Egypt: Valley Of The Kings [Quenched]

[Sparqs]

Looking good, cairnswk. I think your latest version is the clearest so far - it certainly addresses several of my concerns.

Please allow me to suggest something like this:


Please excuse the quality - I used Paint to cobble together and resize bits of previous versions.

[cairnswk]

Looking good, cairnswk. I think your latest version is the clearest so far - it certainly addresses several of my concerns.

Please allow me to suggest something like this:


Please excuse the quality - I used Paint to cobble together and resize bits of previous versions.

Sparqs no worries....thanks for the solution...and no probs with the paint...it got the message across. I'll post soemothing soon .

[cairnswk]

Please excuse the quality - I used Paint to cobble together and resize bits of previous versions.

Sparqs...your suggestions into play!

[Sparqs]

Cairnswk, I think it looks fantastic. I like "Underworld" better than "Region" as the thing I'm trying to hold. The layout seems clearer to me, but I guess it only really matters if it's clearer to other people.

If I may suggest a few tweaks:

Strong suggestion (the current wording is odd):
1) Change "Bonuses Regions" to "Bonus Regions"

Minor suggestions (I think these would polish the look, but they are just minor graphics changes):
2) Put some sort of background under the scarab in the Bonus Regions cartouche. Maybe just a little yellow glow behind it?

3) For the Bonus Regions cartouche, could you make the vertical dividers a little shorter and give them the 3-D look you used on the horizontal dividers?

4) I think you have a reason for the style inconsistency of the translations, but I don't remember exactly what it is, so: As I recall, the Amentes and Afterlife tokens will be called things like "Amente B" and "D: Ka" in the XML. In the cartouche, I suggest the English translations all be in parenthesis:

Amente (Underworld)
D: Ka (Soul)

or after a dash:

Amente - Underworld
D: Ka - Soul

Not vital, especially since they are in different sections, but I tend to prefer consistency unless the difference is supposed to have meaning. Hmm, maybe it was a font size issue, but I think you could shrink the word "Underworld" following Amente and it would be OK because there are so many examples of the word in the same font at a larger size, right above.

Anyhow, as I said, looks great!

[yeti_c]

Your bonuses have changed?



Is this intentional?

Also - the numbers of your bonuses aren't quite aligned - this is because of the variable width font used on "Underworld B" etc.

Also - you've typo'd afterlife -> afterkife!!!

(Agree with Sparqs about "Bonuses Regions" -> "Bonus Regions" or just "Regions"?

Otherwise - this map is looking sweet.

C.

[cairnswk]

Cairnswk, I think it looks fantastic. I like "Underworld" better than "Region" as the thing I'm trying to hold. The layout seems clearer to me, but I guess it only really matters if it's clearer to other people.

If I may suggest a few tweaks:

Strong suggestion (the current wording is odd):
1) Change "Bonuses Regions" to "Bonus Regions"

Minor suggestions (I think these would polish the look, but they are just minor graphics changes):
2) Put some sort of background under the scarab in the Bonus Regions cartouche. Maybe just a little yellow glow behind it?

3) For the Bonus Regions cartouche, could you make the vertical dividers a little shorter and give them the 3-D look you used on the horizontal dividers?

4) I think you have a reason for the style inconsistency of the translations, but I don't remember exactly what it is, so: As I recall, the Amentes and Afterlife tokens will be called things like "Amente B" and "D: Ka" in the XML. In the cartouche, I suggest the English translations all be in parenthesis:

Amente (Underworld)
D: Ka (Soul)

or after a dash:

Amente - Underworld
D: Ka - Soul

Not vital, especially since they are in different sections, but I tend to prefer consistency unless the difference is supposed to have meaning. Hmm, maybe it was a font size issue, but I think you could shrink the word "Underworld" following Amente and it would be OK because there are so many examples of the word in the same font at a larger size, right above.

Anyhow, as I said, looks great!

Sparqs...i am pleased to have your suggestions...as you can imagine sometimes cartographers get too close to their maps and can't see the forest for the trees, so your assistanace in clarification is greatly appreciated.

The underworld text had more to do with font size, legibility and clarity, but i am happy to add a dash there for consistency...sorry about the "Bonuses Regions"...my error after a long tired day at the office....

Changes in the map below

[yeti_c]

Hey Cairns,

You missed my comments...

C.

Your bonuses have changed?



Is this intentional?

Also - the numbers of your bonuses aren't quite aligned - this is because of the variable width font used on "Underworld B" etc.

Also - you've typo'd afterlife -> afterkife!!!

(Agree with Sparqs about "Bonuses Regions" -> "Bonus Regions" or just "Regions"?

