150 After Hijrah: The Battle for God

[snufkin]

Well, yes. But the point of this map is to have a playable fun game not to have the exactly accurate map of one specific date. It wants to illustrate the ebb and flow and evolution of dynasties, not a static snapshot.

Wouldn´t it be a good idea then to rename your map to something more generic?
Since you use specific dates in the name and map description it makes the strong anachronisms look really bad.
Surely there is no point in calling it late 700:s (or even late 800:s) when large parts of the map are historically off by centuries?

[natty dread]

Pork & rask: you talk about challenging the views of people, with this controversial graphical style of yours. However, as pork himself said, the majority of players never read the forums at all, let alone the foundry / map threads. How then, I ask, is the average player to know that this space view of yours is meant to "challenge his views" or that it is to "show the world from the eyes of god" or whatever it was that you were going for with this approach...

The average player, having never read this map thread, will not understand why a map of historic events is viewed from space. Everyone here who has participated in the debate understands your view and reasons for the space view, because they have participated in the thread and heard you explain it again and again. The average player will not.

This is the point. The map should be made for the players. I don't think anyone here wants to dictate how you should make your map, and indeed no one can force you to change the graphical style. But I'd wish you would just step back, and try to see your map from the perspective of the average player who never visits these forums.

[Incandenza]

That's a rockin' wall of text there, rask. Allow me to rebut:

Thanks for your comments aboout playability. You would be entirely right... had I not already posted the neutrals map on October 25th- a month ago. Here is a copy below.

Yeah, I saw that map a month ago, the first time I tried to comment on this map. That needs to be in the first post. I know you're not a big fan of keeping the first post 100% up to date, but that's pretty much the absolute least you could do. Forcing people to hunt through the thread for essential information is not only rude, it's counter-productive.

The balance is entablished both by fact that the smaller empires all have an extra self-deploying army generator represented by the religious shrine, and by the lower amount of neutrals on each of the larger empires' cities. In fact, if you study the map carefully, the balance will be not very different from that of New World, which is one of the more successsful maps in CC.

I don't consider New World to be a suitable precedent. Despite it's popularity, the gameplay is rather unbalanced. I would not have stamped that map, had it been up to me. While the imbalance of New World isn't as much of an issue with no cards, said imbalance very much surges to the fore when it comes to card games.

The overall effect of the differences is to slow the game somewhat, so that no one can simply concentrate forces in a fog situation so that by round three they can attack and wipe out someone else position in one of the starting points (in 1 v1 games). THerefore, even in 1 v 1 situations each player would only get 2 starting points, as in Pelloponesian War, as opposed to 4, as in NW.

With 10 starting points, each player will actually get 3 in 1v1. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 3 of the larger ones than 3 of the smaller ones, especially with cards, because by round 3 I'll have +4 per empire deployable and you'll have a +3 autodeploy and a +1 per empire. I figure I could win 8 out of 10 with that drop. That's bad, by the way. And it's funny you mention Peloponnesian War. I note from your map rank that you've played that map quite a bit. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm the guy that stamped it for gameplay and spent a lot of time working with qwert to make sure that it worked well. I know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure there is room for imporvement and I, for one, would welcome the help of the more experienced gmeplay designers here. After all, that's what the Foundry is al about... Again many thanks for yuor input. I will address your other comments, regarding the artistic side of the map, in due course.

I'm not advocating a complete tear-down, maybe it's simply a matter of making the religious site bonus non-autodeploy. But conquest maps are tricky, it'll take awhile to get the gameplay just so.

Please also note, as a total aside to gameplay but very relevant to artistic direction, that the very first version was developed exactly on the islamic theme-line a lot of commentators seem to prefer, but that didn't seem to attact any comments or enthusiasm, at which point Pork proposed the view from space direction, so I said well why not I can see the logic and attraction of that so let's try.

