Imperium Romanum [Quenched]

[Shino Tenshi]

Just a quick note on the map for the to-fix list: 'Defence' in 'Roma Defence Map' should be spelled Defense.

[iancanton]

are u sure about the spelling?

where i am, “defence” is correct, for example “ministry of defence”.

http://www.mod.uk

where u are, “defence” is also correct (unless u’re french canadian), for example “canada first defence strategy”.

http://www.dnd.ca/site/home_e.asp

ian.

[Shino Tenshi]

are u sure about the spelling?

where i am, “defence” is correct, for example “ministry of defence”.

http://www.mod.uk

where u are, “defence” is also correct (unless u’re french canadian), for example “canada first defence strategy”.

http://www.dnd.ca/site/home_e.asp

ian.

Stupid Microsoft and it's spreading the plague of American spelling. I wasn't sure if it was a good spelling as well so I used MS Word to make sure. Seems that defence is the correct spelling and it's simply MS Word that has the incorrect one. My apologies for the mistake and thanks Ian for catching it

[Qwert]

Stupid Microsoft and it's spreading the plague of American spelling. I wasn't sure if it was a good spelling as well so I used MS Word to make sure. Seems that defence is the correct spelling and it's simply MS Word that has the incorrect one. My apologies for the mistake and thanks Ian for catching it

[Qwert]

.
.
.
.
.

gameplay option 1

gameplay option 2

[Qwert]

any comment?

[InkL0sed]

I can't decide.

[Kaplowitz]

i like the first one

[cairnswk]

i like the first one

Me too.

Qwert...great advances since i last saw this especially in the Alps Provinces and Roma insets. Good work. I like it.

One thing that doesn't look right for me is the shadow on the insets for Roma and bonuses and coins.
1. bonuses and roma insets....have you tried giving a shadow all round those inets.
2. the coins with the shadow don't look like they fall on top of each other because there is too much shadow covering the coins underneath
Only my thoughts

[Qwert]

One thing that doesn't look right for me is the shadow on the insets for Roma and bonuses and coins.
1. bonuses and roma insets....have you tried giving a shadow all round those inets.
2. the coins with the shadow don't look like they fall on top of each other because there is too much shadow covering the coins underneath
Only my thoughts

I dont see any problem with these,its only natural thing(daylight shadows)and its normal that all shadows go to one direction,and you can try to home to take coins and put in light and you will see how sun goes,then shadows change hes direction and covering more and more coins underneath(these is fizika or some other science)

[Qwert]

any comment more abouth gameplay options

[AndyDufresne]

You might get more response if you edit your post displaying the two options, and include an explanation of what the differences are...perhaps the advantages/disadvantages as you currently see them. If people have some guiding words, I think they'll be more likely to comment.


--Andy

[Qwert]

by AndyDufresne on Sun May 18, 2008 2:25 am

You might get more response if you edit your post displaying the two options, and include an explanation of what the differences are...perhaps the advantages/disadvantages as you currently see them. If people have some guiding words, I think they'll be more likely to comment.

I have these in page 1(explanation and options).
Aim eliminate option 3 and 4,because some people will have advantage to take bonuses.

[Qwert]

these is same situation like Ardennes Offensive,people like map and because these,dont have any sugestions.

[Qwert]

Hmm,its look that will i decide who option is best for balanced gameplay.

[Ogrecrusher]

by AndyDufresne on Sun May 18, 2008 2:25 am

You might get more response if you edit your post displaying the two options, and include an explanation of what the differences are...perhaps the advantages/disadvantages as you currently see them. If people have some guiding words, I think they'll be more likely to comment.

I have these in page 1(explanation and options).
Aim eliminate option 3 and 4,because some people will have advantage to take bonuses.

Andy is right here. I'm looking at both, but I'm pretty much having to guess what the difference is. You say it's "all on the first page", but my first thought is not to look there....

Edit: I prefer 1, no to conquest style gameplay here

[Qwert]

Andy is right here. I'm looking at both, but I'm pretty much having to guess what the difference is. You say it's "all on the first page", but my first thought is not to look there....

Edit: I prefer 1, no to conquest style gameplay here

You dont see diference
Option 1 have only one place for one player.
Option 2 have more starting terittories(each player in begining have 3-4 teritories).
But i also prefer option 1,

[oaktown]

For starters, I also like the first gameplay option... I'd rather not see too many maps become single start conquest maps, but with all of the bonuses you have going on here it might be interesting to start some of the bonus territories neutral. Can you give us a breakdown of what that would mean? How many territories would be in play to start, and how many starting neutrals?

To clarify my earlier comments: you are giving a bonus for holding towns and a bonus for holding Legio Romanum. In looking at the map it occurs to me that often they are the same territories: Terraconesis, Armenia, Africa Proconsolarsis, Asia, Aegyptus, Britannia, and Dacia - all of your cities also contribute to the Legio bonuses. Maybe you can split these up a bit more to make it harder to "double dip" bonuses? Because right now if you hold 4 cities you get +6. Of course, historically it makes sense that a legion would be garrisoned in a city, so maybe this is fine... something worth discussing.

