ROME: CIVIL WAR v31

[Minister X]

And in the top left legend, "The dictator is dead" should be its own sentence. I'm a very un-fan of semicolons to connect two totally independent sentences.

"Assasinated in the Senate house" is not a complete sentence. You're half-right in your criticism; this should be a comma, not a semicolon. I'm an un-fan of people who confuse punctuation marks with sports teams.

[TaCktiX]

Wow, I got grammar nazi'ed back. I suppose I should stop goosestepping around the Foundry now...

[Minister X]

BTW the reason the bridges have perspective is so their 3-dimensionality can be shown. If viewed flat on from the side all you'd get is a silhouette. The same is true of the large arches - and see how they're also shown in perspective. With the other illustrations it's irrelevant. But I'm open-minded - draw me a bridge and I'll post a comparison for folks to weigh in on. As I've said: I'm no artist. I'm sure better bridges could be made - I just don't know how to do it myself.

[lostatlimbo]

:D
BTW the reason the bridges have perspective is so their 3-dimensionality can be shown. If viewed flat on from the side all you'd get is a silhouette. The same is true of the large arches - and see how they're also shown in perspective. With the other illustrations it's irrelevant. But I'm open-minded - draw me a bridge and I'll post a comparison for folks to weigh in on. As I've said: I'm no artist. I'm sure better bridges could be made - I just don't know how to do it myself.

I think Tacticx point is that the perspective on the bridges should be the same as the arches.

This is a simple fix, just Flip those images on the Horizontal axis and then rotate them slightly so that the base line (where the bridge would theoretically meet the ground) is perpendicular with the base line of the arches.

[lostatlimbo]

And in the top left legend, "The dictator is dead" should be its own sentence. I'm a very un-fan of semicolons to connect two totally independent sentences.

"Assasinated in the Senate house" is not a complete sentence. You're half-right in your criticism; this should be a comma, not a semicolon. I'm an un-fan of people who confuse punctuation marks with sports teams. :twisted:

If it were me, I'd opt for a hyphen there or you could simply phrase it as...
The dictator has been assassinated in the senate house.
...and bypass punctuation drama altogether. :)

[lostatlimbo]

I played with the river and got it looking so awful I had to start over from scratch. :) Is it too bright now?

Yes, I think it is too bright. Try a shade closer to #1f2169 and maybe a little shadow (or gradient) along the edges.

As noted above it's not a metal frame at all, but I took the suggestion about the black background (part of it anyway).

I think the mosaic is fine, but if you are going to change it, I think some roman laurels would fit the map a little better.

Even though you've explained the mosaic, at a glance, it does have more of an ironwork feel to it. It just seems a tad more medieval than roman.

Unfortunately, most people have very simplistic concepts of ancient times and I think the laurel fits in with that better than any actual roman claywork.

The title has been changed considerably. It's now a bloody mess. ;) Like it?

Personally, no. I would try to go for something that looked more stone-like. Something that is etched into the map, perhaps?

[natty dread]

You know, I personally would get rid of that frame around the map and give the whole map a marble texture. Maybe something like this one http://www.textureking.com/content/img/ ... C01645.JPG

The title looks nice enough now... the blood drops are ok, the pools of blood under them seem a bit overboard though...

[Minister X]

You know, I personally would get rid of that frame around the map...

Did you look at the version without? The one with just a black line? What do you think of it?

[cairnswk]

I still don't like the bridges, mostly due to their perspective on the map (which is angled back) compared to all other elements (which are side-on or head-on)...

I have to agree with TaCktiX, the bridges are not the best...i get what you are trying to do...perhaps downsize them a bit to two culvets instead of four, and i think they might need the same perspective as the large gate icons - from right to left-back.

I am mixed about the metal frame...it is rather big and stands out a great deal almost swallowing the map.
Not sure about the black border under it from previous version.
Perhaps it is the concept of the metal chain. Have you tried other Roman border patterns to see if any thing fits.

The border (cross) around the map...do you think it might benefit from a dark drop shadow of sorts so that it lifts that piece of artwork away from the background plate.

I am really impressed with how this has come along. Excellent work.

[Flapcake]

your map looks super cool, im excided about your color set, i cant wait to play on it

maby the senate and the palace are a littel too close together, whit a lucky drop it could be an advantage, but its just me, its probably only a trifle

[Minister X]

16th DRAFT

Changes: neutral terts have gotten interior shading. The outer border has been totally changed. The title has gotten the chiseled look, the blood is gone but the gladius is back, and seems to go through it. The river has been toned down. I didn't reverse the perspective on the bridges to match that of the arches, I reversed the arches to match the bridges. Also, the bridges have been given more texture and been made darker and smaller. Regarding their arches: Roman bridges of the period often had MANY arches and certainly the bridges across the Tiber would have needed them. Here's an example:



Comments above had requested that I give the map more of a Roman feel. That's one reason I chose this form of bridge icon. I could revert to the simple standard map symbol for a bridge, which looks something like this: ) ( .. ...but then I'd lose the flavor of authenticity. Maybe I have enough Roman flavor without the bridges, but I fail to see anything terribly objectionable about them. They're just bridges. There's no confusion and I don't think they cause clutter. I'm the last one to want clutter.This map is walking a fine line on clutter, but other forms of bridges wouldn't relieve any of it. I tried all sorts.

