Moderator: Cartographers
I did thought about this, but at the first there is in foundry similar map and the second this is after invasion - the Danelaw was established.FarangDemon wrote:I like the Danelaw idea, it's an interesting time in history. If you want to make the map a bit bigger, you could include part of Denmark...
not so many. only 1 with both... and no one from history.FarangDemon wrote: that might make the map a bit more unique and interesting, as there are many maps of England/Scotland already.
I like the idea with the same map, but different gameplay. when Normans disbark the story was about conquering England.FarangDemon wrote: Design gameplay where you can get a big bonus in Denmark and then invade England at the Danelaw positions, or wherever they invaded.
Similarly, for the 1066 map, I recommend you include Normandy, the launching point of the invasion.
yes, just my idea was to do one map (area, regions) and here put two different gameplay styles. I also thought about battles (also for Danelaw map) - not bad idea, but I built bonuses on land owning. Stamford Bridge, Hastings. about which the third you think?tokle wrote:Hello. One suggsetion and two questions I have for you today.
First, the 1066 map might benefit from focusing more on England, rather than the rest of Britain. And to include the Norman and Norwegian invasions. And the three major battles.
have you another opinion for Scottish borders?tokle wrote: Secondly, what have you used as reference for your Scottish borders in the Danelaw map? And why is Northumbria Saxon rather than Viking?
I realise what you mean about wanting to use the same map, but sometimes these initial ideas have to be changed. Both the maps could be zoomed in, though. It's something for you to think about at least. The third battle was at Fulford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford)theBastard wrote:yes, just my idea was to do one map (area, regions) and here put two different gameplay styles. I also thought about battles (also for Danelaw map) - not bad idea, but I built bonuses on land owning. Stamford Bridge, Hastings. about which the third you think?tokle wrote:Hello. One suggsetion and two questions I have for you today.
First, the 1066 map might benefit from focusing more on England, rather than the rest of Britain. And to include the Norman and Norwegian invasions. And the three major battles.
No. It's just that it seems to me to show a situation of one or two centuries later. But I'm not sure. I was thinking the period of this map might be too early to join the picts and the scots.theBastard wrote:have you another opinion for Scottish borders?tokle wrote: Secondly, what have you used as reference for your Scottish borders in the Danelaw map? And why is Northumbria Saxon rather than Viking?
Northumbria (Bernicia) was for some time de jure under Vikings rule (better say there were puppet king), but de facto there was strong Anglo-Saxons resistance and the Vikings had never strong influence here.
it was only first idea and very quick draft. so changes will be needed, yes.tokle wrote: I realise what you mean about wanting to use the same map, but sometimes these initial ideas have to be changed. Both the maps could be zoomed in, though. It's something for you to think about at least. The third battle was at Fulford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford)
it is right century. the Pictish era ends in 839. then become the era of Dal Riata and assimilation of Pictish kingdoms. maybe the name Scotland is too early...tokle wrote: No. It's just that it seems to me to show a situation of one or two centuries later. But I'm not sure. I was thinking the period of this map might be too early to join the picts and the scots.
it is possible, but I think add only any bonus to Jorvik for holding also Tinandael and Bernicia. the northern part from river Tweed was not under influence of Vikings.tokle wrote: You might be right about Bernicia. Could there be a way of showing that it was de jure under the authority of York? Maybe that would make it too complicated?
yes, there was used title King of Britons for the strongest ruler of small kingdoms in Wales. but it could be changed to Welsh Kingdoms.tokle wrote: Oh, and by the way, there was never any Kingdom of Wales. Welsh kingdoms would be a better way to say it.
It was still important.theBastard wrote:it was only first idea and very quick draft. so changes will be needed, yes.tokle wrote: I realise what you mean about wanting to use the same map, but sometimes these initial ideas have to be changed. Both the maps could be zoomed in, though. It's something for you to think about at least. The third battle was at Fulford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford)
battle at Fulford seems that solved nothing. the Vikings victory meant nothing, English was able to built new army and Vikings must fight again in Stamford Bridge.
Evidence, the way I read it, seem to suggest that the Pictish royal dynasty took over power in Scotland (Dal Riata, the word Scot at the time was used to mean almost the same as Irish, so using Scots or Scotland is relevant. Probably not Alba, though, as the first attested use of that word is 900). The timeframe of this union is difficult to establish, though. There's a lot of contradictory evidence.theBastard wrote:it is right century. the Pictish era ends in 839. then become the era of Dal Riata and assimilation of Pictish kingdoms. maybe the name Scotland is too early...tokle wrote: No. It's just that it seems to me to show a situation of one or two centuries later. But I'm not sure. I was thinking the period of this map might be too early to join the picts and the scots.
[/quote]theBastard wrote:yes, there was used title King of Britons for the strongest ruler of small kingdoms in Wales. but it could be changed to Welsh Kingdoms.tokle wrote: Oh, and by the way, there was never any Kingdom of Wales. Welsh kingdoms would be a better way to say it.
thanks for you notices, I like to dispute with you
will see if battles will be there. also there is not so big space everywhere to add there "battle sites"...tokle wrote: It was still important.
your map is from 802 AD. my map is from 878, thereofre another posesions...tokle wrote: Evidence, the way I read it, seem to suggest that the Pictish royal dynasty took over power in Scotland (Dal Riata, the word Scot at the time was used to mean almost the same as Irish, so using Scots or Scotland is relevant. Probably not Alba, though, as the first attested use of that word is 900). The timeframe of this union is difficult to establish, though. There's a lot of contradictory evidence.
having Moray is right. maybe term Mormaerdom is bad, it was used later. but Moray as independent area (kingdom) was there de facto to 1130 AD.tokle wrote: Having Moray here, however, is almost certainly wrong. There is nothing to indicate any Mormaer of Moray much before the 11th century.
as I said, Welsh Kingomds will be finetokle wrote: Just because they used a title King of Britons doesn't make it correct to call it "the Kingdom of Britain" (or Wales).
1130 was a pretty different world. What proof do you use to suggest Moray was a power as early as the ninth century?theBastard wrote:having Moray is right. maybe term Mormaerdom is bad, it was used later. but Moray as independent area (kingdom) was there de facto to 1130 AD.tokle wrote: Having Moray here, however, is almost certainly wrong. There is nothing to indicate any Mormaer of Moray much before the 11th century.
and were the first in the Moon also...army of nobunaga wrote: vikings invaded fucking thailand (if you believe research as current as 4 months ago)
another? how much are here?army of nobunaga wrote: another england map.
gl
) reinforcemens with some sort of auto deploy to that specific square from where they can assault different battle sites. - To me its not decisive whether a battle actually turned out to be of crucial importance as we arent just dealing with history here. We are dealing with invasion as a game and therefore what might have happened comes into play.