[Abandoned] - Europe 1099 - The 1st Crusade

[Beko the Great]

Hey guys this has been too calm over here... Please give me more feedback!

[jefjef]

Hey guys this has been too calm over here... Please give me more feedback!

I'm ready to play. What else ya need to know? That I think italy should be worth 4 due to its location & the large bonuses it borders. And again you will say no. So lets play.

[Beko the Great]

Hey guys this has been too calm over here... Please give me more feedback!

I'm ready to play. What else ya need to know? That I think italy should be worth 4 due to its location & the large bonuses it borders. And again you will say no. So lets play.

Thank you Jefjef for continuous support... I'm just asking for graphical issues specialy by the foundry members or the graphic stamp since xml is almost ready. I really need to know what's missing in graphics of this map for it is perfect.

[pamoa]

your mountain are still floating over the map
look at the effect you have between Raska and Thessalonike
due to the border they end diagonally
you have to do something like that for each single one
so they won't look like huts but be more pyramidal

[Beko the Great]

Nice tip pamoa, you mean, specially in the HRE/Balkans border right?

[Teflon Kris]

The developments are great Beko

In the legend you may be able to explain the one-way attacks with and arrow and "One-Way Attacks" (to save space if you need).

The numbers in the legend are a bit tricky to read - well the 3s and 5s look very similar.

[danfrank]

when i first saw this map .. i was like oh boy another europe map. But this map is turning out great. it has a cool theme .. and the pastel graphics are unique. . One question... Is this map going to have an objective also ? Perhaps holding all the crosses or something like that.

[MrBenn]

Hello!

I've just spent some time poring over your last update, and have the following observations (in no particular order):

1. On the large map the border between Nikaia and Trapezountos looks like it's gone funny.

2. You probably don't need two arrows from Castilla to Qurtaba - one should suffice - particularly as you have the one-way attack also mentioned on the legend. While mentioning the arrows, you could probabyl turn down the darkness of them a touch - they are the darkest thing on the map and leap out a bit more than I really think they should.

3. The colours of the shields on the legend don't quite appear to correspond to the actual colours of the regions... I'll mention the Byzantine Empire as the best example - which looks blue on the legend, and is presumably the dark grey area

4. On a similar vein, I'm assuming that Roma and Yerushalayim aren't actually part of the HRE bonus area? I'm making that assumption based on the colouring of the regions and the first "feature" in the legend - although it seems a bit odd that Roma is NOT part of HRE..

5. With the "special" symbols on the map (Shield, Port, Crescent), I know you've placed them consistently to the left of the territory name, but in some places, I think there is room to deviate from this convention, which could help to fit names properly/completely within the correct territory, and more importantly in the case of Al-Madinah, ensure the symbol is in the corresponding territory. It would also be nice to see the Venedig Port symbol on the coast!

6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

You should take encouragement from the fact that these are pretty minor things really. Keep up the good work

[jefjef]

Ports can one-way attack Yash. Can they attack each other too?

[00iCon]

One major issue I can see is the colours in the legend not matching the territory colours, or is it just me?

2. You probably don't need two arrows from Castilla to Qurtaba - one should suffice - particularly as you have the one-way attack also mentioned on the legend. While mentioning the arrows, you could probabyl turn down the darkness of them a touch - they are the darkest thing on the map and leap out a bit more than I really think they should.

I think you should leave the arrows in, gives it a sort of battle plan look.

[ender516]

The order of the zones in the legends is different on the small map and the large map. Seems unnecessary and possibly confusing.

[jefjef]

Can ports attack each other? They should.

Is there a bonus for holding multiple shields? There could be. It would create additional combat objectives. ( like +1 to hold say 3 of em.)

Why is Roma only 1 auto deploy? It is wedged between the two largest bonus areas & in the middle of the map.

The legend & bonuses are easily understood. A lot better than Age of Merchants.

[samuelc812]

Hey Beko,

Nice Map you have here

• You've definently achieved an 11th century look with this map, Well Done
• I notice there is a big splotch of some sort in the Friesland Army Circle? Is that meant to be there?
• Mountains look awesome in my opinion, well done!
• Have you considered putting the title of the map, above the Territories and Features?, It looks a bit out of place and un-noticable down the bottom there...

All in all, i'm really pleased with the way this map has gone, well done mate you should be very proud of you're achievements

~Sam

[MrBenn]

I've spoken with Beko, who's indicated that development of this map is on hold for a little while.

