Poison Rome [Quenched]

by **Qwert** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:04 pm

hmm i just wonder who vote for no.4 :-s

by **the.killing.44** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:17 pm

I just looked at the poll and it is 12-12 … however everyone who's commented has liked the graphics :-s

Voice your opinions, people!

.44

by **cairnswk** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:36 pm

MrBenn wrote:Actually, I quite like the brick work in the title. Sure .44 made it too heavy, but the effect could work if it was toned down and blended in a bit more?

the.killing.44 wrote:cairns, why don't you try it on just a couple of the letters and post it? I think if done properly (and not in less than 5 minutes ) it could look nice, and you're certainly capable of that

.44

OK here's V28, with subtle stonework around the arches, and the fix on Cleopatra.

by **Incandenza** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:58 pm

I kinda like the stonework... and since we're talking about the title, at some point while my back was turned it seemed to get awful bright... the "Julio-Claudian family" bit is so bright as to appear blurry, and I'm not wild about the bright orange in "poison rome" either... just seems to bright for a map that's mostly pretty subtle colors.

by **cairnswk** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:36 pm

Incandenza wrote:I kinda like the stonework... and since we're talking about the title, at some point while my back was turned it seemed to get awful bright... the "Julio-Claudian family" bit is so bright as to appear blurry, and I'm not wild about the bright orange in "poison rome" either... just seems to bright for a map that's mostly pretty subtle colors.

Stonework i agree.
The title, please discuss with Gimil...he seems to have grand ideas that this map should be all about gold and flames.... :?:

by **InkL0sed** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:44 pm

I don't like the actual text of the title either, actually. I agree it does look blurry, and the glow doesn't look good either.

I say you should maybe try a different font, but above all try to minimize the effects on the letters.

by **TaCktiX** on Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:34 pm

I agree with Gimil that the actual title "Poison Rome" could be better. The stroke is not the right way to go with sprucing it up.

by **Incandenza** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:32 am

cairnswk wrote:
Incandenza wrote:I kinda like the stonework... and since we're talking about the title, at some point while my back was turned it seemed to get awful bright... the "Julio-Claudian family" bit is so bright as to appear blurry, and I'm not wild about the bright orange in "poison rome" either... just seems to bright for a map that's mostly pretty subtle colors.

Stonework i agree.
The title, please discuss with Gimil...he seems to have grand ideas that this map should be all about gold and flames....

Gold and flames? Madness, it should be about white marble and purple togas and laurel wreathes and subtle poisonings. The name itself implies a deeper game being played within the Family than that of pyrotechnics and shiny metals.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:58 am

Incandenza wrote:....
Gold and flames? Madness, it should be about white marble and purple togas and laurel wreathes and subtle poisonings. The name itself implies a deeper game being played within the Family than that of pyrotechnics and shiny metals.

Agreed, that's why i had purple statues (probably a little misplaces), marble (white/grey) statues, leaurels wreaths (which already exist), and the few flames for Nero burning Rome.
But what do you do when someone is dogmatic about what they want, and think they know better artistically than what the mapmaker produces ](*,)

?

by **gimil** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:34 am

Cairns I never said anything about liking or wanting the title to represent flames...

by **cairnswk** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:02 pm

Version 29...new title

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:36 pm

I like the title but I say get rid of stroke on "The Julio-Claudian Family" — it makes it hard to read. Also I would think about making the |'s between the arches 1.5ish x as thick.

.44

by **InkL0sed** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:17 pm

That was the exact opposite of what I suggested. I liked the background picture, I thought it fit perfectly; it's just the layer style of the actual font that bothers me.

And I disagree about the stroke on "The Julio Claudian Family" - I think that makes it easier to read, not harder.

I think you should add the same stroke to "Poison Rome" to replace the glow, actually, and return to the background picture of the arches.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:18 pm

Sorry about the wording: I meant make the title fill where your stroke is atm, but make a stroke outside of that.

.44

by **The Neon Peon** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:45 pm

cairnswk wrote:
The Neon Peon wrote:Once again, the Cleopatra-Marcus Atonius connection has uneven shaking and is not even (the lower part extends farther left than the upper part.)

Yeh Neon Peon....that cleopatra connection was because of the bevelling...and i didn't notice it.
Thanks, and it is fixed as i ahve changed the bevelling on her tert there.

Sorry to continuously bring this back up, but this is the only thing that I can still see that needs fixing with the graphics.

