Switzerland Map *NEW MOCKUP POSTED*

[HitRed]

Map Name: Switzerland
Mapmaker(s): XML HitRed, Graphics Minister X
Number of Territories: 29
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: This map was in the Recycling Box. I fixed the XML. Art is total rework. It would say a lot about The Foundry to raise this from the dead.


Map V.2 MOCKUP

show

Map V.1

XML V.1 Original XML has been corrected and passed Map Inspect.

show

[HitRed]

Just bumping this thread so people see it.

HitRed

[riskllama]

YAASSS!!!

[iancanton]

only two cheers!

xml v1 does not come close to matching map v1, for example there is no inner switzerland bonus on the map.

while the graphics are a decent start, the geography fails, as some of switzerland's 26 cantons are missing. switzerland being a federation, this is equivalent to missing out some states on a usa map that has more than 50 regions.

the bonus areas are too small, with the result that many regions must start neutral to prevent someone usually starting with a bonus.

an air connection between geneva and zurich is fine, provided there's a penalty for using it, so that it's not as easy as moving between neighbouring regions.

on the map, frobourg and berne need to be fribourg and bern to match the xml.

ian.

[Minister X]

Okay. I was working under a misconception. I thought the idea was to make A map of Switzerland, not to match exactly what existing XML demanded. In fact, HitRed told me via IM that he could rework the XML. Here's what I wrote him just before he made that offer:

Now... the map you sent me has a problem: the river impassable shown bears very little relationship to the actual waters of Switzerland. Check out this map for comparison: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on_map.jpg Also, the mountains bear some relationship to the real ones but as you can see, the real ones are pretty much all over the southern half of the country. I suppose the original designer just chose to place a few to break things up, not worrying too much about reality. That's okay with me but I want you to be aware I may place mountains differently.

So unless you are set on the layout of the long-gone cartographer (i.e. it was playtested and found to be great) I propose to start from scratch. I will likely remain very similar to that map but feel free to make changes. But let me ask: are you asking me to make a Swittzerland map because you like Switzerland, or because you like that specific map made by that long-gone guy?

In the first case I'll truly start from scratch. In the second case I'll try to make a pretty map that follows the exact terts/impassables used originally. You have "commissioned" this map - you choose. I'm happy either way.

On the basis of his answer I started from scratch. So now I need some guidance. Do I just recreate the map for which the XML was created or can we proceed with the one I've created, changing as may be necessary to respond to Ian's critique?

[Minister X]

Ian Canton has insisted that all the 26 actual cantons be used and no made-up terts based on city/town names. (Is it because of his last name?? I just noticed that!)

This will require a complete redo since now three more terts will have to show coats of arms and army numbers outside the country border. That alters all sorts of spacing issues. And all mountains will have to be moved and each peak is a separate image so that's a total start-over placing 75 or so distinct peaks. Since under no circumstances would I want to start over a third time I've created the following map. It shows my proposed tert boundaries overlaid atop an accurate map of Cantons. One can see how I've altered boundaries to increase the size of enough Cantons to limit the number requiring special treatment to four. Those four are indicated with red marks.

Solothurn, for instance, has had to be shifted noticeably south. Those small Cantons in the center have had to be significantly expanded. Each tert must have room for the coat of arms (large enough so not all details are lost on the more complex ones) and army numbers. I used those two things as a guide when drawing these borders. Some redraws are shaped a bit oddly specifically so one part of the tert can accommodate the symbol and another part the army number.

Please consider the Canton of Bern. On some maps it's shown just barely touching the French border, thus making Neufchatel not border Jura. On other maps it's shown NOT touching the French border. What to do? You can see what I've chosen - I can change it, but bear in mind that Bern is already the most important tert on the map, bordering ELEVEN other terts (before mountain placement, which is TBD). Two terts border just one other; three terts border just two others.



