it to England.
3, England has too many acces. maybe delete sea line with Germany.
4, Portugal is "besieged" by Spain. could be sea line from England (Ireland) moved from Spain to Portugal?

Not really contributing to the discussion exactly (sorry about that) but I just wanted to say that at one point I was heavily considering starting a New World style map set to this theme and probably would have named it Colonial Africa.

Frankly, I think this is better and quite different than what I would have done and I am happy that you got to it first.

Since we are in one big happy main foundry workshop now, I will unsticky this until it is very close to entering the Final Forge.

isaiah40 wrote:Since we are in one big happy main foundry workshop now, I will unsticky this until it is very close to entering the Final Forge.

Makes sense, I was wondering about that.

1, will be Sicily playable region? if not add sea lines from it to Italy.

No, it is a part of Italy. I think Sea lines wound make it look more like it's own territory though, and confuse things further.

2, will be Ireland playable region? if not add sea line from it to England.

Again, part of England but I'm not sure Sea lines will serve clarify.

, England has too many acces. maybe delete sea line with Germany.

I think England needs to be super accessible otherwise it becomes to strong of a territory. Not only does it control the largest expanses of Africa it is on the edge of the map. I think Europe needs to be very interconnected for this gameplay to work.

4, Portugal is "besieged" by Spain. could be sea line from England (Ireland) moved from Spain to Portugal?

This is true, and a good idea. I'll implement this in my next draft.

Would it make things better or worse if each landing territory anchor had the national flag of its corresponding power?

Most likely better. I think I'll try that out.

- While the extra flourish in script works well for the A of the title, it looks like another letter (O) tacked on front of the C. Perhaps switching its look around a tad?

Yeah I'm not really sold on that font myself. That title will change greatly.

- I have extreme difficulty connecting colonies to their corresponding powers. This is compounded by the fact that the main map's Europe and Africa are different shades, and the minimaps are even more different shades. Togoland looks brown in the main and the mini, but Europe has two could-be shades of brown in it. It's a colorblind nightmare if I'm having difficulty understanding it with no such condition. Please standardize the colors across the map. I realize that the main is using some flourishes, but the mini should be absolutely crystal-clear.

I think I'm going to re-"paint" the whole map with a new technique. Similar to what I've been doing on the Westeros map.

- Pick "required for" or "required by both" for the Disputed Regions section. It may be my naive desire for consistency, but both will fit and the difference doesn't seem necessary.

Good point will do.

I'm sorry I haven't posted a new version in a while. I apologize for that a lot I realize but I've had much going on lately. Sadly I do not have a new version to post yet but I've been working on a large scale re-vamp of this map in little increments at a time. Here is a glimpse of the direction I'm going:



The impassable and legend will be re-vamped as well. Pretty much everything. The title will be something inspired by this:



ALSO!

I have one last gameplay change I'm considering that I want to clear before I finish doing this re-vamp. (It'll be easier if I can do this while working on the other big changes)

I want to scrap Gold coast as a territory. It contributes little and is the only double landing territory that is a double for any country. I think it'll make things more even and consistent to just pave it over. Any objections?

What do you mean by "double landing territory"?

ender516 wrote:What do you mean by "double landing territory"?

I mean that Britain has 2 between Gold Coast and Zululand. I'm in favor of keeping Zululand over Gold coast because it gives an entry point to the south of the continent. While Gold coast sits at about the same spot as 3 other landing territories.

I'm considering silence as assent on this issue. So if you have an issue with me removing Gold Coast you must say so soon. If 5 pages down the road some one asks "why did you remove Gold Coast?" I will refer back to this post and tell you that you have missed your opportunity.

Well, I for one am okay with removing it. Let me know when you want to pull the trigger and I will update the XML.

On a different note, if you are reworking the graphics, since there was some debate about Sicily and Italy and connections and so forth, perhaps you should simply remove Sicily and put the connections to the mainland. After all, you don't have Corsica or Sardinia, so is Sicily that important?

ender516 wrote:Well, I for one am okay with removing it. Let me know when you want to pull the trigger and I will update the XML.

On a different note, if you are reworking the graphics, since there was some debate about Sicily and Italy and connections and so forth, perhaps you should simply remove Sicily and put the connections to the mainland. After all, you don't have Corsica or Sardinia, so is Sicily that important?