You'd be best served by committing wholeheartedly to the Islamic theme... if you want the upside-down world, fine, but having the map as a view from space is undercutting the Islamic theme. Many of the icons, especially the Asterix-style battle sites (where a simple crossed-swords icon would be immeasurably more appropriate), isn't helping matters. I guarantee that if you take the map back to its roots, and pork can produce something that looks like it might have been sketched in Baghdad by one of the sultan's courtiers in 950 AD, you will see a marked uptick in support for this promising map.

On a personal note, you sometimes can come off as not-too-subtly condescending. That's really not a great way to present yourself or your map. Contrary to some opinions, foundry commenters don't expect blind obedience or fawning obeisance, but respect, or failing that, basic politeness, goes a long way. Just an fyi, I'm confident that you're not intending to be condescending.

[Raskholnikov]

Incandenza,

You are abdsolutely right, I am not. My apologies if I came across like that. You have offered invaluable advice recently and I very much count on your continued criticism and commentary both regarding gameplay (yes I love Peloponnesian War so if we can improve the gameplay here to bring it up to that level I would be thrilled!) and artistic direction.

A few quick notes on your other comments:

Yeah, I saw that map a month ago, the first time I tried to comment on this map. That needs to be in the first post. I know you're not a big fan of keeping the first post 100% up to date, but that's pretty much the absolute least you could do. Forcing people to hunt through the thread for essential information is not only rude, it's counter-productive.

This map was at the top of the thread. Then when we started working on the space view everyone kept asking us to update the top post even if we had not yet come up with a complete version thereof. So in order to keep people happy we did so, before inscribing the neutrals on it, because we were not yet ready to do so. So, we tried our best to strike a balance between timely and accurate, but clearly no one was happy. We also have limited time and we did the best we could. Please be more patient and we will try to be speedier.

I don't consider New World to be a suitable precedent. Despite it's popularity, the gameplay is rather unbalanced. I would not have stamped that map, had it been up to me. While the imbalance of New World isn't as much of an issue with no cards, said imbalance very much surges to the fore when it comes to card games.

Well i very much like New World and the fact that it has two totally differnt types of starting points. This means that players will need to use different strategies depending on where they are located. I tried to remedy some on the imbalances you mention by including both ports and battles which slow the game down and don't allow anyone to just sweep a position by intial concentration of forces in rounds 3 or 4. That simply would not work here. That being said, I am totally open to any suggestions, including the non-autodeploy on the religious site, if you think that would help the game-play. As long as we keep the two types of starting points I am totally open to any constructive suggestions regarding numbers of neutrals and game-play. I totally agree with you that it's worth taking the time to adjust and fine-tune a map to ensure the game-play is as balanced as possible. There is nothing I dislike more than a map where one player has an inbuilt disadvantage compared to others purely based on the drop. And I am certainly not in a hurry to get maps out of the Foundry in record times. Whatever it takes, it takes. The important part is to have a fun, playable, high-quality maps that adds to the variety of themes and plays CC already has. So I'm all for fine-tuning, as you say.

You'd be best served by committing wholeheartedly to the Islamic theme... if you want the upside-down world, fine, but having the map as a view from space is undercutting the Islamic theme. Many of the icons, especially the Asterix-style battle sites (where a simple crossed-swords icon would be immeasurably more appropriate), isn't helping matters. I guarantee that if you take the map back to its roots, and pork can produce something that looks like it might have been sketched in Baghdad by one of the sultan's courtiers in 950 AD, you will see a marked uptick in support for this promising map.

Yes well that's a problem; we're all human after all and Pork has put a huge amount of enthusiasm, time and effort into the space view. I'm sure you can see why going back to the original approach will be difficult. On the technical aspect, we are constrained by the fact that we are working with cities, not border-defined territories, and that we have 106 of them which must connect in specific ways to make the game-play work. That leaves relatively little room for coming up with detailed or complex city'battle illustrations. NW, Peloponnesian War and WWII all are based on territories and don't have to worry about different cities with different functions. Here, we do. We coded all cities' and battles' names to keep the map as legible as possible but we still need city and battle symbols that are as simple and clear as possible. I would love nothing better than a Dawn of Ages style map with hand-drawn symbols for cities and ports and religious sites and battles. I am not sure if that would work, space- and clarity-wise.