Gameplay stuff...
Agrippina-Germanicus bonus has 8 territories in it, yet it is only worth 4 troops. Seems like it should be 5. (PS, Nero Caesar connection has a little rectangle at the end that should not be there.)
Livia Drusilla-Tibernius C. Nero bonus has 4 territories, so it should be worth 2 troops, not 1. Same with Gaius Octavius and Atia Caesonia family.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:34 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:I like the title but I say get rid of stroke on "The Julio-Claudian Family" — it makes it hard to read. Also I would think about making the |'s between the arches 1.5ish x as thick.

.44

What do you mean stroke? Are you referring to: the fill, the outline, or the emboss?
Arches. I think they are fine, and if i make them thicker i'll have to move everything, and that isn't worth the effort.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:36 pm

The Neon Peon wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
The Neon Peon wrote:Once again, the Cleopatra-Marcus Atonius connection has uneven shaking and is not even (the lower part extends farther left than the upper part.)

Yeh Neon Peon....that cleopatra connection was because of the bevelling...and i didn't notice it.
Thanks, and it is fixed as i ahve changed the bevelling on her tert there.

Sorry to continuously bring this back up, but this is the only thing that I can still see that needs fixing with the graphics.

The Cleopatra graphic connection is fixed. It is as good as it's going to get.

Gameplay stuff...
Agrippina-Germanicus bonus has 8 territories in it, yet it is only worth 4 troops. Seems like it should be 5. (PS, Nero Caesar connection has a little rectangle at the end that should not be there.)
Livia Drusilla-Tibernius C. Nero bonus has 4 territories, so it should be worth 2 troops, not 1. Same with Gaius Octavius and Atia Caesonia family.

Done.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:36 pm

cairnswk wrote:
the.killing.44 wrote:I like the title but I say get rid of stroke on "The Julio-Claudian Family" — it makes it hard to read. Also I would think about making the |'s between the arches 1.5ish x as thick.

.44

What do you mean stroke? Are you referring to: the fill, the outline, or the emboss?
Arches. I think they are fine, and if i make them thicker i'll have to move everything, and that isn't worth the effort.

Stroke = outline. And no worries about the arches … they're fine as is.

.44

by **cairnswk** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:51 pm

InkL0sed wrote:I don't like the actual text of the title either, actually. I agree it does look blurry, and the glow doesn't look good either.

I say you should maybe try a different font, but above all try to minimize the effects on the letters.

I think the font is perfect...Times New Roman. At size 30 it allows the fill to work well.

Now the only thing the title has on it is: fill, outline and raised emboss
And this one i like.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:53 pm

It's still blurry, but I don't think the problem is actual blur — it's the fact that your stroke (outline) around that text is hitting into the stroke of other letters, which smears the outline into being a bit hard to read and, tbh, a bit messy.

.44

by **cairnswk** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:25 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:It's still blurry, but I don't think the problem is actual blur — it's the fact that your stroke (outline) around that text is hitting into the stroke of other letters, which smears the outline into being a bit hard to read and, tbh, a bit messy.

.44

Yeh. look. i can't reduce the outline to thinner than 1px. so i'll have to remove it altogether, and i have put a yellow slight drop shadow behind it.
Please refresh to see the change.

Click image to enlarge.

by **Incandenza** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:34 pm

That's a damn nice title right there.

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:36 pm

Incandenza wrote:That's a damn nice title right there.

Seconded (and thanks for the sig!)

.44

by **Incandenza** on Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:10 am

the.killing.44 wrote:
Incandenza wrote:That's a damn nice title right there.

Seconded (and thanks for the sig!)

.44

I would've been disappointed if someone hadn't used that as a sig, so I'm obliged to ya.

by **iancanton** on Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:25 pm

cairnswk wrote:Awaiting incanton now to stamp this, where is he?

here i am!

having finally had a chance to sit down and examine the gameplay, the main flaw that i can see in what is a highly-original concept is the +1 bonus for most of the childless marriages, which consist of only 2 territories. this will lead a significant proportion of 2-player games to be decided by the drop.

i propose that the bonus system is changed so that there is only a +0.5 bonus, rounded down, for each childless marriage (or, equivalently, +1 for every two childless marriages). alternatively, +1 for each, but the first childless marriage held does not count for bonuses. in either case, for each marriage with one child, +1 is sufficient.

the implications of the +3 autodeploy for the gods, who can be accessed only by the emperors, i have yet to fathom. i'm thinking that a natural strategy for player 1 (in a 2-player game) will be to attack a god, then fort as many there as possible.

ian.