Peloponnesian War [Done]

[gimil]

Im in agreement that this map is very similar in theme to your roman empire map. I would personally like to see something with a little moer greek flair. But with so much work already done I'm not gonig to push it. That said ... this map isn't all that great to look at for me. Right now the blue sea is far to prominent, its brightness drags my attention to it (away from anything else) and begins to hurt my head rather quickly.

Before I can give this map a good looking at I would like to see something to break up the sea a bit, a darker colour, a texture or some kind of faded image of a greek solider or something is need so that the water does stand so prominently.

[ZeakCytho]

I really disagree with Gimil here. While this map may not have a unique flavor - it is very similar to Imperium Romanum - I think the graphics are top notch. If the sea were textured any stronger it would take away from the many islands and text that's on the sea. There's a fine balance between being too boring and being too busy, and I think qwert has it just about right.

[ga7]

I agree with Zeak, because the land is clear enough I find it a very nice contrast between the two; there's a fair bit of islands territs which would definitely be less visible if the sea was darker.

[Qwert]

Lets answer to all

by The Neon Peon » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:42 pm

The "Despotovo" on your signature is cut off.

Well these only a minor part of signature,its not to much importan.

by Androidz » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:50 pm

is the Qwert 2008 when you started or when you think it quenched? in last case, it should say 2009. cause you wont quench it before then;).

Well i will add 2008-09.

by gimil » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:11 pm

Im in agreement that this map is very similar in theme to your roman empire map. I would personally like to see something with a little moer greek flair. But with so much work already done I'm not gonig to push it. That said ... this map isn't all that great to look at for me. Right now the blue sea is far to prominent, its brightness drags my attention to it (away from anything else) and begins to hurt my head rather quickly.

Before I can give this map a good looking at I would like to see something to break up the sea a bit, a darker colour, a texture or some kind of faded image of a greek solider or something is need so that the water does stand so prominently.

You know what is amazing,you CA guys is like brother,what one say,another support. What is wrong if these map have similar preferences like Imperium romanum,its these bad? WidowMaker create 6 similar maps,and i dont see nothing bad. Graphicaly these map when you compare with Imperium Romanum,is much better, but maybe you dont compare,maybe you just read Oaktown post and then reply. "Brightness of sea hurt my head" do you know what you say? Its look that im create some weapons to kill you instead sea, these is so big exaggerate(i use translator to find proper words).

this map isn't all that great to look at for me.

What these mean? What is your standard for graphic? You are amazing CA,mine last project you even dont want to post,only in finish you posted 1 or 2 time. Graphicaly these map is much better then previous mine maps,what is normal,because mine every next map is beter then previous. I know that because when i look Imperium Romanum and look These map,these is obviously. Im trying to create something what look good, and in begining i have darken sea,but these whas not good ,and i experiment to find appropriate sea colour texture,who will look good and not be to much distracting for people. You are first person who say that these sea colour "hurt mine head" . Every mine map can not move to not have some problems with CA.

[Qwert]

work on xml,is almost finish i only need to centralised numbers.

[Incandenza]

Hey, qwert, I've been meaning to post something longish here, but the holidays have interfered somewhat... one quick question tho, and I know I've already asked it, but it's worth revisiting: how are you planning on laying out the neutrals? 'Cause it seems to be that your best bet is to have mostly 1's, with some strategic 2's and 3's separating the players, and maybe 3's or 4's on the +1 helmets. As far as the swords, well, personally I don't think that anyone is actually going to ever use that bonus, since to get it you already need to own like 90% of the map...

[Qwert]

by Incandenza » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:18 pm

Hey, qwert, I've been meaning to post something longish here, but the holidays have interfered somewhat... one quick question tho, and I know I've already asked it, but it's worth revisiting: how are you planning on laying out the neutrals? 'Cause it seems to be that your best bet is to have mostly 1's, with some strategic 2's and 3's separating the players, and maybe 3's or 4's on the +1 helmets. As far as the swords, well, personally I don't think that anyone is actually going to ever use that bonus, since to get it you already need to own like 90% of the map...

All neutral will be 3. You all ready have +2 autodeploy and get 3 normal for every turn. I think that these is enough. I play feudal war,and if dices is bad even 8 can not help you to take one territory. I want to things on these map go slow step by step,and i dont like that people get to big autodeploy.

[Incandenza]

by Incandenza » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:18 pm

Hey, qwert, I've been meaning to post something longish here, but the holidays have interfered somewhat... one quick question tho, and I know I've already asked it, but it's worth revisiting: how are you planning on laying out the neutrals? 'Cause it seems to be that your best bet is to have mostly 1's, with some strategic 2's and 3's separating the players, and maybe 3's or 4's on the +1 helmets. As far as the swords, well, personally I don't think that anyone is actually going to ever use that bonus, since to get it you already need to own like 90% of the map...

All neutral will be 3. You all ready have +2 autodeploy and get 3 normal for every turn. I think that these is enough. I play feudal war,and if dices is bad even 8 can not help you to take one territory. I want to things on these map go slow step by step,and i dont like that people get to big autodeploy.