Botttom line, I am not against going back to an Islamic theme; but I am not persuaded that the more futuristic theme would not work. I think it has its advantages and, with the inclusion of 3 lines of text explaining story and context, it could be a lot of fun to play on.

Query: gameplay and balance, as well as map clarity, are objective matters reasonable people can reasonably agree on. Artistic direction is much more subjective. Let us assume (for discussion purposes) that we want to stick with our futuristic artistic direction and improve playability and clarity to levels everyone is satisfied with. Is Foundry policy that, as long as our artistic view does not correspond to the Foundry majority opinion, the map will linger in limbo? And if so, why? I don't mean to be overly argumentative or start a war over this, but I am not quite sure why we, as map developers, once we meet the objective criteria of the Foundry, would have to not just compromise, but completely alter our vision on the subjective part, which is artistic direction. This raises implications of "groupthink" which I am not ready to accept, especially given the limited number of Foundry contributors as a percentage of CC players. In effect, you are saying: "Trust us. We know what works, artistically. And unless you meet our idea of what works artistically, you are going nowehere with this map." I'm sure you can see the many problems raised by this approach.

Bottom line: I love this time-period, this game-play, this map. I want to make it work, and I appreciate the fact you think it is a promising map and that you have taken a lot of time and effort to help out. Both pork and I want to make this work and we are totally willing to learn out of this process. Let's all work together to improve this idea and make it play-worthy and artistically creative and interesting.

Again, I appreciate your comments and I know for sure this project is better off with your input. Thank you.

Raskholnikov

[porkenbeans]

I think this "space" view IS very interesting, and unique.

Who would have ever thought a map like doodle would be so popular ? certainly not me. My point is, why can't a map regardless of it's artistic taste, just be allowed to sink or swim on it's own. So long as it meets CC requirements, and is fit to play, it should be given the same chance as Doodle.

My view is this, The Foundry should limit itself to helping a map meet the requirements, and offer friendly advice on matters such as artistic taste, and leave it at that. Stop trying to be critics before the opening.

If this direction is to be quashed, I can certainly start over, and give you the old parchment map that you prefer, If you want just more of the same old same o, I can give you that. CC can continue to turn out good but homogenized clones, that offer less diversity than it could have if they just leave the artist to his own freedom, to create unique and boundary pushing ideas. (such as Doodle).

Art is a very subjective thing. What floats one's boat, does not float another's. People have varying tastes, and our maps should take this into account. We should have room for any and all maps that help to widen the range of different tastes. Let the map sink or swim like we did with Doodle.

There has been talk about eliminating some of CC's maps that do not see much play. Yes, this is a very good idea. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There are quite a few weak links, and they have sunk in my opinion. They should be allowed to sink to make room for others to get their time in the pool.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm still in favor of the older Islamic theme. The space view just doesn't cut it for me, and detracts from the map, and seems completely out of place. Best of luck.


--Andy

[Raskholnikov]

Thanks. That seems to be the majority Foundry opinion. We shall reconsider...

[isaiah40]

I say put the old theme around what you have already and go from there and see what happens.

[porkenbeans]

I say put the old theme around what you have already and go from there and see what happens.

Not quite sure what you mean.

[Raskholnikov]

Hi Pork,

I really think we should have a finished version of the Space theme. Once we have that, we can decide what to do. But we both worked too hard on it not to have a finished version. Then we will see which direction we go.

If you no longer feel like working on this, I understand. But if you do, let's please move forward and get it done ASAP.

Thanks,

R

[porkenbeans]

Hi Pork,

I really think we should have a finished version of the Space theme. Once we have that, we can decide what to do. But we both worked too hard on it not to have a finished version. Then we will see which direction we go.

If you no longer feel like working on this, I understand. But if you do, let's please move forward and get it done ASAP.

