Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

[koontz1973]

Things are steadily improving here.

The bushes could use some slight black outer glow. Similarly, the bonus areas could use some dark inner glows. Do you have python-gimp installed? It's easier if you do, but they can also be done manually.

Not python Gimp, just the regular old fashioned one. Looked at python and in a thread you pointed out it was a bitch to install. Will do it the manual way.
With the dark inner glows, can you tell me a map that has it so I can see exactly what the effect is you mean.
With the long grasses, I had planned to put a 1 pixel black out line around them to give then a defined edge. With the glow in the legend, I was planning to use the burn tool to darken the wood. Still playing around with a copy of a previous version to try and get the best effects for each area.

[natty dread]

Not python Gimp, just the regular old fashioned one. Looked at python and in a thread you pointed out it was a bitch to install.

It sort of is, but you only have to do it once, and if you follow instructions it should work out fine. The point is, it makes GIMP much more powerful - there are tons of very powerful python scripts for GIMP, that make things a lot easier and enable you to do lots of things you can't do with GIMP alone.

I have to go now but I'll give you instructions on doing glows manually after I get back home, unless you want to give a shot at installing python...

[theBastard]

I use GIMP and script-fu for some special things. if I am not wrong, for script-fu is not needed Python, just simply GIMP.

[koontz1973]

Not python Gimp, just the regular old fashioned one. Looked at python and in a thread you pointed out it was a bitch to install.

It sort of is, but you only have to do it once, and if you follow instructions it should work out fine. The point is, it makes GIMP much more powerful - there are tons of very powerful python scripts for GIMP, that make things a lot easier and enable you to do lots of things you can't do with GIMP alone.

I have to go now but I'll give you instructions on doing glows manually after I get back home, unless you want to give a shot at installing python...

Help please, but I am going to give it a go manually. Always good to learn new things.

[koontz1973]

I use GIMP and script-fu for some special things. if I am not wrong, for script-fu is not needed Python, just simply GIMP.

Correct, but python is a better thing to use I believe. Tried to install it the once but did not get very far.

[koontz1973]

Here are the two glow effects that I have quickly done up now. Dark for text, light for grass.
The text one looks like a small drop shadow but looks neater. Not so sure if I like.
The lighter one for the bushes/elephant grass looks OK IMO. I can make it stronger if needed.
TEST 1


TEST 2

Test 2 has a darker glow to the green grass and trees while the brown grass is lighter. Looks better...
but does it need to be thicker?
darker?
lighter?

I am happy with the legend writing. Any more and it might over shadow the writing it self.

[natty dread]

Text looks good.

Dark glow for the bushes, it could be thicker and stronger. I usually use grain merge mode for glows. (I use grain merge for lots of things...)

For the bonus areas, a dark inner glow would be good. You can do it by going to the bonus area layer, then selecting by alpha, then creating the glow layer and filling the selection with black. Then shrink & feather the selection (shrink by about 15, feather by 30 - the feather should be 2x what you shrink) then clear the selection. This creates a sort of shading to the outer edges of the bonus area, improving the contrast between different bonus areas.

[koontz1973]

Thanks natty, will get on and post a new version tonight.

[koontz1973]

Version 10

Click image to enlarge.

Been working on the shading.
The grass impassable (green and brown) now have a slight glow (dark and light)
The river now has some depth to it.
Trees fixed.
Legend text has dark glow to it.

I added a soft glow to the iButhos as natty suggested but found that it made some areas to dark (I know, turn it down a bit) but it then did not show up in lighter areas. Some parts of the iButhos are very narrow so it completely over took. To add some contrast between iButhos I tweaked the colours a bit.

Kingul's dry river bed is now too dark so will need to be lightened up a tad.
Shakas iButho is now darker.
Kings names backing is lighter for more pop.

[koontz1973]

Version 11 test. Not in first post.

Click image to enlarge.

Looking at territ lines today. Been playing with them as all I do is full of pixels. This is the best I have ever gotten them but seem a little thick. How do they look and if any one has a better way (proper CC way that is) then please let me know.
Even though they are thick, I quite like them and with the scaled down map, they should be allright.

[theBastard]

text looks good.

- you have symbols for kings and for warriors. did you thought about any symbols for Brittish regions? for example for Brittish front line - so you do not need to name them all in legend.
- Reynolds and 716 Jones have another colour as Brittish front line on the north.
- could Brittish front line regions bombard anything? maybe warriors?

why are borders so geometric? I mean why are not random - to "copy" terrain? for example rivers dry bed?

