Map Name:Three Kingdoms of China Mapmaker(s): Seamus76 & V.J. Number of Territories: 42 Special Features: Super Region bonuses, etc. What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: It's based on an interesting time period in the history of China, a very culturally and historically important region.
"I love this map, it's graphics draw you in like a warm, soft blanket that snugly wraps around you, and then suffocates you with massively simplistic gameplay." says CC Map Reviewer Mas Sue67
Description: "Do the unexpected, attack the unprepared." Zhuge Liang This map takes place from approximately 220ce-280ce when China was split into Three Kingdoms following the loss of power of the Han Dynasty. The map features incredibly nice Asian themed graphics, and incorporates multiple bonus opportunities including taking capitals, and overriding super region bonuses.
Based on gimil's original Era of The Three Kingdoms map, http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=242&t=51881, this map will try to stay true to his main intention of creating a nice map with simple, easy gameplay that anyone could play.
TERRITORIES
42 territories in total 3 will be Capitals, and are included in the Capital Bonus listed below. All three will be coded neutral to avoid a bonus on the drop. 8 will be Cities, and are included in the City Bonus listed below. Each player will start with 1, the others will end up being neutral.
BONUSES
Region Bonus = 8 regions in total (bonuses +1 to +5) Super Region Bonus = 3 super regions in total (bonuses +8 to +12) Capital Bonus = +2 for holding 2, and +6 for holding all 3. (Each Capital starts 2 neutral) City Bonus = +1 for every 2 Cities held (Each starting neutral City will start 2 neutral)
STARTING POINTS
Currently 36 territories can be starting positions. This excludes 3 Capitals, Bei Ping West, Liang North, and Nanman(2n) which will all be coded neutral (6 terts in total).
2p: 1 city position plus 9 other regions (10 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 6 neutral city positions, 10 random neutrals = 42 total 3p: 1 city position plus 9 other regions (10 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 5 neutral city positions, 1 random neutral = 42 total 4p: 1 city position plus 7 other regions (8 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 4 neutral city positions, 0 random neutrals = 42 total 5p: 1 city position plus 5 other regions (6 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 3 neutral city positions, 3 random neutrals = 42 total 6p: 1 city position plus 4 other regions (5 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 2 neutral city positions, 4 random neutrals = 42 total 7p: 1 city position plus 4 other regions (5 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 1 neutral city position, 0 random neutrals = 42 total 8p: 1 city position plus 3 other regions (4 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 0 neutral city positions, 4 random neutrals = 42 total
What's the Idea with the title? I know your maps so far have been (Tribal War - Florida) and (Tribal War - Ancient Israel). And there's already a map called (Three Kingdoms of Korea) by [Industrial Helix and Natty Dread]. Are you going to make a series of this? The current name conflicts with (Three Kingdoms of Korea) so perhaps you'd call it (Three Kingdoms of China).
P.S. Yes, I will come back and actually comment on the map itself. Just give it time.
Was this era too early for the great wall of china? I believe it was around this period that they started it. I thought it would be a neat idea to use as an impassible. The mountains you have fit and looked nice on your last map. It would would be nice to see the mountains a little more pronounced on this map with it being china.
koontz1973 wrote:What, no war zone? Just the 3 capitals? Why not some villages and trade routes as well to add another level of game play.
Nope, no War Zone on this one. I've been looking to do something a little simpler. Plus I promised V.J. our next map wouldn't have one.
by cairnswk » Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:21 am I beleive koontz is right...needs spicing up a fraction, but very good start...you've been working on this while the foundry has been somewhat dormant
Lol, yeah, it's pretty slow around here (insert kick in the butt) so I needed something to keep me busy. I'm not sure about spicing it up. I'm looking to keep it simple actually. I think there are a lot of maps these days with too many things going on, I'm of the mindset that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. I also think maps with simple gameplay become more standard maps for players, and thus would like to keep this pretty entry level. Something anyone can play, and enjoy the look and feel of.
by x-raider » Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:55 am What's the Idea with the title? I know your maps so far have been (Tribal War - Florida) and (Tribal War - Ancient Israel). And there's already a map called (Three Kingdoms of Korea) by [Industrial Helix and Natty Dread]. Are you going to make a series of this? The current name conflicts with (Three Kingdoms of Korea) so perhaps you'd call it (Three Kingdoms of China).