Thanks,

R

I am happy to do whatever you ask of me. You are the director of this project, and after all you were the one that started it. I realize that you have put a whole lot of time and effort into the development, and I believe that the game play is very well thought out. We just need to come up with a graphic theme that will pass muster with the critics. I thought that we had a very unique thing going on here. Maybe unique is NOT the way to go for virgins like us. Maybe after we have a quench or two, we will be afforded a little more freedom to be unique. So, tell me again exactly what you are looking for in the way of revisions, for this space view. Then we can put this baby down for a nap, and I can get busy on a version that I think most are calling for.

[Raskholnikov]

Deal! Will do! Thanks!

[Raskholnikov]

Hi Pork,

1. Please make all changes as per image below.

Click image to enlarge.

2. Try and play with the text fonts on the moon so that we can include the following text:

In 150 Hijrah (772 A.D.)10 great dynasties
are deploying their might for the control of 6
Religious Shrines representing Islam, Judaism
and Christianity. Which Dynasty will rise?
Which will fall? Which One will achieve
ultimate mastery over Europe, Africa and Asia?

3. We need to number all cities in all areas in the same way. Therefore:

-all Capitals should be X1 (ie I1, U1, S1, K1 etc)
-all Ports should be X2
-all Religious sites should be X3
-all marble cities should be numbered from X4 to X6 or from X3 to X11.

4. Please check the image at the top of this thread. Some city names need to be moved so I can put the Dynasties' flags at their proper place. Please move the names especially of AN5, the Kievan Rus port, U5, K2, L3

5. Please darken the zone around the B3 battle (between Naples and Palermo,Sicily) like you did with the land sourrounding all other battles.

6. Please check the Islam-themed map below and carefully copy all troop numbers from each city there to the new one.

Please note: in all smaller empires all 3 marble cities are 6 neutrals; in all larger empires all marble cities are 1 neutral EXCEPT the marble cities connecting to a battle, which are ALL 4 neutrals; all ports are 10 neutrals; all Religious Shrines are 3 neutrals except Jerusalem which is 15 neutrals; all capitals are 10; all battles are 10.

Click image to enlarge.

That's it, I think. Let's see where this gets us. Even if we have to switch themes it will be very helpful to have this finished version (like for the Japan map, which totally changed artistic direction and now everyone loves it!).

Many thanks,

R

[captainwalrus]

Haha, why do you communicate only in the thread? why not PM him the changes. Just curious, but that is why such a high percentage of the posts here are from you.

[porkenbeans]

Haha, why do you communicate only in the thread? why not PM him the changes. Just curious, but that is why such a high percentage of the posts here are from you.

This thread is for the development of this map. All work on it is here, so all can see, and follow along with the progress. Working behind closed doors, defeats this purpose.

[eigenvector]

Hey folks!!

The space theme is really cool but IMHO it's not the right one for this. I liked the other draft (in marblish colors) much more. Maybe just change the projection a bit, it looks a bit too distorted to my eye.

Keep up the good work!

[mibi]

I won't comment on the gameplay but allow me to make a couple of suggestions to the theme and artwork.

1. First of all, unless I am mistaken, Hijrah or the 'Battle for God' is not known to most people. There is no explanatory text at all to help the player get into or understand the rhyme and reason of this map. Cairnswk's map are great at provide some bare context for the player, so look those up. Otherwise, it feels like a a mass of randomness with no purpose.

2. The title treatment is really poor. The slanted text is reminiscent of MS Word or PowerPoint. It looks as if it was slanted to try to fit the curve of the planet, but if that was the case, it's a failure. If you are using Photoshop, try rasterizing the text layer and using the warp transform to get the proper perspective.

3. Your font selection is all over the place. I count 5 different fonts in 8 different styles. Not only is this distracting, but it's amateur and serves the theme quite poorly. You have calligraphic and terminal/LCD fonts in the same graphic. The font you use for your signature should match the rest of the map. I suggestion you only use 2 or 3 fonts, and do no mix serif and sans.

