150 After Hijrah: The Battle for God

[Raskholnikov]

LOL. Right. Thanks for telling me what my job is. Yours is to provide constructive criticism. Try again....

I have a very clear vision of what the map should look like - even if I don't have the graphic skills to make it happen. That's why I am asking for input. Sorry if you find that hard to grasp.

As to your suggestion of "using no background or anything", not only does it make no sense at all, it is also atrocious English. Here as well, try again...

[porkenbeans]

The graphics That you see so far are NOT by any means, meant to show exactly what the map will look like. All pictures so far have been for Rask and I to get the shape of the land area worked out. As soon as that is done, I will have something ready to be critiqued, (graphic wise).
Right now we need any input, on just what shape/view is going to be the template.
Take a look at Rask's layout of the territs, and attack routes. I am having a devil of a time trying to distort the land mass, that would accommodate for the needed room, to fit them in, without them being so crowded.
Please forgive our shortcomings, as we are still new as a team, and have not yet congealed as one. Although, our first attempt on the JAMAICAmon project, has been in my eyes, a crackerjack success so far. I am sure that this project will find its legs as well.
Thank you, to all that have spent their time, to follow along and provide feedback. We are very grateful.

[Raskholnikov]

This draft shows that the territories and connecting roads can be fitted in quite clearly on this map. The map and the graphics may need a lot of work, but I see no reason why the basic concept would prove to be unworkable. Cleary the interest is there, and it would represent a really unique map for CC.

[Raskholnikov]

My favorite artistic direction would be to keep the map as close as possible in style to Idrisi's.

The blue / ochre reversal of colors between land and sea is, I think, both a good counterpoint to the historical map and very helpful in ensuring it is clear and readable.

It is important on this map to focus on cities, not territories (see Ibn Khaldun's work). In this era, borders were very fluid, changeable, dynamic. Dynasties controlled their territories based on the cities they held; as distances from cities and especially capitals diminished, so did effective control of the areas.

Roads are also important, as all nnetworks - war, commerce, religion, politics - spread and maintanined their pulse along roads between cities.

Each city and battle site has a code, which will appear in the drop-down menu together with the city's (or battle"s) full name.

Overall, I think this map encapsulates very well the different dynasties, both Islamic and Christian, vying power power at the time and shows the potential for conflicts and alliances not just between, but most of all within "civilisations". Finally, "power" itself is broken down into its 4 component elements, each present in the game by means of a different type of city (trade/economic = port, control/politics=capital, ideological/religious=religion site, military = battles).

Capitals are starting points, all other cities are neutrals (see number of neutralks in each city on one of the earlier maps.

So there it is. Now it's the graphic team's turn to take this and improve it to everyone's satisfaction.

[GabonX]

I think this sounds really cool based on the OP, but unfortunately I can't see any of the images

[snufkin]

can you provide a legend of the numbered cities/territories..
maybe edit the first post so that they are at least mentioned?

[Raskholnikov]

Please scroll up. I have done this a long time ago.

LOL ok here they are again:

150 After Hadj: The Battle for God - Regions and Cities

Samanid Sultanate

Bukhara Samarkand Balkh
Kabul Kandahar Zarang
Herat Nishapur Urgench
Ormuz Daybul


Abbasid Caliphate

Bagdad Karbala Mosul
Tiflis Isfahan Basra


Ummayad Caliphate

Damascus Mecca Medina
Aleppo Muscat Beirut


Fatimid Caliphate

Fustat Gaza Aydhab
Barqa Dunqulah Aksum
Aswan Siwa Asyut
Meruwah Alexandria


Idrisid Sultanate

Fez Marrakesh Al Qayrawan
Tripoli Al-Mahdyia Tlemcen
Balharm (Palermo) Tuhis Ghat
Sijilmasa Tangier


Al-Andalus Caliphate

Tulyatulah Qurtuba Isbilia
Barcino al-Ishbunah Balanciya


Frankish Kingdom

Paris Rennes Nantes
Tours Bordeaux Lyon
Cologne Mayence Strasbourg
Augsbourg Marseilles