I enjoy playing with Photoshop. Making these maps is a creative outlet for me. I of course prefer to have complete control of the creative process, from choice of country/region through all the details. In this case I was asked to revive a map started by another cartographer that had fallen into a coma. (The map, not the cartographer! Though maybe...) Since I enjoy working with Photoshop I said, "Why not?" And now that I've started I'll try my best to finish this map regardless. But I think this change is not a wise one. Some terts will be WAY WAY bigger than others, which is just plain weird. And having to place four sets of designations outside the country borders won't be visually pleasing. But I think I have a solution. Look at the "Classic" map - the original. There are no tert borders, just lines showing which terts connect to which. I could adopt this method, with Coats of Arms connecting to each other with lines like that. Each C-O-A could be placed fairly close to its actual location (or at lest in the proper relative position), but ALL inside the national border and spaced out enough to be visually pleasing. A white blob to accommodate the army number could be placed precisely above each C-O-A where they have a flat edge anyway (not touching but close). More of the extremely interesting base map can show through and I believe I can still use lakes and extra mountains to "explain" why some C-O-As don't "border" nearby ones.

I think that's preferable to a map with grossly distorted internal borders. Using this method, I can limit how many terts Bern borders without having to place mountains in screwy places. And once I get the terts placed and connected we can decide on how to define bonus regions without having to worry as much about weird shapes being created. Also, I might be able to make the map smaller.

The "Classic" map leads the one in second place in plays per month by a factor of five, so clearly this method of tert-connection presents players with no difficulties. Many maps employ the same method in whole or in part. May I please proceed on this basis?

[riskllama]

i think the original was just fine - really liked it, in fact. perhaps you could tell ian to make his own map of Switzerland...*shrugs*

[Minister X]

Ian is the Foundry Foreman. I assume he holds that position for a good reason. And since he has final say on what maps get made he is allowed more than the usual "vote" when it comes to map-making. I don't expect to agree with him about every detail and I'm hoping he'd have it no other way, so I'm hoping he doesn't mind spirited debate and will always keep an open mind. I'll try to. In this case, what he said about the cantons being equivalent to U.S. states made a big impression on me. Imagine if I made a US map showing 47 states but then added "Rockies", "Everglades" and Grand Canyon" as equivalent terts. I just want to avoid spinning my wheels map-making, and thus need to work on getting the ground rules set before I get down to the pixel-by-pixel work.

[riskllama]

states/regions/provinces or whatever you wish to call them get amalgamated on maps all the time on here, not sure what the big deal is....

perhaps he's right, tho & the map will be better for it - will wait & see what you come up with, MinX.

[Minister X]

On the other hand, imagine if I made a map of the USA showing Rhode Island as large as Louisiana and more than half the states reshaped in some way.

[iancanton]

Ian Canton has insisted that all the 26 actual cantons be used and no made-up terts based on city/town names. (Is it because of his last name?? I just noticed that!)

having all cantons is obviously good! while there's nothing inherently wrong with a map that has only towns and cities but no cantons, it's less satisfactory to have some cantons but not others, while a third group is there in name, but representing only part of themselves.

Please consider the Canton of Bern. On some maps it's shown just barely touching the French border, thus making Neufchatel not border Jura. On other maps it's shown NOT touching the French border. What to do? You can see what I've chosen - I can change it, but bear in mind that Bern is already the most important tert on the map, bordering ELEVEN other terts (before mountain placement, which is TBD). Two terts border just one other; three terts border just two others.

as the capital, bern ought to be a key region, which it is by virtue of its position. in reality, the canton of bern does not have a land border with france, while neuchâtel is connected to jura only by a single road bridge over the river that forms their short border. what's of overriding importance here is that borders are drawn in such a way, exaggerated if necessary, so that players are in no doubt as to whether regions are adjacent. an example of how not to do it is the cc europe map, where more than one border seems to end at the point of maximum confusion.

Some terts will be WAY WAY bigger than others, which is just plain weird. And having to place four sets of designations outside the country borders won't be visually pleasing. But I think I have a solution. Look at the "Classic" map - the original. There are no tert borders, just lines showing which terts connect to which. I could adopt this method, with Coats of Arms connecting to each other with lines like that. Each C-O-A could be placed fairly close to its actual location (or at lest in the proper relative position), but ALL inside the national border and spaced out enough to be visually pleasing. A white blob to accommodate the army number could be placed precisely above each C-O-A where they have a flat edge anyway (not touching but close). More of the extremely interesting base map can show through and I believe I can still use lakes and extra mountains to "explain" why some C-O-As don't "border" nearby ones.

I think that's preferable to a map with grossly distorted internal borders. Using this method, I can limit how many terts Bern borders without having to place mountains in screwy places. And once I get the terts placed and connected we can decide on how to define bonus regions without having to worry as much about weird shapes being created. Also, I might be able to make the map smaller.