Finally, the semicolon was replaced by a comma.

show: superseded

Can I hold off doing a small size until we settle on a border? BTW I tried several of them, also. Pure black is too stark. This one has just enough texture/color for me. I fine-tuned its thickness pixel by pixel. Please tell me it's acceptable.

And in case you're curious, yes, I did all these changes in the half hour since I posted the Gettysburg update.

[Nola_Lifer]

I think the objections to the bridges is not how they look put how they are used. They look like they are floating in the air and they are bigger than the gates. Is it possible to keep the same idea but smaller and simpler? By the way, its awesome to see how much improvement since the first draft.

[Minister X]

A bridge was HUGE compared to a gate. Each gate was about the size of one arch in a bridge - often less. Well... I can make them a little smaller but they do need to span the river and make it clear which terts connect to which.

[natty dread]

I think the problem with the bridges is mainly that they look too pasted-on, like they don't really belong to the map... this is probably due to the outline you have on them, which seems a bit too strong. I'd suggest smoothing out the outline somewhat.

Also the one between Cornelian gate / Shipyards looks weird, it seems to be in the wrong angle or something. Btw, why does there even need to be a wall there? There's already the river as impassable, so the wall just seems redundant and confusing.

[Minister X]

Btw, why does there even need to be a wall there? There's already the river as impassable, so the wall just seems redundant and confusing.

Tell it to the Romans - that's where they built it. All these walls are 100% authentic. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to change them.

[Flapcake]

I like the Roman design you give your bridges, but as I see them, there is no perspective in it (or 3d if you want) if you could see them from above as well (the road that goes over) and a shadow on, they would look more like they are standing firmly on the map and not floating on top of it.

But super nice map you have done

[Minister X]

I like the Roman design you give your bridges, but as I see them, there is no perspective in it (or 3d if you want) if you could see them from above as well (the road that goes over) and a shadow on, they would look more like they are standing firmly on the map and not floating on top of it.

But super nice map you have done

Now that is a constructive idea - a practical solution. Thanks. And thanks also for the general map compliment.

[natty dread]

Btw, why does there even need to be a wall there? There's already the river as impassable, so the wall just seems redundant and confusing.

Tell it to the Romans - that's where they built it. All these walls are 100% authentic. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to change them.

Actually, you're wrong... about me not wanting you to change them.

Geographical and historical accuracy are always good, but they are not the first priority in mapmaking. Function trumps form, as they say. If you have to choose between gameplay clarity and accuracy, you should choose gameplay clarity.

[Minister X]

How then would I show the gate at Shipyards? Or would you have me make the gate disappear as well for the sake of non-confusion? Then I'd have every known historical gate but one.

Perhaps you could describe the confusion with some precision - exactly what are you unsure about - then maybe some other solution will present itself. Both the walls and river are impassable, so if anything it looks to me like the impassable nature is left in no doubt.

[lostatlimbo]

I think this looks great. Well done!

[Minister X]

Thank-you Lostatlimbo.

I've replaced the bridges with extremely simple ones. Anything else before I post the next draft?

Natty: you said the wall at Shipyards "just seems redundant and confusing". Redundant it is (in terms of impassability). Can you please explain confusing? Is it simply that redundancy is in and of itself a source of confusion? Redundancy is often used to clarify. What is it about this example of redundancy that creates the confusion?

[MarshalNey]

This map will get the gameplay stamp in 48 hours, if there are no further comments in that area that need to be addressed.

As for the clarity issue concerning the river and the wall, I think in this case the redundancy only strengthens the intended meaning, rather than causing any confusion or second-guessing. But that is just my opinion. If anyone else has a strong opinion on this, I suggest that they make themselves heard before stamping.

-- Marshal Ney

[MarshalNey]

As there are no current concerns regarding gameplay and the community has had time to weigh in with comments, I hereby grant this map the Foundry seal of adequacy!



Congratulations MinisterX!

[TaCktiX]

Dang, now we're just saying maps are adequate. Next thing they'll be "vaguely approximating the standard, perhaps not above it" or something similarly legalistic.

[Minister X]

Dang, now we're just saying maps are adequate. Next thing they'll be "vaguely approximating the standard, perhaps not above it" or something similarly legalistic.

Do you have any constructive criticisms? I'd be willing to make any/all reasonable improvements but can do nothing with the above comment.