Conquer Club

DiM wrote:great job. they are just the right opacity. not too intrusive but nut too faded either. perfect.
just a couple of minor tweaks:
1. some of the arrows are pixelated and some aren't. for example berwick <-> defence is pixelated while prince<->sjn is perfect.
2. also some arrows are turquoise instead of grey (ie mars<->fougueux or africa <-> neptuno)


other than that i think the arrows are great and if this turns out to be the general consensus then they should definitely stay.


PS: i was just thinking that this map really cries out cairnswk. you do have a style of your own and you've managed to keep it after all these years. well done mate.

Dim, i've updated those V46 above, the arrows are now a lot clearer i hope and the mis-colouraton gone.
I've also moved some more territories to allow more eye-space between them, and highlighted the bombardment area more so that instructions are clearer.
Thanks for your feedback.

i like what you've done.
i think the bombardment visibility problems should all be solved

Hm, IMO, I think the bombardment arrows clutter things up a bit. I never had a problem with seeing the connections before. That being said, I can live with the arrows.

On another note, how are you working the XML? Given the collection bonuses, I'd imagine there would be a chance of one getting one right off the bat. How good these chances are, I'm not sure, but I thought I'd bring it up.

So excited for another cairns map!

-Sully

I'm interested in seeing which territories start as nuetrals. I'm ok with the arrow bombardment lines, I wouldn't mind to see them have a bit of an arc to them instead of being in a straight line, where possible. Would help create the image of canon fire.

DiM wrote:i like what you've done.
i think the bombardment visibility problems should all be solved

Thanks Dim.

Victor Sullivan wrote:...
On another note, how are you working the XML? Given the collection bonuses, I'd imagine there would be a chance of one getting one right off the bat. How good these chances are, I'm not sure, but I thought I'd bring it up.

So excited for another cairns map!

-Sully

Sully, thanks for dropping in and your encouragement. The xml is written to a certain point and the link is here
http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/_Trafalgar.xml
and on the front page. I've basically only done the continent bonuses so far.

RedBaron0 wrote:I'm interested in seeing which territories start as nuetrals. I'm ok with the arrow bombardment lines, I wouldn't mind to see them have a bit of an arc to them instead of being in a straight line, where possible. Would help create the image of canon fire.

RB0, below (and on front page) is the neutral starts map.
Previously it had been agreed in Gameplay that all intermediary vessels would start neutral;
plus the Britannia and Spartiate would start neutral also to disable the large bonuses available for the British in the weather line.

As for the curved arrows, can you identify which ones you'd like to see curved.

RedBaron0 wrote:I'm interested in seeing which territories start as nuetrals. I'm ok with the arrow bombardment lines, I wouldn't mind to see them have a bit of an arc to them instead of being in a straight line, where possible. Would help create the image of canon fire.

RB0, below (and on front page) is the neutral starts map.
Previously it had been agreed in Gameplay that all intermediary vessels would start neutral;
plus the Britannia and Spartiate would start neutral also to disable the large bonuses available for the British in the weather line.

As for the curved arrows, can you identify which ones you'd like to see curved.[/quote]

Ok, thanks cairns, I checked the front page, I musta missed it, my bad.

The mutual bombards are too short and with arrow point on opposite ends, wouldn't look good. I suggestion just the one way attack arrows, they're longer and more appropriate to curve.

RedBaron0 wrote:
Ok, thanks cairns, I checked the front page, I musta missed it, my bad.

The mutual bombards are too short and with arrow point on opposite ends, wouldn't look good. I suggestion just the one way attack arrows, they're longer and more appropriate to curve.

No RB0, you didn't miss it. i only put it up after it was requested....so no bad on your part.
I'll attend those curved arrows shortly in next small version 47

Version 47S
This has the small curved bombardment arrows. What do you think?

Cairnswk, nice to see you back!

The bombardments arrows look cooler now (as mentioned by Helix, displaying more of a cannon fire), though they still feel like they might be a little lost among the plethora of other lines, probably because they are faint and neutral colored.

========

One of the things that I remember pushing me away from this map were the wall of texts. If it possible for you to condense some of this in image explanation?

Perhaps you can take a cue from Kabanellas' Conquer Rome Map, where he has been experimenting with similar solutions:





====



Good luck!


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Cairnswk, nice to see you back!

Thank-you Andy.

The bombardments arrows look cooler now (as mentioned by Helix, displaying more of a cannon fire), though they still feel like they might be a little lost among the plethora of other lines, probably because they are faint and neutral colored.

I have increased their opacity by 10% to 35% so they might be slightly more visible.
(I actually agreed with Sully in that i didn't think arrows were necessary as my mind can draw a straight line to determine which ships the cannon were pointing at for bombardments, so for me the arrows are unnecessary and only serve to clutter the map, however, i guess my mind is not that of everyone else. I really wanted to only have the ship assault lines.)

One of the things that I remember pushing me away from this map were the wall of texts. If it possible for you to condense some of this in image explanation?

