*[Abandoned] Feudal England and Wales

[The Bison King]

Eh I think you're getting a little carried away. You have some neat idea's but that's a completely different map you're developing there.

Let's start with this:

there will be only one bonus, if I good understand... not the best opinion.

No, there will Not be only one bonus. All the old bonuses will still exist however for whomever holds London he receives +1 for any 2 regions in the King's Dominion and not just in the Eastern region. The Bombarding idea may not be bad. Or maybe if you hold London and a certain number of castles (or all of the Kings dominion) you win.

Click image to enlarge.

[Victor Sullivan]

Oh! Oh! Can you do losing conditions for this? Pleeeease??

-Sully

[Oneyed]

Eh I think you're getting a little carried away. You have some neat idea's but that's a completely different map you're developing there.

my map is different because I follow historic areas (macher lordships), because I follow historic dividing of England, because I try to follow historic relations... if you leave Anglo Saxon England and do map from later era you ignore historic reality with dividing England as you have now. so sorry but your map still has a little with Medieaval England...

No, there will Not be only one bonus. All the old bonuses will still exist however for whomever holds London he receives +1 for any 2 regions in the King's Dominion and not just in the Eastern region.

so London will be valid for Eastern region and also for all England? make another castle for East region.

The Bombarding idea may not be bad. Or maybe if you hold London and a certain number of castles (or all of the Kings dominion) you win.

Bombarding idea signify that if player holds London he become king and can take titles (and castles) from "unruly" Barons. but for this must be London extra castle. and I would like more to have: -1 for each castle with London, you should be king or Baron, not both...

Oh! Oh! Can you do losing conditions for this? Pleeeease??

-Sully

good idea here.

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

my map is different because I follow historic areas (macher lordships), because I follow historic dividing of England, because I try to follow historic relations... if you leave Anglo Saxon England and do map from later era you ignore historic reality with dividing England as you have now. so sorry but your map still has a little with Medieaval England...

Why? Because I've divided England the way I have? The way you told me to? because I've divided it along lines that existed before the Norman era, and have persisted to the modern era? Just because these divisions weren't created in 1066 doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can divide a modern map all sorts of ways and no-one get's on your case about every last detail. You have to realize that there's a difference between a medieval map of Britain and your medieval map of Britain.

so London will be valid for Eastern region and also for all England? make another castle for East region.

I may have to make it an un-associated territory.

Bombarding idea signify that if player holds London he become king and can take titles (and castles) from "unruly" Barons. but for this must be London extra castle. and I would like more to have: -1 for each castle with London, you should be king or Baron, not both...

I'm not adding a -1 bonus, in fact I was thinking about doing the opposite +1 for every 2 Castles held with London.

And regarding defeat conditions, No. I'm not doing that.

[Oneyed]

Why? Because I've divided England the way I have? The way you told me to?

I told you this from gameplay view, not historic.

because I've divided it along lines that existed before the Norman era, and have persisted to the modern era? Just because these divisions weren't created in 1066 doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can divide a modern map all sorts of ways and no-one get's on your case about every last detail. You have to realize that there's a difference between a medieval map of Britain and your medieval map of Britain.

ok, so if you will do USA map from 20th century, will you divide it as was in 18th century?

I may have to make it an un-associated territory.

and any second castle for East Anglia?

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

I told you this from gameplay view, not historic.

on this we see eye to eye, I've always counted Gameplay as more important than historical accuracy.

ok, so if you will do USA map from 20th century, will you divide it as was in 18th century?

In a sense yes. Of the states that existed back then, their borders have changed very little, the same is true of England. Regions change hands while the big denotations of East, West, North, and South, and Central, remain relatively unchanged.

and any second castle for East Anglia?

Yes.

[Oneyed]

on this we see eye to eye, I've always counted Gameplay as more important than historical accuracy.

I think if mapmaker make historic map he should care about history. some changes for gameply are fine, but you can not create regions which were not exist.

In a sense yes. Of the states that existed back then, their borders have changed very little, the same is true of England. Regions change hands while the big denotations of East, West, North, and South, and Central, remain relatively unchanged.

so your USA map from 20th century will have only 13 states? ofcourse you can divide "your" map as you can, but then it would has a little with reality and history... but why then you call map Medieaval Britain if it has a little with medieaval era?

Oneyed

EDIT: I do ones more attempt for made this map historic. try this position:

Click image to enlarge.

[Orchestra Spy]

It wasn't me! It was the one-eyed man! trollolol..

[koontz1973]

TBK.
Is this the current large version as it is different from the one in the first post?

Click image to enlarge.

