Reconquista

[porkenbeans]

Thank you MN,
I have a new version that has been reworked in terms of gameplay and graphics. I do not normally like to mess with GP, but I just thought that if I could make it less cluttered and easier to understand, it might go to moving this map forward. I know that Bast put a lot of time into working out the GP, and he will probably hate the solution that I have come up with. But we will see. I did not finish it today, so hopefully I will be able to post it "Monyana"

[theBastard]

I´m looking forward your new version, pork. I also have one idea, when I will have a little time I will do it...

[Industrial Helix]

Thank you MN,
I have a new version that has been reworked in terms of gameplay and graphics. I do not normally like to mess with GP, but I just thought that if I could make it less cluttered and easier to understand, it might go to moving this map forward. I know that Bast put a lot of time into working out the GP, and he will probably hate the solution that I have come up with. But we will see. I did not finish it today, so hopefully I will be able to post it "Monyana"

lol... by monyana do you mean la mañana?

[yeti_c]

@yeti,
Easily understandable = simple, uncomplicated, less detailed, etc...

Learning how to read, starts with the understanding of what words mean.
yeti I know that you are not illiterate, so why are you spamming this thread ?
It seems lately that every time I turn around, you are interjecting yourself with a belligerent attitude in my projects. I really do not mind your input, if it is meant in a helpful manner, but I am not perceiving it that way at all.

a) You need to look up the definition of Spam.
b) Your thesaurus needs some work.
c) I'll try not to be helpful any longer then.

C.

[theBastard]

a) You need to look up the definition of Spam.
b) Your thesaurus needs some work.
c) I'll try not to be helpful any longer then.

C.

yeti, you told that Waterloo is easy understable at the first look. there are more opinions that it is not... and this is problem of spam, but this is not about Waterloo map...

I think that everybody who made maps, made gameplay, help with those things or care for CC page need acknowledgement. and everybody can have his opinion, we all live in democracy not in totalitarianism...

I will hear your notices to Reconquista map, but when you can not help more because somebody has another opinion as you, it is your choice. but I think CC is for fun not for release anybody´s deficient life.

and please stop this SPAM and arque. thanks.

[porkenbeans]

Here is my solution, that is an attempt to simplify the gameplay. I believe that there was just to much going on, and some of the icons needed to be removed. It is much less cluttered now, and with the new GP, it is also much simpler.

There has "Benn" talk as of late that goes to the subject of overcomplicated maps. There is nothing wrong with a map being complicated in my view. The problem as I see it is, that some maps are not clear enough. I agree with IH on this matter. The trick is to make a map that allows for complicated strategies, without making it so full of extra this and thats.

I have tried to combine features from different GP models, in an attempt to create something unique, and hopefully fun to play.

Here is the gist of my idea- ( 60 territs)
a.) Standard regional bonuses are used for all of the kingdoms.

b.) Auto-deploy on the Shields (which represent the Capitols) of each bonus region.

c.) Shields can attack any territ within their kingdom.

d.) Additional bonuses can be earned by owning a pair of religious icons that are the same. IE Christian or Moorish.

e.) You loose armies for owning pairs of religious icons that do not match. Christan's are in the north and Moor's are in the south. So it will be better strategy if you concentrate your building, and expansion efforts, in one place or the other. Its like picking sides. Do you want to be Christain or Moorish ?
So this kinda mirrors the history of the place. You will find yourself fighting those of your own religion to take control of "your" lands. Then if you think you are strong enough you can wage war against the other religion. But be sure you are up for the fight, because it will be a battle that will cost you many causalities. Because, you will be picking up those mismatched pairs of icons.

f.) all shields are divided evenly among the players at the start of the game. Those shields left over, will start neutral.

g.) All religious icons start out neutral.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are 4 versions that differ slightly in brightness and texture.

version A.

Click image to enlarge.

version B.

Click image to enlarge.

version C.

Click image to enlarge.

version D.

Click image to enlarge.

With numbers.

Click image to enlarge.

I know there is probably a standard formula used for determining the amount of the regional bonuses, so I will let you guys figure all of that stuff out. Also I just noticed that I forgot to add a bridge from Al Shaq to Valencia.

