Nordic Countries [Quenched]

[natty dread]

Now that I look at my own work again, I'm really not liking that much red on the map. Oh well, back to the drawing board...

[ender516]

Now that I look at my own work again, I'm really not liking that much red on the map. Oh well, back to the drawing board...

I agree: those pinkish and purplish tones are not an improvement.

[natty dread]

Now that I look at my own work again, I'm really not liking that much red on the map. Oh well, back to the drawing board...

I agree: those pinkish and purplish tones are not an improvement.

yes... the purple/red might work in a smaller country such as denmark, though. Maybe I should try that...

[thenobodies80]

Some starting thoughts:

Do you really need all those insets?
I think you want to simulate the distance, but there's someone that is really interested if iceland, svalbard and foroyar aren't exaclty in the real positions?
Personally, i don't care if you go with a not 100% realistic geographical representation.
Try to work again on borders, some look a bit pixelous.
Denmark looks cluttered, are you sure that there's room for the 888 without lose important informations? ....specially in the small version.
Army circles are very pixelous.

Continue to work on colors, I'd like to see what you come out with.

Nobodies

[natty dread]

Do you really need all those insets?
I think you want to simulate the distance, but there's someone that is really interested if iceland, svalbard and foroyar aren't exaclty in the real positions?

Hmm. I would rather keep the insets... It's not just about distance, it's also that they're in different scale. And while you're right that accuracy can be sacrificed somewhat, there's a limit as to how much I'm willing to rape the geography...

Try to work again on borders, some look a bit pixelous.

Can you point out which borders specifically? If it's not too much hassle...

Denmark looks cluttered, are you sure that there's room for the 888 without lose important informations? ....specially in the small version.

I believe there is. I can post a version with 888:s in place so we'll know for sure...

Army circles are very pixelous.

Hmm. They are? Capitals, normal or both? I'll look into it.

Continue to work on colors, I'd like to see what you come out with.

Gotcha! Here's something I wanted to try out. The colour scheme is similar to the original version, but the colours are less saturated, and the colour outline is thinner, making a better job at separating the bonus areas from each other. I think.

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Ok here are the images with 888:s in the most crowded areas. I had to move a few army circles and territory names to make it work, but it seems to be ok now. Sure it looks a bit crowded in some places but then again, in a regular game there usually aren't that many 3-digit armies...

Also, I tried a few colour variations, but none looked as good as the original colours. So it's either this or the version in my previous post. I might put up a poll about it...

Fixed army circles in the large version. But forgot to paste them on all of the map, so for now the fixed army circles are in sweden & denmark, while rest of the large map has the old pixelated circles.

Fixed most of the border pixelation, I think.

v.44c large

Click image to enlarge.

v.44c small

Click image to enlarge.

[RedBaron0]

You are looking pretty good natty, with your newest version I'm noticing a few things too.

On the small map the circles are too small. Just compare back and forth from the big map, there they fit inside the circles but on the small the numbers are basically bursting through the circles.

The difference between bonus regions is not clear. The only one I can really notice is the one between North Sweden and Central Sweden. I'm thinking you 'll have to go back to the drawing bar with that one, the beveled border just isn't working. I'd think about slightly off setting the colors of the bonus regions in the countries. There is a bit of a color offset in Sweden that does also give distinction to the bonus regions. The other thing though is going to be a factor is color blindness. It's just going to look like everything is together. My recommendation is going to be for a solid, definitive border between bonus regions.

I agree with the insets, I don't really think you need it with the smaller islands, but you can likely keep Iceland's box without any issue. The Faroe islands actually aren't that far off, and I know Svalbard is way off, but mainly because these territories are just 1 territory you can fudge it.

Your island +1/+2 statements, can stand to be a shade higher in opacity, for readability.

[natty dread]

You are looking pretty good natty, with your newest version I'm noticing a few things too.

Thanks rb.

On the small map the circles are too small. Just compare back and forth from the big map, there they fit inside the circles but on the small the numbers are basically bursting through the circles.

Really? I kinda thought they were just a tight fit

No biggie though, I'll just enlarge them a pixel or 2.

The difference between bonus regions is not clear. The only one I can really notice is the one between North Sweden and Central Sweden. I'm thinking you 'll have to go back to the drawing bar with that one, the beveled border just isn't working. I'd think about slightly off setting the colors of the bonus regions in the countries. There is a bit of a color offset in Sweden that does also give distinction to the bonus regions. The other thing though is going to be a factor is color blindness. It's just going to look like everything is together. My recommendation is going to be for a solid, definitive border between bonus regions.