Once an update has been made, one of the foundry moderators will be happy to put this map back into the main foundry

--MrBenn

[Beko the Great]

Here it is...

The version 19!


Large:

Click image to enlarge.

Small:

Click image to enlarge.

What was done:

The order of the zones in the legends is different on the small map and the large map. Seems unnecessary and possibly confusing.

Fixed

The developments are great Beko

In the legend you may be able to explain the one-way attacks with and arrow and "One-Way Attacks" (to save space if you need).

I agreed with this suggestion! Done.

1. On the large map the border between Nikaia and Trapezountos looks like it's gone funny.

Fixed

2. You probably don't need two arrows from Castilla to Qurtaba - one should suffice - particularly as you have the one-way attack also mentioned on the legend. While mentioning the arrows, you could probabyl turn down the darkness of them a touch - they are the darkest thing on the map and leap out a bit more than I really think they should.

Did everything

3. The colours of the shields on the legend don't quite appear to correspond to the actual colours of the regions... I'll mention the Byzantine Empire as the best example - which looks blue on the legend, and is presumably the dark grey area

I gave a touch on Islamic Caliphates and Byzantine Shields. Legend is more coherent with the map.

4. On a similar vein, I'm assuming that Roma and Yerushalayim aren't actually part of the HRE bonus area? I'm making that assumption based on the colouring of the regions and the first "feature" in the legend - although it seems a bit odd that Roma is NOT part of HRE..

Rome was only part of HRE in the 9th and 10th century. From then on, it was kind of an Autonomous city, known as the "Comune of Rome". Check Wikipedia

5. With the "special" symbols on the map (Shield, Port, Crescent), I know you've placed them consistently to the left of the territory name, but in some places, I think there is room to deviate from this convention, which could help to fit names properly/completely within the correct territory, and more importantly in the case of Al-Madinah, ensure the symbol is in the corresponding territory. It would also be nice to see the Venedig Port symbol on the coast!

Placement of "stuff" in the map is really a major issue, though, the Port of Venedig in the sea it's not relevant for map understanding and would confuse the things a bit in the surrounding territories. Al-Madinah Symbol, I agree it should be in the territory, but, there's no more room for it, so in this matter I've not change nothing.

6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

Even in a different colour not sure if it would be more enlightening or confusing...

Cheers!

[thenobodies80]

[Moved]

Welcome Back!

Nobodies

[Koganosi]

Looks wonderfull this map. I wanne freaking play it now. Fix it mate. Cant wait . . Btw there is something in the Friesland circle it looks like a drop of coffee. XD Is that used to be there?

Urs

Koganosi.

[ender516]

6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

Even in a different colour not sure if it would be more enlightening or confusing...

Cheers!

Well, you might consider a special symbol used only on Yerushalayim, similar to the gold star of David that the Third Crusade map is using. With something like that on the map and tacked on the end of the relevant statement in the Features legend, it should be clear to everyone what is going on.

[Beko the Great]

Looks wonderfull this map. I wanne freaking play it now. Fix it mate. Cant wait . . Btw there is something in the Friesland circle it looks like a drop of coffee. XD Is that used to be there?

Urs

Koganosi.

That cyrcle already pointed before is a piece of water and I just put the army circle above it... Though it is graphically not apealling and has no gameplay meaning so I guess I'll remove it out.

6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

Even in a different colour not sure if it would be more enlightening or confusing...

Cheers!

Well, you might consider a special symbol used only on Yerushalayim, similar to the gold star of David that the Third Crusade map is using. With something like that on the map and tacked on the end of the relevant statement in the Features legend, it should be clear to everyone what is going on.

Well, I guess you're taking a point that is not Mr Benn's. He refers to giving Jerusalem a Port in other colour in order to say that the other ports can attack the holy city. On the other hand you're giving an idea of giving more graphic power to the place Yerushalahim. Though I think, the borders and colors and so on are fine. Mind that in kabanelas 3rd Crusade map, Jerusalem is the city of Jerusalem and less more, in this map Jerusalem is a territory that matches more or less the nowadays the Republic of Israel + Palestinian Territories.
As I said, giving this kind of graphic appealing can be as enlightening as confusing!

Cheers and thanks for taking part on the discussion!

P.S. Sorry for any lack of English vocabulary.

[ender516]

6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

Even in a different colour not sure if it would be more enlightening or confusing...