I dunno, qwert. If they're all 3's, then you have quite a few terits (Mesembrians, Lesbians, Chians, whatever "6" ends up being, etc) that no one is ever going to bother to take, save maybe in a no-cards build game. For almost all play modes (especially escalating, 1v1, and team games) there's no point in taking anything that's not an easy 1 or on a path toward the enemy.

[Qwert]

I dunno, qwert. If they're all 3's, then you have quite a few terits (Mesembrians, Lesbians, Chians, whatever "6" ends up being, etc) that no one is ever going to bother to take, save maybe in a no-cards build game. For almost all play modes (especially escalating, 1v1, and team games) there's no point in taking anything that's not an easy 1 or on a path toward the enemy.

You forget,that in these maps,every territory can be worth if you play no card games,and when you take 12 territory,its extra 1 army,next 3 territory another 1 army. In no card games who manage to hold biger number of territory,they will get biger bonuses.
These all territory what you say,will be behind some players,and if he not take in begining he will take after initial run.

[Incandenza]

I know how the terit bonus works, qwert. What I'm saying is that you can't just say "it's great for no cards games" and leave it at that. Hell, you're making the map, do you want to set it up so that in 90% of games people only conquer 50% of the territories? Besides, the map will be tactically waaaaay more interesting if you play with the neutral values. Honestly, should the Lesbians and Macedonians be considered the same strength?

If you work with the neutral values, you can shape the gameplay, give each starting point its own sphere of influence, and make it a bit easier for people to attain 12+ terits. I know you're looking for slow gameplay, but this might be a bit too slow.

[Qwert]

by Incandenza » Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:42 am

I know how the terit bonus works, qwert. What I'm saying is that you can't just say "it's great for no cards games" and leave it at that. Hell, you're making the map, do you want to set it up so that in 90% of games people only conquer 50% of the territories? Besides, the map will be tactically waaaaay more interesting if you play with the neutral values. Honestly, should the Lesbians and Macedonians be considered the same strength?

If you work with the neutral values, you can shape the gameplay, give each starting point its own sphere of influence, and make it a bit easier for people to attain 12+ terits. I know you're looking for slow gameplay, but this might be a bit too slow.

You forget that these map have more issles in east part of map,and that opponent who start in these part of map,if i change neutral walue from 3 to 1,will have extra fast conquer of these territory, who other opponent dont have.
Example is simple-Romans,Persians will very quickly take biger number of territory,becaiuse hes neighbour with one territory,these is not possible for others,because they need to defend against more territory. Lesbians,if you say that need to worth less,then he will be easy to take,because hes in road for conquer,and defend againt one territory,Macedonians if they worth more,and if i put more neutrals,then i can blocking these player,to not move faster,and these territory muct defend against 7 territory. 3 neutrals is standard for all maps,its same like maps who dont have neutrals,everybody start with 3 army, so you can take neutrals like 9 player.

[Qwert]

xml for small map is finish,now i will start with large map.

[Incandenza]

I'm not just talking about islands, I'm talking about strategically unimportant terits, like Achaeans or Paonians or Chalcidians.

And to say "3 neutrals is standard for all maps" is simply not true. Every single other conquest map has variable neutrals. Take a look at Feudal or the AoRs if you don't believe me.

Here's the thing, qwert: this map will be way more interesting if you put the same amount of thought into the gameplay as you have into the graphics. Hell, I like this map, I'm willing to help you out, but to just put neutral 3's in every terit and say "done" would be a real shame.

Okay, let's take one starting point and I'll show you what I'm talking about:
Take the Persians.
Okay, first terit is Carpatos, that should be a 1, get players off to a quick start.
Next terit to be taken would be Cretans. Now, that's a bonus, so it should be a 2 or 3.
Moving outward, you have Rhodians. Another 1. Same with Sporadians.
Dorian Cycladians should also maybe be a 1.
Now it gets tricky, because the Persians will start butting up against the players with Skyros or Icaria. So let's put a heavier border between spheres of influence: Halicarnassians at a 3, and Athenians at a 5 (it's both a border and a bonus). It'll be kind of like the 10's that border the kingdoms in Feudal, but softer.

You can apply this rough concept to all the starting points. And while each one won't be exactly the same, they'll all have their advantages and disadvantages, same way as the AoR maps.

[Qwert]

by Incandenza » Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:59 am

I'm not just talking about islands, I'm talking about strategically unimportant terits, like Achaeans or Paonians or Chalcidians.

And to say "3 neutrals is standard for all maps" is simply not true. Every single other conquest map has variable neutrals. Take a look at Feudal or the AoRs if you don't believe me.

Here's the thing, qwert: this map will be way more interesting if you put the same amount of thought into the gameplay as you have into the graphics. Hell, I like this map, I'm willing to help you out, but to just put neutral 3's in every terit and say "done" would be a real shame.