4. Back to the theme. I assume this map refers to some historical or past fictional event. The name is evocative of a time long since past. However the map is set in outerspace looking down upon the planet like from a spaceship or traveled to moon. This creates a dichotomy between what the map is and what the map is suppose to be. I suggest you bring the map back down to earth or at least lose the space elements.

5. The fundamental problem with this map is that there is just way too many icons going on. I will not say something like, "It's looks like a piñata blew it's brains out all over this map", but I will say that the icons are too numerous and too prominent. Finding all 6 religious sites feels like a Where's Waldo exercise. Even the styling you give to the territory labels has an icon feel to it. My suggestion is to remove the drop shadow on the cities and territory labels. You can differentiate territories with more subtle means than full on and full size icons.

6. The icons themselves are inconsistent. The only one that makes sense is the ships wheel for ports. I still don't know why all ports can attack each other, since they are in entirely separate bodies of water. Transparent glass balls does not make sense for cities. The crown doesn't work for capital either, as in most maps, stars are used to denote capitals, however you stars representing religious sites, which also doesn't make sense. The battle sites icon looks like it's from a comic book, and doesn't fit the theme at all. Where there lots of explosions going on here? I suggest you craft the icons yourself to keep them similar and try to think of the best representation of each.

7. The flags are just thrown on there. It's unfortunate that the only way to tell one kingdom from the other is by the letter of it's label. Using alphanumeric labels should be avoided where ever possible, espeically on a historically themed map. It is much more enjoyable to attack one city to another, or one kingdom to another, not A6 to B3 sink someones battleship. Whats with the white and yellow flags? It's looks like you accidentally cut a whole in the map. If these flags are indeed uniform in color, then make them more lively than a simple rectangle.

8. The underlying map is insipid and bland. There is no terrain and no depth. The connecting lines are nothing more than stylized doodles. I suggest you overlay a real world image or craft some basic relief and terrain. Put some more effort into the connections too, are they roads, or just beveled trenches.

This map needs a lot of work in the graphic and concept departments. It has a very high initial repulsion factor and if you take the steps I have outlines above, you might end up with something that could at least squeak into the foundry proper.

Good luck!

[porkenbeans]

@ mibi,
Yes, I agree with some of the things you mentioned. a few of them were just added quickly with not much thought, as to get something that could meet all requirements for updating the first page. Such as legends and such, also to throw up a variety so people could comment on their druthers. However, your comment about the space theme not relating to the subject, I would direct you to a best selling book from a couple decades before you were born. Take a look at "Chariots of the Gods". It was one of my favorite books when I was a teenager. It brought forth a whole new perspective on ancient times. I think that if you read this wonderful piece of literature, ...you will get it. and further more, maybe even appreciate the feel and angle, that this version is trying depict.

But alas, we have chosen to put this version down for a nap at the moment. I am weary of trying to persuade the critics. I will be posting a version of an old parchment map soon. Maybe it will meet with more approval than this first attempt.

[Raskholnikov]

I won't comment on the gameplay but allow me to make a couple of suggestions to the theme and artwork.

1. First of all, unless I am mistaken, Hijrah or the 'Battle for God' is not known to most people. There is no explanatory text at all to help the player get into or understand the rhyme and reason of this map. Cairnswk's map are great at provide some bare context for the player, so look those up. Otherwise, it feels like a a mass of randomness with no purpose.

Yes, I agree. As i mentioned both in the top post and the one above yours, we will put in a brieg text specfying historical period and context.

2. The title treatment is really poor. The slanted text is reminiscent of MS Word or PowerPoint. It looks as if it was slanted to try to fit the curve of the planet, but if that was the case, it's a failure. If you are using Photoshop, try rasterizing the text layer and using the warp transform to get the proper perspective.

Thanks. That was just a first draft and does indeed need work.