This is just something different I wanted to do, and obviously breaks away from the Tribal War series. I've already changed the name of the map to Three Kingdoms of China, which will go nicely with natty's Korea. I'm not sure of any other "Three Kingdoms" for a series, but I haven't looked either.
by generalhead » Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:46 am Was this era too early for the great wall of china? I believe it was around this period that they started it. I thought it would be a neat idea to use as an impassible. The mountains you have fit and looked nice on your last map. It would would be nice to see the mountains a little more pronounced on this map with it being china.
I haven't colored the mountains yet, or done anything but put them down to get the draft up for comment. They won't look like that for long, but that is the shape they will be. As for the Great Wall, this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg shows there wasn't much built at time that would effect gameplay for this map. The Silk Road didn't event pass through enough of this to add. Hence keeping it simple is the way to go.
A lot of the territory borders are really hard to see, especially the in the red region. I like the pattern in the water but is doesn't seem right for some reason. Could be me as usual. I like the idea of this map, good work. I'll check more later. c-ya bud.
ManBungalow wrote:Isn't there a thread for a very similar map hanging around her somewhere?
I'll look tomorrow if no response.
You are correct. The original map was started and abandoned by gimil back in 2008, and I came across it when I was looking to start the map myself. I really love his colors and layout, as well as the simplicity. I tried to give credit to him on the map, but if there is other wording I need just let me know. I also reached out to him a few months ago to discuss but he has left the site as you may know.
by generalhead » Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:00 pm A lot of the territory borders are really hard to see, especially the in the red region. I like the pattern in the water but is doesn't seem right for some reason. Could be me as usual. I like the idea of this map, good work. I'll check more later.
I can darken those borders. Personally I really like the water pattern, but I'll play around with the opacity to see how it looks. Thanks for the comments as always GH.
CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-01-01: - Updated the title and added a slight drop shadow. The positioning still needs to be adjusted though. - Brought out the tert borders a little, especially for Wu. - Toned down the Wei mini-map labels. - Added the one-way assault through the mountains. - Updated the mountains. - Other general cosmetic touch ups.
Looking for some input on the capital bonus. Is it too simple the way it is? Should it be something like Hold all 3 for one round to win, or +5 for 3, etc.? I think other than that most of the gameplay issues were all worked out on the original map, but please let me know some thoughts.
OK seamus, I am going to be brutal here, so please do not take anything personal.
Map background is great, not much can be done on that apart from touch ups. Territ lines do seem a little hard in places. Might be an idea to swap the colours out. Colours are going to be a problem. You will need to change them.
Mountains, do not work on this map. Go and look at similar maps with bright colours. You will see they all have inverted v shapes with a single colour in them. Either that or a top down view of them will work. Next to Jiaozhi, you have a red symbol that is very faded, what is this?
Game play. Look at this from natty dread to see what I meant about adding some trade routes and other towns onto the map. Only holding 3 cities where you may deploy next to them is going to be bad for the game play boys. They will get you to change this for a winning condition. I suggest at least one capital for each bonus zone. Have trade routes between them with the winning condition of holding 4 complete trade routes. Bung a bonus onto each one and players will go for them.
how about placing invading armies into the neighboring counties with supply lines leading back to the capital. if supply line is held, you get an auto deploy on your armies that can attack up to two terits away?
nicarus wrote:how about placing invading armies into the neighboring counties with supply lines leading back to the capital. if supply line is held, you get an auto deploy on your armies that can attack up to two terits away?
You cannot get an auto deploy like this, but a normal bonus would work. But the idea of having some sort of bombardments sound nice. How about capitals can bombard each other?
koontz1973 wrote:OK seamus, I am going to be brutal here, so please do not take anything personal.
Man if you think that's brutal you should meet my wife.
koontz1973 wrote:Map background is great, not much can be done on that apart from touch ups. Territ lines do seem a little hard in places.
Thanks. The tert lines are all the same color for each kingdom, but because the bonus colors behind them change they look "harder" depending on the background. Apart from making them all black or super dark, which I don't want to do, I think they look good the way they are. If during graphics there is strong push back, which I doubt, I will look at it again.
koontz1973 wrote:Might be an idea to swap the colours out. Colours are going to be a problem. You will need to change them.
I'm not sure why I would need to change them so you'll need to explain that for me. I have looked at those cb images and worked with them for weeks now, and as far as I can tell everything is clearly distinguishable from everything else, plus there are mini maps which are clear as well.
koontz1973 wrote:Mountains, do not work on this map. Go and look at similar maps with bright colours. You will see they all have inverted v shapes with a single colour in them. Either that or a top down view of them will work.
