Conquer Club

sully800 wrote:The current version (division on the Pacific) was chosen because it will be more recognizable to new players and more familiar to players who knew the original Classic. I know there are several advantages to the Pacific split in terms of cities (America and Oceania get more, for example) but the benefits of having a recognizable and familiar map outweighed the other options.

To be a revamped Classic this is the orientation we must proceed with, I don't think that point can be up for debate.

I regret losing the Atlantic division, but I understand the reasoning.

Congratulations, sully800 on creating a map of such high quality that it is being drafted into the premier position on the site.

And as for that signature, I kinda like the Cheshire Cat effect. Plus, it may save us all from trading Hasbro's lawyers for Disney/Pixar's!

Wow - nothing classic about this map - i just miss the original...

Hmmm, instead of having anchorage connect to seoul, how about replacing seoul with Petropavlovsk? Not a huge city by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the largest city in Kamchatka, giving the new map a nice symmetry with the old.

While the concept is nice, I am not a fan of the connecting lines. Is there not a way we can have something that looks like a territory?

Just to clarify, it is only Classic Shapes that is being revamped and replaced. Classic Art will remain alongside the new Classic - at least in the short term.

There are certain aspects of the revamp that are non-negotiable - these include the map projection (ie Americas on the left, Eurasia on the right), and that territory connections are indicated through attack paths.

There is a bit of flexibility in relation to the cities names on the map, but the connectivity of them must remain unchanged.

Is there any chance that the World Cities map could be rolled out in tandem with this so that we get two at once? I know you're going for familiarity with this one, but it's the unfamiliarity of the other arrangement around the Atlantic that I like, the reversal breaks down the mental block I have against it. I never play Classic anything anymore because I got completely bored with looking at the same map (abstracted or not), at least WC changed the visual arrangement up so that I could get interested in it again. And putting out WC when this exists would maybe allow a few minor tweaks to gameplay that were refused to it before...

Incandenza wrote:Hmmm, instead of having anchorage connect to seoul, how about replacing seoul with Petropavlovsk? Not a huge city by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the largest city in Kamchatka, giving the new map a nice symmetry with the old.

I agree. Northern Asia is quite bare right now. Plus it would give a nod back to Kamchatka as Inc has explained.

WM

MrBenn wrote:There are certain aspects of the revamp that are non-negotiable - these include the map projection (ie Americas on the left, Eurasia on the right),

that's fucking retarded, you've shoehorned a great map into a mold that it doesn't fit into for completely arbitrary reasons

I love this new map and can't wait for it to replace shapes. The only problem i have is asia looks a little cramped, why not utilise that bare patch in the north and spread it out a bit, other than that awesome work sully

I love this new version of the classic map
great graphics
but
why did Istanbul 13 millions inhabitants transform in Athens 4 millions inhabitants
what would be Europe without Paris
where is Beijing

pamoa wrote:I love this new version of the classic map
great graphics
but
why did Istanbul 13 millions inhabitants transform in Athens 4 millions inhabitants
what would be Europe without Paris
where is Beijing

Since the bonus region is now named Europe (and not Europe + Mediterranean) I thought Athens was more appropriate. Istanbul has a lot of European influence, but is on the Asian continent. It's certainly a much bigger city, but it's hard to argue that Athens isn't "worldly". Anyway, I can be swayed on this one for sure.

Paris seems to be an impossibility based on it's proximity to it's neighbors. As you may know, I tried Paris when this map was first made, and it just doesn't fit between Madrid/London/Rome unfortunately. I know it's the biggest shame of the map at the moment.

Beijing was knocked off for a Shanghai/Seoul combo in this edition which I think was a fairly good trade. As you can see by the other version floating through this thread I used to have Beijing and then some less famous Asian cities (Magadan). It seems like people would prefer a more spread out Asia with less populous cities. Please refer to the other version and let me know if you think that is an improvement.

