Ireland map [Quenched]

areyouincahoots · Post by **areyouincahoots** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:07 pm

It's pretty much my favorite map to look at....can't wait til I get to play it

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:32 pm

Haydena wrote: Oh, I dunno Marv, that is kinda arrogant . I think on aesthetics alone this will be more appealing than the Brazil map, it's also not a complete Classic map clone like your map is, I remember some of your comments... "I'll study the classic map"...

I think it'll be played more than the Brazil map... It's a lot better in my opinion, your map is starting to look out of date with all these new good looking maps (Not including mine lol)

Yeah, I believe the aspect of this is much more appealing. It can made it more played, of course. Im also thinking about improve the visual of the Brazil map, after I complete Philippines and South America (my next project). However, I think the only thing really wrong about the appeal of my map is the number of Brazilians in the site, much much lower than the number of people from Canada, USA, England, and, yeah, Ireland

But, my map is not a complete clone of classic, I studied it, and it was a good experience, I learned, for example, to avoid wasted continents

All map makers should do the same. Its a tip that the classic always win polls about map preference, isnt it?

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:19 pm

Regarding continents, if the southeastern region doesn't gain any extra borders, then I think you almost need to have six of them. Bringing it down to five would make one or more continents bigger than they are, which would in turn make them even harder to hold.

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:51 pm

What's the status of the map at this point?

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:59 pm

---I've contacted Kevin about his needed response to some of the posts in the thread. He's obviously a busy man, so am awaiting that before we go on to Quenching. Also I'vebeen in contact with the Middle Earth cartographers, and similarly are awaiting their responses. They've notified me though that an update is coming soon. I'd like to get the Ireland Map, North America Map, Middle Earth Map, and the USApcalypse Map, up all around the same time.

--Andy

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:00 pm

*bump*

(Come on Kevin, your fans are waiting)

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:04 pm

The colors are too similar!!!

Phobia · Post by **Phobia** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:30 pm

im liking it, should be an enjoyable map

kevinc · Post by **kevinc** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:05 am

Hey, here's the rationale behind this map.

Map, as it stands:

I want create a map, as geographically correct as possible, otherwise it would have no interest to me. Certain liberties have been taken with borders, but I won't delete or split counties. Similarly, I want the regions somewhat based in reality.

Initially I used the 4 provinces as the main regions of the game, but as people pointed out, that was ideal. So I changed it to have 6 regions. 3 are easy to hold, 2 are quite tough and 1 is very difficult. The bonuses reflect that. (I've just changed the Munster & Connaught ones now)

It's only designed for between 3-5 players, so it's a slightly different dynamic to a 6 person game.

Now, let's see this map live!

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:27 am

Can you quench it now Andy?

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:28 am

Did you just change Munster from 3 to 2? The last map post appears to point to the same filename, so I can't compare. If so, I think I prefer the 3, since it does still have three borders. Also, the label for Leitrim might look better if it were centered on the country (for a moment, it looked like it was actually two countries to me).

rocksolid · Post by **rocksolid** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:07 am

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:28 pm

I think I'm inclined to agree with Jota for Munster, and it seems almost as if Munster and Connaught should switch bonuses.

rocksolid wrote:Also, suggestion for Midlands - name is fine, but an alternative is Mide, the old kingdom that used to be in that spot before Leinster spread to its size.

And are you sure you want to identify the water off Cork as St. George's channel? I assume it's accurate, but in the spirit of the map, you might prefer to just refer to the Irish Sea.

Both of what he suggested earlier are minor things, but still valid. Considering the all the continents (save Midlands) are non 'directional area' continents, perhaps the Mide as he suggested would help the keep that feel flowing.

And for the channel that was something I found particularly amusing due to the history, and the choice of using St. George's Channel. As he said, since it is an Ireland map.

But both of those, as I said earlier, are minor points. Just something to ponder over.

===================

And in response to when this map will be Quenched, now that we've had some feedback hopefully soon. I'll let a few others chime in also.

--Andy

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:27 pm

kevinc wrote:So I changed it to have 6 regions. 3 are easy to hold, 2 are quite tough and 1 is very difficult.

I cant see 3 regions easy to hold. In fact, only Munster and Connaught are holdable. Ulster is holdable too, but it has 8 countries, so I believe that no one will go for it in the start... the player that hold Connaught will surely not allow you hold Ulster. More, the 2 better continents are neighbours... an error, I believe. And Im confused about what is the difficult region in your head: Pale, Midlands and Ossory all have bonus equal to number of countries. And also strangely, although its obvious you give great value to the number of borders, Munster has 3 borders and bonus 2, and Connaught has 2 borders, bonus 3. Surely the best place in the map.

But I know Im wasting my time... You will never change it, will you? Im sure that for you geographical accuracy is more important than playability... Dont take it as any offense (it was never my goal), but you are what we call "cabeça dura" in Brazil.

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:25 pm

We really need some color change!!!
Especially the tan areas!

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:45 pm

I strongly disagree. I think the colors on this map are excellent.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:55 am

Jota wrote:I strongly disagree. I think the colors on this map are excellent.

