Conquer Club

Soo.... anything?

Aye - surely that's it now (or perhaps andy will wait and then quench a whole batch of maps like he did the last time)

honestly it all looks good to me. good job Rj

Please tell me this map is going to be available soon. I've been watching it for a long time.

Dear RjBeals and CC players and Cartographers,

before this map be quenched, I would like to express my ideas about it, hoping to not read also this time unpolite comments about my post.

I will start from easy corrections:

1. Legend

- Please change "TERRITORIO" with "AREA GEOGRAFICA" or simply with "AREA"

- change "SALENTO" with "PUGLIA MERIDIONALE"

- if possible, change "ELBA" with "ISOLA D'ELBA" or "ISOLE EOLIE" with "EOLIE"

- if possible, change "TOSCANA OVEST" with "TOSCANA OCCIDENTALE" and "TOSCANA EST" with "TOSCANA ORIENTALE"


2. Continents

- please, check if is possible to move "ABRUZZO" from "Sud" to "Centro" and updating continental bonuses.


3. Territoies

- please, delete Monferrato and don't be lazy about working on Lombardia/Piemonte border: I'm sure it's possible to improve it if you really wish it.

- I would like you put Pantelleria inside a box, like the one used for Alaska and Hawaii in USA's maps.


4. Sea Routes

- I would prefer Messina were direclty linked to Calabria, if were possible, finding other solutions to preserve map playability


Well, I make you my congratulations for the map, it's really nice and it would be even better if you follewed my point 3 about Terriories.

Lupo, it might be helpful if you provided reasons for these changes. From my point of view they seem completely unnecessary, but I do not know your reasoning for these suggestions.

KEYOGI wrote:Lupo, it might be helpful if you provided reasons for these changes. From my point of view they seem tcompletely unnecessary, but I do not know your reasoning for these suggestions.

From your point of view, if this were the map of Italy or of New Zeland it would be the same.


Anyway,


- about point 1 the answer is that since RJB wanted to use Italian names, I make some corrections to them in order to use correct italians names.


- about point 2: Abruzzo has been always cosider as a region of Central Italy. So, if is possible to reflect this fact in the map it would be better, but anyway I care also to map playability, so I let you decide about it.


-about point 3:

I don't know if you would like that the main river of your original country were moved above the mountains, that regional borders were changed and not for playability reasons, but only 'cause the map maker never wanted to spend a bit of time to make it better.
What I mean is that it would be possible to make a better map of Nord-ovest area, without changing its playbility and maybe even improving it.

about Pantelleria, it's an island near north Africa, southern Sicily. It would be nice, if leting the map as it is, it were putted inside a box


about point 4: to go from Calabria to Sicily you have to cross the sea from Reggio Calabria (in Calabria) to Messina (in Sicily). Anyway, I know you made this change 'cause of map playability.

Geez...

Lupo - first I value your dedication to this map as you were a key contributor during the beginning, but as soon as I saw that you were the last post in this thread I knew I was in for it! I'm not a cartographer. I never intended to make for a map for any other reason except playing Conquer Club on. Frankly If I knew this process would last going on 7 months now, I never would have started

1) As far as Italian names - Ruben Cassar and DIM (and possibly others) provided me with them –As I do not speak Italian. They’ve been changed several times until they were agreed upon. If they are simply spelled wrong, I'll change them - but if they are not wrong, and you’re just suggesting a different name, I would rather let them be.

2) To change Abruzzo to the center continent would be easy. It's simply changing a color. I personally don’t see a need for this. Centro already has the most territories and to add another would skew the game.

3) I wasn't lazy about borders. I did what I felt looked good, was clear enough so armies & country names could easily fit & played well with 48 territories. I experimented with the mountain ranges & the “correct” river placement, but it wasn’t conducive to this map. It would take too much time & effort to make this change and I’m not willing to do it. If it goes that far and this prevents the map from being quenched, I’ll pass along the psd file to someone else.

