Roman

The art style is Greek not roman, romans used arches and circular structures. Greeks used triangular ceilings with square buildings. The only thing they both use is columns.


Kind of an odd name choice for a Greek style map.


The map looks visually pleasing, but that’s about it. The layout has something to be desired. The amount of "Go here to die" areas on your map is absurd. The lack of cover both structural or lazy doesn't help with the fact that all the other cover was poorly placed. Your lines of sight are a complete mess, more like they weren't even taken into account.


I would give this map 1 star(just for the visual appeal, which has some questional forging), but out of mercy I will post and not review.

 

As a Classics major, you're completely wrong about this.

Edit:

I don't want to hijack this post with a meaningless argument...but Darkling when you were in Italy and you saw temple ruins that had square foundations and triangular pediments (roofs) did you think you were suddenly in Greece? Like the perimeter of each building that was square with a triangle pediment was Greek territory? Don't you understand that those were built by Romans?
To say that any classical structure with a square foundation and a triangle pediment can ONLY be considered Greek architecture is UTTERLY FALSE! The origins of this basic design lie in Post&Lintel construction which was used since the beginning of architecture as we know it in many different regions of the world that are NOT GREECE (e.g. Stonehenge, ****ing Egypt, China, Japan, India..). It is NOT AT ALL CLEAR enough how this square & triangle design developed to credit it entirely to the ancient Greeks. I'm pretty confident that I could have thought of putting a triangle roof on top of a square building so, y'know, THE RAIN AND SNOW SLIDE OFF. Plus, there are MULTIPLE DIFFERENT GREEK CULTURES which used this design hundreds of years apart from each other (Minoan, Mycenaean, Dorian...) . To simply say "it's Greek" is a GIGANTIC SIMPLIFICATION.
Roman architecture is derived from the styles of the ancient Greeks (which again is a huge amalgamation of multiple cultures in itself) along with multiple other ancient peoples (e.g. Phoenicians, Etruscans) and thus Roman architecture displays a mixture of different characteristics of these previous architectural styles. There are countless ROMAN buildings with the basic square & triangle design which you listed as a feature unique to Greek architecture (which is wrong since it can not be credited to the Greeks). It is not exclusive to one or the other.
Your classification method makes no sense. Me saying that a Roman temple that has columns only in the front (an Etruscan feature) is only Etruscan architecture and not Roman is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. By telling this guy his map is Greek not Roman because it has square temples with triangle pediments, don't you see how you're doing the exact same thing? Do you understand yet how style is influenced by other styles and none are completely original?
Also, Romans invented concrete allowing them to mold stone so that is why they were able to use arches to great effect, but... ROMANS DID NOT INVENT THE ARCH. THE GREEKS ALSO DID NOT INVENT THE ARCH BUT THEY USED IT BEFORE ROME EVER DID. So your arch rule is incorrect as well. Finally, it should not even be necessary to explain why your rule that Rome only used circular structures is incorrect since everyone knows that not all buildings in ancient Rome were circular. And obviously there were plenty of circular buildings before the Romans came along. How did you even let yourself write that?
Obviously your family vacation to Italy has taught you much more than 8 years of schooling on the subject has taught me. No need to insult me for simply pointing out that you're (kind of douchily) criticizing this map based on false information. The more you know...


As for the map, I haven't DL'd but here is my observation. I think it looks really open and plain. The structures seem very simplistic and for a natural area the boundaries of the map make it look too arena-like in my opinion. I would add more natural looking height variations to also help break up sight lines. I would also make the structures more versatile, probably by allowing players to get on top of them and isolating their interiors at least somewhat more for better cover. But I appreciate the...let's say "Greco-roman" theme and I think the map seems like it would play alright (hate saying that without actually playing) and that some changes to avoid spaces that are too wide open and to increase that good old verticality could make it much better.

 

I went to Italy over the summer a couple years back to study ancient art and architecture.

 

Do you read your replies before you post them?

I would ask if you even realize how douchy you seem, but I am now supplied with enough evidence to safely assume that you are simply a world class prick.

 

I read them, I just don't sugar coat things some times. I think be honest is important.

 

There is a big difference between being honest and being a pompous asshole.

Remember when I said I had evidence to show that you are simply a world class prick? Well, I wasn't just talking about that post. I, along with many other unfortunate souls, have been in an xbox live party with you.

I'm just being honest, I think it's important.

 

ok I will take deep consideration into the words you are saying and hold them close to my heart. Either way lets not turn this into a flame war or an arguement on the forums, if you truely have a problem we can talk on xbl. Either way lets be more mature and refrain from cursing and swaering at each other. I am done witht his thread.

 

Wow i like to think when i personally review a map i give an honest constructive opinion and focus on both positives and negatives when i dont agree with something in that map. You on the other hand go at it like this person has come and poured oil all over your lawn.

First of all you have failed to be respectful to the forger by being a complete arse going on the attack. Which is total uncalled for. I can somewhat forgive your confusion for mistaking the whole structural design history. Unlike yourself i dont proclaim to be some sort of architectural know it all. But when i saw this map i didnt go off on a blind rage and start flaming without first doing a two minute search on the internet to learn this popular design was covered all over and wide spread by the romans going as far as UK with it. (Yeah you wasted your trip to Italy it appears i learnt more in those two minutes online than you did whilst over there.) Hell infact my local town hall has a very similar design. But to come out like this and insult the work of this up coming forger is down right petty. You've done nothing but made yourself look like a complete tool. It cost nothing to be polite so you really should heed peoples opinions of your attitude and get a grip of yourself.