[koontz1973]

text looks good.

- you have symbols for kings and for warriors. did you thought about any symbols for Brittish regions? for example for Brittish front line - so you do not need to name them all in legend.
- Reynolds and 716 Jones have another colour as Brittish front line on the north.
- could Brittish front line regions bombard anything? maybe warriors?

why are borders so geometric? I mean why are not random - to "copy" terrain? for example rivers dry bed?

Had symbols for the British in the first few drafts (not posted on site but when I was playing around with this concept) and it seemed to clutter up the map. Easy to put back in. The British front line is killer neutral so why bombard the Zulus. If a players wants into the outpost, then with the killer neutral covering there progress, why would you advertise it (fog games), and waste troops doing that when you are close to the objective.

The other reason why and this is the biggest reason, I want you the player to take on the role of the Zulu's, and do what they could not do. Beat the British. If the British take on an offensive capability then it defeats that objective. This is also the reason why, I have not given the British any bonus system.

The colour difference you are seeing is because of the different flooring in the outpost building. Same colour, go see an optician.

I cannot see the borders being geometric at all. If you mean the territ lines, then yes, they are a little straight but that is not a priority right now. I can easily redo them as soon as I figure what I want them to look like and as soon as gameplay stamp is given. Till then, things may change.

Will post a test picture with British symbol in a little while. Give me an hour.

[koontz1973]

This is why not. Clutters up the outpost to much.
If I do these 6, why not the other 5. Too many symbols mean that it will not be clear and if I do these 11, why not all the Zulu's. The river warriors and kings are more than enough as they are the ones that need it. As I said above, you are playing the Zulus, not the British.

[Sniper08]

possibly put just the symbols on bromhead and chard to highlight that they are the commanders?

[koontz1973]

possibly put just the symbols on bromhead and chard to highlight that they are the commanders?

That would work.

Will post it tonight. Give me a couple of hours to get it neat.

[koontz1973]

Version 11.

Click image to enlarge.

I have kept the territ lines that are too think. Need some help to get them better as when I make them thinner, they become pixelated (look at previous versions).

Added the 2 commanders.
As previous post said, adding more will clutter the outpost with too many symbols.
Added symple effects (lighting / shading) to places.

[theBastard]

looking good. I do not think that commanders symbols clutter the map. is it fine now.
king with 3 territories = +4 means for each 3 +4? so if I have king and 6 iBhuto territories I gain +8?

[koontz1973]

looking good. I do not think that commanders symbols clutter the map. is it fine now.
king with 3 territories = +4 means for each 3 +4? so if I have king and 6 iBhuto territories I gain +8?

Commander symbols look good. Need to change the legend though as they are too small. Need to add another key for them.

Kings get +3 auto deploy.
King with 2 territs in same iButho =+2
King with 3 territs in same iButho =+4
Result being- King with
2 territs = +2
3 territs = +4
4 territs = +4
5 territs = +6
6 territs = +8
7 territs = +8
8 territs = +10
9 territs = +12
10 territs = +12
11 territs = +14
12 territs = +16
13 territs = +16
14 territs = +18
15 territs = +20
16 territs = +20

As you can see, it is staggered so going from 2 to 3 territs doubles your bonus troops but you then need to take another 2 before you gain anything extra.


Taken from Cetshwayo iButho if player captures and holds all territs within.

[koontz1973]

Version 12.

Click image to enlarge.

New legend to explain symbols.
More shading and lighting effects.

Still having trouble working on the territ lines. I believe they are to thick, so how can I get them thinner without becoming pixelated?

Can I get the game play stamp? Please.

[theBastard]

looking good. I do not think that commanders symbols clutter the map. is it fine now.
king with 3 territories = +4 means for each 3 +4? so if I have king and 6 iBhuto territories I gain +8?

Commander symbols look good. Need to change the legend though as they are too small. Need to add another key for them.

