Flanders 1302V15[Beta] major changes! P19

by **lt_oddball** on Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:49 am

very nice.

you forgot to fix the X-border St Amands-Valencijn-Bergen-Doornik
and text
"1302. Worried by growing signs of independence in the major cities of French controlled Flanders, King Philip IV declared war on the rebels... and lost. The knights of the French army were defeated by an army of Flemish peasants."

Later, I have a look at bonus values (simplest is the substraction of the autodeploys from the standard value).. and have a better look at where impassables are good to have and where not for the map..

by **Symmetry** on Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:09 pm

Some of those territories can be broken down. Maybe a break between Gent and Flanders on the Eeklo/ Roesclare border? Or Roesclare/Ieper

French territories could be broken up too. The Bethune/ Terwaan border maybe?

Whatever you decide, I'd say that some of those bonuses need to come down.

The big sea route could be shorter too. I'd say remove it entirely unless you break up the territories.

This map has a lot of borders to defend for any territory held. I'll wait for someone with a calculator to run the numbers.

by **lt_oddball** on Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:49 am

My bonus suggestion would be :

Artesie (6-2) = 4
Kroon Vlaanderen (10-4) = 6
Henegouwen 4
Kortrijk (5-1)= 4
Brabant (3-1) = 2
Vier Ambachten 2
Rijks Vlaanderen (3-1) = 2
Oostervant (3-1) = 2

(substracted autodeploy goes without saying).
No governing rule: .. but I don't warrant each border terr. a +1..simply because the opponent(s) wont be able to place on each of the common borders a massive defense force either..

Also note , your border of 3 terr. may be facing the opponent border of only 2 terr. which naturally means that you WILL conquer those 2 to protect your bonuszone, thus only 2 x +1 instead of 3 x +1 in such a case (Artesie/KroonVlaanderen).

Also note , that by giving the small locked zones such as Oostervant and Rijksvlaanderen such huge bonusses as you proposed (based on basic rules)you'll see that those get to be the key zones to hit for at start, in which case the lucky spawner in that area (and his neighbor a deadbeat or a noob) is quick to rule the map by only conquering a couple of territories. And you 'll see that after round 4 the match is already decided by this player.
So push that (game decided too early) effect down by reducing bonuslevels of the small zones (afteral, they are only tiny zones) and leave more rounds to conquer before you can say that the game is decided.

by **alster** on Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:31 pm

Vlaanderen Onafhankelijk!

by **lt_oddball** on Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:03 am

alstergren wrote:Vlaanderen Onafhankelijk!

yesssirrr

by **iancanton** on Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:52 pm

lt_oddball wrote:Artesie (6-2) = 4
Kroon Vlaanderen (10-4) = 6
Henegouwen 4
Kortrijk (5-1)= 4
Brabant (3-1) = 2
Vier Ambachten 2
Rijks Vlaanderen (3-1) = 2
Oostervant (3-1) = 2

(substracted autodeploy goes without saying).

i'm broadly in agreement, except i'd reduce kroon vlaanderen to no more than +5: although this is a difficult bonus, it can be built up gradually by earning +2 and +1 auto-deploys on brugge, ieper and gent.

Symmetry wrote:The big sea route could be shorter too. I'd say remove it entirely unless you break up the territories.

DubWarrior wrote:This sea-link was an idea to link 2 'ends' on the map with eachother. If it's impossible for a player to cross the map, some good action can be taken in that way, by using this connection. it's just a very small detail, and can be easily removed from the map.

the long sea route looks completely out of place and distorts the geography a little too much for me. if u do decide to keep it, then make it connect to a ship to slow down the attack a little bit (the ship will not be part of a bonus, but act only as a short cut, like antarctica in world 2.1).