Yes I know, they don't work for me either so I'm redoing them, and they are looking pretty good actually.
koontz1973 wrote:Next to Jiaozhi, you have a red symbol that is very faded, what is this?
Just a faded bonsai tree. You no likey?
koontz1973 wrote:Game play. Look at this from natty dread to see what I meant about adding some trade routes and other towns onto the map. Only holding 3 cities where you may deploy next to them is going to be bad for the game play boys. They will get you to change this for a winning condition. I suggest at least one capital for each bonus zone. Have trade routes between them with the winning condition of holding 4 complete trade routes. Bring a bonus onto each one and players will go for them.
The capital bonus wont be a winning condition, I was just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. I'll leave it open to discussion, but a +3 for 3, or a +4 for 3 would work just fine for me. I would also keep one of them open as a starting position to help keep them in play.
Yes, I'm very familiar with that map, and would have loved for natty to have finished it. I also know what you meant about trade routes, but I'm extremely resistant to bring those aspects into this map, and at this time don't really plan to add them. Just because they could be, doesn't mean they should be. I want this to be simple, gameplay and estheticly. Adding them not only clutters up the map, but also takes away other limited space needed to explain the trade routes, and everything else. I want to keep the explaining, and the need for explaining down to an absolute minimum.
I hope that makes sense, as I'm not trying to be stubborn just looking to add a map that is simple and straightforward.
I'm not sure why I would need to change them so you'll need to explain that for me. I have looked at those cb images and worked with them for weeks now, and as far as I can tell everything is clearly distinguishable from everything else, plus there are mini maps which are clear as well.
The colours are not intuitive enough. With the 3 separate mini maps, players are going to be looking all over the place for bonuses. Top two CB tests show all of the bottom in brown. These tests are for the average CB person so someone with a heavier CB problem, may not see the regions when they change. The bottom one has the same effect but for bottom left and top. It will need to be made clearer on the changes. Try a heavier black line between the three.
Man if you think that's brutal you should meet my wife.
If she has read 50 shades of grey, then yes please.
Just a faded bonsai tree. You no likey?
Make it look like one and I will like.
Trade route, I understand the need to keep it simple, I keep trying to make them myself, but I end up getting bored and adding extras in. So no trade routes (yet) but add in other capitals. One for each bonus zone. Forget about the bombards (for now). That gives you 8 capitals.
I'm not sure why I would need to change them so you'll need to explain that for me. I have looked at those cb images and worked with them for weeks now, and as far as I can tell everything is clearly distinguishable from everything else, plus there are mini maps which are clear as well.
The colours are not intuitive enough. With the 3 separate mini maps, players are going to be looking all over the place for bonuses. Top two CB tests show all of the bottom in brown. These tests are for the average CB person so someone with a heavier CB problem, may not see the regions when they change. The bottom one has the same effect but for bottom left and top. It will need to be made clearer on the changes. Try a heavier black line between the three.
I would strongly disagree unless nolefan or some other color blind folks say otherwise. Maybe it's my monitor, or just that I've been looking at the images for a while, but even the brown areas in the first two CB test images are different to me. They are all distinct to me on the map, and the mini-maps. I can certainly darken the lines between them, but even those are clear to me.
I also strongly disagree regarding the intuitiveness of the map and the colors. Looking at all of the maps on the site this is one of the more simple, and clearly laid out maps as they come. I really don't see any players having to "look all over the place" to understand that the top two terts are Bei Ping and receive a +1 bonus. Compared to Third Crusade, All Your Base, and many others this is pretty intuitive I would say. And if players have to look at the map for a minute to understand the gameplay and what they are doing, then good, all great players do that anyway, and besides it won't take long to figure it out.
koontz1973 wrote:
Man if you think that's brutal you should meet my wife.
If she has read 50 shades of grey, then yes please.
Just a faded bonsai tree. You no likey?
Make it look like one and I will like.
Ha, ha. With twin toddlers and a 4 year old who has time to read? We'll wait for the DVD. I'll try to bring it out, but if it's too distracting I'll prob just drop it. We'll see.
koontz1973 wrote:Trade route, I understand the need to keep it simple, I keep trying to make them myself, but I end up getting bored and adding extras in. So no trade routes (yet) but add in other capitals. One for each bonus zone. Forget about the bombards (for now). That gives you 8 capitals.
I can't just add in other capitals. There were only three, if anything we'd be adding city icons, or something, but even that I'm hesitant to do. I'll keep playing the same card, there are lots of maps with no additional bonuses, so I understand it can be done, but that doesn't mean it should or that without them the map wouldn't be appealing to the widest possible spectrum of players from beginners to experts.
