Conquer Club

CoolC wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Also, bonus area names would be nice (besides the over-arching country bonuses).

You mean like naming it "Svealand" instead of Central Sweden?

Yeah, sorry my wording is a little unclear rereading it I mean, it's a little more exciting (and probably, more accurate) to have real names for continents instead of naming them based off of their location (a bit of a pet-peeve of mine). Who wants to conquer "Central Sweden" when you can conquer Svealand, right?

-Sully

I always figured it was easier for non-scandinavian people to know where the places are, if they are named as they are now, especially if I don't have a mini-map. Sure, the color is a good clue, but that make it harder for colorblind ppl. Perhaps ease of use is more important then looks here? I agree that it sound/look nicer with Norrland, Svealand and Götaland. But I am not sure there is such a clean division in the other countries?

Anyway, I made some new changes;

- Added compass rose instead of north-arrow
- redone/fixed some sea borders + minor stuff
- swapped norway/sweden in legend

Maybe the flags should be swapped as well now?

If I recall correctly, natty_dread had a hard time coming up with bonus names on the Nordic Countries map which kept everyone happy. You might want to review that topic for reference.

Having the the greenish deep forest pop out more, especially in Finland where it blends into the blue would be best to keep that impassible uniform and recognizable as an impassible.

The Impassible part of the legend could use small examples of the impassibles rather than words that could represent anything.

If there is a worry about the legend order, I would suggest putting Denmark first and retaining the the rest in their current order. To me at least that order has the easiest to follow flow, clockwise starting from Denmark.

The background could stand to be lightened up a bit.

RedBaron0 wrote:The background could stand to be lightened up a bit.

I disagree, I think the dark background makes it look more intense.

RedBaron0 wrote:Having the the greenish deep forest pop out more, especially in Finland where it blends into the blue would be best to keep that impassible uniform and recognizable as an impassible.

i didn't realise that we had a forest in finland. isn't it a lake?

RedBaron0 wrote:The Impassible part of the legend could use small examples of the impassibles rather than words that could represent anything.

true. just by looking at it, it's far from obvious that the small forest between närke and västergötland is impassable.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

RedBaron0 wrote:Having the the greenish deep forest pop out more, especially in Finland where it blends into the blue would be best to keep that impassible uniform and recognizable as an impassible.

i didn't realise that we had a forest in finland. isn't it a lake?

Yes indeed, which should be clear because it's quite blue and not green

It's pretty hard displaying the impassables since dark water on dark water for example tends to... blend together. Plus, since the legend is in text I think it fits better to have the impassables as text too.

But, I shall see what I can do to make it easier to understand. I'm thinking maybe adding "tree trunks" to the forest or putting small images of the impassables on a flat background next to the text. This is difficult to fit on the small map though.

Is this one needed with the Nordics map? Pretty much the same thing. Besides, shouldn't "Scandinavia" properly exclude Finland. Also, the region borders are very crude, not in line with the landskap.

alstergren:

1. You could say this about a LOT of maps on this site... the age of realms, feudal, the usa maps, several different world maps... No map except one (classic?) is really needed. I (and apparently some others atleast) think it would be nice to have an alternative though.

2. No. it's the same general region, but very different in both gameplay and graphics.

3. No. a part of the scandinavian range extend into finland. Denmark however should be excluded if I ment the mountain range. You are right that finland would be excluded if the word impled the scandi language region. However, what I ment to include what was most people in the world think of as "scandinavia".

4. You are wrong. The borders are pretty much exactly following the real existing borders, except a few minor changes to make space for everything and make it clearer. Or did you mean they are bad visually / graphics wise?

This has all been up before... so sorry if my response seem a bit rude. Tiring to keep repeating the same thing.
It also seem kind of pointless to comment just to complain without being the least constructive. Do you think it's something negative with more maps?

Hey.
The map is looking good. Well done.
I only have a little point to bring up. I think the two southern regions of Norway should be called Western and Eastern Norway, as that's how we refer to them in Norway.

