MrBenn wrote:1. Flag Border
I like the border - it brings something unique to the map. The left-hand edge has a black pixel-width border which is missing from the right-hand side. The black edge puts some definition to the map, and I'd also like to see that replicated along the top and bottom edges. Do the positions of the flags bear any correlation to the position of counties/territories on the map?? A random observation is that there are 28 flags, and more than 28 locations on the map - I don't think it's important, but it's the kind of thing that I notice!
The lines on the border have been fixed. As for the flags, there are only 28 countries on the map (including Hong Kong) and they are in alphabetical order. Many of the countries, especially America have multiple cities. In case anyone would like to check, the flags I have are:
Argentina, Austrailia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo DR, Cuba, Egypt, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United States
MrBenn wrote:2. World Cities Title
The title appears to have higher contrast than the rest of the map, and feels like it jumps out a little bit too much. It's slightly offset from the main area of action, but I think you could afford to bring the brightness/contrast down a fraction, and possibly make it slightly smaller - so that the left edge is almost where the Brazil/Canada flags meet.
There's a small but of dead space at the top of the map, and I wonder what it would look like if you were to bring the top-flag-border down by about 20px, and let the skyscrapers overlap on top of it?
I still wasn't happy with the old title so I made a new one with a similar theme. It is still high contrast, but the green is taken from the land, and the blues of the words are taken from the water so I think it meshes a lot better. The black and white are slightly off color to avoid contrast issues, and it overlaps the flag border because it is taller than the old title. Let me know what you think!
MrBenn wrote:3. Bonus Globes
The globes are a first-class piece of work, and look fantastic. My only thought is that you could probably shift them down the map by 50-80px to fill some of the dead space at the bottom of the map. Do you intend to add the region names anywhere? They aren't essential, but it sometimes helps to have them on the map somewhere as a point of reference - particularly as we're using almost-non-standard-continent names.
Thanks! They have been shifted down to fill in the empty space. As you can see I also added continent labels around each globe which looks somewhat busy, but I think it might work. Once again, you all need to let me know how it strikes you.
WidowMakers wrote:Region names are required for XML anyway so they will need to be added.
The names around the globe are the ones I will use in the XML. Since people are fairly familiar with the names of these areas, it would be possible to include them in the XML only and leave just the numbers on the map. But as Benn said, they aren't quite standard so it may be best to include them for clarity.
MrBenn wrote:4. Territory Labels
The colour-differentiation should be enough to tell the regions apart; mixing the fonts up looks a bit inconsistent to me. I'd much rather see the same font all over the place. I know there were murmurs of support for different typefaces, but I think using the same one would look more coherent. As for which one you go for, the poll was fairly inconclusively in support of the three that fit the map the best. Personally I'd say it's a weigh-up between the two you've used in the Americas (my vote goes with the South).
I was leaning toward a single font as well, I only kept the multiple fonts because there were a few voices who said they liked the extra differentiation. For this version I chose the Oceania font from the poll. It is the widest font however and might create spacing problems. The South America would be my next choice if we stay with a single font.
MrBenn wrote:5. Connections
My random musing was whether they should be referred to connections, borders, paths, attack routes, trade routes etc... That aside, I think they're mostly clear. The New York/London paths probably don't need to be so bendy, and don;t necessarily need to exactly wrap (ie they can leave the edge at different heights). I'd move the path so that it doesn;t go under the NY label. The Istanbul/Volgograd link is almost lost in the sandy coloured land - any chance you could make it a bit more visible please. For some reason the Istanbul/Cairo link looks like it might be difficult to spot - which might be due to the fact it looks like it could be the border of Turkey?
Fixed the bendiness of the London-NY, and I moved the connections you mentioned so they cross water.
MrBenn wrote:6. AOBI don't think there are any other matters arising
I'm not sure what AOB means.
thedon5 wrote:Small suggestion with the London and New York connect to each other; maybe something like this?
London and New York connect to each other.
Done. Also, I moved this label to the upper left corner, because it conflicted with the region labels. If the region labels are going to stay, I could also move the London/NY label to the bottom center of the map. If it stays in the top left I will delete the island that sits underneath to make it more legible.
I don't believe I changed anything else
- Click image to enlarge.
