Conquer Club

41 + the 3 cities

edbeard wrote:41 + the 3 cities

If Hispania gets one extra then, that brings it to 6 terits 2 borders 3 bonus which is good, as well as the map starting with 42 playable terits (assuming the cities are all neutral) which is pretty good IMO.

The1exile wrote:

edbeard wrote:41 + the 3 cities

If Hispania gets one extra then, that brings it to 6 terits 2 borders 3 bonus which is good, as well as the map starting with 42 playable terits (assuming the cities are all neutral) which is pretty good IMO.

I agree that we need 42 territories then but not in Hispania. There are other options like adding Hibernia to the map with Britannia or making one of the islands like Corsica, Sicilia, Melita, etc a territory.

Also there is only one attack route to Britannia and it gets a bonus of 2 while there are 8 attack routes to Italia and it gets a bonus of 3. I am assuming that Roma compensates for this with a 3+2 bonus? Still a bonus of 4 seems more reasonable considering the importance of Italia in this map.

Edit: Shouldn't that be written Bithnyia? Achaea/Achaia still wrong in legend.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

The1exile wrote:

edbeard wrote:41 + the 3 cities

If Hispania gets one extra then, that brings it to 6 terits 2 borders 3 bonus which is good, as well as the map starting with 42 playable terits (assuming the cities are all neutral) which is pretty good IMO.

I agree that we need 42 territories then but not in Hispania. There are other options like adding Hibernia to the map with Britannia or making one of the islands like Corsica, Sicilia, Melita, etc a territory.

Also there is only one attack route to Britannia and it gets a bonus of 2 while there are 8 attack routes to Italia and it gets a bonus of 3. I am assuming that Roma compensates for this with a 3+2 bonus? Still a bonus of 4 seems more reasonable considering the importance of Italia in this map.

Edit: Shouldn't that be written Bithnyia? Achaea/Achaia still wrong in legend.

Yes, but Britannia has already been addressed. It is very hard to expand out of.

Personally I've never seen attack routes as a bad thing (unless they're one way). And at the moment, Italia has 5 bonus for 5 terits, which is pretty generous of istelf. You want to give it a 6 bonus for 5 terits?

Hispania i feel is an unbalaced continent, but I am willing to change my view if you have a different idea. Perhaps another terit to Gallia?

Guiscard wrote:Does anyone else think that confusion between which continent Byzantium belongs to will be a major problem?

To me it's blue enough that it looks like it belongs to Achaia. It could just be the name of the continent that causes a problem.

Guiscard wrote:As for the spain/africa border, is this a problem for anyone other than Hulmey?

It's only a problem if there isn't supposed to be a border there.

If you're after an extra territory, and one in Hispania, how about putting in the Balearic Islands (Baliares)? I suppose you might have a bit of a problem squeezing another name in there though without shifting lots of other names about, and even then it might not fit.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Shouldn't that be written Bithnyia? Achaea/Achaia still wrong in legend.

Bithynia is correct. Achaia is still misspelled in the legend though and I've noticed Illyricum is incorrect too. Currently Illiricum.

The1exile wrote:Hispania i feel is an unbalaced continent, but I am willing to change my view if you have a different idea. Perhaps another terit to Gallia?

You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.

That's why I suggested Hibernia or an island as an additional territory. Hmm I am noticing right now that Pannonia is missing (it's located above Illyricum). Perhaps that could be the additional territory as well.

its looking good

Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.

You are missing the whole point of this game then.

Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.

The1exile wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.

You are missing the whole point of this game then.

Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.

This map is both historical and playable.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.

You are missing the whole point of this game then.

Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.

This map is both historical and playable.

I thought we had agreed that with 41 territories it needed another.

The1exile wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.

You are missing the whole point of this game then.

Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.

This map is both historical and playable.

I thought we had agreed that with 41 territories it needed another.

Read my previous posts and you have the answer to that question. Add another territory - yes, but it must be an historically accurate one.

OK - so instead of saying "we can't add one", could you help me find a historically accurate one that helps playability?