Cheers!

Well, you might consider a special symbol used only on Yerushalayim, similar to the gold star of David that the Third Crusade map is using. With something like that on the map and tacked on the end of the relevant statement in the Features legend, it should be clear to everyone what is going on.

Well, I guess you're taking a point that is not Mr Benn's. He refers to giving Jerusalem a Port in other colour in order to say that the other ports can attack the holy city. On the other hand you're giving an idea of giving more graphic power to the place Yerushalahim. Though I think, the borders and colors and so on are fine. Mind that in kabanelas 3rd Crusade map, Jerusalem is the city of Jerusalem and less more, in this map Jerusalem is a territory that matches more or less the nowadays the Republic of Israel + Palestinian Territories.
As I said, giving this kind of graphic appealing can be as enlightening as confusing!

Cheers and thanks for taking part on the discussion!

P.S. Sorry for any lack of English vocabulary.

No, I was trying to suggest something like MrBenn's idea, but rather than use the same Port (anchor) symbol next to Yerushalayim, use a star. Using the same symbol on both ends of the one-way attacks would likely confuse people, because it is less clear which direction the attack can go. Using different symbols could help even those for whom English is not their first language: we can all see (or at least learn) that (anchor/port) attacks ☆ (star/Yerushalayim), and not the other way. (Sorry, I couldn't find a six-pointed star character.)

[Beko the Great]

6. It might be worth thinking about the addition of a port symbol to Jerusalem, to give a visual indication of the fact the other ports can attack it - which would add a bit of weight to the mention of it in the legend. You could use a different colour perhaps - although this is only a minor suggestion at best.

Even in a different colour not sure if it would be more enlightening or confusing...

Cheers!

Well, you might consider a special symbol used only on Yerushalayim, similar to the gold star of David that the Third Crusade map is using. With something like that on the map and tacked on the end of the relevant statement in the Features legend, it should be clear to everyone what is going on.

Well, I guess you're taking a point that is not Mr Benn's. He refers to giving Jerusalem a Port in other colour in order to say that the other ports can attack the holy city. On the other hand you're giving an idea of giving more graphic power to the place Yerushalahim. Though I think, the borders and colors and so on are fine. Mind that in kabanelas 3rd Crusade map, Jerusalem is the city of Jerusalem and less more, in this map Jerusalem is a territory that matches more or less the nowadays the Republic of Israel + Palestinian Territories.
As I said, giving this kind of graphic appealing can be as enlightening as confusing!

Cheers and thanks for taking part on the discussion!

P.S. Sorry for any lack of English vocabulary.

No, I was trying to suggest something like MrBenn's idea, but rather than use the same Port (anchor) symbol next to Yerushalayim, use a star. Using the same symbol on both ends of the one-way attacks would likely confuse people, because it is less clear which direction the attack can go. Using different symbols could help even those for whom English is not their first language: we can all see (or at least learn) that (anchor/port) attacks ☆ (star/Yerushalayim), and not the other way. (Sorry, I couldn't find a six-pointed star character.)

Ok, I'm getting the point. I may use a symbol for Yerushalayim but I'll never use a David six point star because this is a crusade map and in the crusades Christians and Muslims fought each other. Making a reference to Judaism when Yerushalayhim is as well the Holy Land to Christians and Muslims seems not logical to me. I'm thinking in a Red Port symbol, but I'm still sceptical to this idea so I need more users to convince me of your and Mr. Benn idea...

[ender516]

Well, you might consider a special symbol used only on Yerushalayim, similar to the gold star of David that the Third Crusade map is using. With something like that on the map and tacked on the end of the relevant statement in the Features legend, it should be clear to everyone what is going on.

Well, I guess you're taking a point that is not Mr Benn's. He refers to giving Jerusalem a Port in other colour in order to say that the other ports can attack the holy city. On the other hand you're giving an idea of giving more graphic power to the place Yerushalahim. Though I think, the borders and colors and so on are fine. Mind that in kabanelas 3rd Crusade map, Jerusalem is the city of Jerusalem and less more, in this map Jerusalem is a territory that matches more or less the nowadays the Republic of Israel + Palestinian Territories.
As I said, giving this kind of graphic appealing can be as enlightening as confusing!

Cheers and thanks for taking part on the discussion!

P.S. Sorry for any lack of English vocabulary.