Also to clarify: maybe the Roma and Alpes inset maps shouldn't look like they are part of the same graphic element, just to avoid any confusion. But this is minor - again, I like the Roma inset much more now.

I know you aren't doing army count placement yet, but some things to keep in mind... On the Alpes inset, are you worried about two digit counts/counts with color indicators running into the territory names? Also, the Assyria count will run off the map completely.

Did I miss why Crete isn't its own territory? It seems like if you aren't going to put it in play, you may as well take out the attack line.

[Qwert]

let answer one by one question.

For starters, I also like the first gameplay option... I'd rather not see too many maps become single start conquest maps, but with all of the bonuses you have going on here it might be interesting to start some of the bonus territories neutral. Can you give us a breakdown of what that would mean? How many territories would be in play to start, and how many starting neutrals?

Do you even see gameplay options?Option 1(what you prefer,and me also)i show that you have 7 starting position,for 7 players.So these mean that all others terittories is neutral.

To clarify my earlier comments: you are giving a bonus for holding towns and a bonus for holding Legio Romanum. In looking at the map it occurs to me that often they are the same territories: Terraconesis, Armenia, Africa Proconsolarsis, Asia, Aegyptus, Britannia, and Dacia - all of your cities also contribute to the Legio bonuses. Maybe you can split these up a bit more to make it harder to "double dip" bonuses? Because right now if you hold 4 cities you get +6. Of course, historically it makes sense that a legion would be garrisoned in a city, so maybe this is fine... something worth discussing.

If you look that for Legio Bonus you must hold 4 legions,and present situation its not so easy to hold towns and legions.Ofcourse i can up Legion bonus to holding 5 to get bonuses.Now how you say its look that is so easy to get +6.

Also to clarify: maybe the Roma and Alpes inset maps shouldn't look like they are part of the same graphic element, just to avoid any confusion. But this is minor - again, I like the Roma inset much more now.

Still i think that there is no chance for any confusion betwen these two box.


I

know you aren't doing army count placement yet, but some things to keep in mind... On the Alpes inset, are you worried about two digit counts/counts with color indicators running into the territory names? Also, the Assyria count will run off the map completely.

You dont be in class when i explane these. Army Placement will be finalised when i start XML,because in these stage i will know where i can move Army circles.

Did I miss why Crete isn't its own territory? It seems like if you aren't going to put it in play, you may as well take out the attack line.

Because Crete and Cyrenaica is one provinces.If people dont see Army Circle and dont see Army numbers,then he will know that these is not attack line.Aim only connect these two to people see where Crete Belong.If i remove white conection,then will be dificulty to put name Crete and Cyrenaica to present bouth things.

[Qwert]

ups mine mistake,you prefer option 1 and i prefer option 2.
I will answer again in yours opinion.

[Qwert]

Lets again answer.

For starters, I also like the first gameplay option... I'd rather not see too many maps become single start conquest maps, but with all of the bonuses you have going on here it might be interesting to start some of the bonus territories neutral. Can you give us a breakdown of what that would mean? How many territories would be in play to start, and how many starting neutrals?

neutral-5 legion terittories(Italia,Lugdunensis,Cappadocia,Mesopotamia,Syria)
-Towns with Legions 7(Africa Pro,Aegyptus,Armenia,Asia,Dacia,Taraconensis,Brittania)
-roma 1(roma)
Ships 7(Pontica,Moesica,Alexandrina,Misenensis,Mauretanica,Britanica,Germanica.
Praetorian Cohorts 3(Praetorian 1,2 and 3)
---------these mean -23 neutral teritories.
-----------------------------------------------
Starting terittories
Creta et Cyrenaica
Mau.Caesariensis
Mau.Tingitana
Baetica
Lusitania
Narbonensis
Aquitania
Belgica
Ger.Inferior
Ger.Superior
Alpes P.
Alpes C.
Alpes M.
Raetia
Noricum
Corsica et Sardinia
Sicilia
Pan.Superior
Pan.Inferior
Dalmatia
Moes.Superior
Moes. Inferior
Macedonia
Epirus
Achaea
Thracia
Taurica
Bithynia et Pontus
Galatia
Lycia et Pamph.
Cilicia
Cyprus
Assyria
Iudaea
Arabia Petraea
---------------------
Starting 35 terittories.

[Qwert]

any question?

[Qwert]

any question?

[multiplayertim]

I like option 2 more think it suits the time period better.
Is crete a territory? it has a white dotted line connecting it to north africa but has no army circle

[Qwert]

by multiplayertim on Thu May 22, 2008 4:48 pm

I like option 2 more think it suits the time period better.
Is crete a territory? it has a white dotted line connecting it to north africa but has no army circle

Well its look that people like option 1.
Crete is not terittory.
Crete et Cyrenaica is one province,so i put army circle in Cyrenaica.