RedBaron0 wrote:And what about the rebel strongholds? Will they start as neutral?

can u show the number of starting neutral troops on each auto-deploy bonus?

is atrecht the correct flemish name for arras? i presume that we're showing this conflict from a flemish viewpoint.

ian.

by **iceco** on Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:21 am

Atrecht is correct.

by **DubWarrior** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:00 am

Symmetry wrote:Some of those territories can be broken down. Maybe a break between Gent and Flanders on the Eeklo/ Roesclare border? Or Roesclare/Ieper

French territories could be broken up too. The Bethune/ Terwaan border maybe?

You mean: join Eeklo with Roeselaere in one territory? and join Bethune and terwaan into one?
I just like the idea of a large map?

by **DubWarrior** on Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:03 am

amongst the changes made:
-changed the bonuses
-changed the x-border doornik/bergen/valencijn/sint-amands
- removed the water-connection (as stated before; I was more looking for a trade route...a ship for battle in between the route looks more like a pirate-route

to me, so I deleted it, since I'm the only one who thought it was a nice idea)
-added the territory of Zierikzee.
(Take a look to version 8...what could happen was: a player in the right gains a +2 bonus for Vier Ambachten and a +2 for Brabant +1 for antwerp...is +5 for only 6 territories...and relative easily to defend...So instead of a central battlemap, all action is driven to the east...once conquered Brabant and Vier Amachten, the bordering Aalst will fast be conquered and the game is over...
so I added an extra territory, I hope that will be enough to get some complicated action on the center of the map

sorry if changes are slowly made
Grtz

DubWarrior

by **lt_oddball** on Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:39 am

okayy

The modified bonusvalues are fine with me.

Added Zierikzee (Flanders? :-s

) is good idea.

hmm..
can you curve the borderline Bergen - Halle at the east end sharply downwards .
So it becomes clearer that there is no way a direct connection between Bergen and Brussel (behind the Legend text).

Otherwise it is all fine by me. =D>

by **DubWarrior** on Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:10 am

So what is next? Their isn't much reply on this update...means it it fine? Do I need to ask a mod for a new stamp or not?

by **lt_oddball** on Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:54 am

DubWarrior wrote:So what is next? Their isn't much reply on this update...means it it fine? Do I need to ask a mod for a new stamp or not?

except for the "curve the borderline Bergen - Halle at the east end sharply downwards " I say go ahead , ask the new stamp! and work on xml =D>

by **DubWarrior** on Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:46 am

changes made:
- changed the border St-amands -Valencijn, Doornik and Bergen

by **iancanton** on Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:54 pm

lt_oddball wrote:Added Zierikzee (Flanders? ) is good idea.

agreed. however, zierikzee was on an island in v8, which is even better because it will be a non-border region. in a +2 bonus zone, 3 border regions is enough. assuming that u'll make zierikzee an island again, connected only by a water route to oostburg, i'm happy to encourage u to work on the graphics a bit more.

i believe u have the wrong location for oostburg, which ought to be on the unplayable yellow island north of eeklo (in the 21st century, it's not an island any more). rename it vlissingen or middelburg, perhaps? i'm unsure which one was more important in 1302.

http://www.collinsmaps.com/maps/Netherl ... 60.00.aspx

ian.

by **DubWarrior** on Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:44 am

Thanks Ian,
some strong points you mentioned. I'l rename Oostburg by Middelburg, also pretty important in 1302,
and more exact on that location.

by **SirSebstar** on Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:21 am

I think that for brugge to be totally sealed off while giving a +2 is way too strong even if it starts out as a neutral. Any option to make all castle connect to brugge or something?

by **DubWarrior** on Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:25 am

Hmmm, strong point...very true. I first did the rivers, and in a later version I did the +2 bonus. So I didn't correct it afterwards.

With Castles you mean Ieper and Gent? or connect all capitals with Brugge, like some sort of trade-rout?
looks like a serious decision to me... any options?
Wouldn't it be enough to link Ieper and Eeklo with Brugge?

by **pamoa** on Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:56 am

I know you already put a lot of work in this map and the result is great

my suggestions and remarks

your towers are so plain I'm sure you can give us a more sexy design, more in tone with the theme with some battlements

the lion in Brugge is very blurry

river around Brugge Kortijk and Gent is pixelised

I would put some frame around your bonus graphic legend

I really miss the drawing you had in version 3

I hope it will help you going on
good work =D>

by **lt_oddball** on Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:05 pm

DubWarrior wrote:Hmmm, strong point...very true. I first did the rivers, and in a later version I did the +2 bonus. So I didn't correct it afterwards.

With Castles you mean Ieper and Gent? or connect all capitals with Brugge, like some sort of trade-rout?
looks like a serious decision to me... any options?
Wouldn't it be enough to link Ieper and Eeklo with Brugge?

only bridge Brugge to Roeselare, yes.
(Brugge must not be too "open".. it is the key city and would have been tough defended against besieging french knights...).

True Zierikzee (Schouwen) is an Island ..(damn that I missed that).
Middelburg is on the peninsula towards NE of Antwerp ..(but would have been on island in 1302 ?).

by **DubWarrior** on Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:27 am

pamoa wrote:I know you already put a lot of work in this map and the result is great

my suggestions and remarks

your towers are so plain I'm sure you can give us a more sexy design, more in tone with the theme with some battlements

the lion in Brugge is very blurry

river around Brugge Kortijk and Gent is pixelised

I would put some frame around your bonus graphic legend

I really miss the drawing you had in version 3

I hope it will help you going on
good work

-For the towers, I'l keep it in mind and hopefully I can do some medieval drawing in the style of my signature...I don't like the shiny 3D-like style of it now...
-The Lion and the river are easy to correct, I will update them.
-The legend is a bit 'naked' now, true...Maybe a very small border, or extra parchment?
-Most important: You miss the drawing of version 3...? what exactly? everything, or the legend? On what point it was better. I always thought it was a good version, but then we did the darker version...

by **pamoa** on Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:57 am

DubWarrior wrote:-The legend is a bit 'naked' now, true...Maybe a very small border, or extra parchment?
-Most important: You miss the drawing of version 3...? what exactly? everything, or the legend? On what point it was better. I always thought it was a good version, but then we did the darker version...

small medieval style border would be perfect
the soldier drawing in the bg and it was a good version

by **DubWarrior** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:43 am

Hi, the cook is back

Amongst the changes:
-made Zierikzee an Island, only connencted with Middelburg
- added a border round the legend
-changed the capital-symbol (tower) by shields. It are the official shields or flags of the cities.
-changed the color of the French Capital Arras (turned into a lighter blue to make it more distinctive with the other capitals)

It is pretty strange. I made the map in Photoshop en added text in Illustrator. I opened it back in Photoshop to save it as a good jpg, and it is always saved a bit blurry. Any advice? (I made the map on a 300dpi, and scaled it at the end to 72dpi. I use a JPG 12 compresion 'Progression'.

by **natty dread** on Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:46 am

Save it as png..

by **lt_oddball** on Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:00 am

mooi hoor

by **MrBenn** on Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:42 pm

DubWarrior wrote:It is pretty strange. I made the map in Photoshop en added text in Illustrator. I opened it back in Photoshop to save it as a good jpg, and it is always saved a bit blurry. Any advice? (I made the map on a 300dpi, and scaled it at the end to 72dpi. I use a JPG 12 compresion 'Progression'.

The dpi makes no difference to what we see on screen (840px will always be 840px), so changing it will have no visible effect unless you're printing it out.

The aesthetics of the map feel a bit imbalanced. You have the clunky minimap in the top corner (which doesn't look that great, especially where it meets the actual land of the main map), while the graphically superior title and inset are hidden away amidst the main playable area.

Now that you've got all the gameplay elements in place, I'd seriously reconsider jiggling things around to enhance the overall graphical appeal of the map. You've done really well to get this far, I just feel that you should be looking to raise the bar that bit higher ;-)