Classic-Castle.com

sir aleks the bold wrote:(...) since walls should be the same color and style (...)

Why should they? In real life they aren't either! Whenever the terrain around the city allowed it, cities would build them lighter, lower or otherwise less expensive (or even not at all). Don't forget that walls were extremely expensive, so when swamps, lakes, rivers, cliffs, canyons, mountains, etc. didn't oblige heavy walls, they wouldn't be build. When cities didn't have enough money to maintain the walls in perfect condition, it could lead to deterioration of the walls, bad reparations, etc. Walls were seldom build at once, every-time a city expanded the new quarters would need new walls.
There are many reasons why the walls of a city could have variations in color, thickness, height, etcetera. Even the wall standard AK_Brickster suggests would almost be too uniform. However, some general standards can be very useful, like the style of the architecture (Middle-Eastern is highly unlikely in Garheim for example) and the materials the walls are build with (loam/stone bricks/stones/wood).

I think it's in the purpose of the game to limit builders as little as possible. Too much standardization can't be good, can it?

WvdP wrote:

sir aleks the bold wrote:(...) since walls should be the same color and style (...)

Why should they? In real life they aren't either! Whenever the terrain around the city allowed it, cities would build them lighter, lower or otherwise less expensive (or even not at all). Don't forget that walls were extremely expensive, so when swamps, lakes, rivers, cliffs, canyons, mountains, etc. didn't oblige heavy walls, they wouldn't be build. When cities didn't have enough money to maintain the walls in perfect condition, it could lead to deterioration of the walls, bad reparations, etc. Walls were seldom build at once, every-time a city expanded the new quarters would need new walls.
There are many reasons why the walls of a city could have variations in color, thickness, height, etcetera. Even the wall standard AK_Brickster suggests would almost be too uniform. However, some general standards can be very useful, like the style of the architecture (Middle-Eastern is highly unlikely in Garheim for example) and the materials the walls are build with (loam/stone bricks/stones/wood).

I think it's in the purpose of the game to limit builders as little as possible. Too much standardization can't be good, can it?

some veneration in the wall height and stile is ok, but I think what AK is trying to prevent is having a wall made out of part gray stone part brick, part sand stone, ext, ext.

Yeah I don't really like the idea of making rules for what/how anyone can build at all, so really what you end up with is just going back to your faction's general building guidelines like what materials would most likely be available, and their general building style. No need to get caught up in specifics unless you have to.
I also liked an idea that Wobnam proposed to me off-list: Don't draw anything on the map that hasn't been built yet. Seems simple and would keep all options open until someone actually builds something. This is supposed to be a MOC-based fantasy world after all, not a map-making exercise where you make the MOCs to fit the map.

But I also don't want to restrict anyone, so to each their own.

Hayden. wrote:Now its getting really quite complicated....

Agreed.

This is getting over complicated over nothing. A map's a map and can be changed, the same can be said about MOC's. Everything can be changed and adjusted if someone wants to do it, post it, etc. Overall, its all artistic freedom and should be encouraged. So let's just stop bicking like old women and start building, creating, getting on with the world of LCC. For there is no limit to the imagination, no standards, no one vision. Just ideas and creation. If someone wants to map a city, let them, its artistic freedom, if they want to build a micro scale of it, go ahead. If someone else wants to do so, go ahead. Its all good

I say, build your vision, map it, whatever and lets all have fun!

AK_Brickster wrote:I also liked an idea that Wobnam proposed to me off-list: Don't draw anything on the map that hasn't been built yet. Seems simple and would keep all options open until someone actually builds something.

I agree with this more than words can explain.

AK_Brickster wrote:I also liked an idea that Wobnam proposed to me off-list: Don't draw anything on the map that hasn't been built yet. Seems simple and would keep all options open until someone actually builds something.

I agree with this principle as well. We should be careful not to map too much. I also agree that this whole thing is supposed to be fun. But drawing to many maps and borders is very restricting, and often unfair to new members.

I'm all for this idea. We can still incorporate the rollover map, but it doesn't restrict anyone at all.

I agree everything should be built first.. thats the fun part we get to create this world , built by our own hands..

I agree that we should be building.

But I don't agree on the fact that we should not be providing illustrations (such as small scale City maps). By not providing these details we are creating another restriction to existing members and new members. After all, we are dealing with a world that is massive as has been articulated by AK and Wobnam, plus others as that.

So there should be room for both building a creation and mapping it before building.

Let's not be restrictive on any side.

Yes building first, then on to the map. Lets concentrate on the names for the locations of landmarks and ofcourse having fun and building awesome stuff --->For the Glory of Loreos

mencot wrote:Yes building first, then on to the map. Lets concentrate on the names for the locations of landmarks and ofcourse having fun and building awesome stuff --->For the Glory of Loreos

Indeed! FOR THE GLORY OF LOREOS!

AK_Brickster wrote:How would that work? Someone would build an entire wall for the whole city? Seems impractical. I'm not really in favor of the whole concept, but if you really wanted to make things uniform, you could come up with a wall standard for each city so that if someone's MOC needed to include a wall segment, they could build it along the same lines as everyone else. IE, "wall for city abc is X studs high by Y studs thick and features arches/columns/etc with a mixture of bley and tan."

that is a good idea (i originally ment a section of wall)

I know it has been discussed up and down, and I see both sides - but here's another thing to consider with mapping out cities:

It gives our world precise measurements. Looking at these city maps, you could estimate how big the city is and how many people live there. This causes problems once people start drawing up different cities and their measurements don't add up to each other and the general lore.

This is also why we haven't given exact measurements for the continent and why I think we should discourage specifying army sizes etc.

WHAT! We are "discouraged" to specify army sizes? So if I post a picture with an army of 200 men...thats not acceptable?

BAH-HUMBUG!

(I changed my post to say "why I think we shouldn't".)

You can build and post pictures of as many men as you like, of course.

It's just very hard to keep things consistent if we start specifying how many men are stationed at an outpost or are in specific armies.