4) I understand your request for the box around Pantelleria. I did have to enlarge that island a bit to make it a territory. Again – at this point in the process, I really don’t think it matters one way or the other if it’s there.

5) The sea routes were chosen by me simply for playability. If others also don’t like these, then they can speak as well and it can be changed.

Again Lupo, I’m not discounting any of your suggestions – just that at this point I’m pretty much done with the map except for tweaks. I’ll wait & see what other feedback I get around your posts.

why is this map not done yet...i wanna play!

thegeneralpublic wrote:I think that the bonus for Isole should probably only be two; if one is defending it correctly, you only need to defend two places anyway. However, I have neglected to read the 28 or so pages of discussion that was already had; if there was already a reason for making it three, then ignore this.

It was a toss up between 2 & 3. Since there are 3 borders (not counting Calabria) I gave it 3. From what I came to remember, it was agreed that bonuses were okay.

its too light.

The last thing that I want to do is create more work for you. I still feel a bit bad for mentioning my confusion over the cities and then seeing how much more work that created. It seems, though, that some of Lupo's suggestions could be implemented without a lot of extra work. I suspect that changing the names would be fairly quick - obviously I could be wrong.

I understand your reluctance to "fix them if they aren't broken" or, in this case, misspelled. But I can say that as a citizen of San Francisco, if someone unfamiliar with the area had been making the map and had wanted to title it "Frisco" - I would have raised objections (it's a local pet-peeve of ours). I thought Lupo did a good job of explaining the reasons behind his suggestions.

I can certainly see Lupo's point in a case like this:

Lupo wrote:- if possible, change "ELBA" with "ISOLA D'ELBA" or "ISOLE EOLIE" with "EOLIE"

- if possible, change "TOSCANA OVEST" with "TOSCANA OCCIDENTALE" and "TOSCANA EST" with "TOSCANA ORIENTALE"

As a non-Italian speaker, I can see the inconsistency in the first case and understand the reasoning in the second. I expect the other two would be equally clear to a native.

Lupo wrote:3. Territoies

- please, delete Monferrato and don't be lazy about working on Lombardia/Piemonte border: I'm sure it's possible to improve it if you really wish it.

I'm not sure if he is referring to a comment you may have made earlier, or if perhaps the fact that English is not his native tongue has resulted in a comment that I'd find offensive, but based on his other comments I really don't think he means to accuse you of laziness. I'm not really clear on what the issues with the river are, though I suspect that changes there would be a lot more work than the names. This question seems to come up on a lot of maps - how accurate should the landmarks be?

All I can say is that these are your last opportunities to tweak something that will hopefully be enjoyed by many people for a while to come. If it were me, I think I'd make the changes - but I haven't spent 7 months working on this map. And for any piece of art, you eventually just have to declare it done.

I'll just sum up: I'm voicing support for those changes that are quick - but you are the Director and it is all up to you.

Okay I have read Lupo's suggestions and I decided to comment on them. I know that Lupo is Italian and being accustomed to Italian culture and way of life I know why he made some of the suggestions and I understand him. For example Abruzzo is part of Italia Centrale (central Italy) and the real life sea link between Italy and Sicily is from Reggio-Calabria to Messina.

However being a map maker myself I cannot but feel a bit angry at his suggestions because it is not fair on RJ. RJ has been very patient and listened to the feedback of many people. I followed the development of the map from the start. Lupo was giving suggestions at the start but then he disappeared for several months and just came back now as the map is about to get quenched. Tough luck, he should have been here throughout the whole process. He cannot expect RJ to start from fresh just because he was not here during all the development. I don't think that RJ should make the changes Lupo requested (at least not the major ones).

Looking at the names given. Territorio and area geografica mean basically the same. Territorio is simpler...keep it. The same goes for Ovest/Est and Occidentale/Orientale. They mean the same but Ovest and Est are simpler for players to use. Elba should be renamed to Isola d'Elba, it's more accurate and in line with Isole Eolie. About Puglia...I was thinking about this the other day as I know that Puglia is one whole regione in Italy and not divided in two. I know that RJ divided it in two for gameplay reasons. I think it's up to RJ now to decide if he should call it Puglia Meridionale or leave it as Salento. However once the terms Meridionale and Settentrionale are used it might make sense to rename Toscano to Occidentale/Orientale for conformity reasons. Once again I believe this is up to the map maker to decide.