Over the size issue.
The large version is fine at this size but will need some rearranging so there is not one wasted pixel in site. So crop the left and right up to the land. Think about reducing some of the territ sizes. Mainly in the north where the counties are large.

The small version, and this is where you will need to use some of that creative thinking. When I say creative thinking, you can try to think about some things.
Lose a territ or two if needed.
Resize and reshape all territs to fit the new size.
Text, although it is nice to have a map that is identical to the large map, that has now been overruled.
The current guidelines for this are 630/600, this you already know. You can use some extra (50 more only) and only if you really need to. If you find the need to go larger, then you need to PM nobodies for that permission. But I will say that if he can find a way to do it, you will not get it. Might be an idea to think about the small map now and how you will get it all in.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but it is what I have to get you to do.

[generalmighty]

Just seen this map, think it could be great to play Bison King. And many thanks to yourself and Oneyed on the effort to get the history of England so accurate.

I believe Cumbria was pretty much under Northumbrian rule by 700, in reality if not by name. Cornwall is trickier, they had a king till around 900 I think. But Wessex's influence was strong. I don't think that any map set after 900 would be taking a big liberty by including Cumbria in a Northumbria region and Cornwall in Wessex for gameplay reasons. I would question Windor as a castle though if it's going to be Anglo Saxon? It's right next to London in reality and was only first there after 1066.

[mouldy32]

quiet like this map, wouldnt mind having it a bit smaller but really like the bonus system, think it could be a good game to play

[The Bison King]

Sorry for the long delay in response.

so your USA map from 20th century will have only 13 states? ofcourse you can divide "your" map as you can, but then it would has a little with reality and history... but why then you call map Medieaval Britain if it has a little with medieaval era?

MY GOD I will change the name back to Feudal England if only to get you to shut up about what is "medieval" enough for you.

THAT BEING SAID, I like that map you posted and if I continue with this idea I'll be sure to take it into consideration.

It wasn't me! It was the one-eyed man! trollolol..

WTF? who are you and what is this supposed to mean?

The small version, and this is where you will need to use some of that creative thinking. When I say creative thinking, you can try to think about some things.
Lose a territ or two if needed.
Resize and reshape all territs to fit the new size.
Text, although it is nice to have a map that is identical to the large map, that has now been overruled.
The current guidelines for this are 630/600, this you already know. You can use some extra (50 more only) and only if you really need to. If you find the need to go larger, then you need to PM nobodies for that permission. But I will say that if he can find a way to do it, you will not get it. Might be an idea to think about the small map now and how you will get it all in.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but it is what I have to get you to do.

You're right this isn't what I want to hear and I know that you know how I feel about this but I will reiterate for the sake of those who were not part of that conversation.

Allowing super-sized maps but restricting their small versions to the standard 630x600 is the absolute stupidest policy ever. It completely negates any sort of benefit to having a super-sized map. It effectively makes super-sizing completely and utterly pointless.

I seriously can not over emphasize what a F*cking stupid policy that is.

I'm probably not going to continue working on this idea because I'm sick and tired of foundry bullshit. What was the point of opening up that foundry re-organization sub-forum if you aren't going to listen to us???? I'm sick of it. You guys are constantly in a state of making bad decisions.

I do really like this idea so I might try and cram it into 630x600 if I can add the +50 but even then I don't know. Permitting I can get it to fit it's still a toss up whether or not I'll have the drive to wade through the bullshit of getting this finished.

Just seen this map, think it could be great to play Bison King. And many thanks to yourself and Oneyed on the effort to get the history of England so accurate.

I believe Cumbria was pretty much under Northumbrian rule by 700, in reality if not by name. Cornwall is trickier, they had a king till around 900 I think. But Wessex's influence was strong. I don't think that any map set after 900 would be taking a big liberty by including Cumbria in a Northumbria region and Cornwall in Wessex for gameplay reasons. I would question Windor as a castle though if it's going to be Anglo Saxon? It's right next to London in reality and was only first there after 1066.

Thank you, but we are going the Norman direction, however I did shift Windsor a bit West. I was told it was one of the oldest castles in England so I really wanted to fit it in.

quiet like this map, wouldnt mind having it a bit smaller but really like the bonus system, think it could be a good game to play

Bless you're heart.

[koontz1973]

TBK, I understand your feelings, believe me I do, but it might be wise to see if you can fit it all in the small map first then go large. Draw it without the graphics, make it as small as possible then we can see where to go from there. Add the 88s and names. It does not need to be identical as the large, just the same game play.

[Oneyed]

MY GOD I will change the name back to Feudal England if only to get you to shut up about what is "medieval" enough for you.

neither this will helps you . because Feudal and Mediaval is the same time period...