How about Armorica added to Gallia?

The1exile wrote:OK - so instead of saying "we can't add one", could you help me find a historically accurate one that helps playability?

How about Armorica added to Gallia?

Do you actually read my posts? Please do check the last two pages. I listed several options! Besides I am not the map maker...I can only make suggestions.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:You are missing the whole point of this map. This is an historical map. You cannot invent or add a territory at your own will.

You are missing the whole point of this game then.

Historical accuracy should be secondary to the map's playability.

This map is both historical and playable.

I thought we had agreed that with 41 territories it needed another.

Read my previous posts and you have the answer to that question. Add another territory - yes, but it must be an historically accurate one.

Could you divide Numidia in 2 because it is pretty big and doing so wouldn't alter the gamplay too much.

Guiscard wrote:As for the bonus that is a reasonable suggestion so I'll take it down 1 next update.

Ideally I'd like some debate about gameplay at this point... Good? Bad? Bottlenecks? Bonuses? Enough / Too many sea routes?

Back to what Guiscard asked:
1)In short, gameplay looks good

2)There are a few iffy bonuses in my opinion - Gallia needs to be worth at least 5. Not sure about Itallia either considering how many borders it has (althought there is the additional bonus for Roma).

3)Sea routes - I think they are cluttering up the map a bit and they are a bit confusing. Could you do away with most of them all together by introducing some ports, like on the Phillipines map? These could perhaps attack all Islands and eachother? I know my idea isn't perfect but it could work with development and leave a much less cluttered map.

All in all, the map is brilliant but there is still room for improvement - keep it up!

P.S. You need to update the title so that people know this has been updated

So I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but shouldn't Italia have a much larger bonus? It has 5 border countries, it's in the middle of the map and it's touching 5 other continents. Wouldn't a bonus of anywhere from 5-7 be more appropriate?

Hey I think you should dullify (is that a word) the top picture, make it a bit more sepia and less red.

Also, make britannia connect to another country as well as the one it connects to now - itll be the one continent everybody will go for.

yeah andy like australia in the Classic map.........I think its cool apart from the bonus should be 2 ......

Also going of topic, im hearing alot in the Map foundry OH its not historically correct and its not going to be....Why is this? Lets try and make maps as historically correct as possible (just my opinon)

hulmey wrote:yeah andy like australia in the Classic map.........I think its cool apart from the bonus should be 2 ......

Also going of topic, im hearing alot in the Map foundry OH its not historically correct and its not going to be....Why is this? Lets try and make maps as historically correct as possible (just my opinon)

That's not Andy. Just an idiot trying to make us believe he is Andy using his avatar...

LOL - it friigin fouled me

hulmey wrote:LOL - it friigin fouled me

It fooled me actually

I think the picture of the romans looks really awesome, but the filling in the territories looks really bad. Its such a stock fade, its looks really MS paintish to me when compared to the picture you included. Could you add some texture or something to the filling on the territories instead of the fade, I think that would look a lot better. Also maybe change the colors so they aren't so flourescent?

icemonkey wrote:I think the picture of the romans looks really awesome, but the filling in the territories looks really bad. Its such a stock fade, its looks really MS paintish to me when compared to the picture you included. Could you add some texture or something to the filling on the territories instead of the fade, I think that would look a lot better. Also maybe change the colors so they aren't so flourescent?

i disgree. the whole map style is excellent and origonal. teh color arnt floresent.

i really dont think this map needs any MAJOR graphical changes

gimil wrote:

icemonkey wrote:I think the picture of the romans looks really awesome, but the filling in the territories looks really bad. Its such a stock fade, its looks really MS paintish to me when compared to the picture you included. Could you add some texture or something to the filling on the territories instead of the fade, I think that would look a lot better. Also maybe change the colors so they aren't so flourescent?

i disgree. the whole map style is excellent and origonal. teh color arnt floresent.

i really dont think this map needs any MAJOR graphical changes

Agreed - don't do anything drastic at this stage

i would play this map any day very good

I dont think that Roma should be underlines, it looks weird