I kind of like the current Asia though. It feels cramped, but Asian cities ARE cramped. Western Russia feels sparse and it IS sparse. I suppose to be consistent I would have to eliminate cities like Anchorage and Edmonton and add Toronto/Atlanta or something to that effect. Let me know if that sounds workable, or if spread out cities are preferred over the biggest world cities.

I'd stick with important world cities. Indeed Toronto and Atlanta sound more familiar.

Nice revamp though that wasn't your original intention.
One thing though, don't take this personal... I'd drop the skyline. Keep it pure.

pamoa wrote:what would be Europe without Paris

A better place?

C.

pamoa wrote:what would be Europe without Paris

yeti_c wrote:A better place?

it's true I forget London is now part of the American Empire

sully800 wrote:Paris seems to be an impossibility based on it's proximity to it's neighbors. As you may know, I tried Paris when this map was first made, and it just doesn't fit between Madrid/London/Rome unfortunately. I know it's the biggest shame of the map at the moment.

then why not Brussels as Europe "capital" instead of Berlin

sully800 wrote:... Istanbul has a lot of European influence, but is on the Asian continent...

well you need to look more closely to your map as it is mainly on the north-western side of the Bosphorus which is in ... Europe
so maybe can you reconsider it

for the Anchorage Edmonton Astana case I understand you needed some cities up there even if everybody knows it impossible to live there
maybe Calgary instead of Edmonton as it was an Winter Olympics spot

WidowMakers wrote:

Incandenza wrote:Hmmm, instead of having anchorage connect to seoul, how about replacing seoul with Petropavlovsk? Not a huge city by any stretch of the imagination, but it is the largest city in Kamchatka, giving the new map a nice symmetry with the old.

I agree. Northern Asia is quite bare right now. Plus it would give a nod back to Kamchatka as Inc has explained.

WM

I agree also

sully800 wrote:

pamoa wrote:I love this new version of the classic map
great graphics
but
why did Istanbul 13 millions inhabitants transform in Athens 4 millions inhabitants
what would be Europe without Paris
where is Beijing

Since the bonus region is now named Europe (and not Europe + Mediterranean) I thought Athens was more appropriate. Istanbul has a lot of European influence, but is on the Asian continent. It's certainly a much bigger city, but it's hard to argue that Athens isn't "worldly". Anyway, I can be swayed on this one for sure.

Istanbul is half in Europe and half in Asia. In fact, more people live in European Istanbul than in Asian Istanbul -- and each is more than the population of Athens.

pamoa wrote:

sully800 wrote:Paris seems to be an impossibility based on it's proximity to it's neighbors. As you may know, I tried Paris when this map was first made, and it just doesn't fit between Madrid/London/Rome unfortunately. I know it's the biggest shame of the map at the moment.

then why not Brussels as Europe "capital" instead of Berlin

Conceptually, I like Brussels, but from a practical standpoint, it is much too close to London for this map.

pamoa wrote:for the Anchorage Edmonton Astana case I understand you needed some cities up there even if everybody knows it impossible to live there
maybe Calgary instead of Edmonton as it was an Winter Olympics spot

Calgary is larger and further south, while Edmonton is the capital of the province of Alberta. There is a long time rivalry between these two cities, so picking one over the other may stir up some fuss here, which is not necessarily bad. Another set of possibilities a bit further east would be Saskatoon, the largest city in Saskatchewan, or Regina, the capital. I suspect there may be a rivalry there, but they don't have all the sports teams that the Albertans have to keep the fires burning.

Most certainly Istanbul has the population factor over Athens. Athens has a bit more historical importance in my opinion though I generally sided with population and current importance. To be consistent, I will switch back to Istanbul.

sully800 wrote:Most certainly Istanbul has the population factor over Athens. Athens has a bit more historical importance in my opinion though I generally sided with population and current importance. To be consistent, I will switch back to Istanbul.

I'd argue Istanbul/Byzantium/Constantinople has probably just as much importance as Athens, both in terms of regional history, world history, culture, etc.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

sully800 wrote:Most certainly Istanbul has the population factor over Athens. Athens has a bit more historical importance in my opinion though I generally sided with population and current importance. To be consistent, I will switch back to Istanbul.