Lombard Kingdom

Pavia Roma Milano
Venezia Napoli Genoa


Eastern Roman Empire

Constantinopolis Hagion Oros Athos Athens
Adrianopolis Ancyra Ephesos


Kievan Rus

Kyiv Vladimir Volynsky Galish
Azov Pereyslavl Nizhny Novgorod
Yaroslavl Moscow Ryazan
Minsk Tmutarakan


Jerusalem Tyre

Total: 83 cities

Battle sites: 19

Battle Sites:

1: Guadalete 711
2: Poitiers 732
3 Verona 774
4: Demmin 798
5: Raab 790
6: Mazara 827
7: Ravenna 751
8: Pliska 811
9: Theodosiopolis 752
10: Akroinon 740
11: Mtskheta 735
12: Bolghar, 700s
13: Al-Aqsa 705
14: Al-Askar 750
15: Zab 750
16: Merv 748
17: Ar-rur (Nawabshah) 710
18: Tihamah, 820
19: Fakhkh 787


Total territories: 102

[snufkin]

Please scroll up. I have done this a long time ago.

You are not supposed to hide crucial information in the thread.. please edit the first post.
Mapmakers usually (well.. always if you only count those who are successful in producing a map) update the first post with details and the latest version.

150 After Hadj: The Battle for God - Regions and Cities

Hadj? The Islamic calendar is counted from the Hijrah in 622 AD..
also the timeline span of the map seems to be much longer than 400 years

Nizhny Novgorod
Moscow

nizhny novgorod was founded around 600 AH/13th century AD and was quickly conquered by the mongols..
moscow more than 500 years after the hijrah (12th century AD)...

Fatimid Caliphate
Aydhab
Dunqulah
Aksum
Meruwah

Those cities were never part of the Fatimid caliphate - they were christian.. google "baqt" - it is the longest peace treaty in history.

I don´t know yet if I like it..
..but I´m curious about what sources you used for the above - they obviously weren´t very good. I think you have to work on that clear vision some more.

[Raskholnikov]

Raskholnikov wrote:Please scroll up. I have done this a long time ago.



You are not supposed to hide crucial information in the thread.. please edit the first post.
Mapmakers usually (well.. always if you only count those who are successful in producing a map) update the first post with details and the latest version.

I am hiding nothing. If you can't bring yourself to read the thread before asking questions because you can't be bothered to put in a few extra minutes that's your problem not mine.

150 After Hadj: The Battle for God - Regions and Cities



Hadj? The Islamic calendar is counted from the Hijrah in 622 AD..
also the timeline span of the map seems to be much longer than 400 years


It's Hijrah, yes. That's what the thread title says. That's what the map says. I made a typo above the cities. I find your attitude incredibly petty.

The timeline is between the first battle around 711 to the last, around 827. That's less than 120 years in my book. In any case, the point of this map is not to illustrate an exact snapshot of what has happening at any one point in time, but to show the eebb and flow of dynasties and empires that characterised that age. So, it may well be that the Fatimids where not exact contemporaries with the Lombards or Ummayads, that the Abbasids succeeded the Ummayads in the Middle East and did not coexist with them and that the Kievan Rus reached its zenith some two hundred years later. What matters is to develop a fun, playable game that incorporates the feel of the times and the dynamics of military, economic, religious and military networks of power. If you want to take a narrow, overly restrictive view of the times just for the sake of cheap criticism, that's your business. That affects in no way what I'm trying to do with this map

Nizhny Novgorod
Moscow


nizhny novgorod was founded around 600 AH/13th century AD and was quickly conquered by the mongols..
moscow more than 500 years after the hijrah (12th century AD)...

The territory in question was ruled by the Kievan Rus. I meant Veliky Novgorod not Nijny Novgorod, and I can replace Moscow with Chernihiv.

Fatimid Caliphate
Aydhab
Dunqulah
Aksum
Meruwah



Those cities were never part of the Fatimid caliphate - they were christian.. google "baqt" - it is the longest peace treaty in history.

I find it pathetic that you get your history info from the Wikipedia. I also never said that these cities were actually Muslim. They were under the influence of the Fatimids, paying both tribute to it and being close allies with it. This shows the incredible diversity of religions, races and alliance systems in effect at the time. Of course, they make no sense if, like you do, one tries in a totally anachronistic way to apply ideas of formal boundaries and nation-state principles to systems of governance which existed an about 800 years before nation-states began to acquire the political importance they have today.