Also, I find this constant referring to Scandinavia as a mountain range a bit strange. In Norwegian Skandinavia is a peninsula, we call the mountain range in question, the keel. Not that most people would consider it one mountain range, it's usually seen as several.
But having said that, I agree with the inclusions and exclusion of the map as is.

How we doing here? Uniqueness issue aside.... I'm thinking if you can clear up the legend a bit, and sort out your bonus colors into something friendlier to those with colorblindness, then you'll be well on your way out of here.

A bit short on time atm, but I will get a new version out in a week or so.

A bunch of fine tuning is planned, a test with inverted borders, a little brighter sea and indeed, either a better or completely new legend. May also make the forest impassables a bit more "icony" with tree trunks if I can make it look good. If I can not, then it will be clarified in the new legend instead.

I don't think the map can be improved any further for color blindness, I have already checked and adjusted this with the colorblind site several versions ago and it should be fine now. No problem at all seeing a difference between regions. It doesn't look very nice but nothing can be done about that without messing up colors for everyone else. If you don't agree with my conclusion about this (maybe you are color blind and surely a person is better suited to judging then a computer program), can you please give some hint about what is wrong and what can be done better to improve, preferably without degrading for everyone else?

Doesn't look like much of a problem, to me. I think the different browns are distinguishable enough.

Victor Sullivan wrote:Doesn't look like much of a problem, to me. I think the different browns are distinguishable enough.

Seriously are you blind? South-east Norway is the same of northern sweden on vischeck,or at least very very very similar....
But in any case, do you know if something is colorblind friendly more than a colorblind person? Before asking to someone to work again on colors I ALWAYS ask to a colorblind friend to look the map so, in this case, I'm 100% sure that some people could have problem with colors
If redbaron and me are saying this maybe there's a reason....no? Or do you think we enjoy to ask to coolC to work on them again?
Anyway...............................

==========================================================================================================================

CoolC , if you please could make south east norway and northern sweden a bit more distinguishable it would be really appreciated.
Other than that i think you should work a bit on the legend, try to make it less "boring"...i don't know....how the text looks with a different font.
Also try the same thing with impassables so they don't seem a territory label.

Keep it on, you're almost there
Nobodies

Since Norway and Sweden are all shades of green, which are not well distinguished in the colourblind version, perhaps the blue shades of Finland should be swapped into Sweden. Then the only troublesome contact points would be in the north, where light and dark greens could be used for contrast.

alstergren wrote:Is this one needed with the Nordics map? Pretty much the same thing. Besides, shouldn't "Scandinavia" properly exclude Finland.

Yes, this is not scandinavia.. these are the nordic countries in an uneducated disguise. It´s not scandinavia unless you drop Finland.

ballong wrote:

alstergren wrote:Is this one needed with the Nordics map? Pretty much the same thing. Besides, shouldn't "Scandinavia" properly exclude Finland.

Yes, this is not scandinavia.. these are the nordic countries in an uneducated disguise. It´s not scandinavia unless you drop Finland.

Nordic Countries includes Iceland. Part of Finland belongs to Scandinavia according to some definitions.

Thanks for some concrete suggestions.

I used the primary colors (red, green, blue, yellow) for as great contrast as possible for full color seeing people but it's clear some compromise is needed. I think the easiest will be to change Norway to a different color. Not sure which one yet, maybe some other shade of green, or maybe something else completely.

CoolC wrote:Thanks for some concrete suggestions.

I used the primary colors (red, green, blue, yellow) for as great contrast as possible for full color seeing people but it's clear some compromise is needed. I think the easiest will be to change Norway to a different color. Not sure which one yet, maybe some other shade of green, or maybe something else completely.

Going by the colour-blind test, another shade of green won't help. The most common form of colour-blindness involves confusion of red and green, and that's what this test shows. The blue clearly isn't affected as much and would make a better separator colour.