Hm. I had a stronger border earlier, but it was also making the bevels stronger, and many people didn't like it.

I'd like to try to continue with the bevel approach, and see if I can offset the colours enough to make the bonus regions distinct enough. Although this is hard, since people seem to want the colours as desaturated as possible.

How about that alternative colour version in this post -> posting.php?mode=quote&f=468&p=2487056#pr2486436 ...maybe that could work better?

Anyway, I'll see what I can do.

I agree with the insets, I don't really think you need it with the smaller islands, but you can likely keep Iceland's box without any issue. The Faroe islands actually aren't that far off, and I know Svalbard is way off, but mainly because these territories are just 1 territory you can fudge it.

Meh... if you say so.

Your island +1/+2 statements, can stand to be a shade higher in opacity, for readability.

They're on full opacity, with the overlay blend mode. But I can try one of 2 things: 1) add some black drop shadow for contrast or 2) duplicate the layer...

Thanks for all your feedback RB, I'll get working on the changes.

[natty dread]

v.45

large

Click image to enlarge.

small

Click image to enlarge.

changes made according to redbaron's advice.

- small map army circles are now 2 whole pixles wider.
- removed inset frames from islands
- less bevel, more shizzle
- some small visual tweaks

[thenobodies80]

Sure it looks a bit crowded in some places but then again, in a regular game there usually aren't that many 3-digit armies...

Not true for those who use the color codes.

btw borders are much better in your last version!

[natty dread]

Not true for those who use the color codes.

True, true... but, you can still see the important features even with 888:s on (borders, territory names) and if your vision is too poor to make them out then you should be playing on the large version anyway

btw borders are much better in your last version!

Oh thanks!

The idea of those borders came to me when I was out shopping groceries. I just thought "hell, let's put real thick & dark lines as borders, then nobody should have any problems!"

Now... with 2 less frames on the map, this is less of an issue, but still I can't figure this out: Should the sea routes go over or under the frames?? I'm wracking my brain on this! Help!!

[ender516]

Put them under. The point of the frame is to separate the inset from the main map, so let it do its job. The alignment of the routes on both sides of the frame make the conceptual connection between these two properly separated segments of the route.

[RedBaron0]

ditto under

[natty dread]

Yeah ok, I'll put them under.

I was also thinking they'd look better under, but then I thought that if they are under it'll look like the frame is just pasted on top of the island, so I switched them on over...

But under does make sense.

[Industrial Helix]

Looks a lot better with less bevel. Svalbard looked like a lump of shiny nothing. I'd be in favor of reducing the big black outline some as well.

Also, would you be in favor of changing the main army circles to just plain army circles... even if its just for a quick try?

[natty dread]

Looks a lot better with less bevel. Svalbard looked like a lump of shiny nothing. I'd be in favor of reducing the big black outline some as well.

"Lump of shiny nothing", I love that

By big black outline you mean the drop shadow I think? If so I already adjusted it... check it out at end of post -->

Also, would you be in favor of changing the main army circles to just plain army circles... even if its just for a quick try?

You mean removing the outline/shade from the army circles? Sure I could try it... but I'm not a huge fan of plain army circles. Also I think the current circle style kinda fits the style of the map. But I can give it a shot.

Anyway, here's a few changes: drop shadow adjustment, minimap brought up to date wrt. bonus area colours, and sea routes changed from dashed to dotted. I can go back to dashed if it looks horrible but personally I think it looks kinda neat this way. Also the outline of the neutral area had been lost with the bevel adjustments (oops!) so I made a new one.

large:

Click image to enlarge.

small:

Click image to enlarge.

btw, now that I have both images, I've started to notice how tricky it is to work on both versions simultaneously... when I make changes, I need to remember every single change I make on one version, then make the corresponding changes on the other... Luckily I've found a convenient way to transfer & resize layers from one image to another.

[Industrial Helix]

I wonder if it's worth rewriting the island bonus off to the right when its written next to the islands. I say ditch the bit on the right as the text on the map is perfectly clear.

I think the sea dots are a big improvement. They call more attention to the sea routes than the previous versions did. But I think that the sea routes would look better connecting the territories rather than the army dots.

