I think this map is coming along pretty well. The only real comment I have right now is that the deciphering the road areas on the map can be a little difficult, even with the two different connecter methods you have going.
I think it is because the dotted lines stand out much more than the solid road lines currently, and the road lines (and thus understanding the road bonuses) can get a little lost.
What if you made the road lines much darker like the dotted lines, and the dotted line color more like the current road color?
Hm, maybe one other point. The sharp edges of the Union/Confederate bonuses in the legend might be better rounded off, and maybe even less like a word document highlight and more like highlight that is less rigid and structured (for instance, the loops on the map are nice example of something less rigid).
AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, maybe one other point. The sharp edges of the Union/Confederate bonuses in the legend might be better rounded off, and maybe even less like a word document highlight and more like highlight that is less rigid and structured (for instance, the loops on the map are nice example of something less rigid).
...when I had the highlight more rounded/informal I got called on it. (I'll work on some alternatives)
The rest of Andy's remarks seem to apply only to the small version. True?
Okay, so here's an updated small map - still considered draft #9 since I didn't change the large one. (Is that okay??) Roads thickened and dots changed from 4 pixels each to 3 - makes all the difference. (And all just 2 minutes after Sully suggested it!!)
I disagree on two counts: 1st, the difference is clear enough with dots vs solid lines with glow, but 2nd, there's no need for any huge difference - both dotted lines and roads behave exactly the same, connecting terts. That said, I agree that the dots being a bit lighter might be a general aesthetic improvement. Easy to do.
Minister X wrote:...when I had the highlight more rounded/informal I got called on it. :D (I'll work on some alternatives)
For the record, I said:
I'd just use a clean, rounded box there or change the font color.
The early version of those highlights just looked a little too sloppy. The areas on the map are loose, but deliberate. If you can replicate that in the legend, it would look great. (Though I still think a font color would suffice - to each their own).
I'm not sure that changing the opacity of these will solve the problem. Unfortunately, the roads look like background decor, partly because they are in some spots (Gettysburg), but mostly because the dots are so pervasive, they really just overwhelm the roads no matter what shade.
There are other issues to consider - namely that the road connections really disappear behind the union bonuses (particularly the Center & Left titles). No matter how you shade those, it will be easy to glance over that spot and miss the connection.
I'm also confused by the relationship between YP3, YP2 & HUN2. Obviously YP3 & YP2 connect, but do they both attack HUN2 and vice versa?
I think you should try two things: 1) replace all the straight line with a dashed line. I think this will help them stand out evenly. 2) move the Union Center & Union Left to the side, off the road. 3) clarify the YP-HUN connections by connecting HUN2 directly to the appropriate territories, rather than using the fork.
On the small map, dotted lines have been lightened a bit, and were added where road connections were ambiguous. Roads were strengthened under the flank shadings. (Flanks can't be moved off the road - they included road terts which MUST be on the roads.) Army circles were removed. Result: roads stand out more.
On the large map the ambiguous connections were fixed and the legend shading rounded.
I think this satisfies all the points made above - at least the ones I could grasp. Any more graphics complaints/criticisms/corrections?
This has been nagging me for a while now. It seems that the Confederate Left and Right Flanks should be switched around. It seems funny having the left flank on the right and the right on the left. Any historical reason for this?
isaiah40 wrote:This has been nagging me for a while now. It seems that the Confederate Left and Right Flanks should be switched around. It seems funny having the left flank on the right and the right on the left. Any historical reason for this?
Well, it depends on what direction your looking at. It seems to me the Confederates are going North to South, so naturally, their left and and right would be as depicted on the map.
Flanks are defined by where the enemy is. One faces the enemy, then, as one is facing that way, one has a left and right flank.
The background is indeed terrain (hills) - it was decided that was better than not having them.
"Army of the Potomac" would be correct, but so is "army of Lincoln" with a small 'a'. Many pages ago I was told that I should take nothing for granted regarding knowledge of the battle since so many members of CC would be quite unfamiliar with it. Some kid from Finland might not know that "Army of the Potomac" meant the north's forces; "army of Lincoln" is a bit more likely to make sense to someone who's never heard of the "Army of the Potomac". If it were up to me I'd go either way happily; I'm just explaining why I chose the wording I did. Lee, I presume, is more widely known to have been a southern general than Meade to be a northern one.
Minister X wrote:No. Say I'm facing you. Which is my left hand? You're facing me. Which is your left? Your left is near my right; my left is near your right.
Minister X, those region names that are to the right of the army numbers... particularly on the small map...players will have trouble with their idenification if they have 10+ armies and they decide to use the colour coding i.e. r15. Is there any way you could move them to the left of army placements so there is no issues there?
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
The background is indeed terrain (hills) - it was decided that was better than not having them.
I suspected that, in that case I think the background needs more geographic features. Are there any rivers, forest etc? I think right now it doesn't feel like terrain.
Minister X wrote:I thought the numbers grow leftward as they get bigger. Yes? No?
No, when you have either r4/44 or 888 they are centered between the first and second digits. Even if you have 8888, they are still centered between the first two.
Minister X wrote:I thought the numbers grow leftward as they get bigger. Yes? No?
No, when you have either r4/44 or 888 they are centered between the first and second digits. Even if you have 8888, they are still centered between the first two.
...and thus r44 would run over the names. I always do name placement SSE, S, SW, W, NW, N, NNE of the army numbers depending on other grx elements thereabouts, but in your case there should be no issues with W placement (although up to you)
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