I suppose not... maybe I'll just put the shape in there as an unplayable feature.

Easy to understand but not very exciting is my first thought!

Put a little work into this tonight. Here's an un-official update, just so that you can see where I'm going with this.

The purple in the center of the continent is way too dark, and the edges of the red as well. Also, the landing points in the top right (Eritrea and O.S.) are difficult to read between the port icon and the color. Also, you haven't fixed the "Required for" in the top right, they're still different from each other.

TaCktiX wrote:The purple in the center of the continent is way too dark, and the edges of the red as well. Also, the landing points in the top right (Eritrea and O.S.) are difficult to read between the port icon and the color. Also, you haven't fixed the "Required for" in the top right, they're still different from each other.

I'll probably lighten most of the regions up a bit, and "required for" is fixed.


I've been playing around with the suggestion that I should incorporate the flags of the countries into the map. I've tried out a couple things, the most obvious being to simply put the flag next to the name. That's ok, but I think I like it best how I did Zululand. It's like how I did Belgium with the flag colors fit into the territory but it's blended with the map more.


Oh yeah and also England's border to Spain has been moved to Portugal.

I like the look of the flag masked into the landing territory.

Here is the updated XML, with Gold Coast removed and the Great Britain/Spain/Portugal border change.

Colonial_Africa_1.19.xml

Does anyone know why I can attach files to the Baltic Crusades topic, but not this one?

ender516 wrote:I like the look of the flag masked into the landing territory.

Here is the updated XML, with Gold Coast removed and the Great Britain/Spain/Portugal border change.

Colonial_Africa_1.19.xml

Does anyone know why I can attach files to the Baltic Crusades topic, but not this one?

You can only attach files in FF, as that is the way it is set up.

ender516 wrote:I like the look of the flag masked into the landing territory.

Here is the updated XML, with Gold Coast removed and the Great Britain/Spain/Portugal border change.

Colonial_Africa_1.19.xml

Does anyone know why I can attach files to the Baltic Crusades topic, but not this one?

For the most part the XML looks great except for 1 big problem. Currently the Landing territories can attack back to any European power. They should only be able able to attack their country of Origin.

European power -----> Can attack any landing point

Landing point-----> Can only attack the the European power it represents

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:I like the look of the flag masked into the landing territory.

Here is the updated XML, with Gold Coast removed and the Great Britain/Spain/Portugal border change.

Colonial_Africa_1.19.xml

Does anyone know why I can attach files to the Baltic Crusades topic, but not this one?

For the most part the XML looks great except for 1 big problem. Currently the Landing territories can attack back to any European power. They should only be able able to attack their country of Origin.

European power -----> Can attack any landing point

Landing point-----> Can only attack the the European power it represents

Not sure how you got that idea. Both the Map Maker tool and the Map XML Wizard have a Map Inspect feature (like BOB), and they show the proper one-way attacks. You can read the XML directly as well. The borders of a landing point which leads back to the corresponding European power have the XML comment:

Code: Select all

<!-- European power -->

while a block of code defining the borders from a European power to the landing territories is repeated verbatim in each case, always starting with the XML comment

Code: Select all

<!-- Borders from European power to Landing territories -->

ender516 wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:I like the look of the flag masked into the landing territory.

Here is the updated XML, with Gold Coast removed and the Great Britain/Spain/Portugal border change.

Colonial_Africa_1.19.xml

Does anyone know why I can attach files to the Baltic Crusades topic, but not this one?

For the most part the XML looks great except for 1 big problem. Currently the Landing territories can attack back to any European power. They should only be able able to attack their country of Origin.

European power -----> Can attack any landing point

Landing point-----> Can only attack the the European power it represents

Not sure how you got that idea. Both the Map Maker tool and the Map XML Wizard have a Map Inspect feature (like BOB), and they show the proper one-way attacks. You can read the XML directly as well. The borders of a landing point which leads back to the corresponding European power have the XML comment:

Code: Select all

<!-- European power -->

while a block of code defining the borders from a European power to the landing territories is repeated verbatim in each case, always starting with the XML comment

Code: Select all

<!-- Borders from European power to Landing territories -->

The map inspect tool is how I got that idea. When I checked it in there the BoB function showed connections to all the European powers from any landing territory.

I also like the masked-over flag, though you might run into issues with that setup on the smaller landing territories.