Conquer Club

wow....

that... looks... COOL!!!


i just dont like all those attack lines, they annoy me to death

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?

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:Guys attacking the walls from the moat??? They are using ladders, lol. Maybe we can draw some to make the idea more plausible.

Ladders are good.

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.

I feel the same way about crosswords.

And I guess if the empty space doesn't bother you then that's the direction you've chosen.

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.

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:
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, lol I think it would increase the battle feeling. What do you say?

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.

Also, the Legions could be a guy in armor on a horse (a knight) while you've got the foot soldiers filling out the ranks around the standards. I think by filling out some of the map you might make it easier to solve other issues (like the attack lines).

I seems to me,... that if someone gets stuck outside of the castle walls, it will be impossible to get back inside. Or am I being dumb? Other than that, I don't have a single thing to say about the map. I even like the attack lines.

Just to let people know Marvaddin is away for awhile so there will not be much development on the gameplay, but i will keep working on the graphics, and in that vain i have a update with a bit more life in the attackers.

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.

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.

here is the update:
[bigimg]http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5492/siege03hz5.png[/bigimg]

I could add more variety to the attacking armies, might change the two central legions to be cavalry, but i dont think i will make any individual changes to the soldiers, because there are quite a few there, and i dont think it is worth wasting time on it, when i could be working on the defenders.
I have not done anything to the attack lines yet, because the gameplay might be changing, but with Marvaddin away i might try new lines on this map then i will know what to use when Marvaddin returns.

Quench!

Just had a quick play around with the attack lines, is this new style any better, meant to be like a line in the ground.

[bigimg]http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3407/siege04kc3.png[/bigimg]

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? Also the invading army looks a little like robots.

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?

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...
I could add paths a bit like the main one down the centre of the map, the only problem with that is there is a risk of them not being clear enough. THe i could combine the two, have worn paths, then add over the very transparent attack lines.

mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.

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?

Telvannia wrote:

mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.

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?

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.

ZeakCytho wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.

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?

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.

what he said.

I dont like where there are army circles on top of the people.

I also dont love the font, i think you need a thicker one.

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.

ZeakCytho wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

mibi wrote: Also the invading army looks a little like robots.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Kaplowitz wrote:I dont like where there are army circles on top of the people.

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 also dont love the font, i think you need a thicker one.

The font is already up for a change.



In other news here are the attack routes on the whole map, as you can see the attack routes between towers and oil barrels caused trouble. As did between the ground and towers...

[bigimg]http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1258/siege05ho5.png[/bigimg]

Attack lines are much better on the ground they almost look like dirt trails between the positions

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.

For the standards, you can use the classic eagle and lion. Or you can leave them blank and abandon the circles completely. I would recommend getting rid of the circles completely and using the banners on everything in their stead. This would be a great way of implementing the army shadow into the map graphics as that tends to look better.

Too bad about the horses tho. That would have been a great addition. How about some guys in full suits of armor? Or pike men?

Last mention for now, those circles for the oil barrel will not fit the 88 required for the map. Especially when this gets shrunk on the small map.

snapdoodle 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.

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 great

I have tried to deal with the pixelisation problem on the attack lines, im not quick sure how it happened though...
And i have made a attempt cavalry when looking at it remember the artist has never ridden a horse before and does not know the first thing about how someone would, so it is probably not very realistic, not to mention i dont think the horse model looked good to begin with too much like a wooden toy horse
I have also remove the territory names, to stop people complaining about them, i will readd them in a new font soon. Also i like snapdoodle idea for getting rid of army circles so i have got rid of them, and plan to redo the attackers standard to incorporate an army circle into it. But i think the defenders do not need a change because they are pretty much one grey colour anyway.

[bigimg]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3691/siege06ez9.png[/bigimg]

Awesome job on the cavalry! only thing now is just to get them a little more rounded.

Also, now the lines look fine.

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?


Also, the wall is out of proportions. It looks like the men could just reach up and climb over. Maybe make it slightly bigger?

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.

Awesome cavalry man. You may want to push the guy a little away from the horse head just a smidge. But it looks good!

That's all I'll comment on for now.

i like it a lot

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 hope i have cleared this problem up.

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?

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:Also, the wall is out of proportions. It looks like the men could just reach up and climb over. Maybe make it slightly bigger?

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.

Now heres the update to show how the armies numbers might work on the banners, also i have redone the attack banners to remove the roman connotation's, but i have not changed all the banner untill i know if people prefer them, because it will take awhile to change all the banners, and it would be pointless if no-one liked them.

[bigimg]http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/872/siege07pb6.png[/bigimg]

Sadly since my last post i managed to loose the new attacker flag, my own fault for not saving it often enough But dont fear if it is wanted a i can easily remake. In other news i have tried to reduce the roboticness of some of the attackers, i still have to redo the attacking archers.

[bigimg]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/5483/siege08oh4.png[/bigimg]

Looking good keep it up

[adv. idea]

One thing that bugs me about the present attack routes: some are straight, some are curved. I can understand straight paths when there's this perfectly obvious dirt trail, but I would suggest meandering pathways for anywhere else. The attack paths as they are seem to encourage the automaton view of your soldiers, since they only move in straight lines a la The Robot.