The "Classic" map leads the one in second place in plays per month by a factor of five, so clearly this method of tert-connection presents players with no difficulties. Many maps employ the same method in whole or in part. May I please proceed on this basis?

the imaginative coats-of-arms solution has enough advantages, as explained above, that i'm happy for us to try this.

ian.

[HitRed]

Looks like basil can be made bigger then and not have to be off map. Maybe the same with the 3 others?

If App I. Touched the right edge of the map that should be ok.

[Minister X]

HitRed: I think you failed to grasp Ian's last line where he said, "i'm happy for us to try this" when referring to my suggestion that we mimic the Classic map and do away with tert borders, using lines of connection instead. And so I'll proceed on that basis unless/until I hear otherwise.

[Minister X]

Houston, we have a problem.

"Appenzell is a historic canton in the northeast of Switzerland, and entirely surrounded by the canton of St. Gallen. Appenzell became independent of the Abbey of Saint Gall in 1403 and entered a league with the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1411, becoming a full member in 1513. It has been divided since into Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden since 1597 as a result of the Swiss Reformation. The territory of Appenzell as a geographical entity is known as Appenzellerland while in political contexts, the two cantons (until 1999 half-cantons) are referred to as beide Appenzell ("both Appenzells")." (as per Wikipedia) Our particular problem is that the two Appenzells share the exact same coat of arms. Needless to say, that creates a problem for us.

Two other cantons are or were divided into "half-cantons", Basel and Unterwalden. Luckily, these four half-cantons have unique names and coats of arms, so no problem there. There's Basel Stadt and Basel Land, and Obwalden and Nidwalden.

If we want 26 Cantons, we'll have to deal with the Appenzell problem. I could make the C-O-A's look different by putting "AUS" next to one and "INN" next to the other, but that will still be a bit confusing and they will be the only text inside the big map. Alternatively, we limit ourselves to 25 terts and call this one "beide Appenzell", which seems to be politically correct (if not administratively precise) according to Wikipedia. Or call it "Appenzellerland" which also seems to be in common usage in Switzerland.

I have no particular preference but I need a resolution and general agreement about this before I start remapping.

[riskllama]

yeah, it looks a little "busy" to me. i like the simpler, cleaner looking original design much better.

[HitRed]

HitRed: I think you failed to grasp Ian's last line where he said, "i'm happy for us to try this" when referring to my suggestion that we mimic the Classic map and do away with tert borders, using lines of connection instead. And so I'll proceed on that basis unless/until I hear otherwise.

I understand. That works.

Flag issue.

Both have a white background and a black bear. One has V to the left and R to the right! That is the difference. The letters are large.

https://www.flags-and-anthems.com/state ... hoden.html

https://m.dhgate.com/product/good-flag- ... ail=PC2WAP

[Minister X]

Fantastic! I simply overlooked that when I glanced at the C-O-A's I saw. (Sorry.) It will still be a touch confusing but our players will simply have to overcome that. The C-O-As will be right next to each other so the difference should be obvious enough, though.

[Minister X]

yeah, it looks a little "busy" to me. i like the simpler, cleaner looking original design much better.

I'm not sure what you mean, but just wait for the next revision to be posted - I think you'll like it.

[iancanton]

Just FYI on Switzerland, we're losing the well-recognized Davos, Gstaad, St. Moritz, Zermatt, Interlaken, Lugano and Montreux. We're gaining Vaud, Sankt Galen and Zug. Are you sure you don't maybe want this to be a map of famous Swiss cities instead of cantons?

u can certainly have cities, towns and tourist resorts instead of cantons. here's one done by pamoa several years ago.



ian.

[Minister X]

I really like the above map of Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera (except perhaps for the blood red background). It took me a while but I found the original thread and scanned through the comments. All the graphics are defunct, so it was a bit hard to follow but it seems there were lots of constructive comments. The map-maker, Pamoa, hasn't logged on in four years, so I'm guessing I could steal his ideas and get the benefit of all those comments.

Switzerland is an interesting country for many reasons. Pamoa took advantage of several: three languages, tourist resorts, and history. Two comments that were made on the old thread caught my particular attention. One was that it would be VERY hard to capture either entire highway. I have found this to be the case on several maps that feature highways. I recently played a game of USA Rockies; it has three highways, all quite a bit shorter than these, and none were ever captured, not even on the last turns. Another comment, meant in jest, was that one theme that had been ignored was banks. Switzerland is famous for its banking system and several cities have major banking facilities. If I were to rip off the above map I think I'd forget about the "Founding Members" bonus and create one for holding all or most banking cities. Switzerland is way more famous for its banks than for what occurred in 1291.