Can we at least agree to Draft Stamp this one so we can get some more eyes on it? That's for the feedback as always my friend.
Last edited by Seamus76 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seamus, they are different in the CB tests, and they are easy to see the individual bonuses, but with the same overall colours (brown or grey) they become the same. You do not need to change the colours completely, but make the green a different colour so it does not become the same as the other two in the tests.
Sorry, I forgot to add more before posting that last reply, please take a look again regarding the Capitals.
by koontz1973 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:57 pm Seamus, they are different in the CB tests, and they are easy to see the individual bonuses, but with the same overall colours (brown or grey) they become the same. You do not need to change the colours completely, but make the green a different colour so it does not become the same as the other two in the tests.
I have to ask though, if you say and to quote your above statement, "they are different in the CB tests, and they are easy to see the individual bonuses", then why do I need to change anything if they are different? I understand they all turn brown, but they are clearly different shades, and thus each area is clearly different from the one next to it. If the colors become a big issue as we progress, especially for the CB community I can certainly update them pretty easily. I'd still like to push for a Draft Stamp so we can move this up and get a few more eyes on it.
OK, if you are a player with CB problems and you see a map with lots of brown or grey. Each brown or grey may be different (for the tests, yes they are, but these tests are an average) but the overall brown or grey may make someone look for a bonus zone in the wrong place. Remember, the map must be intuitive just by looking at it. But I do not have a problem with the colours. It is just my personal opinion to try and make life easier for some of the players. Keep it the same as is, but just keep it on your radar incase for later though.
As for adding the other cities, ask yourself this, what makes this map worth making? What is different from all the other maps we have. This map was originally started when we had less than 100 maps. Their is really nothing new to this map regarding gameplay or graphics. I do understand the reason for wanting to keep it simple, I really do, but at the same time, I can see a need for something different. As a player, why play this?
Do adding more cities to this map make much difference? The answer is not much in anyway, but it makes enough difference as right now we only have San Marino with that type of GP. Even that does not have a winning condition on it so again this map is different.
A different icon for the cities, a line of text and another bonus to add into the xml. That does not make for a map that is going to be overly complicated to make. Give me a good reason not to add more cities onto the map and I will drop my idea.
koontz1973 wrote:OK, if you are a player with CB problems and you see a map with lots of brown or grey. Each brown or grey may be different (for the tests, yes they are, but these tests are an average) but the overall brown or grey may make someone look for a bonus zone in the wrong place. Remember, the map must be intuitive just by looking at it. But I do not have a problem with the colours. It is just my personal opinion to try and make life easier for some of the players. Keep it the same as is, but just keep it on your radar incase for later though.
I will certainly do that. Thanks again for the feedback.
koontz1973 wrote:As for adding the other cities, ask yourself this, what makes this map worth making? What is different from all the other maps we have. This map was originally started when we had less than 100 maps. Their is really nothing new to this map regarding gameplay or graphics. I do understand the reason for wanting to keep it simple, I really do, but at the same time, I can see a need for something different. As a player, why play this?
Do adding more cities to this map make much difference? The answer is not much in anyway, but it makes enough difference as right now we only have San Marino with that type of GP. Even that does not have a winning condition on it so again this map is different.
A different icon for the cities, a line of text and another bonus to add into the xml. That does not make for a map that is going to be overly complicated to make. Give me a good reason not to add more cities onto the map and I will drop my idea.
I completely see your point, and this is what the foundry is supposed to work out, so thanks. I didn't think about a map being too simple, and the time period in which it was started. I do think there is still a place for basic maps that offer nothing more than a change of pace for the eyes. However, I do want the map to be different, and yet simple, so I agree adding cities will be a great thing.
To that point, what would be your thoughts on a Capital Bonus and a City Bonus? Right now I have the Capital bonus changed to +4 for 3, with one of them open as a starting position.
I would say to have all capitals start neutral. The +4 for 3 is OK. You have 8 bonuses so 8 cities. Word it like this - Every two cities +1. Give each city out as a starting position with 3 neutrals on them. Make the cities have at least 2 adjoining territs and I can not see a problem.
koontz1973 wrote:I would say to have all capitals start neutral. The +4 for 3 is OK. You have 8 bonuses so 8 cities. Word it like this - Every two cities +1. Give each city out as a starting position with 3 neutrals on them. Make the cities have at least 2 adjoining territs and I can not see a problem.
Thanks, I'll be working on it. Did you mean to say give each city as a "starting position", and then with 3 neutrals?
