Land and Sea [Quenched]

by **gimil** on Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:51 pm

I like what you did with the sea connections cairns, I see no reason not to do this with all the connections.

I will try this and the 'hand drawn' lines, then take it from there. I don't like the black in the slightest thou!

by **cairnswk** on Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:15 pm

gimil wrote:I like what you did with the sea connections cairns, I see no reason not to do this with all the connections.
....

I think this makes the map a lot more tolerable on the eyesight without those huge black arrows.

by **iancanton** on Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:03 pm

yes, that looks better. since the legend says that MS borders AT2 and IN1, it will be visually less confusing if AF4 is detached from EU5. africa will become slightly easier to hold, thereby benefitting someone who doesn't have the luck to have armies dropped close to either south america or oceania.

ian.

by **edbeard** on Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:29 pm

EEEWWWWWWWW

I'll wait to see gimil's version of that but yea. I know gimil is in charge of the graphics but I'd have to veto that. even if it means gimil not doing the graphics at all. but I'll wait to see how gimil does it

iancanton wrote:yes, that looks better. since the legend says that MS borders AT2 and IN1, it will be visually less confusing if AF4 is detached from EU5. africa will become slightly easier to hold, thereby benefitting someone who doesn't have the luck to have armies dropped close to either south america or oceania.

ian.

if someone takes EU5 they only have 3 borders. this area of the gameplay is fine. 5 terr with 4 borders or 6 terr with 3 borders

gimil I KNOW you're going to forget

edbeard wrote:still need to put the only back in the sentence

should read

"Land and Sea Territories are only connected via arrows"

DON'T FORGET

by **pamoa** on Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:26 am

gimil wrote:... I don't like the black in the slightest thou!

You're right it's not really convincing. But try with a shade of dark grey.

by **yeti_c** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:13 pm

Prefer arrows to the weird Z borders - mainly because they're a lot more obvious...

However - do prefer Panama - BUT Have you room to do this in the Med?

C.

by **edbeard** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:25 pm

just waiting on gimil

I told him if he really liked cairnswk's idea he should bring it pretty hard but I think it looks horrible so I'd need BIG convincing. you can see other things I said about it here in the thread. we went over a couple other things for different arrows.

arrows just work as I've said what feels like a million times.

I don't think we do have the room. I think what we have there works OK. striped lines alert the player to something unusual. the territory name is mentioned in the legend. I don't see what else we can do without making the image look bad which is what I think will happen if more things are added to that area

by **gimil** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:20 pm

Before I put in the man hours, is this the direction we want to go in for these arrows?

by **edbeard** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:46 pm

yes it is.

either

hand drawn style

or

hand drawn style but only outside edges

if not then we can go back to the ones we have currently

you can try toning down the black a little bit but I think the outside edges only thing will do the trick

by **gimil** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:28 pm

edbeard wrote:yes it is.

either

hand drawn style

or

hand drawn style but only outside edges

if not then we can go back to the ones we have currently

you can try toning down the black a little bit but I think the outside edges only thing will do the trick

Believe it or not, I had an iamge to go with my last statment, which I didn't post!

Click image to enlarge.

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:44 pm

Mmmm. not sure i like the sea connections.
The new arrows are far less eye-sores that the previous ones.
But i would still like to see some other possible solution to the attack arrows.
Perhaps the people commenting might be able to offer something also.

by **gimil** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:49 pm

cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. not sure i like the sea connections.
The new arrows are far less eye-sores that the previous ones.
But i would still like to see some other possible solution to the attack arrows.
Perhaps the people commenting might be able to offer something also.

There isn't an easier to understand aternative to arrows cairns, I bet my CA salary on it ($0)

I will take the improvement as enough

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:59 pm

gimil wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Mmmm. not sure i like the sea connections.
The new arrows are far less eye-sores that the previous ones.
But i would still like to see some other possible solution to the attack arrows.
Perhaps the people commenting might be able to offer something also.