But though I'm not above stealing some ideas, I'm not at all crazy about substantially re-doing someone else's work. As I said elsewhere, making these maps is a creative outlet for me. Whatever comes from someone else's creativity erodes my own motivation. Besides, no way could I put that many coats of arms on a map like Pamoa's and those COAs are more or less the main attraction of this thread. So... what I've come up with so far is shown below. I selected cities and resorts based on their fame and location. The COAs are placed rather accurately. I chose to go with tert and region boundaries because they afford better opportunity to make good use of my (if I say so myself) very attractive mountain chains as impassables. I'm starting with the small map (what you see is 561x370) because I'm getting really paranoid about downsizing; easier by far to upsize. The red lines are the mountain chains, the A's indicate the two airports at Geneva and Zurich, and the rest is obvious. Needless to say, this is just a mock-up meant to elicit feedback regarding the overall concept.



There are 20 terts. That would make this tied for the third smallest map with "Egypt: Lower". The two smaller ones, "Doodle Earth" and "Luxembourg" are both extremely popular.

Remember that I will need room to provide a key that associates COAs with names and informs about regional bonuses. So even this small map will have to expand quite a bit (probably downward).

The terts:
Glarus
Altdorf
Davos
St. Moritz
Locarno
Lugano
Scuol
Simplon
Gstaad
Interlaken
St. Gallen
Verbier
Montreux
Fribourg
Geneva
Lucerne
Zurich
Basel
Bern
Neufchatel

A few were chosen simply because they have COAs and are located in what would otherwise be empty spaces because nothing more famous is nearby. Chances are I'm roughly as well-informed about Switzerland as the average CCer. Maybe a bit more. To me, 13 of the 20 terts are very recognizable/famous names. I'd never heard of Scoul (fountain COA on very far eastern edge) for instance, but I studied a very detailed map and could find nothing more famous over there. Because I can, in general, place COAs very close to actual city locations, I prefer to sacrifice recognizability on a few names than overall geographic accuracy.

As you can see from the base map, I'm also able to place mountains in a logical chain. The fact is, most of the southern half of the country is very mountainous. Lots of choices for us. But by creating a long chain interrupted by a few passes (should I add one on the far eastern edge so that bonus region of just two terts isn't so isolated?) I think I create an appropriate look and feel. I can add some clumps of mountains elsewhere that don't form effective impassables so that the geographic inaccuracy of a single chain is ameliorated.

What say y'all? Should I proceed on this basis?

[riskllama]

i like it a lot better than the bigger version, for sure. either this or the original gets my vote, Minx... .

[Mad777]

Interesting concept, i’m a swiss born and raise guy, found few thing that would need change i guess, mixing counties and cities is not my preference, you also have out “Simplon” which neither a county nor a cities but a mountain pass road.

I will glad to work with you on a Switzerland map

There is potential between cities liaison highway, mountain pass, long tunnel, using counties for few region bonuses, and other stuff.

Let me know, PM me

[iancanton]

mixing counties and cities is not my preference

i agree with Mad777 that it's wrong to mix cantons and cities and u have not been consistent with the coats-of-arms. as the city names are usually better-known than the canton names, use the city coat-of-arms if a city and canton have the same name.

you also have out “Simplon” which neither a county nor a cities but a mountain pass road.

correct, although simplon is also the name of a nearby village with a population of 300 that is not itself famous for anything and where most travellers do not stop.

A few were chosen simply because they have COAs and are located in what would otherwise be empty spaces because nothing more famous is nearby.

that's not a good reason at all! if u select cities based on their importance according to suitable criteria, then spread them out so that their relationship to each other makes sense and everything is legible, that does half the job for u.

Because I can, in general, place COAs very close to actual city locations, I prefer to sacrifice recognizability on a few names than overall geographic accuracy.

too many cc maps suffer a loss of credibility from trying to trace the outline of borders in deserted areas in minute detail, then splitting those deserted areas just because they look too big, thus making them far more important than industrialised areas. form follows function: the actual location of a city on the map is irrelevant, as long as it makes sense relative to the others.

ian.