that... looks... COOL!!!
i just dont like all those attack lines, they annoy me to death
Moderator: Cartographers
Fair enough. But I think if you filled the map w/ more visible troops instead of just standards as representations you could visualize that group defending the Stable. But I also think the routes are very open and there doesn't seem to be enough chokes.Marvaddin wrote: Well, I can agree that in some cases the routes doesnt fit that well, like in the DR6 to DR10 example... I think the defenders area is a bit confused and I will soon start planning it better, although some sugestions could be interesting too. DR3 shouldnt be able to attack the stable, in my opinion, because of the guys holding the DR2. Remember, each rally point represents a position, that is holdable by enemy soldiers. This is a game and no map is really accurate to real battles. I could start to ask "why US dont have the skill to nuke Japan in classic map?" or something alike. Although the troops movements in a battle can be chaotic, in a game there are rules, and we wont allow thaaaaat freedom of movement, got it?
Ladders are good.Marvaddin wrote:Guys attacking the walls from the moat??? They are using ladders, lol. Maybe we can draw some to make the idea more plausible.![]()
I feel the same way about crosswords.Marvaddin wrote: I dont have any problem about this map. I really have a sensation / appeal problem about a Crossword map, but not about this one. But, well, I was not thinking it could be great for everyone. This is just my opinion.
By "static" I mean I don't think the standards are enough. I think you need to have visible clusters of troops in various states of rally. I'm really only commenting on the visual. Gameplay-wise I think things are a little too open. Like there should be more terrain on the outside and buildings on the inside that create impassables for the troops.Marvaddin wrote: Its not intended to be a static map. I think you will agree about that when your archer tower becomes ashes due to a an unexpected catapult bombardment. Of course, the walls are designed to act like bottlenecks, but I still think the mobility wouldnt be bad... Hmmm, maybe we can make the gate easier to take, giving a stronger bonus to the ram? Because I think that if we forget the siege weapons, etc, there is no map to work about. If you can clarify your idea, maybe.
Dude, if you replicated the battle from LOTR, gameplay-wise and graphically, that would be pretty wicked. My friend and I were talking about that at one point.Marvaddin wrote:
Well, about the name I have changed it to Castle Battle, but Im still looking for a better name, if someone can suggest it. Other options would be like Castle Raid, Castle Assault, or something alike with other words (Keep Assault, etc). In fact, this castle remembers me that one on Lord of the Rings (movie 2). Whats its name?![]()
Well, about the readability, lets wait until Tel works a bit on it, and I will try some new rally points ideas and routes soon...
For now, a idea Im having... Dunno if its possible. I think there should be more people in the map... the legions could be a group, not a single person, and there should be some others, like being possible to see some archers, some soldiers, and even some orcs, lolI think it would increase the battle feeling. What do you say?
The only problem with this would be adding more confusion to the map, at the moment im avoiding adding men at the rally points because if i do people might think it is a legion not a rally point. But i will see what i can do.snapdoodle wrote:By "static" I mean I don't think the standards are enough. I think you need to have visible clusters of troops in various states of rally. I'm really only commenting on the visual. Gameplay-wise I think things are a little too open. Like there should be more terrain on the outside and buildings on the inside that create impassables for the troops.
I think it could be because they are not affected by the shadows on the map, i will see if adding shadows to them helps...mibi wrote:Those lines are an improvement, but they don't really look like lines on the ground. THey kinda look like lines in the air. What about well word paths through the grass?
The only way i can think off to remove that problem would to be individualising all the soldiers, and i could be doing that for hours. Unless anyone can think of a easier way to reduce the roboticness? Do the people operating the siege weapons also look robotic?mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.