3. Your font selection is all over the place. I count 5 different fonts in 8 different styles. Not only is this distracting, but it's amateur and serves the theme quite poorly. You have calligraphic and terminal/LCD fonts in the same graphic. The font you use for your signature should match the rest of the map. I suggestion you only use 2 or 3 fonts, and do no mix serif and sans.

I refer you to pork's comments. People were making a big issue about updating the top post so he got something done that was a draft. I agree with you re: consistent fonts use.

4. Back to the theme. I assume this map refers to some historical or past fictional event. The name is evocative of a time long since past. However the map is set in outerspace looking down upon the planet like from a spaceship or traveled to moon. This creates a dichotomy between what the map is and what the map is suppose to be. I suggest you bring the map back down to earth or at least lose the space elements.

5. The fundamental problem with this map is that there is just way too many icons going on. I will not say something like, "It's looks like a piñata blew it's brains out all over this map", but I will say that the icons are too numerous and too prominent. Finding all 6 religious sites feels like a Where's Waldo exercise. Even the styling you give to the territory labels has an icon feel to it. My suggestion is to remove the drop shadow on the cities and territory labels. You can differentiate territories with more subtle means than full on and full size icons.

There are exactly 5 types of icons: ports, capitals, cities, religious sites, battles. I agree that the lables for each of them could me more discrete and that the map needs to be uncluttered. We will work on that.

6. The icons themselves are inconsistent. The only one that makes sense is the ships wheel for ports. I still don't know why all ports can attack each other, since they are in entirely separate bodies of water. Transparent glass balls does not make sense for cities. The crown doesn't work for capital either, as in most maps, stars are used to denote capitals, however you stars representing religious sites, which also doesn't make sense. The battle sites icon looks like it's from a comic book, and doesn't fit the theme at all. Where there lots of explosions going on here? I suggest you craft the icons yourself to keep them similar and try to think of the best representation of each.

I addressed the explosions issue in a post above. Icons are symbols used to represent functions. As long as they're clearly labeled and not contradictory ( for ex peace signs might be inapropriate for battle sites and little airplanes for ports) it's a matter of perspective. I pesonally like the transparent spheres and crowns which represent each dynasty's seat. If you have a better SET of icons you wish to recommend, that would be most welcome.

7. The flags are just thrown on there. It's unfortunate that the only way to tell one kingdom from the other is by the letter of it's label. Using alphanumeric labels should be avoided where ever possible, espeically on a historically themed map. It is much more enjoyable to attack one city to another, or one kingdom to another, not A6 to B3 sink someones battleship. Whats with the white and yellow flags? It's looks like you accidentally cut a whole in the map. If these flags are indeed uniform in color, then make them more lively than a simple rectangle.

The cities' names will be given in full in the drop-down menu. Same with the battles names. cf. WWII map. The color of the flags is actually accurate. The Ummayads's flag was white, the Abbasids' was black, etc. Please explain what a "lively" flag would look like

8. The underlying map is insipid and bland. There is no terrain and no depth. The connecting lines are nothing more than stylized doodles. I suggest you overlay a real world image or craft some basic relief and terrain. Put some more effort into the connections too, are they roads, or just beveled trenches.

As you can see in this thread, we thought about having a more realistically shaped and colored terrain. However, that would really clutter the map so we kept it as simple as possible. Many maps do that. As to connections betwen cities, the revamped Classic Map. for ex, uses simple circle arcs to connect cities. We wanted to project the idea of roads. That being said, the entire feel can be improved.

This map needs a lot of work in the graphic and concept departments. It has a very high initial repulsion factor and if you take the steps I have outlines above, you might end up with something that could at least squeak into the foundry proper.

Yes, we still need to put in a lot of work into this. I prefer by far your specfic comments regarding individual issues rather than a more general and highly subjective "repulsion factor".

This being said, general Foundry consensus is to go back to an original arabic / moorish theme. Therefore we will work on one and see if that will get a more positive reaction.

Thank you for your helpful and detailed comments. Much appreciated.

Good luck!