I don´t know yet if I like it..
..but I´m curious about what sources you used for the above - they obviously weren´t very good. I think you have to work on that clear vision some more.

Next time, try to use your time better than throwing around gratuitous criticism just to show off your "Wikipedia erudition". You impress no one and, at best, inspire pity with your arrogant and condescending attitude. Check that attitude when you feel like trashing someone else's efforts just because you feel like it. It's neither appreciated nor welcome.

[snufkin]

The timeline is between the first battle around 711 to the last, around 827. That's less than 120 years in my book.

good.. getting clearer - this has not been mentioned previously

The territory in question was ruled by the Kievan Rus. I meant Veliky Novgorod not Nijny Novgorod, and I can replace Moscow with Chernihiv.

The Rus were nowhere as big as in your map before 827. No chance.
No magical distant influence either.
The original novgorod is in an entirely different location.

Of course, they make no sense if, like you do, one tries in a totally anachronistic way to apply ideas of formal boundaries and nation-state principles to systems of governance which existed an about 800 years before nation-states began to acquire the political importance they have today.

you are clearly talking to some ficticious adversary here.. never said whatever it is you are trying to imply

They were under the influence of the Fatimids, paying both tribute to it and being close allies with it. This shows the incredible diversity of religions, races and alliance systems in effect at the time.

wow.. You say they were under Fatimid influence somewhere between 711 and 827? - talk about an anachronism..
in northern nubia and much later - ok
I read everything I could find about Aksum a few years ago (much more than wikipedia stubs ) and don´t remember anything about them paying tribute to the Fatimid caliphate. Do you have a source for that?

[b] Check that attitude when you feel like trashing someone else's efforts just because you feel like it. It's neither appreciated nor welcome.

well.. You agree to fix at least some of the errors I´ve mentioned - better than nothing.
whether you like it or not it seems my criticism has already been constructive..

[Incandenza]

If I may be permitted to be blunt...

Your whole visual concept is kind of a nightmare, and you're not doing yourself any favors by giving the globe a 180-degree shift. The spread of Islam is a great idea for a map, but you might want to consider working with a more standard projection of the landmass(es) in question. I get that the inspiration is an old map, I myself am a fan of old maps, but your current projection is a longshot to work within the context of CC.

[Raskholnikov]

Thanks for your direct and blunt comments, much appreciated. Could you elaborate why the 180 degree globe shift and circular view are the "nightmare" but other landmass projections might work? I'd be really interested to know.

I am also rather puzzed by the fact that you already think this map is a "longshot" with CC given the sheer diversity of maps, diagrams, projection etc which constitute games already in use here. Again, the specific reasons supporting your statement would be appreciated, as they will hopefully assist me to address the problems in question.

Needless to say, your opinion is much valued, but I would like to find out the actual reasons supporting your view.

Finally, please note that this map is not purely about the spread of Islam, but the interaction of 10 different dynasties and three different religions in the very fluid context of the 8th and 9th centuries AD. Each capital will represent a starting point for a player. Again, there are quite a few maps in CC adopting starting-point based gameplays -which leads me again to ask, why do you think that this particular projection is such a "nightmare" which is "a longshot with CC"?

Many thanks,

Raskholnikov

[captainwalrus]

There are many reasons why this would work better as a more standard map, instead of it being on a globe.
Right now, it is very crowded, and you would have a bit more room if it was just flat.
You took and old map, and made it look all modern and stuff by putting it on a shiny globe, a flat map would look older though.
There is no rea reason for it, it just dort of seems randomly chosen as a graphics style.

[porkenbeans]

There are many reasons why this would work better as a more standard map, instead of it being on a globe.
Right now, it is very crowded, and you would have a bit more room if it was just flat.
You took and old map, and made it look all modern and stuff by putting it on a shiny globe, a flat map would look older though.
There is no rea reason for it, it just dort of seems randomly chosen as a graphics style.

As has already been said, The graphics posted thusfar are only to work out the lay of the land. After we have decided on the shape, then I will try to produce something that will attempt to dazzle. Until then, I request that the conversion be directed to the layout, and the game play aspects of the map.