Kings get +3 auto deploy.
King with 2 warriors in same iButho =+2
King with 3 warriors in same iButho =+4
Result being- King with
2 warriors = +2
3 warriors = +4
4 warriors = +4
5 warriors = +6
6 warriors = +8
7 warriors = +8
8 warriors = +10
9 warriors = +12
10 warriors = +12
11 warriors = +14
12 warriors = +16
13 warriors = +16
14 warriors = +18
15 warriors = +20
16 warriors = +20

As you can see, it is staggered so going from 2 to 3 territs doubles your bonus troops but you then need to take another 2 before you gain anything extra.

hm, wait. in legend there is bonus for holding king and iBhuto territories. holding the warriors is different bonus.
- warriors bonus: hold 4 river warriors +2
- territory bonus: king with 2 territories = +2
with 3 territories = +4
this is two different bonuses.

about territories borders. do you use Paths Tool?

[koontz1973]

looking good. I do not think that commanders symbols clutter the map. is it fine now.
king with 3 territories = +4 means for each 3 +4? so if I have king and 6 iBhuto territories I gain +8?

Commander symbols look good. Need to change the legend though as they are too small. Need to add another key for them.

Kings get +3 auto deploy.
King with 2 warriors in same iButho =+2
King with 3 warriors in same iButho =+4
Result being- King with
2 warriors = +2
3 warriors = +4
4 warriors = +4
5 warriors = +6
6 warriors = +8
7 warriors = +8
8 warriors = +10
9 warriors = +12 not warriors, territs.
10 warriors = +12
11 warriors = +14
12 warriors = +16
13 warriors = +16
14 warriors = +18
15 warriors = +20
16 warriors = +20

As you can see, it is staggered so going from 2 to 3 territs doubles your bonus troops but you then need to take another 2 before you gain anything extra.

hm, wait. in legend there is bonus for holding king and iBhuto territories. holding the warriors is different bonus.
- warriors bonus: hold 4 river warriors +2
- territory bonus: king with 2 territories = +2
with 3 territories = +4
this is two different bonuses.

about territories borders. do you use Paths Tool?

The river warrior bonus is different. Should of written territs to stop your misunderstanding. The legend is clear on this, just not post above.

Edit:changed original post so you can understand it.

And yes, I do use the path tool, tried it with lots of settings, using ink, paintbrush, etc etc. I just cannot get it to a level that I am satisfied with.

[Victor Sullivan]

looking good. I do not think that commanders symbols clutter the map. is it fine now.
king with 3 territories = +4 means for each 3 +4? so if I have king and 6 iBhuto territories I gain +8?

Commander symbols look good. Need to change the legend though as they are too small. Need to add another key for them.

Kings get +3 auto deploy.
King with 2 territs in same iButho =+2
King with 3 territs in same iButho =+4
Result being- King with
2 territs = +2
3 territs = +4
4 territs = +4
5 territs = +6
6 territs = +8
7 territs = +8
8 territs = +10
9 territs = +12
10 territs = +12
11 territs = +14
12 territs = +16
13 territs = +16
14 territs = +18
15 territs = +20
16 territs = +20

As you can see, it is staggered so going from 2 to 3 territs doubles your bonus troops but you then need to take another 2 before you gain anything extra.


Taken from Cetshwayo iButho if player captures and holds all territs within.

Okay, wow, I totally misinterpreted that on the map. When a map says,

King with 2 territs in same iButho =+2
King with 3 territs in same iButho =+4

I expect to receive 2 troops for holding a king and 2 territories in its iButho and 4 troops for holding a king and 3+ territories in its iButho. You need to be much more clear. Plus, I'm not so sure you want to make the bonuses so easy in the larger iButhos, do you? Just something to ponder. I'll have further comments on the matter later.

-Sully

[theBastard]

koontz1973, it is still not clear. you mixed/changed warriors with territories.
also legend says - warriors within rivers are not part of any iButho. you mean warriors in river or also in dry river bed?

[koontz1973]

koontz1973, it is still not clear. you mixed/changed warriors with territories.
also legend says - warriors within rivers are not part of any iButho. you mean warriors in river or also in dry river bed?

What is not clear in the legend? Look at the legend below, I made a mistake when posting a few posts back by mixing my own terminology.

If says that the king with 2 / 3 territories =+2/3 (within the same iButho).

It also says that the warriors within rivers are not part of any iButho.
They come with a symbol to show them apart. I say rivers not river. River warriors have there own bonus and a symbol to show them as different.

There are only 3 symbols on the map. Kings, river warriors and commanders. Which part do you find confusing?

Here is test 1 for today. Are the territ lines better.

Click image to enlarge.

[theBastard]

now when we know what bonus is what it is clear

then Victor has point here - the large iButhos will give big (also quick) bonus.