[Raskholnikov]

Pork,

let's please have a decently finished up version of the space view before we go to the islamic model. It willl be helpful to post it at the top of the thread and useful in developing a new version. Besides. we both worked too hard on it not to actually have a complete draft for comparison purposes. Many thanks,

R

[porkenbeans]

I went ahead and did a 1st. draft of the parchment version. I will work on the space view while this can give you all something to discuss. Hope ya like it.

Click image to enlarge.

God parch. V1

I will of course need to move a city or two because the legend is covering them up.

Also I found this old map that I thought was interesting, so I thought I would share it.

Click image to enlarge.

[WidowMakers]

MUCH better. Looks great pork.

Suggestions:

1) Delete the roads behind the city army circles. That way they don't interfere with the 88's.
2) Maybe use a smoother brush to draw the roads, they are a bit pixelly
3) Explain somewhere how the naming works (FK=Frankish Kingdom, etc) maybe?
4) Maybe come up with a better Jerusalem icon since it is so close to the regular star.

Anotehr question. How can K2 attack the otehr ports? It is not connected to them by water.

Overall 100% improvement IMO. Good work.
I LOVE the crossing line throughout the map. I ddi not notice them at first but they really help with the ancient feel.

WM

[Raskholnikov]

Wow! |Idrisi's map meets Conan the Barbarian!!!

Hey I love it, I think it's great and the initial reaction to it seems positive, so let's go for it!

A few comments:

1. I'd like to see the roads and icons come out a bit clearer from the map background. They tend to blend in and almost fade away right now.

2. After (or underneath) each Dynasty name write its short form: Al Andalus Caliphate (AN). Also please make sure its Al Andalus, not Ai Andalus.

3. In the legend, please use same font and size for Jerusalem as for all others. Also, don't switch fonts between icon names and the bonus numbers. Use one font consistently for everything. It's easier on the eye IMHO.

4. In regular bonuses, please add the battle site symbol and write Battle Site: +1.

5. On the right-hand side legend, either capitalise all Ports, Capitals, Religious Sites and Cities or none at all. That way we stay consistent.

6. In Regular Bonuses, the bracket after Includes should be moved all the way down, after sites.

7. You wrote Al Andalus over a battle site and connected two cities directly instead on connecting each to that battle site.

8. I noticed you worked on renumbering the cities, and skipped the number 2 for Dynasties without Religious sites. Therefore, as I said, all Capitals should be "1", all Ports "2", all Religious sites "3", regular cities for smaller Dynasties should go from "4" to "6", for larger Dynasties from "3" to "11".

9. 5. All Ports Can Attack Each Other covers a city name. So does Abbasid Caliphate.

10. I love the color and script of the text at the top left-hand side, but I think we need a font that is a bit easier to read. Espacially on a small map, I think people will have a hard time deschiphering that font.

11. Because in that text we refer to Religious Shrines, we should be consistent and use Religious Shrines in the legend too, not Religious Sites.

12. Question: Do you think we should add the flags of each Dynasty, or leave it as is?

That's all I have for now. Great change of direction, huge amount of work - let's see what people think now. My main concern overall is making the icons and roads stand out more from a very rich, colorful, relatively dark background.

Thank you Pork for all this hard work. You did really great!

R

[Raskholnikov]

4) Maybe come up with a better Jerusalem icon since it is so close to the regular star.

They are all Religious shrines so they must be the same symbol. The reason for the color difference is because Jerusalem gets a lot more autodeploy armies once conquered.


Anotehr question. How can K2 attack the otehr ports? It is not connected to them by water.

LOL Well it should be. The Black Sea is connected to the Meditterranean though the Bosporus, except this map does not show it. And, of course, Constantinople should be In Europe, on the Bosphorus, not in the Middle of Anatolia. But it seems with this map we are sacrifycing accuracy for the "ancient" look... We will try to make at least some adjustments to this once the map is reasonably complete.

[natty dread]

I think you should decrease the colour saturation a bit. Making it look a bit more "faded" would give it more of that ancient look... and make it easier on the eyes.