[AndyDufresne]

I'd get something up that is more toward what your final goal will be then---it'll make comments you'd like directed toward game play and layout more forthcoming I think.


--Andy

[Raskholnikov]

Thanks Andy. I still find it interesting to observe the negativity of comments this draft attracts on the basis of the map having its edges set up in a circle instead of a square - which really makes no difference to the actual sizer of the map except for the four corners which would not be playaable anyway and where I placed the legend. Plus, of course, the upside-down rotation of the map which seems to rattle an awful lot of people who just can't take to have their traditional conceptions of space be rattled a bit by a different world-view. I must say I find it all rather disconcerting....

[AndyDufresne]

Thanks Andy. I still find it interesting to observe the negativity of comments this draft attracts on the basis of the map having its edges set up in a circle instead of a square - which really makes no difference to the actual sizer of the map except for the four corners which would not be playaable anyway and where I placed the legend. Plus, of course, the upside-down rotation of the map which seems to rattle an awful lot of people who just can't take to have their traditional conceptions of space be rattled a bit by a different world-view. I must say I find it all rather disconcerting....

I think it's inaccurate to say those who dislike the current view are "rattled a bit by a different world-view." I think it is more accurate to say that visually, it is more mess than coherent, though I understand you want of use for such a world-view, it actually detracts from your map more than it adds to it.


--Andy

[Raskholnikov]

Thank you for the clarification. However, I still don't see how a 180 degree tilt could detract rather than enhance the map other than by confronting the player with a view they are not used to. If unfamiliarity is the basis of why it detracts, then that is one of the objectives of the map, not one of its disadvantages. I want players to be thrown off at first sight and think about the map for a few seconds before they figure out what's going on. You may argue that throwing off people is a disadvantage, and then I would respect your POV, even if I wouldn't agree with it. At the end of the day, it all depends on whether CC maps are simply there to score wins, collect medals and have fun, or also to learn a few things one might not have known or been aware of before- Poison Rome comes to mind here as a perfect example.

In any case, I agree that the actual representation of cities, battles, roads, color scheme etc. needs work; but I am quite adamant about the shperic shape and orientation of the map. I do not believe that the map can be rejected by any objective standards using only shape and orientation. Design and playability yes, but not unfamiliarity and "throw off" -ness. Let's see where this goes. I am willing to put a little more time into this and see how far it can be improved.

Until then, suggestions and criticisms focusing on other items than shape and orientation are mosre than welcome, as long as theyare porvided in a friendly, constructive way designed to genuinley help the project.

[the.killing.44]

Click image to enlarge.

This is your latest image?

[Incandenza]

A couple things:

If you're bound and determined to keep the circular map projection, then I suppose I can't argue that should the map end up working graphically, even though things get a little weird on the periphery. But having the map turned 180 degrees is a pretty indefensible decision. You're actively impeding recognition under the guise of "confronting players with a view that they're not used to." This isn't geography class, it's a game board, and form must always follow function. If people learn something from the map, that's fantastic, but it must always be subservient to the primary purpose: having a coherent map on which to play. If there's a large groundswell of support for the 180 shift, then that's one thing. But there isn't, so you might want to think about at least being open to the possibility that the map can only improve by having map north be actual north. Beyond that, I think Andy pretty much said it best a few posts ago.

The larger problem is one that I didn't realize you were doing until 44 posted above me: it appears that you're counting on some sort of conditional autodeploy (i.e. a +1 autodeployed for every 2 terits in an empire). The small problem is, where would these armies be autodeployed. But the larger issue is that current CC xml can't do conditional autodeploy. CC can only do "hold a terit, get an autodeploy bonus on that terit" and that's pretty much it for autodeploy. Have a look in the Recycle Bin at Maze Craze and Trench Warfare, a couple of maps that have been idling for over a year awaiting the xml update, which doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon.

The upshot is that you might create the best-playing and most visually-stunning map on CC, only to see it binned for an undetermined amount of time because it doesn't work within the current xml. So you really might want to take another whack at the gameplay and try and fit into existing xml capabilities.

Actually, the more I look at the gameplay instructions, the more I think you need to think about streamlining things. The religious sites instructions are a complete mess: "Can self-defend only"? Does that mean that the terit cannot attack? But then later it says they can attack the capitals of their empires. And then there's the whole bizarre deployment/fortification angle, which is A) pretty incomprehensible and B) probably not doable with current xml.

