Army circles

by **Nikita_2006** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:06 pm

The darker circle on the place of the armies, why is it there.

On some maps the maps look better without it

by **Fitz69** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:12 pm

Good question. Are the army shadows really compulsory?
I've been toying with the idea since my Senate Map in a bit cluttered/crowded with the shadows.

Aside from troubles I've been having trying to center the numbers on them, I wonder if they are needed at all on some maps?

hmmm....

by **KEYOGI** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:23 pm

I really don't think they are necessary. They do seem to create more trouble than they are worth, but having said that I think maps tend to look better with the army shadows.

by **Fitz69** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:25 pm

Here's an example:

by **sully800** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:30 pm

As long as the numbers are visibile without army shadows, they are not necessary. For the senate map that appears to be the case.

Whether you include them or not is purely an aesthetic choice if everything is legible.

EDIT- Canada, Space, Middle East, CCU, Crossword, Indochina, Montreal, Circus Maximus, Ireland, Alexander's Empire.....none of them have shadows.

The fact that they also make up a general list of the worst looking and least liked maps seems to be unrelated. The interesting point is that over 1/3 of the maps have no shadows...much more than I would have guessed!

by **Incandenza** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:53 pm

Senate looks okay without the army circles, but unless it's a giant pain in the ass, you might want to rework the numbers so that each color is represented in each 'continent' so we get a better grasp of how it's going to look. I.e. there are no blue or yellow armies in TV or print media, that sort of thing.

(and slightly off topic: I've never understood the hate for CCU or space. Yeah, they're not the aesthetic wonders that australia or benelux or this map are, but they're good enough and they're dead fun. Just my $.02)

(but you're right about indochina. Calling it fugly just doesn't seem to cover it.)

by **KEYOGI** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:20 pm

sully800 wrote:As long as the numbers are visibile without army shadows, they are not necessary. For the senate map that appears to be the case.

I completely agree. I think a lot of maps need them to provide that contrast between number and map. The Senate map is fine without shadows, but as Incandenza pointed out, we need to see it with random numbers.

by **Qwert** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:31 pm

by **Coleman** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:37 pm

I still find the red on red in republican completely painful. I think you need army shadows. I think the suggestion to pick a dot in a single circle and make that the xml for each coordinate for every circle was a good idea.

by **Fitz69** on Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:20 pm

oh, I have'nt given up on my shadows. Only a poular uprising would make me reconsider.

by **Wisse** on Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:31 am

it looks much better with shades

by **bedplay** on Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:56 am

Wisse wrote:it looks much better with shades

seconded

by **RAMB0.36** on Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:48 pm

look like it would long and fun. i think it is well disined

by **Nikita_2006** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:57 pm

If the map looks good without the shadows, it is OK I think.

The map looks less crowdy

If the fonts are OK they are not needed

So get rid of the shadows

by **Qwert** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:05 pm

when colors of terittory same like numbers then you need a circle, but if dont the same colors you dont need circle. Problem its that you must use some of these color.

by **oaktown** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:48 pm

I think people get frustrated with the army shadows because they make map development much more difficult. However, if the army count was displayed against a background image that made sense with the map it would have new life. For instance, why not army shields in historic maps? Maybe King of the Hill should have army cones instead of circles? The US Senate can have army blank checks.

by **Coleman** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:52 pm

Whoa, could we have squares instead of circles? That might look better, and it would probably be easier to center.

by **Guiscard** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:57 pm

oaktown wrote:I think people get frustrated with the army shadows because they make map development much more difficult. However, if the army count was displayed against a background image that made sense with the map it would have new life. For instance, why not army shields in historic maps? Maybe King of the Hill should have army cones instead of circles? The US Senate can have army blank checks.

I don't think I can quite comprehend... no... no army circles... :shock:

SQUARES

by **Skittles!** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:58 pm

I think have army squares would be good, quite cool actually.

by **sully800** on Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:11 pm

Yeah I posted a while ago asking why everyone uses circles. I said you could use squares, stars, triangles or themed images even. We have yet to see anything except circles though.

by **AndyDufresne** on Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:15 am

Someone do something then!

--Andy

by **oaktown** on Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:46 am

AndyDufresne wrote:Someone do something then!
--Andy

Yeah, I've got an idea for my next map that will have army pyramids. However, I'm pretty busy with my current project, centering the counts on the army circles and what-not.

Army circles

Army circles

Who is online