[army of nobunaga]

there are probably not many great mapmakers like yeti. When you work on something... Its always hard to see wrong with it. But everyone in here is just trying to help you. ( I would value yetis opinions)

this last map by porknBeans (some gooooood food) looks nice

[MarshalNey]

This is a huge makeover. Definitely, in terms of legibility, this is a winner.

However...

1) The concept of Reconquista is the re-unification of Spain (from the Catholic viewpoint). Earlier of course, the Moors sought to take all of Spain for themselves- and nearly succeeded. So, when we're talking about unifying the land, theBastard's scheme makes much more sense. Why is there a penalty for taking the lands of the opposite religion when the goal should be to take lands from the opposite religion, and not your "buddies" of the same religion?

I think you might be able to preserve TB's table for the religious icons in some form, since you've vastly simplified the other parts; alternatively, you could simply flip the bonus scheme, so that different pairs give the bonus and similar pairs give the negative. That would encourage two "teams", with Catholics swarming to attack Moors and vice versa. I think that this mechanic was a core of the map concept.

2) There has to be some way to get around the negative penalty for taking the "bad" pair of icons eventually- not right away of course- or else these games could go on forever. Might I suggest some sort of special territory that allows this, like "El Cid" and "Caliph" perhaps, that unify their respective religions all under one person? You could make them high-level neutrals or inaccessible in some other fashion, to prevent them from coming into play too early...

3) As the kingdoms sit now, I think a few need to be broken up in the interest of a fair drop. Burgos, for instance, gets way too much bang for its buck with a whopping 8 territories- 3 behind an impassible river!- that it can attack.

Other than that, I think that this is a huge step in the right direction. How does TB feel about it?

[porkenbeans]

@mn,
The reason why I chose to set up the religious icon bonus in this manner, is because of the fact that it was NOT altogether a battle of one religion against the other. There were many battles between the same religious factions. This GP forces that aspect. It is not until later in the game, where the push to win, will encompass the battle of the two religions.

Also, my idea for the drop was that all of the shields, are divided evenly amongst the players, with the remaining shields made neutral. The religious icons, for which there is only one for each kingdom, will all start neutral. So, this means that all drops will be exactly even, with no possibility of anyone dropping a bonus.

I think that a 7 player instead of 8, would be better because there are 14 shields that will give everyone 2 at the drop. 8 man would make it 1 shield each with 6 going to neutral.

[yeti_c]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

[army of nobunaga]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

Ive never understood you guys issues with the colorblind. People that are color blind usually have ways to cope with their world of greys.
They have done it all of their life. Maybe Ive missed some colorblind ppl complaining in the past.. I duno.

[yeti_c]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

Ive never understood you guys issues with the colorblind. People that are color blind usually have ways to cope with their world of greys.
They have done it all of their life. Maybe Ive missed some colorblind ppl complaining in the past.. I duno.

Just Wow - I guess you don't think that disabled people should have ramps and should just stop being lazy and walk like the rest of us?!

C.

[army of nobunaga]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

Ive never understood you guys issues with the colorblind. People that are color blind usually have ways to cope with their world of greys.
They have done it all of their life. Maybe Ive missed some colorblind ppl complaining in the past.. I duno.

Just Wow - I guess you don't think that disabled people should have ramps and should just stop being lazy and walk like the rest of us?!

C.

I dont equate color blindness with someone in a wheelchair.

My father is fully red green color blind and I am partial to shades of green.

I have one friend that is colorblind and is a video game fanatic.

Taht was a bullshit comment btw. You just assumed the worse about me and grouped me into a whole different class of assholes because you are having a bad day or you are just an asshole yourself or something.

[porkenbeans]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

Yes, When I do the final graphics I will indeed make the mini-map just solid colors without any mountains or rivers. Just the shapes of the kingdoms. This is the GP workshop though. So, I think that what I have up now will suffice. I do not want to waste any more time on something that has not been adopted yet.

On the colorblind issue. I have already considered this. The colors that I have chosen may indeed not be very CB friendly. That is precisely why I showed the mini-map with a more saturated color scheme.