"Not doable with the current xml" is starting to become a familiar refrain, so I'll stop there. But I'd advise a long look at the current xml capabilities, and I'd advise against planning on any new ones being added before the Rapture.

[captainwalrus]

Are there other starting positions? If so, where?

[porkenbeans]

A couple things:

If you're bound and determined to keep the circular map projection, then I suppose I can't argue that should the map end up working graphically, even though things get a little weird on the periphery. But having the map turned 180 degrees is a pretty indefensible decision. You're actively impeding recognition under the guise of "confronting players with a view that they're not used to." This isn't geography class, it's a game board, and form must always follow function. If people learn something from the map, that's fantastic, but it must always be subservient to the primary purpose: having a coherent map on which to play. If there's a large groundswell of support for the 180 shift, then that's one thing. But there isn't, so you might want to think about at least being open to the possibility that the map can only improve by having map north be actual north. Beyond that, I think Andy pretty much said it best a few posts ago.

The larger problem is one that I didn't realize you were doing until 44 posted above me: it appears that you're counting on some sort of conditional autodeploy (i.e. a +1 autodeployed for every 2 terits in an empire). The small problem is, where would these armies be autodeployed. But the larger issue is that current CC xml can't do conditional autodeploy. CC can only do "hold a terit, get an autodeploy bonus on that terit" and that's pretty much it for autodeploy. Have a look in the Recycle Bin at Maze Craze and Trench Warfare, a couple of maps that have been idling for over a year awaiting the xml update, which doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon.

The upshot is that you might create the best-playing and most visually-stunning map on CC, only to see it binned for an undetermined amount of time because it doesn't work within the current xml. So you really might want to take another whack at the gameplay and try and fit into existing xml capabilities.

Actually, the more I look at the gameplay instructions, the more I think you need to think about streamlining things. The religious sites instructions are a complete mess: "Can self-defend only"? Does that mean that the terit cannot attack? But then later it says they can attack the capitals of their empires. And then there's the whole bizarre deployment/fortification angle, which is A) pretty incomprehensible and B) probably not doable with current xml.

"Not doable with the current xml" is starting to become a familiar refrain, so I'll stop there. But I'd advise a long look at the current xml capabilities, and I'd advise against planning on any new ones being added before the Rapture.

I am utterly flabbergasted at such a narrow and unimaginable point of view.
It is very simple. South was considered up in the era that this map takes place. What in gods name is so fricken hard to understand about that. What the hell do you do, when you play on a fictional map. Does it really even matter which way is north, or which is up or down ? The only problem here, is the one in your mind. I must assume from your rank, that you are not a simple minded drooling idiot. You must have the capability of walking and chewing gum at the same time. If you truly can not see past the up, down, north, or south thing, maybe if you stand on your head, you will be able to comprehend whats up. If the blood rushing to your head makes it too uncomfortable for you, you can just turn your monitor upside down.

[Raskholnikov]

So, in order to reply to all the legitimate questions asked above, I am posting the latest map draft plus all relevant info at the TOP of this thread. Hopefully that will resolve a number of issues raised by some of you.

Please take that map and gameplay as the basis for all further comments, suggestions, proposals, criticisms. Thanks.

[natty dread]

Well, be the map orientation whatever way it wants to be, those guys still raised some good issues... mainly about the xml. This is something you really should fix. Making another map just for waiting xml updates seems pointless...

[Incandenza]

You guys are substantially missing the point here.

I am telling you that your current gameplay elements are impossible for the actual software that powers CC to process. The gameplay would have to be extensively modified to fit within the current capabilities of said software. To ignore me to to potentially put a lot of time and effort into a map that may never ever ever be playable. And CC's xml would have to undergo substantial upgrades to make all your gameplay elements possible. This will most likely never happen. And before you ask, I don't know anything you don't, but I've been here long enough to know how slowly things change.

By focusing on the aesthetics of the upside-down map, you're missing my main point. This map does not work. And may never.

If you wish to proceed with this exact gameplay, then best of luck gentlemen. But you're wasting your time, and the time of anyone that's posted here hoping to improve your map.