Conquer Club

AndyDufresne wrote:Things are looking good, Qwert. Keep it up.


--Andy

so...FINAL FORGE..right?

qwert wrote:Well you see that title can not bee biger,and you ask to be biger?

Well you are first who can not recognise colours, i think that colours is good and everybody can see a large diference with terittory colours.I realy dont understand why i must change something what good look.

you dont have to do it this is just my opinion and suggestion, but my opinion still stands on all the issues i have talked about

qwert wrote:Most people? For now only you and Keyogi think that i must erase sea labels(and maybe boberz).

Guiscard
Have we come to any conclusion about the smaller sea labels though Qwert?

Well solution for these can be poll,because i realy think that these sea labels look good in map.What you think Guiscard are you agree with these.

yes me but please no poll the last thing anyone wants is a poll

boberz wrote:

qwert wrote:Well you see that title can not bee biger,and you ask to be biger?

Well you are first who can not recognise colours, i think that colours is good and everybody can see a large diference with terittory colours.I realy dont understand why i must change something what good look.

you dont have to do it this is just my opinion and suggestion, but my opinion still stands on all the issues i have talked about

ignore boberz, qwert he is just trying to wind you up it looks good at the mo, when andy says he wants the smaller he means he wants the larger version

qwert wrote:

AndyDufresne
Do you have the smaller version, qwert?

Smaller version? What you mean?
These is a small version of map 629x459

I think he means - can you post up Both map images...

Small and Large?

C.

Coleman wrote:

unriggable wrote:

DiM wrote:i like the sea labels and i'd hate to see them be removed.

Really? I find them unnecessary and think that they waste space. The only answer to this dilemma would be to hquench two versions of the map.

Mountains out of mole hills people. Why are the sea labels unnecessary? Quick, someone go fix classic! It has sea labels!!!

Leave qwert the hell alone about this crap and find a real problem. I have to side with DiM on this one.

I like the sea labels, but I feel the smaller ones clutter the map up and look squashed in, especially the gulf of finland... The Gulf of Riga almost looks like its own territory because it is almost encolsed.. But the large ones are fine.

Yes Qwert, a vote would be fine in this case as we have split opinions. may I sugest:

Should the smaller sea labels (Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga & Sea of Azov) be deleted?

Yes
No

Or perhaps just delete them (should take only a few seconds) and give a simple choice

Which is better?

a)Small sea labels
b)No small sea labels

i dont see why a poll is necessary....Theres not a split discussion whatsoever. More people like the titles than do not!!!

Its not a graphics issue, is it????

Well then it should be left up to the Map maker to make a balanced decision

hulmey wrote:More people like the titles than do not!!!

That's what a poll will tell us. If you're right then you've got nothing to worry about have you!

nagerous wrote:

boberz wrote:

qwert wrote:Well you see that title can not bee biger,and you ask to be biger?

Well you are first who can not recognise colours, i think that colours is good and everybody can see a large diference with terittory colours.I realy dont understand why i must change something what good look.

you dont have to do it this is just my opinion and suggestion, but my opinion still stands on all the issues i have talked about

ignore boberz, qwert he is just trying to wind you up it looks good at the mo, when andy says he wants the smaller he means he wants the larger version

honestly not but i am exasperated as i say my word is not law but i still think my opinion is valid, as therre is no support end of discussion i dont mind

Why you need a poll for such a petty thing as Sea names is beyond me. They are nice and add geograhical awarness to the Map. Which is war important for a war map....I think it should be left up to the map maker to decide.

i am inclined to agree about removinf the Gulf of Finland sea label. Wouldnt that help and be a comprise

hulmey wrote:Why you need a poll for such a petty thing as Sea names is beyond me.

Qwert has had pettier polls than this.
I think the large sea labels give the geographical awareness needed. The small labels are cramped.

Something else that is bothering me is the Tula and Oryol labels in Moscow Army. They are both quite close to each other and the border, and I think The Oryol label might benefit being moved a little bit to the left.

Other than that, I dont see anything wrong. And after some maps that have recently been forged, Im actually surprised this hasnt been.

hulmey, the point is that there is, in fact, a split discussion. Several of us don't like the small sea labels, and have said so. And qwert obviously feels that there might be some validity to our complaint about clutter. Oh, and either of Guiscard's suggested polls would be perfect.

I agree with Teya - Cn you move Oryol name to the left

If there is gonna be a poll it should be as such;

Should the smaller Sea Labels be deleted;

Yes, but only delete Gulf of Riga

Yes, but only delete Gulf of Finland

Yes but only delete Sea only Sea of Azov

Yes, delete ALL the Sea Labels

No, DONT Delete any of the Sea Labels

This will give the Map Foundry a more precise decision on what the Map Foundry members ACTUALLY want

Is the sea labels the only thing holding this map from a final forge?

No, qwert said he was going to get cracking on both versions of the map (large and small), and I told him I'd wait to see what he's got, as he's only posted one version thus far.


--Andy

Try KISS, hulmey. That's why I favor Guiscard's approach. If a lot of people express problems with just one of the small sea labels, fine, but for now, there has been no such distinction. Your way would require at least two more options to be perfectly balanced, and all you're trying to do is split the vote for change so that you can claim majority with a smaller number of people voting for no change. CC members aren't stupid, hulmey... give them a straightforward poll.

ufff,im back i have very big problems with modem and now everything is good(i hope)

qwert wrote:ufff,im back i have very big problems with modem and now everything is good(i hope)

Put up the latest versions as Andy said then so that we quench this map...about time I say...

lets see what 125 pages of feedback can do.

hurry up qwert! *waiting and hoping*

AndyDufresne
Zookeeper & Foundry Foreman


Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 4216
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Posted: 29 May 2007 22:58 Post subject:

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

No, qwert said he was going to get cracking on both versions of the map (large and small), and I told him I'd wait to see what he's got, as he's only posted one version thus far.


--Andy

Like i say before my modem problem(i dont be here in 13 days)i want to finish all problems with small version of map,and then i will working in large version of my map.
These is a small version of map.


I see that problems is sea labels and i see two option-to stay and to remowe.

Guiscard wrote
Should the smaller sea labels (Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga & Sea of Azov) be deleted?

Yes
No

I will apply Guiscard sugestion for these issue.

When is the map done? I like WW2 maps very much and i want to play it now !


I cant find a picture on the IWO JIMA map...does it exist?

ask qwert about the imo jima if he has the last copy stored away in his HDD, because on the site their isn't any copy of it.

joel07



Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Kalmar, Sweden
Posted: 10 Jun 2007 20:06 Post subject: Eastern Front

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

When is the map done? I like WW2 maps very much and i want to play it now !


I cant find a picture on the IWO JIMA map...does it exist?

I dont know.
Yes,but later when these map finish.

the bonus for stalingrad area is 1 too much:
3 border lands to defend and 5 internal lands (divided by 3 =) yields 1.
So a bonus of 4 is appropriate.

besides; having the Stalingrad zone means you'll have 1/3 of the 3 cities bonus points also in your pocket for "free".

Also Von Leeb Area should get one extra :
2 border lands and 3 internal lands should yield 2 + 3/3 = 3 in total.

Never mind the "historical" importance of the city of Stalingrad (actually overrated military speaking) or lands like China in the Far east Map, etc..
In the end we are playing a board game with a collection of placement dots.
Only that mathematical number should count in addressing the correct balanced number of bonuspoints per region.

It oddball i dont understand what you mean?
Having only 1 or 2 stared terittory you dont get nothing,you must have all 3 stared terittory for extra bonus.