There isn't an easier to understand aternative to arrows cairns, I bet my CA salary on it ($0)

I will take the improvement as enough

I don't think you explored enough, and certainly you haven't bothered to show any other alternatives.
You could put up several kinds of arrows for instance to see what best fits the map.
You previously stated

Before I put in the man hours, is this the direction we want to go in for these arrows?

Therefore, IMHO, the new arrows are not "enough". And i'd still like to see some other alternatives for discussion. Simply because edbeard says "yes it is" is not good enough.
I don't think you're doing your best Gimil.

by **gimil** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:14 pm

cairnswk wrote:
Before I put in the man hours, is this the direction we want to go in for these arrows?

Therefore, IMHO, the new arrows are not "enough". And i'd still like to see some other alternatives for discussion. Simply because edbeard says "yes it is" is not good enough.
I don't think you're doing your best Gimil.

Suit yourself buddy. But I agree with edbeards statement that arrows are by far the best way to explain these connections wih. If I put alot of though into it then maybe I can find an alternative but what is the point in putting in that work to replace something as universal as an arrow?

By all means if you have a suggestion for something better than arrows then share it, im all ears. As far as I an concerned thou its a winning formula. If you simple would like to see alternative arrows then we are in an area worth discussing

by **sailorseal** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:19 pm

I have been waiting for someone to include water in their map

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:41 pm

gimil wrote:... If you simple would like to see alternative arrows then we are in an area worth discussing

If i have to really settle for arrows then i would like to see some alternatives please, and i would like to see a poll done on this please.

by **gimil** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:56 pm

cairnswk wrote:
gimil wrote:... If you simple would like to see alternative arrows then we are in an area worth discussing

If i have to really settle for arrows then i would like to see some alternatives please, and i would like to see a poll done on this please.

Polls a yucky, I don't like using them. I don't believe the majority are always practical and correct, for example George Bush

. I like to hear opinions and make an educated decision on my own

by **cairnswk** on Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:04 pm

gimil wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
gimil wrote:... If you simple would like to see alternative arrows then we are in an area worth discussing

If i have to really settle for arrows then i would like to see some alternatives please, and i would like to see a poll done on this please.

Polls a yucky, I don't like using them. I don't believe the majority are always practical and correct, for example George Bush . I like to hear opinions and make an educated decision on my own

Then i will respect your decision on that one, but i would prefer to see some decent comments on this one before any decision is made.
EDIT: ^^ Removed "not"

by **edbeard** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:33 am

those arrows look great. I'd prefer to have all arrows and drop those land bridge things.

edit: removed question to cairnswk which he answered/fixed

by **pamoa** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:53 am

For me hand drawn arrows are fine.
For sea connections try a white dotted "S" shaped line with arrows heads.

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:54 pm

Ahoy ahoy Folks,

Looking good thus far. I love the elegant simplicity of this map...it suits it well I feel. Territory and continental shapes...andc olor choices are all befitting, though I'd maybe slightly lighten the Atlantic ocean. Lightening it on the gameboard and in the legend would just help in the general legibility.

The legend is simple, and though for the most part I love the font on the gameboard itself, in the lengend it doesn't look quite as attractive all bunched together.

Regarding the land sea connections, though I'm not a great big fan of the arrows, they also may be the most befitting.

Game play-esque questions...EU1 and AF1 are not land connected, yes? Does EU5 border AF4?

Thumbs so far.

--Andy

by **oaktown** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:14 pm

I'm back, and apparently graphics stamping!

Agreed that the simplicity of the map is good.

Arrows... not a fan. Any graphic will be fine if it is noted in the legend. But I understand that they may be the most clear option, so you might be able to convince me with the right arrow.

territories that cross the map divide: what about some graphic that runs across the edges to help indicate the connection? Chain links between each pair of like territory names?

by **Riazor** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:20 pm

About the arrows... how about making the coastline of the territories in question look like a shore? (if at all possible to do something like that)
Maybe even just removing a part of the black line that defines the territory.. wont the color be enough to make people realise its a different territory?