CoolC wrote:alstergren:

3. No. a part of the scandinavian range extend into finland. Denmark however should be excluded if I ment the mountain range. You are right that finland would be excluded if the word impled the scandi language region. However, what I ment to include what was most people in the world think of as "scandinavia".

4. You are wrong. The borders are pretty much exactly following the real existing borders, except a few minor changes to make space for everything and make it clearer. Or did you mean they are bad visually / graphics wise?

3. No. The term "Scandinavia" refers to Sweden, Finland and Norway (not Finland).
4. I am not. I live here. The region borders are much cruder in real life, not as soft. Take e.g. Jamtland and Västergötland (which doesn't extend to the sea in your version).

I am also a swede you know... didn't emigrate until ca five years ago. And I can look at a map.

3. There is obviously more then one definition of "scandinavia". This may not be perfectly fitting all the definitions but it is correct to +/- one country. Unless you have a better name to suggest, I will ignore any further postings about the name.

4. Indeed you are correct that ALL details of the borders are not there. I started out with an almost exact copy of the borders but during the development of the map made minor modifications like smoothing out squiggles here and changing a border to some direction by a small margin, in order to make it clearer and avoid any confusion like "are those two bordering or not?" I removed the small sea extension of V.G since it didn't matter gameplay wise (wasn't bordering anything) and only made it look awkward esthetically. Overall we are talking about a single number of pixels movement of stuff. That is what most people I think would call very minor changes. It's still vastly more accurate then Nordic Countries.

CoolC wrote:Thanks for some concrete suggestions.

I used the primary colors (red, green, blue, yellow) for as great contrast as possible for full color seeing people but it's clear some compromise is needed. I think the easiest will be to change Norway to a different color. Not sure which one yet, maybe some other shade of green, or maybe something else completely.

Rather than just considering changes to region colours, consider adjusting the brightness/darkness; this will also help to make more contrast between two neighbouring regions, if you make one lighter and the other darker.

CoolC wrote:I am also a swede you know... didn't emigrate until ca five years ago. And I can look at a map.

3. There is obviously more then one definition of "scandinavia".

yes the correct one and a fuzzy "sometimes this and that" one by people who don´t really give a shit about the real definition.

No Finns that I know of would say they´re from Scandinavia (if they were brought up in Finland).
No Swedes that I know of that lives in Sweden would say Finland is Scandinavia.
same with danes and norwegians..

ooh.. just noticed that you have been on a personal crusade to uneducate people for two years..
well.. why not call/write some relatives if you used to be a swede? Chances are very high that they will not include Finland in Scandinavia.

This is what your map really is: (or at least a lot closer.. no kola peninsula)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennoscandia

ballong: *sigh*... It's never a good idea to attack others by displaying your own ignorance.

The definitions I was talking about are "the scandinavian mountains", "the scandinavian peninsula", "the scandinavian language area" etc. which are all very real and mean different things. There are additional definitions if you include what "people on the street" would answer, or do you seriously believe you would get a uniform answer? But this doesn't matter. You are missing the point.

This is an international website and I used a name that is recognisable by most of the international community. It doesn't matter if some people don't think that Finland is properly part of Scandinavia, it's a compromise that is close enough. I sortof planned to call it Nordic countries in the beginning but Scandinavia is equally accurate without Iceland and a more known name outside the Nordics, and now that name is taken by nattys map anyway. Calling it Fennoscandia to fit a certain geographic and geological term and at the same time making it completely unknown to 99% of the world population doesn't sound like a very clever idea, to use diplomatic language.

I haven't been on any crusade, I have only responded to the people asking about it. I find it fashinating that so many people are obsessed by a name. Yet no-one has given an explanation why the name matters so much for them, nor given a better suggestion. Almost seem like they only try to find something to complain about for the sake of complaining.

Anyway, thanks to the real contributions here. I am fighting to find some free time to get the next version out. Hopefully I can find it soon. And for what it's worth, I am still a swede even though I happen to be living abroad for the moment and be ashamed of the fact after the last election.