Me too lets quench this shit out.

kevinc · Post by **kevinc** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:57 am

George's Channel is actually the correct name for that area. The Irish sea is more northerly. There's just not much room to put it in. I'm not going to change the Midlands name ot Mide. It's a resonable suggestion, but I've researched it and don't think it's entirely suitable. All of the other names are commonly used in modern times, so an acient name wouldn't be applicable.

I switched Munster & Connoaught. Munster only has 4 counties, and can only be attacked from 2 regions so it's easier to hold. Connaught is harder to hold, so you get a bonus of 3, rather than 2 for Munster. Maybe I should switch them back though, or make Connaught 2 aswell.

A question regarding The Pale. It is central and has 4 borders, like Europe on the classic map. Why do people think it is so unholdable?

I'm also going to have a think about the other issues brought up during this thread, and see if anything can be done.

spiesr - (don't mean to be rude) by are you colour blind? They look pretty different to me. I experimented with colours an awful lot to try get as much contrast as possible, I don't think there's anything else I can do. If you have any suggestions though I'd welcome them.

Marvaddin. Yes I am stubborn, but someone needs to be. Nothing good gets created with compromise. A map designed by commitee would be useless. I don't intend to scrafice playability for accuracy, but it's important not to redraw borders when a better solution can be found. Also, I have a general suggestion for you. Making impolite comments is not an effective way to make people agree with you.

Ronaldinho · Post by **Ronaldinho** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:44 am

good map, well built good work

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:55 am

kevinc wrote:Maybe I should switch them back though, or make Connaught 2 aswell.

I'd likely make them both 3 before making them both 2, but it'll probably work out fine whichever way you do it.

A question regarding The Pale. It is central and has 4 borders, like Europe on the classic map. Why do people think it is so unholdable?

I think that there are two things. One, it's a matter of scale: what's medium-sized on Classic is a bigger challenge here, and with the faster-moving play I expect, holding a continent early is likely to be more important. Two, it's a matter of location: The Pale is between Ossory and Ulster, meaning that a player starting in The Pale won't have much of anywhere else to go but The Pale for his/her first conquest.

But that said, I'm perfectly willing to let it be quenched as it is. Maybe it'll turn out that this gives it an interesting new style of play, and I'll happily admit that I was totally wrong.

rocksolid · Post by **rocksolid** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:26 am

I'll chime in on the Connacht and Munster having the same bonus choir. I don't see how Connacht is harder to hold - I might be wrong but I think it only has 2 borders to worry about, and while there may be more sources of attack, I don't think of that as too much of a factor unless it means that a bonus should be reduced because the number of borders can be reduced by conquering one extra-continental territory.

And Mide is just an old word for Meath anyway, so it would indeed be a bit of a cheat to have it as a continent name, especially since Midlands is a legitimate regional name and not just a directional one.

john123 · Post by **john123** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:19 pm

Yeah i'd probably go for munster and connacht both bein 3 but its ok the way it is if you want, i wouldn't put them both 2 though. But other than that i'd quench this soon.... i wanna play

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:23 pm

Well lets see...

---I'm fine with the name Midlands, considering it's much better than a lot of your previous continent names.

---And I'd have to agree with Jota on two points.
Jota wrote: I'd likely make them both 3 before making them both 2
. Though flip flopping wouldn't be so bad either. I see where you are coming from, and even though Munster is easy to hold, I'm afraid 3 borders for a 2 bonus might not be worth the trouble.

---And for the other point
Jota wrote:...it's a matter of location...
It indeed is in a tough location. Though I'm not sure there is much you can do in this area, so you might just go ahead and leave that as is, It could indeed make for interesting gameplay, which I think this map will have.

--Andy

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:43 pm

I was originally of the making them both three mentality, but when you consider how difficult the other continents are to hold it might be a good idea to make those two less valuable, lending to a different style of gameplay, with some, but less emphasis on continents.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:12 pm

kevinc wrote:Marvaddin. Yes I am stubborn, but someone needs to be. Nothing good gets created with compromise. A map designed by commitee would be useless. I don't intend to scrafice playability for accuracy, but it's important not to redraw borders when a better solution can be found. Also, I have a general suggestion for you. Making impolite comments is not an effective way to make people agree with you.

My comment wasnt impolite, since even you admit you are stubborn. And Im here to point things maybe you didnt realize... like 2 tough continents and 1 very difficult (to me, they are all the same thing, maybe you still can explain what you were thinking, and we can discuss). But Im happy because you dont intend sacrifice playability. So, are you trying to find a better solution? I didnt know, excuse me.

New style of play? I disagree, guys. Its the same, adapted to the map. No need to try unholdable areas, etc. What a good idea, I believe I can design a map with almost all continents unholdable, too... and some strange bonuses... Maybe we can have a classic map with some more connections, so the continents will have more borders. How about a connection between Madagascar and India, and South Africa and Argentina? So, the bonus for South America can stay 2, and we can rise the bonus of Africa to 6. Good idea, isnt it? Nah... this map has nothing new, to make a new style of play. Only 2 good continents... if I want play a game like this (with improved importance of small continents), I would play this map:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2013
Again, my goal is not offend you. Dont become angry, I want only understand what you are thinking, so I can agree, or give another suggestion, isnt this what we do in the foundry? Can you explain, please?