Conquer Club

also regarding egypt, it was one of the most civilised and developed parts of africa and certainly justifies being split into several parts with a bonus in the same way as has been done with some of the more backward countries. an example might be alexandria (west), suez (east), luxor (south) and cairo (central).

the most famous impassable in africa is the sahara desert, which is missing. why not turn niger into a sahara region that has killer neutrals to simulate a dangerous crossing? france shouldn't be able to move troops into central africa so easily.

i'll again suggest that u merge two of the belgian congo regions to make this bonus easier to hold. this is the only belgian bonus and it's nearly useless if it cannot be defended.

iancanton wrote:if u make greece smaller, then ottoman can connect to austria-hungary, to bring it closer to the rest of europe.

ottoman still has an undue advantage because of its isolated position.

ian.

Your land outlines could be sharper. The land shape looks a bit too simplified, as well...

Victor Sullivan wrote:Nice to see an update I'd like to see Egypt go to the Ottoman Empire, as they don't really have any country in Africa, and it would justify the +3/+4 bonus a bit more IMO.

-Sully

No, Egypt has to stay in England's hands. The Ottomans lost Egypt WAY earlier than the general era I'm portraying in this map.

also regarding egypt, it was one of the most civilised and developed parts of africa and certainly justifies being split into several parts with a bonus in the same way as has been done with some of the more backward countries. an example might be alexandria (west), suez (east), luxor (south) and cairo (central).

I'll consider this.

he most famous impassable in africa is the sahara desert, which is missing. why not turn niger into a sahara region that has killer neutrals to simulate a dangerous crossing? france shouldn't be able to move troops into central africa so easily.

Well I do have sand dunes in there as impassable. I'm not sure about the killer neutral. It's an alright idea but I don't want to over load this map with features.

i'll again suggest that u merge two of the belgian congo regions to make this bonus easier to hold. this is the only belgian bonus and it's nearly useless if it cannot be defended.

Hmm... ok, I think I'll combine Kivu and Orientale in my next draft.

Ottoman still has an undue advantage because of its isolated position.

Yeah but it's poorly situated for expansion so I think it'll even out.

natty_dread wrote:Your land outlines could be sharper. The land shape looks a bit too simplified, as well...

Ugh... yeah you are totally right. I am completely dissatisfied with the line work and Shaping. Particularly in Europe. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go in and change almost all of it. It's gonna suck for me, but I have a Wacom tablet now, and I didn't when I started this map. Hopefully that'll help out a bit.

The Bison King wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Nice to see an update I'd like to see Egypt go to the Ottoman Empire, as they don't really have any country in Africa, and it would justify the +3/+4 bonus a bit more IMO.

-Sully

No, Egypt has to stay in England's hands. The Ottomans lost Egypt WAY earlier than the general era I'm portraying in this map.)

although the turks had lost real influence in egypt to the british, egypt was still nominally part of the ottoman empire until the first world war.

natty_dread wrote:Your land outlines could be sharper. The land shape looks a bit too simplified, as well...

The Bison King wrote:Ugh... yeah you are totally right. I am completely dissatisfied with the line work and Shaping. Particularly in Europe. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go in and change almost all of it. It's gonna suck for me, but I have a Wacom tablet now, and I didn't when I started this map. Hopefully that'll help out a bit.

i notice that africa is really small compared with the total area. u could just have eight troop circles on ships to represent the eight european powers, thus removing europe from the map, which means u won't have to redraw europe.

ian.

The troop ships are an interesting idea, but it will make the attack routes between the powers a bit messy, unless the gameplay is changed so that either all European powers can attack one another (naval battles, I suppose), or none of them can attack another directly (like the New World map).

If the ship idea is adopted, I suppose it is obvious that each ship should fly the appropriate flag, thereby tying into the landing territories.

YAY!!!! Everything's finally filled in!!!!

It only took 1 million years.




I forgot to Combine territories in the Belgium bonus... oops.

Also I'm keeping Europe on the map, it just works better with how I want the map to function.

You should remove Persia from the mini-map.

Good point. Also I think the flags in the European countries works for now but I'd like to find a way to make that more appealing.

Well, you could do the same thing to the European countries as you did to the landing territories. Not sure how visually appealing that would be, but it would leave no doubt about which landing was associated with which country.

ender516 wrote:Well, you could do the same thing to the European countries as you did to the landing territories. Not sure how visually appealing that would be, but it would leave no doubt about which landing was associated with which country.

Well here's what that looks like:





I don't necessarily hate it though it is kind of... a circus. The main problem is that now it's more difficult to identify the alliance of the various colonies.

And it is hard to distinguish between Portugal and Spain. My vote is scrap that idea, sorry I can't think of anything right now.

isaiah40 wrote:And it is hard to distinguish between Portugal and Spain. My vote is scrap that idea, sorry I can't think of anything right now.