I'd argue Istanbul/Byzantium/Constantinople has probably just as much importance as Athens, both in terms of regional history, world history, culture, etc.


--Andy

Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks'!

The only city you could use for a more authentic "Kamchatka" would be Magadan, but the population is barely 100,000, unless you move a little farther inland and pick Yakutsk with a population over 200,000, but since that is a territory on the wrisk map, that won't likely fly. I don't think it matters that much if there's a territory the matches the placement on the original map, it's more than close enough.

Good job Sully!

genuinely no offence intended but in my opinion the graphics need to be completely revamped and a new narrative discovered.

Again forgive my lack of diplomacy but i will post only once in here so i can not afford to beat around the bush.

-The landmasses lack texture and gravitas.
-The whole character of the image reminds me of a primary school encyclopaedia which introduces the brand new reader to the cities of the world. "Say 'Hola!' to Pedro .. he from Bathelona!"
-The image of the skyscrapers also looks like an after-thought... or perhaps constructed to appeal to the childs eyes.
-The territory links are obtuse and clumsy.
-The arbitrary flags as border are lazy, bold and distracting.

How would i fix it? .. good question and not easy to address! .. but as i have been blunt to the point of rude (i apologise Sully you are a decent chap who certainly deserves more consideration and tact!)

-Landmasses could use a hint of reality, a topographical allusion. That would lend the overall feel of the image some grandeur
-Texture, refinement and detail will add adultness and engagement with ones intellect.
-Take the peripheral graphics out from their cartoonlike theme... it demeans the impact, perhaps some more detailed artistry, line-drawn, architectural, Watercolour?... i am not sure as it needs to partner a new tone for the whole persona of the entire cartographic image.
-No idea how to alter the links to make them work .... i realise you can not use territory borders due to copyright ... but at present they seem like a compromise; something there through necessity.
-The flags as a border could work .. but rough em up a little, they are blocky and naive. (intentional and in keeping with the map i understand but they and the tone is not indicative of the flagship of the site)

In truth i always i envisaged the replacement of the godfather of maps, the reason pretty much all of are or were ever here, as a wondrous experiment in artistry. Something to titillate the ocular taste buds. An image which at once lays siege to our sense of comfort and settles in wistful, joyful reminisce. A map which lives-up to an idealised and sainted perception of its predecessor.
....something along the lines of the of what we saw for the Brazil map!

Here, and again i truly apologise for my uncharacteristic lack of temper Sully, we have an image which simply fills the place as better than nothing. (better than the abominable classic shapes) In my opinion it lacks derision, as commentators are just grateful for anything... where they never believed anything could come!

Gampelay: practically perfect!

bye,

jim

sully800 wrote:The current version (division on the Pacific) was chosen because it will be more recognizable to new players and more familiar to players who knew the original Classic. I know there are several advantages to the Pacific split in terms of cities (America and Oceania get more, for example) but the benefits of having a recognizable and familiar map outweighed the other options.

To be a revamped Classic this is the orientation we must proceed with, I don't think that point can be up for debate.

makes perfect sense to me, when do we expect to be able to play it?

sully800 wrote:[*]Adjust the red in the title. I initially liked the light red because it fits well with the pastels of the city line, but a brighter color will go better with the CC logo. Shooting for a middle ground in the next draft.[/list]

Yes, please do what you can to portray that this is the official map of Conquer Club. As well as using something more similiar to the CC logo you can also use our "official" flag icons (I'm sending you a an email now with hi-res flag icons attached) instead of the current flags.

It seems you already are doing this but I'd try to choose cities from the continents of our old Classic whenever possible, to help keep this revamp recognizeable.

Also, I think jiminski has a point about the city line being a bit on the juvenile side. Do you think you can do something more sophisticated? Sorry to be critical, but this is our flagship map and all!

if this is revamping the classic shapes isnt the game play suppose to be about the same? Looks like spots are pretty much moved all over the place