THAT BEING SAID, I like that map you posted and if I continue with this idea I'll be sure to take it into consideration.

Thank you, but we are going the Norman direction, however I did shift Windsor a bit West. I was told it was one of the oldest castles in England so I really wanted to fit it in.

so Norman era will be future? then will you change gameplay and bonuses this way?

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

Lets see where TBK takes this. Medieval, Norman, prehistoric, modern, alien landings, who knows, it may even have Saxons or Romans in it at the end. As long as it has bitching gameplay, I am happy. Leave all of the history to history buffs,
game sites should make games that are fun.

[Oneyed]

Lets see where TBK takes this. Medieval, Norman, prehistoric, modern, alien landings, who knows, it may even have Saxons or Romans in it at the end. As long as it has bitching gameplay, I am happy. Leave all of the history to history buffs,
game sites should make games that are fun.

then this sounds as the best idea:

Change the name to Indeterminate Era Britain, then turn one of the castles into a dinosaur and another one into a spaceship.

*inditierminate

Oneyed

[The Bison King]

Leave all of the history to history buffs,
game sites should make games that are fun.

QTF

TBK, I understand your feelings, believe me I do, but it might be wise to see if you can fit it all in the small map first then go large. Draw it without the graphics, make it as small as possible then we can see where to go from there. Add the 88s and names. It does not need to be identical as the large, just the same game play.

Well we'll see what I can do. I'm out of town this weekend so I won't have a chance to try until sometime next week.

[thenobodies80]

We can take bad or stupid decisions, we can make stupid policies, but the FACT is that in the map you have posted there are TONS of wasted space.

quick examples: (60% of space is useless sea, too big title)

The supersize policy are going to change and we're not asking to you all to not go over 630x600 but to use every single pixel more than that size with your brain.
It's passed some time but, TBK, you fall again in the same old point: HERE, we don't make maps for art. Your graphics, your gameplay, your idea MUST be utterly servient to the context in which you're trying to develop your map. If you want to make maps for art you have to go to other site, like cartographer guild (btw an excellent site).

Now, If it was for me I would say to those, who have a stupid monitor with a 1024x768 px resolution, to **** themselves; but it's not my site and unfortunately we have to find a compromise specially because there's people here that can tell me what I have to do.

However if you think, there's no point in develop a big map that people don't want to play because it doesn't fit their monitors and the users nowdays are too tired to scroll a page. I know , stupid reasons, but this doesn't mean you have to develop a map that only few will play and that a large part of this site will find unfriendly.
In addition the site says that you need a resolution of 1024x768 to play, one of my role is to ensure that (except for very rare and special cases) this is true.

So, I understand your anger, I share some of your thoughts about the new decision to not allow supersize maps all days and with less stricted criterias, but you have to admit that your map has lot of wasted space.

And btw, we listen and compromises are made exactly because we listen, if it wasn't in this way I wouldn't have said to koontz to tell you to try with the "smaller" small version you can develope, but I would say just "no, the size is 630x600".
Fit the 888 on castles, cut the territories size/number if necessary, but make it as small as you can, then we will see.

You're aiming your gun against the wrong man...then the fact you are angry...I can understand...but you can't imagine how I feel when I have to take decisions that make you guys agry, frustrated or disappointed. Just I have to take decisions.

[darkmagus]

It should be possible to mix a Norman map around 1100 with some Plantagenet/Angevin into a map with similar gameplay to what you´ve got.

I doubt you´d get comments about spaceships and dinosaurs if you stick to something like 1100-1300, which usually is considered the "proper" medieval times in northern europe.. (the earlier anglo-saxon times and viking age are often considered quite a separate era from the high medieval times that followed)

hope it is doable while not upsetting history nazis too much.. although you´d have to change some names and borders.
(one example is morpeth - I believe it was a town on the east coast, not where it is in your map draft)

good luck

[natty dread]

It's pretty easy to squeeze out some size from this map.

A quick example:



Cropping and resizing the overly large legend & title will get the image down to 767 x 920. It's still a bit over standard limits - small image would be 690 heightwise.

However, if you were to rotate the image a bit, you could get it very neatly to much smaller size.



This will get the image down to 806 x 855. That's 605 x 640, only 40 pixels over the standard small map - or only 10 pixels if you further rotate it 90 degrees... and that 10 pixels can probably be shaved off somewhere pretty easily.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

[Pirlo]

This map looks fun!

[koontz1973]

TBK, anything on the horizon with this one?

[The Bison King]

TBK, anything on the horizon with this one?

Yeah I'm going with a new approach,

Click image to enlarge.

[Oneyed]

can not see picture

Oneyed

[koontz1973]

can not see picture

Oneyed

Yes you can.