It might be easier to distinguish between them if you use this Portuguese flag, from before it became a republic in 1910:

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:Well, you could do the same thing to the European countries as you did to the landing territories. Not sure how visually appealing that would be, but it would leave no doubt about which landing was associated with which country.

Well here's what that looks like:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

I don't necessarily hate it though it is kind of... a circus. The main problem is that now it's more difficult to identify the alliance of the various colonies.

Yeah, yikes, sorry I suggested it. Did not think that one through.

We definitely need the colours for aligning the colonies with the European powers.

Hmm, there is a bit of space near the European mini-map. Maybe you could attach the flags to the countries there, that is, move the "Europe +1 auto-deploy" up a bit and put the flags around that minimap with lines connecting them to the respective countries. I would say use flag-pins, but with all of them generally sticking up, I think there would be severe clumping. However, if you can lay it out somehow, I think that would be great.

The Bison King wrote:

iancanton wrote:Ottoman still has an undue advantage because of its isolated position.

Yeah but it's poorly situated for expansion so I think it'll even out.

no, it doesn't even out at all. think of classic oceania, which has even worse expansion potential, but is clearly the best bonus to hold on that map. that's why u must connect austria-hungary to ottoman.

i continue to push for egypt to be split into four regions and given an ottoman bonus instead of british (since egypt was an autonomous part of the ottoman empire up to 1914).

illogically, u've split smaller and relatively backward countries such as cameroon, namibia, madagascar and somalia, but not egypt or south africa, which means u have many people fighting over jungle and desert, while egyptian commerce and south african gold and diamonds remain relatively untouched. in particular, i suggest reducing madagascar and somalia to only one region each with 3 starting neutrals, but retaining a bonus element (either the existing 1+1 or, alternatively, 0+1).

central africa was called oubangi-chari at the time, while congo was french, not german (correct on the mini-map, wrong on the main map).

ian.

looking good... one thing stood out to me lybia ought to be libya.

no, it doesn't even out at all. think of classic oceania, which has even worse expansion potential, but is clearly the best bonus to hold on that map. that's why u must connect austria-hungary to ottoman.

hmm hmm... ok. That sounds good. I'll combine Austria Hungary with Greece. For now I'll call it Austria Hungary-Greece untill I think of something beter or someone offers up a good suggestion.

i continue to push for egypt to be split into four regions and given an ottoman bonus instead of british (since egypt was an autonomous part of the ottoman empire up to 1914).

If Egypt was it's own bonus I'd split it up but it's not. Also all the maps I've looked at place Egypt as a British colony at that time.

illogically, u've split smaller and relatively backward countries such as cameroon, namibia, madagascar and somalia, but not egypt or south africa, which means u have many people fighting over jungle

That's not entirely illogical, jungle area's can be harder to hold and control many rival conflicting tribes, while area's like Egypt were much more organized. By holding a few well established cities you could control vast tracts of the country most of which was desert.

while Congo was french, not German (correct on the mini-map, wrong on the main map).

yeah... I know but with that one it's been a game play choice (one I'm not entirely opposed to switching). French Africa is already big enough with 5 borders, adding one more border that's almost completely detached and borders another landing tert. just seems like it would make it impossible to hold.

iancanton wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

iancanton wrote:Ottoman still has an undue advantage because of its isolated position.

Yeah but it's poorly situated for expansion so I think it'll even out.

no, it doesn't even out at all. think of classic oceania, which has even worse expansion potential, but is clearly the best bonus to hold on that map. that's why u must connect austria-hungary to ottoman.

If Ottoman is connected to Greece and Russia, does it really need to be attached to Austria-Hungary as well?

iancanton wrote:i continue to push for egypt to be split into four regions and given an ottoman bonus instead of british (since egypt was an autonomous part of the ottoman empire up to 1914).
illogically, u've split smaller and relatively backward countries such as cameroon, namibia, madagascar and somalia, but not egypt or south africa, which means u have many people fighting over jungle and desert, while egyptian commerce and south african gold and diamonds remain relatively untouched. in particular, i suggest reducing madagascar and somalia to only one region each with 3 starting neutrals, but retaining a bonus element (either the existing 1+1 or, alternatively, 0+1).

The Egyptian split might be the right thing to do, but British forces occupied Egypt in 1882. Perhaps an Egyptian superbonus to either Britain or Ottoman?
South Africa might also deserve a split.

iancanton wrote:central africa was called oubangi-chari at the time, while congo was french, not german (correct on the mini-map, wrong on the main map).

ian.

By 1910, the central African region was known as the Federation of French Equatorial Africa. And actually, I think both the main map and the mini-map depict Congo as Belgian.

The Bison King wrote:

no, it doesn't even out at all. think of classic oceania, which has even worse expansion potential, but is clearly the best bonus to hold on that map. that's why u must connect austria-hungary to ottoman.

hmm hmm... ok. That sounds good. I'll combine Austria Hungary with Greece. For now I'll call it Austria Hungary-Greece untill I think of something beter or someone offers up a good suggestion.

