Mmmm, shame i didn't see this post before today...
agentcom wrote:I'm back! Sorry for the delay. I agree with ManB and others about toning down the bevel. Your last one where you did that is the best looking of the newest versions. I also agree with chap about the horses. That was one of the first things I noticed about the newest generation of map.
Bevel and horses are fixed i beleive.
Now onto what you're more likely asking about. I think that the newest versions are definitely a step forward in being able to see the infantry icons. I'd be happy with the latest version, as far as that goes.
Good
Two things on that latest version (the bottom one in your last post): First, Is the red in the infantry, cavalry and artillery the same red? I can't tell if it's just due to the contrast, but: (1) the cavalry icon looks the "reddest" perhaps because of the black of the outline makes up a bigger portion of the "total" icon; (2) the cavalry icon looks slightly "less red" perhaps due to the fact that the outline only goes around the perimeter of the icon; and (3) the infantry icons look the "least red" and still somewhat "blend into" the image behind them perhaps because they have no outline. To me, this is only an issue with the red icons. Maybe the blue infantry could use a black outline, but the colors in the cavalry and artillery appear more consistent to me.
Yes there are small inconsistencies...which you have noticed...but i doubt if everyone else will notice or even bother with, certainly not enough for me to spend another several hours changing them all again on 2 maps.
Second, are you going to re-add the texture that you had on the old map now that you've changed the colors a bit? I think this is a bit too "crisp" for me. I think that could mute the birghtness of the colors a bit without actually changing the colors and bringing back whatever CB/contrast issues you may have been trying to fix.
There is texture in each region, and while this is slightly different from the original version because of as already explained differening treatments between software, i don't think it's all that bad.
Oh and one final thing: I notice that you're maybe not happy with the "Territory Naming" wording. Could I suggest "Territory Descriptions"
To me there is difference between naming and description, although a description can include a name.
Naming as applied here is the same as applied on other maps and discussions referring to xml/map naming and i'd prefer to keep it.
agentcom wrote:...
I've said pretty much all I have to say (except one thing): I like the old horses and the issues with the red that I brought up earlier...
The opportunity cost for me to redo these is far greater than getting on with something else.
But the one thing that I didn't say yet is thanks for taking the time to give this one another look. Really cool of you to go back and spend the time to update this even though you could just call it done since you already have the medal for it.
Thank-you, yes i could have created some argument, lucky for you i was receptive to change (which many times i admit i am not) and had time.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)