Conquer Club

here are two maps from Britain (England, Wales, Scotland). there are no "great" arguments why these maps could be there. just I like Dark Age and have interest of Normans. and there are few maps from Britain and from these time era...

what is (maybe) special is that these are the same maps, the same territories, but with another gameplay - to show another era, posessions and to show Norman conquest.

the first one, from 878 AD - Treaty of Wedmore when was established bordr between Vikings (Danelaw) and Anglo-Saxons. the bonuses are buid on old Kingdoms (Earldoms) with some extra historic lands. the sea connections (by boats?) will be added.


the second one, from 1066 AD when William the Bastard and his Normans conqer England. the bonuses are build on old Kingdoms, in England on possesions of members of Godwinson family. still there are some extra historic lands. the Normans bonus is build on how conquering should go - region by region and as William didvided land between his Barons. the "deleiting" their bonus +1 for two regions by holding Capital shows rebelions against Normans (only to the time when all bonus area is held Normans could hold also Capital). also sea connections will be added...

I like the Danelaw idea, it's an interesting time in history. If you want to make the map a bit bigger, you could include part of Denmark... that might make the map a bit more unique and interesting, as there are many maps of England/Scotland already.

Design gameplay where you can get a big bonus in Denmark and then invade England at the Danelaw positions, or wherever they invaded.

Similarly, for the 1066 map, I recommend you include Normandy, the launching point of the invasion.

FarangDemon wrote:I like the Danelaw idea, it's an interesting time in history. If you want to make the map a bit bigger, you could include part of Denmark...

I did thought about this, but at the first there is in foundry similar map and the second this is after invasion - the Danelaw was established.

FarangDemon wrote:that might make the map a bit more unique and interesting, as there are many maps of England/Scotland already.

not so many. only 1 with both... and no one from history.

FarangDemon wrote:Design gameplay where you can get a big bonus in Denmark and then invade England at the Danelaw positions, or wherever they invaded.

Similarly, for the 1066 map, I recommend you include Normandy, the launching point of the invasion.

I like the idea with the same map, but different gameplay. when Normans disbark the story was about conquering England.

thanks for interest and ideas.

Hello. One suggsetion and two questions I have for you today.
First, the 1066 map might benefit from focusing more on England, rather than the rest of Britain. And to include the Norman and Norwegian invasions. And the three major battles.

Secondly, what have you used as reference for your Scottish borders in the Danelaw map? And why is Northumbria Saxon rather than Viking?

tokle wrote:Hello. One suggsetion and two questions I have for you today.
First, the 1066 map might benefit from focusing more on England, rather than the rest of Britain. And to include the Norman and Norwegian invasions. And the three major battles.

yes, just my idea was to do one map (area, regions) and here put two different gameplay styles. I also thought about battles (also for Danelaw map) - not bad idea, but I built bonuses on land owning. Stamford Bridge, Hastings. about which the third you think?

tokle wrote:Secondly, what have you used as reference for your Scottish borders in the Danelaw map? And why is Northumbria Saxon rather than Viking?

have you another opinion for Scottish borders?
Northumbria (Bernicia) was for some time de jure under Vikings rule (better say there were puppet king), but de facto there was strong Anglo-Saxons resistance and the Vikings had never strong influence here.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:Hello. One suggsetion and two questions I have for you today.
First, the 1066 map might benefit from focusing more on England, rather than the rest of Britain. And to include the Norman and Norwegian invasions. And the three major battles.

yes, just my idea was to do one map (area, regions) and here put two different gameplay styles. I also thought about battles (also for Danelaw map) - not bad idea, but I built bonuses on land owning. Stamford Bridge, Hastings. about which the third you think?

I realise what you mean about wanting to use the same map, but sometimes these initial ideas have to be changed. Both the maps could be zoomed in, though. It's something for you to think about at least. The third battle was at Fulford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford)

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:Secondly, what have you used as reference for your Scottish borders in the Danelaw map? And why is Northumbria Saxon rather than Viking?

have you another opinion for Scottish borders?
Northumbria (Bernicia) was for some time de jure under Vikings rule (better say there were puppet king), but de facto there was strong Anglo-Saxons resistance and the Vikings had never strong influence here.

No. It's just that it seems to me to show a situation of one or two centuries later. But I'm not sure. I was thinking the period of this map might be too early to join the picts and the scots.

You might be right about Bernicia. Could there be a way of showing that it was de jure under the authority of York? Maybe that would make it too complicated?

Oh, and by the way, there was never any Kingdom of Wales. Welsh kingdoms would be a better way to say it.

tokle wrote:I realise what you mean about wanting to use the same map, but sometimes these initial ideas have to be changed. Both the maps could be zoomed in, though. It's something for you to think about at least. The third battle was at Fulford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford)

it was only first idea and very quick draft. so changes will be needed, yes.
battle at Fulford seems that solved nothing. the Vikings victory meant nothing, English was able to built new army and Vikings must fight again in Stamford Bridge.

tokle wrote:No. It's just that it seems to me to show a situation of one or two centuries later. But I'm not sure. I was thinking the period of this map might be too early to join the picts and the scots.

it is right century. the Pictish era ends in 839. then become the era of Dal Riata and assimilation of Pictish kingdoms. maybe the name Scotland is too early...

tokle wrote:You might be right about Bernicia. Could there be a way of showing that it was de jure under the authority of York? Maybe that would make it too complicated?

it is possible, but I think add only any bonus to Jorvik for holding also Tinandael and Bernicia. the northern part from river Tweed was not under influence of Vikings.

tokle wrote:Oh, and by the way, there was never any Kingdom of Wales. Welsh kingdoms would be a better way to say it.

yes, there was used title King of Britons for the strongest ruler of small kingdoms in Wales. but it could be changed to Welsh Kingdoms.

thanks for you notices, I like to dispute with you

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:I realise what you mean about wanting to use the same map, but sometimes these initial ideas have to be changed. Both the maps could be zoomed in, though. It's something for you to think about at least. The third battle was at Fulford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford)

it was only first idea and very quick draft. so changes will be needed, yes.
battle at Fulford seems that solved nothing. the Vikings victory meant nothing, English was able to built new army and Vikings must fight again in Stamford Bridge.

