Conquer Club

natty_dread wrote:Navel forces?

QoH wrote:One thing (and pretty much the only thing I don't like is the halo around the title. I don't see why it needs to be there.

DiM wrote:maybe make it like a post it note is placed in the corner and the title is written on it.

PS: you have a little out of place line here:


same spot for the small image.

Will see what I can do with the title, but not sure if I like the post it note idea. I might have a go at FlapCakes idea of a stick on from a couple of pages ago and use the top border for it.
Thanks for spotting that line. Will remove it.

Large869/833. Small670/642

Removed offending line.

Tried to place title a different way, but there is either no space on the border. Not going to do a post it note as the colours would clash, why would a post it note be on a navy vessel and it would need to be a lot larger than the current title to look as if it was not out of scale. I toned down the green in the current title.

on the small map the whole legend text looks blurry because of the glow you used. while the glow works perfect on the large map on the small is really bad. don't remove it, instead lower its intensity.

also the white highlight for british in the small map is too large:

DiM wrote:on the small map the whole legend text looks blurry because of the glow you used. while the glow works perfect on the large map on the small is really bad. don't remove it, instead lower its intensity.

also the white highlight for british in the small map is too large:

How is this?

Hi Koontz,

If there is no other major issues could I please have a copy of both large and small with 88 army numbers? I will try and get a big review in for you either today or tomorrow.


Cheers,
gimil

Thanks gimil. There placement may not be the best but you get the idea of where they should be.

My suggestion for the ships is to place the numbers by the names instead of above the ships. This is just a personal preference, not something that needs to be done.

isaiah40 wrote:My suggestion for the ships is to place the numbers by the names instead of above the ships. This is just a personal preference, not something that needs to be done.

On the large that can be done on most (not the right side), but the small one has far less space in some of the territs and none (right side) on others. As I said, this is just an idea of how I wanted them but more than open to suggestions.

koontz1973 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:My suggestion for the ships is to place the numbers by the names instead of above the ships. This is just a personal preference, not something that needs to be done.

On the large that can be done on most (not the right side), but the small one has far less space in some of the territs and none (right side) on others. As I said, this is just an idea of how I wanted them but more than open to suggestions.

It can be done on the small as well, you just have to move them around a bit. Actually ARA Guerrio(?) needs to be moved because the name is partly hidden by the border area. My suggestion is to move the ship into the bay, move the name up beside the ship and the number below the name.

Moved all the names / ships now so the numbers fit on top of the name apart from ARA Guerric, which has the number under it.

There is no numbers on the latest image!

Sorry gimil, forgot to turn that layer back on.

I realy like what I see, I know that I sayd that your version with colors was better, but thats a diffrent map and this is a new basis.

Is probably only me who have this consern, the way you have put your signatur on are so cool, looks like its the name of the monitor, its uber

Now, what about the title are done in the same way ? at the topline of the monitor edge, would it look wird ? just an input

Flapcake wrote:Now, what about the title are done in the same way ? at the topline of the monitor edge, would it look wird ? just an input

I tried that a couple of versions ago when I changed the sig to this. The problem with it was that it was so small you could not really see it, the top border is thinner than the sides. It would then come around the curve and how would a plastic piece stick. DiM suggested putting the title on a post it note, which would look even worse (IMO). I said that it would need to be larger than this title because of the corners and the colours would of clashed.

koontz1973 wrote:

Flapcake wrote:Now, what about the title are done in the same way ? at the topline of the monitor edge, would it look wird ? just an input

I tried that a couple of versions ago when I changed the sig to this. The problem with it was that it was so small you could not really see it, the top border is thinner than the sides. It would then come around the curve and how would a plastic piece stick. DiM suggested putting the title on a post it note, which would look even worse (IMO). I said that it would need to be larger than this title because of the corners and the colours would of clashed.

hmm yes, Dim´s idea dont sound that off, but hey we dont have to make a gigant isue out of it, im sure you find a way and if not, its not that bad

Double post removal.

New title images. Copied the sig to the top with the two names. Added the dates for the war and the number killed on both sides. If anyone can think of others that might be fitting to add for the two sides, more than happy to add them, if and when enough are found.

looks cool

I think the legend would look better if you made the bevel on the frame slightly thinner. The thick bevel makes it look too round, while it should be more rectangular in the depth axis.

the new title looks cool. why are you keeping the green "1982"?

DiM wrote:the new title looks cool. why are you keeping the green "1982"?

could give room for a mine field

natty_dread wrote:I think the legend would look better if you made the bevel on the frame slightly thinner. The thick bevel makes it look too round, while it should be more rectangular in the depth axis.

The bevel is large as on the photos I looked at, they all had large rounded corners with a deep bevel. Do not know why they had this but can only think of safety reasons. Remember, the British and Argentinian fleets where pretty old, most of them made in the 60's and 70's.

Flapcake wrote:

DiM wrote:the new title looks cool. why are you keeping the green "1982"?

could give room for a mine field

The maps title is 1982. It has always been that from the very first draft. I only added the two names for the war in later versions as soon as I managed to get the correct spelling for the conflict from an Argentinian from the site (around version 3 or 4).

As for Flaps comment about another minefield, the title has never been used as an impassable.

I think you should merge the 3 screens in the bottom right corner into one big screen. The text would fit better, particularly in the small version, and there wouldn't be so odd-shaped screens.

But then you are merging the 3 screens that cover Air, half of the land forces and the rules for the navies. The text may fit better but the layout would seem silly in RL. If that route was gone down, then the screens would become one and have the text as it. Not the way I will go as it will then just become a boring legend with the same problem as above.

I will keep it as is so the 4 different parts of the legend are separated. The only sub categories that are separated are the 2 different sides of the land forces and the rules and bonuses for the navies. I would love to merge the those two sets into one but cannot find a way to do it. So the navies would be on one screen and the land on one as well. That would then give 4 screens - rules, land, sea & air. The only problem is that each one would be a different in size (height wise) so the rules would fit as now (it would not fit with the navy rules), the navy and air forces would take up less room but the land forces would run off the map.

The layout may not be optimal but it is logical.

Well it's not very logical to have a separate screen for each piece of information...

And on the small version, the text overflowing from the monitors looks really awkward.