Otherwise - this map is looking sweet.

C.

[cairnswk]

Hey Cairns,

You missed my comments...

C.

Your bonuses have changed?



Is this intentional?

Also - the numbers of your bonuses aren't quite aligned - this is because of the variable width font used on "Underworld B" etc.

Also - you've typo'd afterlife -> afterkife!!!

(Agree with Sparqs about "Bonuses Regions" -> "Bonus Regions" or just "Regions"?

Otherwise - this map is looking sweet.

C.

Yeti_c
apologies for missing your comment..it was entirely unintentional.
yes the bonus have changed due to a re-calcuation using WM's spreadsheet.
And yes there are some re-lignments of numbers to be done shortly...i wanted to get the major bits done first as we have been at this for some time.
please note this is now the current version

[yeti_c]

OK...

Then my only comment is such...

"Also - you've typo'd afterlife -> afterkife!!!"

C.

PS and this is your latest...

[cairnswk]

OK...

Then my only comment is such...

"Also - you've typo'd afterlife -> afterkife!!!"

C.

PS and this is your latest...

oh bugger...i missed that...thanks yeti_c...will change it shortly.

[yeti_c]

No worries!!! Simple Typo - anyone can make them!!

C.

[cairnswk]

No worries!!! Simple Typo - anyone can make them!!

C.

V47 Update:
* Fixed typo as above
* Changed all bonus legend text to same Papyrun font as the map, leaving only the Title text in another font.
* Aligned all the bonus numbers

[Sparqs]

Looking even more polished, Cairnswk.

I see that the 2nd "Ramesses III" has become "Anen". I wonder of one the "Ramesses III"'s was a "Ramesses VIII" who lost his "V". Because I see 9, 10 & 11, but no 8.

In the latest update, Amente went back to "(Underworld)" as opposed to "-Underworld".

A truly minor nit: in the Bonus Regions, I think they would look better without the asterisks (*). There are already equals (=) and pluses (+) and I think they make it look a bit busy.

I would say I can't wait for it to get quenched so I can play it, but I think this map will be a good candidate for the Beta Test Table that I sure hope gets created after this AoM XML debacle.

[cairnswk]

Looking even more polished, Cairnswk.

I see that the 2nd "Ramesses III" has become "Anen". I wonder of one the "Ramesses III"'s was a "Ramesses VIII" who lost his "V". Because I see 9, 10 & 11, but no 8.

In the latest update, Amente went back to "(Underworld)" as opposed to "-Underworld".

A truly minor nit: in the Bonus Regions, I think they would look better without the asterisks (*). There are already equals (=) and pluses (+) and I think they make it look a bit busy.

I would say I can't wait for it to get quenched so I can play it, but I think this map will be a good candidate for the Beta Test Table that I sure hope gets created after this AoM XML debacle.

Sparqs, thanks again...i fixed the underword in the map above and took away the asterisks.
There was never a Ramesses VIII, unless it appeared in the middle versions accidentally, but it was not in the first draft...and also not in the official list....but Anen is on another official list and that's why i changed it.
Yes it would be good to beta test all these maps...i would support that whole heartedly....and put my hand up to be a tester!

[Qwert]

Well i must say that i dont understand these calculation for bonuses, i just see that people will not try to captured country with max terittory,because country with 8 terittory worth same like country with 11 terittory.

[cairnswk]

Well i must say that i dont understand these calculation for bonuses, i just see that people will not try to captured country with max terittory,because country with 8 terittory worth same like country with 11 terittory.

Qwert...thanks for your comments....the calculation spreadsheet is below for your perusal.

All outer territories calculate to the same 5 bonus using the spreadsheet...but i changed them to 4 to give 1 bonus from each region to the Afterlife to make it 2 - worthwhile attacking there...it is the gameplay that is different here qwert...it is the middle region "the afterlife" that will be hard fought over.

[Sparqs]

I try to keep my comments mostly to issues of clarity and appearance, but I must agree that I don't understand the reasoning behind the current bonus payouts.

Please let me state (as someone with plans to introduce a few odd maps, myself) that I support a Cartographer's right to develop gameplay beyond the norm. As long as they are fully aware of the impact of their decisions on the gameplay of a map, I think that they are the director of their project and final decision rests with them.

So, in the spirit of letting you know what impact I think this bonus structure will have:

The Underworlds are all the same difficulty to hold, and so maybe should be of similar value, but some will clearly be tougher to obtain and it seems their value should reflect that. Since you must obtain an Underworld for any bonuses at all, they will (often) be your primary objective. With no other mitigating factors, the superiority of some Underworlds means that this map will be subject to more luck-of-the-drop than it would if it were more balanced.