The siege weaponeers don't look robotic because there aren't that many of them, and they're in action. The soldiers are standing still and they're all exact duplicates of one another, and there are a lot of them. I think if you replace the rightmost column with cavalry it will help add variety and reduce roboticity. Maybe instead of just one model being used for every soldier, you could make three or four models and alternate them throughout the ranks; that way, you don't need to individualize every single soldier, but the robotic feel would go away.Telvannia wrote:The only way i can think off to remove that problem would to be individualising all the soldiers, and i could be doing that for hours. Unless anyone can think of a easier way to reduce the roboticness? Do the people operating the siege weapons also look robotic?mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.
what he said.ZeakCytho wrote:The siege weaponeers don't look robotic because there aren't that many of them, and they're in action. The soldiers are standing still and they're all exact duplicates of one another, and there are a lot of them. I think if you replace the rightmost column with cavalry it will help add variety and reduce roboticity. Maybe instead of just one model being used for every soldier, you could make three or four models and alternate them throughout the ranks; that way, you don't need to individualize every single soldier, but the robotic feel would go away.Telvannia wrote:The only way i can think off to remove that problem would to be individualising all the soldiers, and i could be doing that for hours. Unless anyone can think of a easier way to reduce the roboticness? Do the people operating the siege weapons also look robotic?mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.
I had a try at cavalry, but so far my 3D modelling skill are no match for horses, i will try again soon, but i have exam revision to deal at the moment. But i will try a few different positions for the soldiers.ZeakCytho wrote:The siege weaponeers don't look robotic because there aren't that many of them, and they're in action. The soldiers are standing still and they're all exact duplicates of one another, and there are a lot of them. I think if you replace the rightmost column with cavalry it will help add variety and reduce roboticity. Maybe instead of just one model being used for every soldier, you could make three or four models and alternate them throughout the ranks; that way, you don't need to individualize every single soldier, but the robotic feel would go away.Telvannia wrote:The only way i can think off to remove that problem would to be individualising all the soldiers, and i could be doing that for hours. Unless anyone can think of a easier way to reduce the roboticness? Do the people operating the siege weapons also look robotic?mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.
It was maybe subconsciously based on the romans; but not on purpose, but now you mention the age difference, perhaps it does need changing, can anyone think of an idea to put on a standard?Ruben Cassar wrote:Interesting how you use a Roman standard with the eagle and laurel leaves (is that copied from Rome: Total War?) in a medieval era setting some 1500 years later! Maybe that needs changing.
I know, i think it looks bad too, i try to keep it on the banner as much as possible, though in someplaces it lacks a banner to go on. But i really do need to think up a way of joining the army numbers to the background somehow, i will have a think about that.Kaplowitz wrote:I dont like where there are army circles on top of the people.
The font is already up for a change.Kaplowitz wrote:I also dont love the font, i think you need a thicker one.
its just you. To me, they are both to pixely to look good. Although if they were cleared up a little i would say they both look greatsnapdoodle wrote:Is it me or do the defender attack lines look better than the attacker lines?
Does anyone else see that? I think it's because the defender lines remain in the ground and don't seem to break the art while the attacker lines can break near the water. The biggest offender here is AR5 to AR6. But also from AR5 to AR4.
I hope i have cleared this problem up.snapdoodle wrote:Now that I'm thinking about it... having a solid color as the background in the standard is going to cause readability problems for some players (the red player and the gray player probably). It might be best to have a lighter stripe through the middle area to improve that.
I will work on them once i have finished the attackers a bit more, im still planning to add more variety in to the attacking armies.bryguy wrote:Could u work on the cannons on the wall now? and maybe the guards on the inside? they are all so... bland.. on the inside, and maybe work on the area next to the mountain also?
Although this is true, i fear we may have to sacrifice realism slightly here because it we had the walls to scale we would be have nearly as much room inside the castle to add territories, and you have to take into account perspective, if there was not perspective you would see that both the walls are the same height. Although i could make the men inside the walls a bit small because they are slightly out of proportion, but if i change them to the right size there is a risk they will be too small.bryguy wrote:Also, the wall is out of proportions. It looks like the men could just reach up and climb over. Maybe make it slightly bigger?
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong