Russian Civil War

[OneEyed]

some guys had some good notices for Russia map and also besause I like maps with idea here is map about Russian Civil War during years 1918 - 1920.
I tried to be accurate as possible, but it is not possible to include all events. you can find there armies, cities, railways, oneway attacks, new states and many more.
the bonuse are divided between bonus for army and bonus for state.

new another gameplay

[/url][/IMG]
brief

next possible version

brief

OneEyed

PS: does somebody knows what is with Shepherd? he seems unactive.

 

[masterjskye]

That looks really cool OneEyed - I love the styling and the colours you've used. I want to play this one ASAP!

I think it's your best creation yet! I wouldn't change anything, style wise. Gameplay wise it looks nicely complicated.

I find the information in the boxes slightly hard to read though, maybe some spaces between the different bits of information would be helpful, to my eye it all kind of blends in to one just now.

 

[LordAdef]

Me too. I like the minimalistic style of it and agree the legibility should be work out better and the spellings double checked. All in all I should say it's time for us to overture one of your maps, you've striving hard and I am sure Shepherd is happy to have another mapper in his team.

 

[ndrm31]

I find very interesting in that period the revolution in Ukraine, that fought against both, te Red Army & The White Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

Very nice map Oneyed

 

[Cardinalsrule]

This looks good, but I'm having a hard time visualizing it without the various commands being split into their terts, and with the 'brief' writing in the middle of the map. And what are those holes in the middle? Could you give us a version with the brief and one with just the terts the way you did with the Crusader map?

Shep's in and out, RL keeps him busy, and he is, after all, an unpaid volunteer. Plus I believe he's got a map or two of his own that he's working on.

The thing is, OneEyed, that the current interface to make maps with is clunky, cumbersome, and tedious. Shep is pretty much waiting until the recode gives him a system that is much easier to work with before he really starts pumping out some maps. Until then, yes, a few maps will be born, but the process won't be quick. Have patience, your work is nice and will, in time, come to fruition!

 

[OneEyed]

That looks really cool OneEyed - I love the styling and the colours you've used. I want to play this one ASAP!

I think it's your best creation yet! I wouldn't change anything, style wise. Gameplay wise it looks nicely complicated.

I find the information in the boxes slightly hard to read though, maybe some spaces between the different bits of information would be helpful, to my eye it all kind of blends in to one just now.

yes, I personaly like complicated gameplay, but not confusing one . maybe I will try to make it a little simplier, more intuitive.
will change legend, it must be clear and visible.

Me too. I like the minimalistic style of it and agree the legibility should be work out better and the spellings double checked. All in all I should say it's time for us to overture one of your maps, you've striving hard and I am sure Shepherd is happy to have another mapper in his team.

correct spelling can helps to have things clear. I will need help here, english is my third language
I am not in Shepherds team . I am just too bullheaded for surrender LOL

I find very interesting in that period the revolution in Ukraine, that fought against both, te Red Army & The White Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

Very nice map Oneyed

there were many powers fighting in Ukraine. but situation was similar in all Russia. its imposible to implement all events. I tried to show this situation in Ukraine, so its capital Kiev is bolshevicks city, Odessa is not part of Ukraine bonus (it was occupied by French) and also Kharkov is not part of Ukraine bonus (it was captured by Volunteers Army).

what was my core idea to make state bonuses and army bonuses workable together. so one player could holds bonus for Ukraine, another for Volunteers Army... the goverments in these times were still governing also when state lost any area.

This looks good, but I'm having a hard time visualizing it without the various commands being split into their terts, and with the 'brief' writing in the middle of the map. And what are those holes in the middle? Could you give us a version with the brief and one with just the terts the way you did with the Crusader map?

there are already two images. one is map, second brief. the holes are cities which are not included in state bonuses.

guys thanks for interest and ideas. will try the best in next version.

OneEyed

 

[Cardinalsrule]

there are already two images. one is map, second brief. the holes are cities which are not included in state bonuses.

OneEyed

Hmmm. The first image won't show for me, just getting the little black box with an X no matter how many times I try to refresh.

The 'holes' I was referring to are the large white areas with nothing in them in the brief map, 2 north of Ukraine and east of Poland and one north of Komuch.

 

[OneEyed]

Hmmm. The first image won't show for me, just getting the little black box with an X no matter how many times I try to refresh.

The 'holes' I was referring to are the large white areas with nothing in them in the brief map, 2 north of Ukraine and east of Poland and one north of Komuch.

I have no problem with showing large map. hope this will works for you.
that holes are neutral areas. when you could see map, things will be more clear

[/url][/IMG]

OneEyed

 

[patsfan44]

This looks damn good!!!

 

[Sebrim]

Hiya, I also like this map very much. It is very difficult since the boundaries at that time were very fluent and changed several times, but you have done a good job.

I just want to point out some inconsistencies regarding the territory names:

1. The Finnish territories are named with their Finnish names, except Vyborg, whose Russian name you've used. Is there a reason behind it? The Finnish name is Viipuri

2. Livonia is a name that can be used for medieval times, but not after the 18th century. This is one of the territories that were highly contested, but it ended up as Latvia in the end, so I would use that designation.

3. Vilno is the Russian transliteration of the Polish name of the city Vilnius (Wilno). Since it ended up as a Polish city, Wilno would be correct.

4. Kovno is the Russian name for KAunas, which ended up as Lithuania. Since you have Estonia (which had no counterpart in the Russian times) and Latvia (maybe, if you agree to my point 2.), then the natural designation of this territory would be Lithuania.

5. Stavrapol should be Stavropol

6. Georgia is the English name for this state, which for the Russians always was Gruzia. If you insist on using Kovno and Vilno, you definitely need to use Gruzia here.

7. Azarbaijan should be Azerbaijan

8. Kasan should be Kazan

9. In Astrakhan and Kharkov you use 'kh' to designate the Russian 'x'. In Archangelsk you use 'ch'. I'd like to see it unified.

10. Vologoda should be Vologda

I hope you see these points and agree to change them. I'm not that knowledgeable about the more eastern regions, but I saw that Semipalatinsk with it's capital Alash-kala is somewhat anachronistic, since as long as the region was called Semipalatinsk, the city had the same name, while the city was only called Alash-kala (or -qala) within the Alash Autonomy (1917-1920). But that might be intended?

 

[OneEyed]

Hiya, I also like this map very much. It is very difficult since the boundaries at that time were very fluent and changed several times, but you have done a good job.

thanks. I work on new version with a little different situation. its hard to setup it to be historic correct, but also have not too complex gameplay.

I just want to point out some inconsistencies regarding the territory names:

1. The Finnish territories are named with their Finnish names, except Vyborg, whose Russian name you've used. Is there a reason behind it? The Finnish name is Viipuri

2. Livonia is a name that can be used for medieval times, but not after the 18th century. This is one of the territories that were highly contested, but it ended up as Latvia in the end, so I would use that designation.

3. Vilno is the Russian transliteration of the Polish name of the city Vilnius (Wilno). Since it ended up as a Polish city, Wilno would be correct.

4. Kovno is the Russian name for KAunas, which ended up as Lithuania. Since you have Estonia (which had no counterpart in the Russian times) and Latvia (maybe, if you agree to my point 2.), then the natural designation of this territory would be Lithuania.

5. Stavrapol should be Stavropol

6. Georgia is the English name for this state, which for the Russians always was Gruzia. If you insist on using Kovno and Vilno, you definitely need to use Gruzia here.

7. Azarbaijan should be Azerbaijan

8. Kasan should be Kazan

9. In Astrakhan and Kharkov you use 'kh' to designate the Russian 'x'. In Archangelsk you use 'ch'. I'd like to see it unified.

10. Vologoda should be Vologda

I did not check names for now (I used ones from old map of Russian gubernias), so thanks for help.

1, these are international names, not finish totaly. but I will check them. the question is if I will go with native names of each country or with international ones. or use russian names for all map.
2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, agreed (some are my mistakes).
3, Vilnius looks the best for me, while I use international names (Warsaw not polish Warszawa).
4, I found that Kaunas was used from 1940. the town was known as Kovno for all world (with little changes based on language).
6, again Georgia is international name. and also it was de facto occupied by Brittish in these times.

I hope you see these points and agree to change them. I'm not that knowledgeable about the more eastern regions, but I saw that Semipalatinsk with it's capital Alash-kala is somewhat anachronistic, since as long as the region was called Semipalatinsk, the city had the same name, while the city was only called Alash-kala (or -qala) within the Alash Autonomy (1917-1920). But that might be intended?

and map is from 1918-1919 so Alash-kala is right name for that town, I think .

OneEyed

 

[OneEyed]

new version of gameplay

[/url][/IMG]
brief

OneEyed

 

[OneEyed]

the third version of map will be enough for any interest?

OneEyed

 

[Geoffrey]

I like it! Finland only has one border though and is worth two troops, while Caucusus has two defend two places and is only worth 1, Poland has to defend 2 or 3 places and is only worth 1, the Baltics has to defend 3 places and is only worth 1! Same with Ukraine.

And would Alash, PA-RG and RSFSR be worth more? Perhaps not Alash, but them being really huge and having lots of borders might be worth noting?

 

[Sebrim]

I like it too

Finland actually has three borders. That white patch in the north is not neutral territory, but not part of a command either.

If you have Poland and the Baltics, you only need to defend three terts for a plus 2. That makes it more reasonable, I think.

I would like to have the Estonian islands made green, such as the rest of Estonia. And maybe a sea connection between Estonia and the city of Helsinki? Then obviously I would agree that the Baltics should be +2 at least.

 

[OneEyed]

I like it! Finland only has one border though and is worth two troops, while Caucusus has two defend two places and is only worth 1, Poland has to defend 2 or 3 places and is only worth 1, the Baltics has to defend 3 places and is only worth 1! Same with Ukraine.

Finland has 3 borders.
Caucasus have only 3 region and bonus +1, but as Poland and Baltics give you bonus +1 and next bonus autodeploy +1 to city if entire state is held.
yes, Ukraine could be +2.

And would Alash, PA-RG and RSFSR be worth more? Perhaps not Alash, but them being really huge and having lots of borders might be worth noting?

do not forgot that as PA-RG also RSFSR when are held have autodeploy bonuses in cities, bonuses for armies and bonuses for dashed fronts.
maybe Alash Autonomy could be +3?

I like it too

Finland actually has three borders. That white patch in the north is not neutral territory, but not part of a command either.

correct

If you have Poland and the Baltics, you only need to defend three terts for a plus 2. That makes it more reasonable, I think.

yes.

I would like to have the Estonian islands made green, such as the rest of Estonia.

ok. no problem, there will be much more graphic things to do.

And maybe a sea connection between Estonia and the city of Helsinki?

I thought about any connection between Helsinki and Riga (through ship? - Finns supported Baltics with firearms and also british supported them).

Then obviously I would agree that the Baltics should be +2 at least.

the Baltics have the same postiton as Poland. but bonuses will be also changed I think.

the main question for me is:
is better version with dashed frotns or version without them.
also is the whole bonus system not too much complicated?

thanks for input guys.

OneEyed

 

[Shepherd]

QFT...

Shep is pretty much waiting until the recode gives him a system that is much easier to work with before he really starts pumping out some maps. !

Now, about this map... overall I like it much better than the earlier Russia map. Thematically the presence of cities and railways make more sense here. And the overall shape and flow of this map is much better - it won't turn into an east vs. west two player stand-off with a huge mass of troops in the middle of the map. The impassables break up the map nicely, and using the cities as river crossings makes good sense.

I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around the information regarding the cities. For example, my brain explodes when I read:
"SIBERIAN ARMY, INSIDE "PA-RG" AUTO-DEPLOY FOR EACH BORDERING REGIONS OUTSIDE "PA-RG" + 1 AUTODEPLY WHEN ALL ARMIES INSIDE "PA-RG" ARE HELD +2 FOR ALL OUTSIDE DASHED REGIONS"

This is fraught with problems. For starters, there's no punctuation so I don't know who gets what bonus. Next, nowhere on the map can you see what PA-RG is, so you have to have the brief map up to understand information on the main map. And I had to Google it to discover what it is. The language is confusing, and since I'm not clear about the meaning I can't tell if it's something the game engine can handle.

Overall, I think this map could benefit from some visual simplification. For example:

• is there a reason for the waffle pattern on the cities? Those cities with special features already have a flag. Other cities - such as Helsinki - have no need for the pattern. And some cities have flag, stripe, and waffle, with a river running through them, and a rail connection, and a one-way attack. Samara, anyone?
• the overall color scheme is very hard on my color-blind eyes. As soon as your overlay the stripes I can't tell what - if any - command the region is attached to.
• the railways are so much darker than the the border that they look like the borders.
• the mountains kind of get lost in the borders - I both love and hate making mountains on maps because they need to be just so.

I've never been a fan of one-way borders. If a person can walk across the border from Uralsk to Cossacks, can they not turn around and go the other way? That means that in the game you also can reinforce troops back from Cossacks to Uralsk. One-way attacks make sense in some cases - paratroopers can't jump back up to a plane, an amphibious invasion force might not be able to turn around and take back their ship, or soldiers in a castle can open the sally ports and run out while those laying siege can't open the doors and run in - but a 300 mile long border should be cross-able in both directions, yes?

In a nutshell, I would focus on the gameplay features that are most necessary to make this map fun to play and a good reflection of history, and think about what you can edit away to make it accessible to the largest number of players.

 

[OneEyed]

I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around the information regarding the cities. For example, my brain explodes when I read:
"SIBERIAN ARMY, INSIDE "PA-RG" AUTO-DEPLOY FOR EACH BORDERING REGIONS OUTSIDE "PA-RG" + 1 AUTODEPLY WHEN ALL ARMIES INSIDE "PA-RG" ARE HELD +2 FOR ALL OUTSIDE DASHED REGIONS"

This is fraught with problems. For starters, there's no punctuation so I don't know who gets what bonus. Next, nowhere on the map can you see what PA-RG is, so you have to have the brief map up to understand information on the main map. And I had to Google it to discover what it is. The language is confusing, and since I'm not clear about the meaning I can't tell if it's something the game engine can handle.

I have allways problem with wording and explaintation in the legend. and yes, no punction does not help

Overall, I think this map could benefit from some visual simplification. For example:

• is there a reason for the waffle pattern on the cities? Those cities with special features already have a flag. Other cities - such as Helsinki - have no need for the pattern. And some cities have flag, stripe, and waffle, with a river running through them, and a rail connection, and a one-way attack. Samara, anyone?
• the overall color scheme is very hard on my color-blind eyes. As soon as your overlay the stripes I can't tell what - if any - command the region is attached to.
• the railways are so much darker than the the border that they look like the borders.
• the mountains kind of get lost in the borders - I both love and hate making mountains on maps because they need to be just so.

will change things you mentioned here. especialy waffle

I've never been a fan of one-way borders. If a person can walk across the border from Uralsk to Cossacks, can they not turn around and go the other way? That means that in the game you also can reinforce troops back from Cossacks to Uralsk. One-way attacks make sense in some cases - paratroopers can't jump back up to a plane, an amphibious invasion force might not be able to turn around and take back their ship, or soldiers in a castle can open the sally ports and run out while those laying siege can't open the doors and run in - but a 300 mile long border should be cross-able in both directions, yes?

the one way attacks here showed way of main attacks of both sides. but I think I understand you.

In a nutshell, I would focus on the gameplay features that are most necessary to make this map fun to play and a good reflection of history, and think about what you can edit away to make it accessible to the largest number of players.

simpler is often more as complex...

QFT...
Quote Originally Posted by Cardinalsrule View Post
Shep is pretty much waiting until the recode gives him a system that is much easier to work with before he really starts pumping out some maps. !

ok. lets have christmas time and break and wait when new code will be here. but let not us to entomb ideas

OneEyed

 

[Shepherd]

lets have christmas time and break and wait when new code will be here. but let not us to entomb ideas

I agree - you should keep working on this one. I'll try to sort out the city bonuses to better understand if it is something the server can do. I have some other ideas for the graphics that I would love to bring up if we get that far.

 

[OneEyed]

I agree - you should keep working on this one. I'll try to sort out the city bonuses to better understand if it is something the server can do. I have some other ideas for the graphics that I would love to bring up if we get that far.

wait with shelling the legend. before christmas I will post new version with new legend.

OneEyed