That is, with this bonus structure, more games will be heavily influenced by initial army location than would occur with a more balanced structure.

[Sparqs]

Just saw the table post. I've seen that before, and it seems a reasonable argument, but I don't think the table accounts for the nuances of the map. The one-way routes, the need for certain zones, the large areas to obtain, etc.

Essentially, the topology of the map is unaccounted for in the math of the table.

[cairnswk]

I try to keep my comments mostly to issues of clarity and appearance, but I must agree that I don't understand the reasoning behind the current bonus payouts.

Please let me state (as someone with plans to introduce a few odd maps, myself) that I support a Cartographer's right to develop gameplay beyond the norm. As long as they are fully aware of the impact of their decisions on the gameplay of a map, I think that they are the director of their project and final decision rests with them.

So, in the spirit of letting you know what impact I think this bonus structure will have:

The Underworlds are all the same difficulty to hold, and so maybe should be of similar value, but some will clearly be tougher to obtain and it seems their value should reflect that. Since you must obtain an Underworld for any bonuses at all, they will (often) be your primary objective. With no other mitigating factors, the superiority of some Underworlds means that this map will be subject to more luck-of-the-drop than it would if it were more balanced.

That is, with this bonus structure, more games will be heavily influenced by initial army location than would occur with a more balanced structure.

So are u saying that the bonuses should be altered...if so then please provide suggestions Sparqs...i'm happy to do so if someone has a reasonable structure.

[Sparqs]

Part of the reason I haven't spoken up much on game-balance topics (in any maps) is that I don't have enough experience here to really put forth a convincing argument. As in "I know what's best for you all, I just don't know how to convince you of it, yet." ;)

I thought the 3 & 4 split from before seemed reasonable. I don't know if it is the best structure (or how feasible it would be for anyone to determine a 'best' structure) but it would compensate for the disparity in difficulty.

Of course, if someone set their mind to it, I'm sure they could argue that 3/4 is too much compensation. Now, you can argue anything, and they could be right that 4-all is more balanced than 3/4, but I think you would have a tough time convincing me. And I don't know what else to suggest. 2 & 3? Maybe. 2/4, 4/5, or other? I don't really think so.

That is my soon-to-be-trademarked, long-winded way of saying "I don't know but 3 & 4 sounds good to me."

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, just a quick comment, I am also leaning towards 3 and 4 splits, as it seemed to make sense to me. But I can be swayed for 4's.


--Andy

[cairnswk]

Part of the reason I haven't spoken up much on game-balance topics (in any maps) is that I don't have enough experience here to really put forth a convincing argument. As in "I know what's best for you all, I just don't know how to convince you of it, yet."

I thought the 3 & 4 split from before seemed reasonable. I don't know if it is the best structure (or how feasible it would be for anyone to determine a 'best' structure) but it would compensate for the disparity in difficulty.

Of course, if someone set their mind to it, I'm sure they could argue that 3/4 is too much compensation. Now, you can argue anything, and they could be right that 4-all is more balanced than 3/4, but I think you would have a tough time convincing me. And I don't know what else to suggest. 2 & 3? Maybe. 2/4, 4/5, or other? I don't really think so.

That is my soon-to-be-trademarked, long-winded way of saying "I don't know but 3 & 4 sounds good to me."

Sparqs...LOL....very unassuming and humble, and a very reasonable argument. I applaude your sense of direction.
I too am in much the same predicament....inexperienced!
So...together with your proposal, and my idea.....shall we say -

A - 3
B - 3
C - 2
D - 2
E - 4

Leave the Afterlife bonuses as are at 2 a piece, and 1 for Ankh.

If there is too much disparity in that, then it can always be changed at a later date, or when the beta testing for xml is done.

[cairnswk]

Hm, just a quick comment, I am also leaning towards 3 and 4 splits, as it seemed to make sense to me. But I can be swayed for 4's.
--Andy

Thanks Andy...what do you think of my proposal for:
A 3
B 3
C 2
D 2
E 4

Does it seem reasonable or too off the mark?

[AndyDufresne]

Hm, I actually think the suggestions you have are rather reasonable. As sparqs pointed out, the values portray the difficulty of the continent, I think at least. I'd rather see the above suggestions, than the blanket 4.


--Andy

[cairnswk]

Hm, I actually think the suggestions you have are rather reasonable. As sparqs pointed out, the values portray the difficulty of the continent, I think at least. I'd rather see the above suggestions, than the blanket 4.
--Andy

Andy, i'll amend that then and see what everyone thinks.