No, I was trying to suggest something like MrBenn's idea, but rather than use the same Port (anchor) symbol next to Yerushalayim, use a star. Using the same symbol on both ends of the one-way attacks would likely confuse people, because it is less clear which direction the attack can go. Using different symbols could help even those for whom English is not their first language: we can all see (or at least learn) that (anchor/port) attacks ☆ (star/Yerushalayim), and not the other way. (Sorry, I couldn't find a six-pointed star character.)

Ok, I'm getting the point. I may use a symbol for Yerushalayim but I'll never use a David six point star because this is a crusade map and in the crusades Christians and Muslims fought each other. Making a reference to Judaism when Yerushalayhim is as well the Holy Land to Christians and Muslims seems not logical to me. I'm thinking in a Red Port symbol, but I'm still sceptical to this idea so I need more users to convince me of your and Mr. Benn idea...

Well, I thought the star seemed appropriate to Jerusalem, sometimes called "the City of David" even by Christians, and it would be different from the Christian crosses and Muslim crescents which you already use. And just because the battles were between the Christians and Muslims, doesn't mean there weren't Jews in Jerusalem, does it? Anyway, I don't want to see this discussion turn sour (I understand the Middle East map had a lot of issues this way), so, I've had my say, and that's enough from me about that.

[Beko the Great]

Well, you might consider a special symbol used only on Yerushalayim, similar to the gold star of David that the Third Crusade map is using. With something like that on the map and tacked on the end of the relevant statement in the Features legend, it should be clear to everyone what is going on.

Well, I guess you're taking a point that is not Mr Benn's. He refers to giving Jerusalem a Port in other colour in order to say that the other ports can attack the holy city. On the other hand you're giving an idea of giving more graphic power to the place Yerushalahim. Though I think, the borders and colors and so on are fine. Mind that in kabanelas 3rd Crusade map, Jerusalem is the city of Jerusalem and less more, in this map Jerusalem is a territory that matches more or less the nowadays the Republic of Israel + Palestinian Territories.
As I said, giving this kind of graphic appealing can be as enlightening as confusing!

Cheers and thanks for taking part on the discussion!

P.S. Sorry for any lack of English vocabulary.

No, I was trying to suggest something like MrBenn's idea, but rather than use the same Port (anchor) symbol next to Yerushalayim, use a star. Using the same symbol on both ends of the one-way attacks would likely confuse people, because it is less clear which direction the attack can go. Using different symbols could help even those for whom English is not their first language: we can all see (or at least learn) that (anchor/port) attacks ☆ (star/Yerushalayim), and not the other way. (Sorry, I couldn't find a six-pointed star character.)

Ok, I'm getting the point. I may use a symbol for Yerushalayim but I'll never use a David six point star because this is a crusade map and in the crusades Christians and Muslims fought each other. Making a reference to Judaism when Yerushalayhim is as well the Holy Land to Christians and Muslims seems not logical to me. I'm thinking in a Red Port symbol, but I'm still sceptical to this idea so I need more users to convince me of your and Mr. Benn idea...

Well, I thought the star seemed appropriate to Jerusalem, sometimes called "the City of David" even by Christians, and it would be different from the Christian crosses and Muslim crescents which you already use. And just because the battles were between the Christians and Muslims, doesn't mean there weren't Jews in Jerusalem, does it? Anyway, I don't want to see this discussion turn sour (I understand the Middle East map had a lot of issues this way), so, I've had my say, and that's enough from me about that.

Of course there were Jews in Jerusalem, even that hated by the both temporary owners (Muslims and Christians), and yes the star might be the symbol of the city, but I'm not convinced to use any symbol... Nothing personal, pal! No regrets

[Beko the Great]

Here it is! The version 19.5!

Large: (800 x 674)

Click image to enlarge.

Small: (630 x 531)

Click image to enlarge.

Mountains re-arranged, fixed Friesland "hole"

Cheers!

[cairnswk]

Beko The GReat...a couple of things if i may...
1. the text on the small legend is a little hard to read, can you increase it's size any, don't change the font, but also place a semi-transparent layer behind it so it will stand out more. i liike the background but there is a lot going on in the background of that legend with the colours and the text, so i think a layer will help lift it.
2. there are two peices of real estate on the map that are somewwhat blank....the sea near France and England, perhaps a small image to fill that.
And the other is, can you increase the size fo the title a bit. i think it gets lost a bit because it is not sitting with the rest of the legend.
Otherwise looking great.