About North Italy...I am not 100% satisfied either. In fact I wanted Milano to be a city for example as it is one of the most important Italian cities but I know that the area is small to work on and I think that RJ did the best he could when you factor in the playability of the map.

Pantelleria could be put in an inset as it is not in its real life location. That should be easy for RJ to do. However if this means creating confusion and making that area too busy it's fine as it is.

I hope to see this quenched soon. Good luck RJ and great job.

Ruben Cassar wrote:About North Italy...I am not 100% satisfied either. In fact I wanted Milano to be a city...

Ruben if you can offer an idea of how to incorporate Milano as a city. I'm willing to try. I'll also consider a "revamp" of this map in the north west area. Don't expect it anytime soon though

Thanks for your input Ruben - Always appreciated!

RjBeals wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:About North Italy...I am not 100% satisfied either. In fact I wanted Milano to be a city...

Ruben if you can offer an idea of how to incorporate Milano as a city. I'm willing to try. I'll also consider a "revamp" of this map in the north west area. Don't expect it anytime soon though

Thanks for your input Ruben - Always appreciated!

No, we discussed this before and for gameplay reasons (mainly because Milano is close to Torino) we decided it was better not to include it as a city.

I said I wished Milano could be one of the cities because it deserves to be but I don't think that it would be good to include it (gameplay wise) and honestly I don't have an idea on how to resolve this issue so I think it's better if you leave it as it is.

Are the current images and XML still the ones on the bottom of p25?

Yep.

the latest version looks great. I will play it with pleasure and it's far better than some maps that have made it through.

The only change I'm planning on making is the name "ELBA" to "ISOLA D'ELBA". I experimented with the box around Pantelleria, but just couldn't get the right look. Any objections let me know.

RjBeals wrote:The only change I'm planning on making is the name "ELBA" to "ISOLA D'ELBA". I experimented with the box around Pantelleria, but just couldn't get the right look. Any objections let me know.

could you post here your experiments?

I went through your XML and I did find a problem.

The city bonuses for +1 and +2 should have ten ways to do it. +1 has ten, but +2 only has nine. (5 choose 2 = 5 choose 3 = 5! /(2! * 3!) = (5*4) / 2 = 10)

The city bonus for +3 should have five ways but you currently have three. 5 choose 4 = 5!/ (1! * 4!) = 5

I think the new XML additions allow you an easier way to set all this up, but I'm not familiar with the new features.

One thing I didn't check was spelling. I'm sure you ran the XML through the tester to check for errors or warnings though.

Hmm.. Yes I checked the xml though the tester and the links looked correct, but I'll have to look at the city bonuses again. Thanks edbeard for taking the time to go through it.

Spring was our slow period at work so I was able to work on my map. Summer / Fall is busy at work plus 2 week vacation coming up end of July. I'll do what I can.

Lupo - I didn't save any of my experiments. The box just didn't look right.

RjBeals wrote:...

Spring was our slow period at work so I was able to work on my map. Summer / Fall is busy at work plus 2 week vacation coming up end of July. I'll do what I can.

Lupo - I didn't save any of my experiments. The box just didn't look right.

May I ask you what gaphic programs are you using for develop this map?

I am been busy these last months as well, but from the end of July, I will have some more time to develop this map.

I will post here how I how would like this map looked like.

Of 'course, take it as a suggestion experiment, 'cause I have got only paint on my computer right now and it is quite hard to use it at best.

RjBeals wrote:2) To change Abruzzo to the center continent would be easy. It's simply changing a color. I personally don’t see a need for this. Centro already has the most territories and to add another would skew the game.

Would the addition of a territory be offset be the subtraction of a border? I mean, if it's more correct geographically, isn't it the right thing to do?