[yeti_c]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

Yes, When I do the final graphics I will indeed make the mini-map just solid colors without any mountains and such. this is the GP workshop though. So, I think that what I have up now will suffice. I do not want to waste any more time on something that has not been adopted yet.

Sure - although could do with bonus numbers for GP discussion?

C.

[yeti_c]

Just to check - Mallorca does connect to Valencia?

C.

[porkenbeans]

Right - finally - this is much more "easily understandable" than before...

My main concern now is the minimap - I would suggest making the features (rivers/mountains) less imposing - so that you can see that pieces of continent are on both sides or the features... also when you come to put bonus amounts on the minimaps - these will cover them up a bit and make it even harder to see... (And I assume you're going to put names somewhere too?)

Also - before you set this scheme in stone - might be worth checking it for colour blindness.

C.

Yes, When I do the final graphics I will indeed make the mini-map just solid colors without any mountains and such. this is the GP workshop though. So, I think that what I have up now will suffice. I do not want to waste any more time on something that has not been adopted yet.

Sure - although could do with bonus numbers for GP discussion?

C.

I already addressed that as well. I said that I will let others that are the pros and know the formula take a stab at it. You are most welcomed to give it a go if you want.

[porkenbeans]

Just to check - Mallorca does connect to Valencia?

C.

Yes, I do not know how to do the dotted lines, so Bast will need to redo them.

[yeti_c]

I thought that you had some already with the shields?

Also - all the starts are upto 2 territories away (i.e. you have to attack through 2 territories to get to the shield - that's 6 neutrals)

Mallorca and Almeria only have 1 territory between them (Valencia) - Suggest moving the port to Cartagena?

C.

[porkenbeans]

I thought that you had some already with the shields?

Also - all the starts are upto 2 territories away (i.e. you have to attack through 2 territories to get to the shield - that's 6 neutrals)

Mallorca and Almeria only have 1 territory between them (Valencia) - Suggest moving the port to Cartagena?

C.

When I deleted the settlement icons the lines no longer connect properly. It should be an easy fix for Bast. The port change is a very good catch. Which also makes me think that the sea routes should all connect to Territs with religious icons.

I also see that an impasse is needed between Zaragoza and Rib. Nav.

[theBastard]

uf, what a news here

now only quick my notices (during weekend I will have more free time and I will post my new version of map):

1, pork your new versions of map is pretty out of my idea
2, the capitals (shields) are out of historic capitals
3, the moors were never so far as in Cantabria. as I wrote somewhere, the religious icons represents not only religion, but also conqured area by moors before Reconquista or by christians during Reconquista.
4, it seems that higher bonuses are out now, yes? but this is also out of history. my idea was to show unification of Iberia (not only conquering it from moors but also unification of christian kingdoms/counties...

I must say that graphic is great, pork, but sorry gameplay looks as many other maps... we will see what will be possible after I post my new map. but thanks pork for your effort.
also thanks to others for feedbacks and help (extra thanks to yeti that he is still here)

[porkenbeans]

Do you mean bax about the moors not being as far ?

[theBastard]

yes. look here how far were moors

[porkenbeans]

I have to admit, that I know next to nothing about Reconquista. However, you can easily move the icons to where they should be, and with the simplified GP, we may stand a chance of getting this map quenched. I know that you spent a lot of time and effort to make everything true to history on this map, but try to remember that this is only a game. It does not necessarily need to reflect every aspect of Reconquista, just an overall simplification will "get-r done".

What are the main, and most important things, about Reconquista ?
That is what needs to be on this map. The other less important things, like settlements and such, should just be omitted. The secret, is to simplify it to the point that it is still interesting and unique, but at the same time convey the subject. Personally I like complicated maps, but this is just too complicated for most CC players. There is just too much going on.

[Industrial Helix]

Much clearer.

The wacky font needs to go, imo. It's neither Spanish/Moorish nor legible.

How many shields do you have? I count 14, will they be assigned as starting positions or starting neutrals?

Shielded territories one-way assault, correct? You should write one way cause assault means the other territories can attack back despite not sharing a border.

This is looking good gents, nice work!