[natty dread]

I wonder if it's worth rewriting the island bonus off to the right when its written next to the islands. I say ditch the bit on the right as the text on the map is perfectly clear.

Otherwise yes... but I'm thinking of the players with poor vision here... for them it might be hard to see the text on the sea, so the text in the corner would still make the map playable for them.

Then again, I could just make the sea text better visible and ditch the corner text.

I think the sea dots are a big improvement. They call more attention to the sea routes than the previous versions did. But I think that the sea routes would look better connecting the territories rather than the army dots.

This was discussed before. It turned out that when the connections were like that, lots of people were confused about connections into capitals - do they connect to capitals only, or both territories. So I decided to put all connections between army circles. Of course then I added the text "sea routes to capitals etc" but I still think it would be more clear if the routes consistently connect to the circles...

Also, I did try a version with no outline on the army circles, but I'm really not liking it. The ones with sea routes connecting to them look really bad. I think I'm going back to the outlined ones. See for yourself:

Click image to enlarge.

[Industrial Helix]

This map looks 20 times better without the circles around the army dots. Before it was just way too many lines and the map was too cluttered. Right now, it has great clarity and it makes the colors look a lot less splotchy and more unified. Plus you can see the smaller territories better, like the islands. Wait for some other opinions, but I think this is a major improvement!

[natty dread]

I guess it's a matter of opinion then.

I like the outlined circles, it gives the map a touch of individual style. The plain circles are so last season...

Oh well, I think a compromise could be in order here. I'll see if I can feather the outlines or fade them into the background a bit. I hope I can come up with something we're both satisfied with.

I'm also trying a bit different circles for the capitals. They need to stand out more, especially in the small map.

Updated version coming soon...

[natty dread]

...meaning, now.

large:

Click image to enlarge.

small:

Click image to enlarge.

[Gillipig]

...meaning, now.

large:

Click image to enlarge.

small:

Click image to enlarge.

You know I'm a big fan of your map natty and I think that it's pretty much done. I like that you've removed the squares around Färöarna and Svalbard. Even though it's not geographically correct I think you should keep it. Without those squares the map gets easier for the eye to look at. People will get a disorted image of how scandinavia really looks but I think it's worth it! The borders are getting thick enough now (if you make them any thicker people will take them for impassables ) and I think you've mixed it up nicely with the colours.
There's really only one thing that stings in my eye and that's the colour of "Finnmark". Is it only me or does it have a darker tone than the rest of it's bonus group ? If it's on purpose then why? As it is now it looks like it's special in some way and I think that could confuse players for a moment!

[natty dread]

There's really only one thing that stings in my eye and that's the colour of "Finnmark". Is it only me or does it have a darker tone than the rest of it's bonus group ? If it's on purpose then why? As it is now it looks like it's special in some way and I think that could confuse players for a moment!

I'd say it's just you, I can't see it. I definitely made it the same colour, I colour one bonus region at a time. Could be the bevel or the texture is fooling your eye...

Are you sure you didn't compare it with South Norway? South Norway is slightly different shade than North... North is more blue, South is more green.

[Industrial Helix]

I guess it's a matter of opinion then.

I like the outlined circles, it gives the map a touch of individual style. The plain circles are so last season...

Oh well, I think a compromise could be in order here. I'll see if I can feather the outlines or fade them into the background a bit. I hope I can come up with something we're both satisfied with.

I'm also trying a bit different circles for the capitals. They need to stand out more, especially in the small map.

Updated version coming soon...

Well, I think the outlines are just too blocky and you've already got a ton of lines going on. Lightened and feathered doesn't look too bad, but I really liked how it looked without.

And for the record, what's in now is having no army dots. Army dots as a whole are so last season

[natty dread]

Well, I think the outlines are just too blocky and you've already got a ton of lines going on. Lightened and feathered doesn't look too bad, but I really liked how it looked without.

Well, I really liked the full outline. We all got to make compromises don't we

And for the record, what's in now is having no army dots. Army dots as a whole are so last season

Meh... I've never been into fashion anyway. Army circles are kinda my thing.


Anywhoo, I also deleted the island bonus text in the corner, and made the ocean text a bit brighter. You were right, it's better that way.

Btw, how do you like the new capital "circles"? Oslo seems a bit brighter than the others (this is because of the land colour, the "circles" are the same) but it shouldn't matter too much since the numbers will be covering them, right?

ps. ain't if funny how we always call army circles "circles" even when they're not shaped like circles...