You could call it east europe, or south-east europe? Or you could extend the Ottoman borders to cut in between A.H. and Greece, like the borders of the Ottoman Empire looked before the balkan wars.

The Bison King wrote:Ugh... yeah you are totally right. I am completely dissatisfied with the line work and Shaping. Particularly in Europe. I'm afraid I'm going to have to go in and change almost all of it. It's gonna suck for me, but I have a Wacom tablet now, and I didn't when I started this map. Hopefully that'll help out a bit.

High five! Wacom rules

also, that reminds me I need to buy more nibs...

A bit more on the advice side: working with a tablet takes a bit of getting used to... it's hard at first to adjust to looking at the screen when you draw, especially when you're used to drawing on paper. So I guess I'm saying it's good to practice a bit until you get to the point you can comfortably use the tablet and get the lines where you want them...

tokle wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

no, it doesn't even out at all. think of classic oceania, which has even worse expansion potential, but is clearly the best bonus to hold on that map. that's why u must connect austria-hungary to ottoman.

hmm hmm... ok. That sounds good. I'll combine Austria Hungary with Greece. For now I'll call it Austria Hungary-Greece untill I think of something beter or someone offers up a good suggestion.

You could call it east europe, or south-east europe? Or you could extend the Ottoman borders to cut in between A.H. and Greece, like the borders of the Ottoman Empire looked before the balkan wars.

Click image to enlarge.

I think the term Balkan Peninsula is entirely appropriate. You may be stretching its northern border, but when I hear that name I know where to look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Peninsula

The Bison King wrote:

i continue to push for egypt to be split into four regions and given an ottoman bonus instead of british (since egypt was an autonomous part of the ottoman empire up to 1914).

If Egypt was it's own bonus I'd split it up but it's not. Also all the maps I've looked at place Egypt as a British colony at that time.

egypt was never part of the british empire. even when the british put in power someone they thought would be a friendly ruler, egypt continued to be part of the ottoman empire. here's a link to a map that shows ottoman sovereignty, with the text for egypt "territoire ottoman sous administration britannique". in other words, ottoman territory, under british administration. ender's solution of a disputed bonus deserves consideration.

http://www.atlas-historique.net/1815-19 ... ttoman1908

ian.

iancanton wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

i continue to push for egypt to be split into four regions and given an ottoman bonus instead of british (since egypt was an autonomous part of the ottoman empire up to 1914).

If Egypt was it's own bonus I'd split it up but it's not. Also all the maps I've looked at place Egypt as a British colony at that time.

egypt was never part of the british empire. even when the british put in power someone they thought would be a friendly ruler, egypt continued to be part of the ottoman empire. here's a link to a map that shows ottoman sovereignty, with the text for egypt "territoire ottoman sous administration britannique". in other words, ottoman territory, under british administration. ender's solution of a disputed bonus deserves consideration.

http://www.atlas-historique.net/1815-19 ... ttoman1908

ian.

While this is technically true, the situation was not that simple (as they never are...). Most maps from the west would colour egypt in with the British Empire, though.
It is also a point that Egypt was de facto independent from Constantinopel for a while before the British and French started interferring there.

Like the flag thing you've got going but leopoldville doesn't have the same tone as the original Belgium. Looks more like Romania's flag.

tokle wrote:

iancanton wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

i continue to push for egypt to be split into four regions and given an ottoman bonus instead of british (since egypt was an autonomous part of the ottoman empire up to 1914).

If Egypt was it's own bonus I'd split it up but it's not. Also all the maps I've looked at place Egypt as a British colony at that time.

egypt was never part of the british empire. even when the british put in power someone they thought would be a friendly ruler, egypt continued to be part of the ottoman empire.
While this is technically true, the situation was not that simple (as they never are...). Most maps from the west would colour egypt in with the British Empire, though.
It is also a point that Egypt was de facto independent from Constantinopel for a while before the British and French started interferring there.

cartographers often did their best to show an unusual situation. bartholomew 1914, for instance, had egypt as ottoman green to show ottoman sovereignty, but with a british pink inner glow to signify british "protection". compare with solid italian yellow libya and solid french purple tunis for colonies formally annexed to these empires.

http://www.mapseeker.co.uk/world-maps-p ... B=b4#phead

i'm seeking to give a reason for the ottoman empire to exist on the map, failing which we really ought to remove the arabian pensinsula for being non-african. egypt is currently the nearest thing in africa to an ottoman possession in 1913 that we can find, other than the fictional ottoman somaliland, which was actually french.

ian.

Yes, Ottoman Somaliland seems to have been the port of Zeila, but that was at an earlier date.

Maybe Egypt should be its own bonus, additive to either Britain or Ottoman, with British East Africa suitably reduced in value.