Perhaps you can take a cue from Kabanellas' Conquer Rome Map, where he has been experimenting with similar solutions:
Good luck!
--Andy

Yes I had seen what Kabenellas had done on his maps.
I have condensed the left legend into graphics for you.
I actually prefer the text version as it fits in with the rest of the legend and is seperate from the map, as opposed to the graphics version where it kind of almost becomes part of the map visually. Placing a rope border around the background stern is not an option i'd like to consider.
The right legend i'd like to keep as text, as it pertains to the Flagships.

Anyways, let me know what you think.

Small Large

Hi cairns,

This map looks even better than the it last time I seen it way back then. I just a few little suggestions which are essentially nitpicking. Firstly the terr names of the main boats (admiral ships?) seem to all have slightly different styling from each other. ALGESIRAS seems to have a blue stroke while ROYAL SOVEREIGN looks to have a red drop shadow. There is nothing particularly out of place with this but I would like to see consistency throughout those Admiral names.

Hope to see this one out soon,

Good luck,
gimil

gimil wrote:Hi cairns,

This map looks even better than the it last time I seen it way back then. I just a few little suggestions which are essentially nitpicking. Firstly the terr names of the main boats (admiral ships?) seem to all have slightly different styling from each other. ALGESIRAS seems to have a blue stroke while ROYAL SOVEREIGN looks to have a red drop shadow. There is nothing particularly out of place with this but I would like to see consistency throughout those Admiral names.

Hope to see this one out soon,

Good luck,
gimil

Hi giml, thank-you also for dropping in....nice to see you back again.
Yes i guess it had to wait for the larger size to give it that eye-space.

What is happening there....there are two layers on each admiral ship name.
black right offset over red
black right offset over yellow
blue right offset over black

The red and yellow work fine (althought i did discover i had the black Royal Sovereign offset left, but have fixed that).

But the blue, gets lost under the black, and those french names stick out like a sore thumb on the map because of the blue-black colour closeness.

the same occurs if you reverse the layers in the red and yellow - they tend to take over the map and draw you eye to them.

So, I'd really prefer to leave them as they are because none sticks out over the other.

Fair enough mate. I know how it feels when colours just play havoc on your map!

I won't say any more on the subject

gimil wrote:Fair enough mate. I know how it feels when colours just play havoc on your map!

I won't say any more on the subject

gimil, from your previous post, you mentioned "firstly", so i have to ask was there other things that needed attention?
but perhaps you'de forgetting to mention them,

And while i think about it....versions of the small map...

here is the Deuteranope (250 gamma) and Protanope (Gamma 250)

natty_dread wrote:

cairnswk wrote: MrBenn.
I am away from uni for 6 weeks.
Is there any movement on a new map size that might allow this trafalgar map to be completed?

Cairns, where have you been? We have supersize maps now - only one has so far been completed, but they are completely allowed now.

Sorry natty, i missed this post.
Thanks for responding...as stated i looked in the map-making instructions and still saw the old restrictions, that's why i asked.

Glad I am not colorblind Have you ever though about adding grids? I know it may mess up the design but when I play WWII Ardennes it is easier to understand the information using the grids. I guess it adds some symmetry to the whole map.

Nola_Lifer wrote:Glad I am not colorblind Have you ever though about adding grids? I know it may mess up the design but when I play WWII Ardennes it is easier to understand the information using the grids. I guess it adds some symmetry to the whole map.

Grids. No. I haven't thought of adding them.
I've examined Ardennes, and played it several times, and I recall not even using the grid.
Mess up the design - yes it will.
I'm not in favour of it. but see what others have to say.
Thanks for your suggestion, Nola_Lifer

the legend says

intermediary vessels have no bonus and do not count toward fleet bonuses

but I don't see any graphic definition of it

pamoa wrote:the legend says

intermediary vessels have no bonus and do not count toward fleet bonuses

but I don't see any graphic definition of it

pamoa, thanks for dropping in, i see what you mean, i'll adjust that shortly.

V49
Legend adjusted to show intermediary vessel graphic representation.

On my annual visit to the foundry I noticed this was living again....Thank you cairns, I was looking forward to playing it 2 years ago and the feeling hasnt dimmed any.

Firstly, is there a reason the cannon on Neptuno is a different colour to the rest of the Spanish Fleet?

Secondly, the line from Algesiras and Mars doesnt appear to be a smooth curve. It seems to tighten towards the pointy end(although it may just be my eyesight)



Still cant wait to play this. Cheers

Gypsys Kiss wrote:On my annual visit to the foundry I noticed this was living again....Thank you cairns, I was looking forward to playing it 2 years ago and the feeling hasnt dimmed any.
Firstly, is there a reason the cannon on Neptuno is a different colour to the rest of the Spanish Fleet?
Secondly, the line from Algesiras and Mars doesnt appear to be a smooth curve. It seems to tighten towards the pointy end(although it may just be my eyesight)
Still cant wait to play this. Cheers

And on my annual thank-you for visiting
the cannon colour is an error
and i'll see if i can get a better angle on the line -> Both done
Glad you are still wanting to play this!
Hope we can see you around more than annually.

Can someone assist please.
What is to be done for the bonus xml?
Do i have to do overrides for collections above 8 for the British weather line for instance.

An impression of the map with coloured numbers