Okay, let's take one starting point and I'll show you what I'm talking about:
Take the Persians.
Okay, first terit is Carpatos, that should be a 1, get players off to a quick start.
Next terit to be taken would be Cretans. Now, that's a bonus, so it should be a 2 or 3.
Moving outward, you have Rhodians. Another 1. Same with Sporadians.
Dorian Cycladians should also maybe be a 1.
Now it gets tricky, because the Persians will start butting up against the players with Skyros or Icaria. So let's put a heavier border between spheres of influence: Halicarnassians at a 3, and Athenians at a 5 (it's both a border and a bonus). It'll be kind of like the 10's that border the kingdoms in Feudal, but softer.

You can apply this rough concept to all the starting points. And while each one won't be exactly the same, they'll all have their advantages and disadvantages, same way as the AoR maps.

I work little researc of feudal map, and these map is not good balanced,because north kingdom ,have advantage over other players,and he only need to kill 10 neutral and to take northern plains for big bonuses,and he have good defence over first neighbour(+20 neutral).All these map have more neutral then what i want to create-Feudal war have 3,14 neutral per territory,New world have even more neutrals then Feudal. Aor maybe have even more then these two maps.
Mine map dont have countries,and creating borders of 5-10 neutrals dont have any logic.
You first play start with 8 army, and these is enough for conquer territory. I dont understand why you want to create territories with 1 neutral,because persians will easy take 4 territory.
Like i say in normal games 3 neutral is standard number.
Also i can not apply these concept to all starting point,because Dardanians and scyros when move deep in lands,will be in trouble to take territory,because to many surounding neighbours,and in that way i will unbalance map,give other much bigger advantage.

[Qwert]

Ok XML is finaly finish
map checker
http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php
xml
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/25 ... ba%202.xml
small
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188 ... c21dec.png
large
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z188 ... Velika.png

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[Qwert]

i whas think a little abouth neutral walue,and i create these possible option.

Click image to enlarge.

[Incandenza]

As a general concept, I can totally live with that. I'll have to take a closer look when I'm not at work, 'cause I'm sure I'll want to nitpick one or two, but generally, yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. Thanks, qwert.

Now, let's talk about the sword bonus. As it stands, by the time someone has all four swords, they're probably only a turn or two from winning the game anyway. What if you split up the bonus, say +2 or +3 for 2, +5 for 3, and +7 (or more) for all four?

[ZeakCytho]

Now, let's talk about the sword bonus. As it stands, by the time someone has all four swords, they're probably only a turn or two from winning the game anyway. What if you split up the bonus, say +2 or +3 for 2, +5 for 3, and +7 (or more) for all four?

I agree with you in theory, but qwert is really pressed for legend space. Where would he put the information like that? He'd have to get rid of the inset, which would actually be a good thing, but it'd be a real squeeze in that area of the map.

[Qwert]

Now, let's talk about the sword bonus. As it stands, by the time someone has all four swords, they're probably only a turn or two from winning the game anyway. What if you split up the bonus, say +2 or +3 for 2, +5 for 3, and +7 (or more) for all four?

For me its much easy to add one or two more swords for same bonuses,because i realy can not put these splits informacions abouth these sugestion.
In that way will create much harder to take these bonuses.

[Incandenza]

Now, let's talk about the sword bonus. As it stands, by the time someone has all four swords, they're probably only a turn or two from winning the game anyway. What if you split up the bonus, say +2 or +3 for 2, +5 for 3, and +7 (or more) for all four?

I agree with you in theory, but qwert is really pressed for legend space. Where would he put the information like that? He'd have to get rid of the inset, which would actually be a good thing, but it'd be a real squeeze in that area of the map.

Well, there's a bit of space, but more could be made if the Cretan helmet and army circle were moved to the right, and the inset could perhaps overlap the western bit of Crete.

[Qwert]

Well, there's a bit of space, but more could be made if the Cretan helmet and army circle were moved to the right, and the inset could perhaps overlap the western bit of Crete.

like i say,its much easy is to add one or two more sword,instead to moving Crete,and then to moving inset.
Crete is now in right position(what is normal i use real map og Greece), and i realy think that will not be good to do that.
Option who is most suitabile is-
:to stay 4 sword for bonus 5
:to create 5 sword for bonus 5
:to create 6 sword for bonus 5

what you think ?

[Qwert]

Well after long thinking,i realise that 6 sword to hold will be to hard to achieve,so i create that these bonuse be 5swords for 5 army.

Click image to enlarge.

[bryguy]

1) The text is really small, and a little hard to read
2) Are u sure the army circles are big enough to fit armies?
3) Where is the main inset supposed to be at?


Thats all I can find to comment on, its and excellent map!

[Qwert]

by bryguy » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:23 am
1) The text is really small, and a little hard to read
2) Are u sure the army circles are big enough to fit armies?
3) Where is the main inset supposed to be at?
4)Thats all I can find to comment on, its and excellent map!

1)im all ready increase size of text from 9 to 9,5-10 is to big. Maybe is problem for you names who sound strange?
2)Page 1 post 1-you will find finish XML and go to XML checker(you have link)and take xml code and images and check these.
3)Main inset?
4)Thanks.

[MarVal]

1) The text is really small, and a little hard to read

I can see the names very good! No problems for my eyes

Grtz
MarVal