It was still important.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:No. It's just that it seems to me to show a situation of one or two centuries later. But I'm not sure. I was thinking the period of this map might be too early to join the picts and the scots.

it is right century. the Pictish era ends in 839. then become the era of Dal Riata and assimilation of Pictish kingdoms. maybe the name Scotland is too early...

Evidence, the way I read it, seem to suggest that the Pictish royal dynasty took over power in Scotland (Dal Riata, the word Scot at the time was used to mean almost the same as Irish, so using Scots or Scotland is relevant. Probably not Alba, though, as the first attested use of that word is 900). The timeframe of this union is difficult to establish, though. There's a lot of contradictory evidence.

Having Moray here, however, is almost certainly wrong. There is nothing to indicate any Mormaer of Moray much before the 11th century.

Here's map of an approximation of the situation in the early 9th century:

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:Oh, and by the way, there was never any Kingdom of Wales. Welsh kingdoms would be a better way to say it.

yes, there was used title King of Britons for the strongest ruler of small kingdoms in Wales. but it could be changed to Welsh Kingdoms.

thanks for you notices, I like to dispute with you

[/quote]
Just because they used a title King of Britons doesn't make it correct to call it "the Kingdom of Britain" (or Wales).

tokle wrote:It was still important.

will see if battles will be there. also there is not so big space everywhere to add there "battle sites"...

tokle wrote:Evidence, the way I read it, seem to suggest that the Pictish royal dynasty took over power in Scotland (Dal Riata, the word Scot at the time was used to mean almost the same as Irish, so using Scots or Scotland is relevant. Probably not Alba, though, as the first attested use of that word is 900). The timeframe of this union is difficult to establish, though. There's a lot of contradictory evidence.

your map is from 802 AD. my map is from 878, thereofre another posesions...

tokle wrote:Having Moray here, however, is almost certainly wrong. There is nothing to indicate any Mormaer of Moray much before the 11th century.

having Moray is right. maybe term Mormaerdom is bad, it was used later. but Moray as independent area (kingdom) was there de facto to 1130 AD.

tokle wrote:Just because they used a title King of Britons doesn't make it correct to call it "the Kingdom of Britain" (or Wales).

as I said, Welsh Kingomds will be fine

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:Having Moray here, however, is almost certainly wrong. There is nothing to indicate any Mormaer of Moray much before the 11th century.

having Moray is right. maybe term Mormaerdom is bad, it was used later. but Moray as independent area (kingdom) was there de facto to 1130 AD.

1130 was a pretty different world. What proof do you use to suggest Moray was a power as early as the ninth century?
Which is why I asked what reference you used for your map.

I found this:

There was a lot of work done on a previous Danelaw map, worth maybe picking up from here?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=242&t=77403&start=0&hilit=danelaw

There's another similar map, although I can't find it for some reason.

to tokle, maybe it will be better to replace Moray with Picts. and to Norman map add Moray...

to DJ, thanks. I saw this map, I like it, but my idea is to do one map with two different time period and gameplay. this I did not saw yet.

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=95437
This one too is relevant here.

Yes, replacing Moray with Pictland would be what I was looking for. And swapping Scotland and Kingdom of Alba.

what in the hell does another england map have the f*ck to do with vikings?


vikings invaded fucking thailand (if you believe research as current as 4 months ago)

another england map.

woopwoop
gl

army of nobunaga wrote:vikings invaded fucking thailand (if you believe research as current as 4 months ago)

and were the first in the Moon also...

army of nobunaga wrote:another england map.

gl

another? how much are here?

Seeing as I was invited in as a descendant of the Vikings

I know a little about history, but certainly not nearly enough to even begin to argue with the scholars in here. - Possibly I can just barely follow your discussion.

Gameplay would however be more interesting to me. Its been touched upon, but no conclusive ideas have been formed, so Ill go spinning off randomly here;-)

I like the idea of battles as focus points. - They could be areas within areas as seen in some maps, but I especially like the idea of having key battles connect to (or rather from) orther areas. Possibly even something vague as a squares on the side of the map having Danish, Norwegian and for that matter even Anglo-Saxon (Robin Hood as the legend of him dates to wildly differing timeperiods, but some of them early enough to be relevant here. - He may or may not have been a real person ) reinforcemens with some sort of auto deploy to that specific square from where they can assault different battle sites. - To me its not decisive whether a battle actually turned out to be of crucial importance as we arent just dealing with history here. We are dealing with invasion as a game and therefore what might have happened comes into play.

Such commander squares with auto-deploy off the real map would add something to the gameplay, I think. - If they were unconquerable, that would lend some gameplay as well as the map would then have to finish by achieving some sort of objective while always having to worry about the enemys autodeploy. It would be hard to dominate such a map sufficiently to win it, even with limited auto-deploys?

Consider this the Viking take on such matters. We arent too bothered about history as long as we get to put an axe into a helmet occasionally